Solar power at home?

Good news for those of you living in Palm Desert, CA your city government has a great program that allows home owners to get financing to install solar panels. Bad news is that the program is so popular that if you’re looking to get in, it’s too late.

The program works like this:

• Home owner applies for a loan from the city


• 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.

The program is not without detractors:

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.

Election 2008: Alternative, Renewable Energies

One of the more striking impressions I’ve gotten from the presidential candidates is what their motivation for their environmental stewardship is. Senator John McCain appears to be passionate about protecting the environment. It’s obvious that he cares deeply about the environment and protects it out of moral concern. Senator Barack Obama also takes great interest in the environment. But it appears, to me at least, that he views the environment as an economic issue. We should do what’s right for the environment because it will cost us in the long run if we don’t, and if we do it correctly it might actually help the economy. I’m not sure which is the better philosophy, nor am I sure if that even matters. Both candidates seem to have their hearts in the right place, even if how their heart got their varies greatly. It would seem that environmental advocacy has come a long way.

Alternative, Renewable Energy Policy

If you’ve been watching television ads during the election, you’ve no doubt been bombarded with pictures of windmills and solar panels on verdant rolling fields. Both candidates have come out strongly endorsing alternative energies as an important means for achieving energy independence. So our task today is to understand the nuisances of each candidates' policies, to see who has a better feel for what alternative, renewable fuels are.

First some definitions. An alternative fuel is any energy source that provides an alternative from traditional fossil fuels. Thus “clean” coal is not an alternative fuel, as it is a fossil fuel. A renewable fuel is one that is regenerated quicker than humans consume it. Solar, wind, hydro-electric, tidal power are all examples of renewable fuels.

Today we’re going to talk about a couple of alternative energies possibilities, we’ll look at ethanol, a biofuel on which the candidates differ in opinion greatly as well as solar and wind power, on which both candidates have only slightly different platforms.

Biofuels

The positions: Here a major philosophical difference between the two candidates is evident. Senator Obama is for government mandates and Senator McCain favors government incentives. John McCain supports producing biofuels from cellulosic ethanol, and cutting the massive corn subsidies from the Federal government. Barack Obama supports producing ethanol from corn, and continuing corn subsidies to ensure the price of corn stays low.

McCain

John McCain Believes Alcohol-Based Fuels Hold Great Promise As Both An Alternative To Gasoline And As A Means of Expanding Consumers' Choices. Some choices such as ethanol are on the market right now. The second generation of alcohol-based fuels like cellulosic ethanol, which won't compete with food crops, are showing great potential.

Today, Isolationist Tariffs And Wasteful Special Interest Subsidies Are Not Moving Us Toward An Energy Solution. We need to level the playing field and eliminate mandates, subsidies, tariffs and price supports that focus exclusively on corn-based ethanol and prevent the development of market-based solutions which would provide us with better options for our fuel needs.

Senator McCain supports biofuels, but not a continuation of our current policy. He would end massive corn subsidies, and place the focus on cellustic ethanol production with would reduce the impact of corn based ethanol production on food costs.

Obama
Barack Obama has little to nothing to say about ethanol on the “energy and environment” section of his website. He mentions biofuels time and time again, but leaves the specifics out of how exactly he would produce the ethanol.

Senator Obama comes from Illinois, one of the leading corn producing states in the nation, as the table shows below. One can imagine that his historical support for producing ethanol from corn is at least partly a result of his states reliance on corn for its economy. It’s unclear what he would do as president, but his voting record clearly suggests that he supports federal subsidies for corn and the production of ethanol from corn.

Table. Corn yield by state in 1,000 of bushels. Data from 2004, from the Center for Transportation Analysis at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.



This article from msnbc, scroll down from to the “fact file” and click on energy in the environment, states that Obama would:

“Expand federal requirements for ethanol from 36 million gallons to 60 million gallons a year with increase coming from non-corn sources.”

The Case for Ethanol
Portability. As a society we will likely need a liquid fuel supply to support our transportation system. Generation of alcohol from biomass is a great way of generating liquid fuel. No other alternative energy sources produce liquid fuel (others produce electricity).

Energy Independence. The Great Plains of America produce, not surprisingly, lots of grains. Biofuels represent an excellent way to reduce our dependence on foreign supplies of energy.

The Case Against Ethanol
Using Food for Fuel. Americans are used to inexpensive food. Using food products that are widely used in commercial food preparation negatively affects the average American, as reflected in increasing food costs.

Celluistic Ethanol Production. The way to go in producing fuel from biomass is likely through transformation of waste biomass, like corn husks. These are products that are not used as food, thus it would not increase food prices.

