Archive for the ‘hydrogen generators’ tag

A Detailed Analysis of Wind Turbines as an Energy Source

Most countries in the world today understand that we are standing at a ‘now or never’ precipice. The more we delay our quest for a clean, renewable source of energy, the more dependant we will grow on environmentally unfriendly fossil fuels, and let our energy usage and demands get out of control. Of the various sources of alternative power, the most promising are nuclear power, solar power, and wind power. Wind energy, although it has been used since time immemorial, has made great strides in the past few decades and is now a viable alternative to oil or coal power. Wind Turbines Wind mills have been used for centuries to grind grain. A wind turbine works on a similar principal. The wind turns the blades of a wind mill which, with the help of gears and magnets, produces electricity along the power lines attached to it. The power generated by a single wind turbine is small, but harnessed over thousands of such turbines, can rival that of a decent sized coal or oil power plant. Wind Turbines and Location One of the most important aspects of a wind turbine is its location. Since they need wind to function, they can only be set-up in windy regions. Our current technology cannot store the electricity produced by wind turbines into batteries, which makes it paramount that such turbines be installed in regions where there is always a strong wind blowing. Moreover, most wind energy plants require hundreds and thousands of wind turbines to generate a decent amount of electricity. Thus, wind turbines, at present, can only be used locally in large areas that receive heavy wind for a significant portion of the year. This obviously limits their effectiveness quite a bit. Bad Neighbors In certain pockets of West Texas where wind energy farms have been set up on a large scale, locals have been complaining about the eye sore of wind farms, and the constant sound they make. This has caused some fairly complex legislative problems. As wind farms creep more and more towards urban areas, this issue can only cause more problems in the future. No Way Out Although the issues people have regarding wind turbines are legitimate, one needs to understand the complex nature of the problem. If we do not adapt to better, c

Most countries in the world today understand that we are standing at a ‘now or never’ precipice. The more we delay our quest for a clean, renewable source of energy, the more dependant we will grow on environmentally unfriendly fossil fuels, and let our energy usage and demands get out of control.

Of the various sources of alternative power, the most promising are nuclear power, solar power, and wind power. Wind energy, although it has been used since time immemorial, has made great strides in the past few decades and is now a viable alternative to oil or coal power.

Wind Turbines

Wind mills have been used for centuries to grind grain. A wind turbine works on a similar principal. The wind turns the blades of a wind mill which, with the help of gears and magnets, produces electricity along the power lines attached to it. The power generated by a single wind turbine is small, but harnessed over thousands of such turbines, can rival that of a decent sized coal or oil power plant.

Wind Turbines and Location

One of the most important aspects of a wind turbine is its location. Since they need wind to function, they can only be set-up in windy regions. Our current technology cannot store the electricity produced by wind turbines into batteries, which makes it paramount that such turbines be installed in regions where there is always a strong wind blowing.

Moreover, most wind energy plants require hundreds and thousands of wind turbines to generate a decent amount of electricity. Thus, wind turbines, at present, can only be used locally in large areas that receive heavy wind for a significant portion of the year. This obviously limits their effectiveness quite a bit.

Bad Neighbors

In certain pockets of West Texas where wind energy farms have been set up on a large scale, locals have been complaining about the eye sore of wind farms, and the constant sound they make. This has caused some fairly complex legislative problems. As wind farms creep more and more towards urban areas, this issue can only cause more problems in the future.

No Way Out

Although the issues people have regarding wind turbines are legitimate, one needs to understand the complex nature of the problem. If we do not adapt to better, c

Using Renewable Fuels As An Energy Source

The Germans have really taken off when it comes to renewable fuel sources, and have become one of the major players in the alternative energy game. Under the aegis of the nation’s electricity feed laws, the German people set a world record in 2006 by investing over $10 billion (US) in research, development, and implementation of wind turbines, biogas power plants, and solar collection cells. Germany’s “feed laws” permit the German homeowners to connect to an electrical grid through some source of renewable energy and then sell back to the power company any excess energy produced at retail prices. This economic incentive has catapulted Germany into the number-one position among all nations with regards to the number of operational solar arrays, biogas plants, and wind turbines. The 50-terawatt hours of electricity produced by these renewable energy sources account for 10% of all of Germany’s energy production per year. In 2006 alone, Germany installed 100,000 solar energy collection systems.

Over in the US, the BP corporation has established an Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI) to spearhead extensive new research and development efforts into clean burning renewable energy sources, most prominently biofuels for ground vehicles. BP’s investment comes to $50 million (US) per year over the course of the next decade. This EBI will be physically located at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. The University is in partnership with BP, and it will be responsible for research and development of new biofuel crops, biofuel-delivering agricultural systems, and machines to produce renewable fuels in liquid form for automobile consumption. The University will especially spearhead efforts in the field of genetic engineering with regard to creating the more advanced biofuel crops. The EBI will additionally have as a major focal point technological innovations for converting heavy hydrocarbons into pollution-free and highly efficient fuels.

