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.

New wind energy plan for Long Island

Sorry about the lack of posts last week. I am working on my PhD proposal presently, and I find it hard to do a lot of writing in one day and work on multiple writing projects at the same time.
--------------------------

Another plan is in the works to place wind turbines off the south shore of Long Island, according to this blurb from News 12 Long Island.

Putting windmills in the Atlantic Ocean to generate power for Long Island is back on the drawing board at LIPA, the power authority says. After a failed try for a wind farm off Jones Beach, the company is now trying for Queens.

LIPA CEO Kevin Law told the power authority’s board Tuesday morning that he has been talking with Con Edison about the idea. Law says the aim is to reduce Long Island’s reliance on oil from the Middle East.

”We agreed that perhaps it would make sense, where we could share the cost and share the power,” Law says.

A proposed wind farm off Jones Beach was canceled last year because of concerns it was too expensive. The new proposal would include more windmills than the Jones Beach project and would be located further out -- about 10 miles from the Rockaways.
LIPA says the technology has improved since the Jones Beach plan was considered.

LIPA and Con Edison are working on determining the cost of the project and if the wind farm would end up saving Long Islanders money in the long run. If they determine the plan does not make economic sense, it will not be pushed forward.

Previous attempts to harvest the large quantities of wind power available off the south shore of Long Island failed primarily for two reasons; first the project would cost so much that the energy harvested would be prohibitively expensive and secondly the project was near to a scenic region off of Jones Beach that residents were concerned would be obscured by the project.

The new project is expected to be larger in scope than the previously proposed project, so the hope is that construction expenses per unit energy produced will be lower, thus the energy will be more reasonably priced. The news blurb vaguely makes reference to “new technology” that would cost less to install or run. Compared to a few years ago, fossil fuel based electricity is more expensive, so this project may make a bit more economic sense.

As per the visual impact of the project, it should be similar, as both projects were expected to be 10 miles off the coast. There may be a difference in public perspective however between “off of Jones Beach” and “off of Queens.” People may have been protective (overly so?) of their parkland view.

A very unscientific poll by News 12 Long Island found 87% (521 self selected respondents) of people who self-surveyed themselves were in favor of building the wind turbines off the coast of Queens, and only 13% (72 self selected respondents) were opposed. This ratio is likely to change when the costs of the projects are announced.

So it seems that the public is now strongly in support of the initiative, whereas only a few years ago they were skeptical of a similar project. It is unclear if this is due to a shift in public opinions of alternative energy sources, or if it is a result of the project being moved away from Jones Beach. What do you think?

Zapped!

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.

Big Turbines in the Big Apple

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.

Concerns About Wind Power in an Urban Enviroment

(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.

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.