Government Subsidies The government provides massive subsidies, in the form of payments and tax breaks to corn farmers. While well intended, this policy is not helping small farmers, and has focused nearly all of our efforts on producing biofuels from corn, which may not be the best source for such fuels.

Low Energy Yields Corn based ethanol is lower in energy yield than sugar cane based ethanol. Put another way, it takes more corn to produce enough energy for your car than other potential fuels. Switchgrass and sugar cane are better materials from which to produce ethanol. The federal government needs to fund research on these other crops, and reduce corn subsidies so if these crops are superior, they can exert their economic superiority in the free market.

Producing Fertilizer. Corn requires massive quantities of fertilizer and water irrigation to grow. Fertilizer requires fossil fuels to be produced. In effect we are using fossil fuels to produce biofuels, which does not help us achieve energy independence or reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. We need to utilize crops that require less fertilizer and less water irrigation to make biofuels economically and environmentally feasible.

Over Fertilization. Massive fertilization of corn leads to fertilizer running off the surface in stream water, and ultimately to the Mississippi River. This leads to the grow of marine algae in the River, which eventually die. As they die they are respired, consuming oxygen. This oxygen is not available to marine organisms like fish and shrimp. This is known as eutrophication and is negatively affecting the fishing industry along the Gulf Coast.

In the picture below you can see lifeless, low-oxygen water pouring out of the Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico. A major reason for this low oxygen content is over fertilization of fields for corn harvesting. Image source: NASA.



Conclusion: Both candidates favor increasing the quantity of biofuels available for American consumption. However, Senator John McCain has the superior proposal for biofuels. Senator McCain stresses the use of cellusistic ethanol, which would not place a burden on our food system. Senator McCain would eliminate corn subsidies, which make for an uneven playing field. As a nation we need to develop a biofuel that is sustainable, and energy rich. Government subsidies are providing a massive advantage to corn, which means our nation may grow to depend on an inferior fuel source. Let the free market determine what the best biofuel source is. Here Senator Barack Obama is potentially sending our nation down a perilous path, with his continued subsidies for corn.

Wind and Solar Power

Positions:
A better discussion of the issue than I can present is presented here at factcheck.org.

Both candidates have expressed large vocal support for wind and solar power. Wind and solar power have been stressed more by Senator Obama, than Senator McCain, who prefers nuclear and coal technology in the short term. Senator Obama has voted consistently in favor of wind and solar power in the senate, whereas Senator McCain has missed a number of key votes on the subject.

Obama:

Ten-year, $150 billion fund for biofuels, wind, solar, plug-in hybrids, clean-coal technology and other "climate-friendly" measures.

Senator Obama lays out a clear plan for developing these technologies.

McCain:
Senator McCain talks a great game about wind and solar power, but his policy page doesn’t have much to say about how exactly he would implement them. He has also not supported these energy sources in the senate, missing a number of key votes on the issue. This is surprising to me given how much Arizona and their abundant sunshine would benefit from increased solar power technology.

Case for Wind & Solar
Environmentally Friendly. These options are the most environmentally friendly option of producing energy as they do not produce any greenhouse gasses.

It’s Necessary. If not today, in 10 years or 20 years we’re going to need these sources of energy as our domestic oil and gas reserves dwindle, and the global price of oil and gas increase. Whomever wins the election, the next president will sign an international agreement limiting carbon dioxide emissions, and we will need these technologies to be producing large portions of our energy.

Green Economy. As a nation we must develop solar and wind technology faster than China, India and Europe. Over the next 50 years the global energy economy will shift towards these sources, and its in our best interests to be an exporter of this technology, and be able to manufacture such components.

Case Against Wind & Solar
Technology. The technology for generating electricity from solar energy is lacking, and needs to be developed. Wind technology has improved by leaps and bounds in the past 10 years, but more improvements can be made. The government needs to invest in research on wind and solar to ensure America remains a technology leader.

Infrastructure. As previously discussed in the blog, where the greatest wind and solar power potential is, our national electric grid is unable to handle the energy generated. The next president will have to spend federal funds improving the grid if wind and solar power are to be developed.

Conclusions Senator Obama’s proposal is a good start, but does not go far enough in my opinion. Wind and solar power provide energy we can generate domestically for eternity. We need to develop these technologies. Senator McCain’s proposal is lacking in specifics. His voting record is not strong on this issue.

Okay, today the candidates split the issues, McCain has a better biofuel plan and Obama has a better alternative energy plan.

Tomorrow, we’ll check in on how the candidates plan to fund science research.

Alternative and Renewable Energies

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?

New York: Alternative Energy Capital of the World?

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.