Also in the US, the battle rages on between Congress and the Geothermal Energy Association (GEA). The GEA’s Executive Director Karl Gawell has recently written to the Congress and the Department of Energy, the only way to ensure that DOE and OMB do not simply revert to their irrational insistence on terminating the geothermal research program is to schedule a congressional hearing specifically on geothermal energy, its potential, and the role of federal research. Furthermore, Gawell goes on to say that recent studies by the National Research Council, the Western Governors’ Association Clean Energy Task Force and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology all support expanding geothermal research funding to develop the technology necessary to utilize this vast, untapped domestic renewable energy resource. Supporters of geothermal energy, such as this writer, are amazed at the minuscule amount of awareness that the public has about the huge benefits that research and development of the renewable alternative energy source would provide the US, both practically and economically. Geothermal energy is already less expensive to produce in terms of kilowatt-hours than the coal that the US keeps mining. Geothermal energy is readily available, sitting just a few miles below our feet and easily accessible through drilling. One company, Ormat, which is the third largest geothermal energy producer in the US and has plants in several different nations, is already a billion-dollar-per-year business-geothermal energy is certainly economically viable.

3 Great Disadvantages Of Hydrogen Fuel Cells

Hydrogen fuel cells are the wave of the future. At least that is what many would want you to believe. They have a point because a hydrogen fuel cell is a novel way to power a car. The car would require no gasoline, run on hydrogen and its only waste would be water, a natural and safe emission. However, it is not a perfect science by any means and too many times there is talk about all the great advantages without any discussion of the disadvantages of hydrogen fuel cells.

With anything, there is going to be drawbacks. If it were such a perfect technology, don’t you think every car would have one by now? Besides being expensive, the hydrogen fuel cell creates certain problems that haven’t been completely tackled yet.

Here are the three main disadvantages of hydrogen fuel cells:

1. It’s big and cumbersome. Your gas tank already uses a nice portion of your car, but a hydrogen fuel cell will be three times bigger than a gas tank. But that is not that all. The fuel cell has to be insulated to keep it safe and protected.

2. Safety issues. Liquid hydrogen has the ability to freeze air. There have also been reports of accidents with the fuel cell itself. Sometimes a valve will get plugged up when there is too much pressure in the cell. The only place to go is out, and the cell explodes. There is no way of knowing, yet, if this problem can be fixed, but there are many working on it. In a car accident, the tank might rupture, but the good news is the hydrogen will evaporate quickly. However, it is a more serious condition in a closed area such as a garage.

3. The hydrogen evaporates. Strange, but true. The insulation is not a perfect process and the hydrogen evaporates out of the cell at roughly 1.7 percent a day. This means that eventually cars are going to need a fill up. What? You thought you never had to use a pump again? The other problem with this is gas stations don’t sell hydrogen. You will have to find a customized fueling station or work something out with the manufacturer of the car. Cars that are blends with fuel cells and gasoline will never have to worry about being stranded.

General Motors Co., currently has the Chevy Equinox Fuel Cell, one of the first fuel cell vehicles of its kind. If you are thinking about purchasing a vehicle of this type, speak to the manufacturer of the disadvantages of hydrogen fuel cells. By having the technology, they are aware of the pitfalls of hydrogen fuel cells and have begun work on how to make it better.

The good news is that automobile companies are working at ways to make this a safer environment by creating less emissions and the more we learn about alternative methods, the better the Earth will be for it. Just don’t go blindly in one direction without asking questions. Learn about the disadvantages of hydrogen fuel cells before you agree to use it.

EU NEED TO BE STRONGER TO SECURE AND DIVERSIFY ITS ENERGY SUPPLY AND BREAK THE RUSSIAN MONOPOLY

Russia makes a big effort to secure their monopoly position for gas delivery to Europe.

It is about time that EU uses same political control of their commercial units as Russia does, in order to secure their own energy needs for the future.

Russia tries to dictate Europe on how gas should deliverered to the European market.
Several interventions lately by Moscow made tell how Europe can get its gas most effectively to the European market.

EU has to take its own measures to secure its import of gas independent on the seller of gas.

EU should take a more pro active role to buying strategic gas deposits around the world, especially where European companies are involved.

There are several alternatives to EU when it comes to gas transit. I will go through the alternatives realized or proposed to pipeline gas to Europe. Each alternative has its pros and cons seen from a European perspective, and can not be judged on its own basis, but only in a total perspective of energy security and diversification.

UKRAINE GAS PIPELINE SYSTEM
The last two years repeating conflicts between Russia and Ukraine regarding the transit of gas through Ukraine territories has revealed a need to secure its import of gas from its various sources, amongst them the Russian imported gas. As 80% of the Russian gas import to Europe, goes through Ukraine, it has become an important question, how can this transit route be secured, both from a technical, but also political standpoint of view.
EU has grown impatient to Russia and its lack of willingness to come to a permanent solution for existing pipeline transport of gas, and promised Ukraine several billion Euros for upgrade of their pipelines. Russia has been very distressed by EU not involving them into this deal, as they are the supplier. One can only wonder why this is the case, but the dear of loosing control of Ukrainian and its pipeline network, nothing else. Ukrainian politicians have by several occasions accused Russian authorities trying to gain control over Ukraine gas transit network. The argument of letting the Russians into this dialogue falls on the Russians own actions in Azerbaijan, where its actions deliberately jeaporidize a EU based project like Nabucco. This action is covered in a section below.

Russians have involved themselves in two alternate pipeline projects, in order to totally or partially replace the Ukrainian gas pipeline system.

NORD STREAM UNDERLYING THE BALTIC SEA
Russia has politically whole heartedly supported Germany?s efforts for the proposed pipeline called the Nord Stream pipeline system through the Baltic Ocean, directly into Germany. This system will enable EU to bypass the Ukrainian network totally. The cost of this project is estimated to around 14 9 billion Euros. The project has cased concern by involved countries, when it comes to environment and national security issues. The project will also give Russia a proportional stake in the project, hence income.
The capacity of the pipeline is estimated to be around 27.5 bllion cubic meters (bcm) per annum.

SOUTH STREAM UNDERLYING THE BLACK SEA
Parallel to this Russia press hard for the Southern stream pipeline project that will ensure the south eastern part of EU dependencies, including Italy?s. Parts of this line have to pass Ukrainian continental shelf, and will require extensive environment studies and therefore environmental permits from Ukraine
The last estimated cost for this project was around 20 billion Euros, more than double of either Nabucco or Nord Stream projects. The project will give Russia a proportional ownership, and hence income from transit through this line.
The capacity is estimated to be 31 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas annually and it may be expanded to 47 bcm.

EU and the U.S. have initiated a competing project to ensure gas transport into Europe.

NABUCCO GAS PIPELINE
The two Russian supported projects outlined above are both competing with the U.S.- and EU-backed prospective Nabucco pipeline that bypasses Russia.
Russia turned down an offer to participate in this project, as it presses for the two above mentioned projects instead.
The cost of this project is estimated to around 8 billion Euros.
The project will introduce new partners on the transit side, such as Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan.
It opens for delivery of gas not only from Turkmenistan, but also Iran, which can give Europe even more legs to stand on.
Capacity of the pipeline will be between 4.5 and 13 billion cubic meters (bcm) per annum.
RUSSIA JEAPORDIZE NABUCCO PROJECT
Gazprom have made a proposal to buy Azeri gas, a step that would directly rival an EU-U.S Nabucco project. The purchased gas is proposed to flow through an existing pipeline that connects Russia and Azerbaijan and that the gas could come from the second stage of the Shakh Deniz field.
Russia may try to import the gas through a pipeline which up to 2007 used to export gas to Azerbaijan. That pipeline has a capacity of 5 billion cubic meters and could be increased to 10 bcm.
Russia offers competitive conditions for the uptake of Azeri gas because of the simple fact that there is no need to invest additional money in a transport system.
If realized, the plan would rival EU efforts to secure gas supplies from the Caspian Sea.
The Nabucco Gas Pipeline is operated by a consortium led by Austrian group OMV which was proposed partly as a way to reduce reliance on Gazprom.
Shakh Deniz is co-led by two European companies, BP and Statoil, and has been producing around 10 bcm over the past year for exports to Turkey and sales inside Azerbaijan. The second phase could produce as much as 15 bcm a year.
Maybe EU should create a stronger dialogue with the two companies, in order to ensure the Russians are not getting a even stronger hold on Europe in the near future?

EU ENERGY NEED AND DEPENDENCY ON RUSSIA, OR NOT?
EU has to look into several challenging aspects within the energy sector.
It has to secure transport of gas and is in a need to diversify the delivery of its energy import.
EU also has to look at the economic and ecological aspects of their alternatives and think about their use of alternative energy sources now and in its future.

When it comes to diversifications of EU?s energy need, it will is clear that in the short and mid term, EU will depend upon Russian gas, as it will take time for alternative energies to play a significant role in Europe?s energy need supply. However, it need to look at alternative sources of delivery to ensure competition and security for delivery of its needs.
EU will not achieve any diversification by building the new Nord and Southern stream pipelines. It will only create a semi-security for delivery of gas from its sole source of delivery, Russia. EU will be very dependent upon Russia and its political stability towards Europe. It will also give Russia a stronghold for other political questions, since Europe will need to play along with Russia, as Ukraine has to do today. The only new pipeline alternative that creates real diversification is the Nabucco project, which bypasses Russia totally. Therefore EU need to play a stronger commercial role as the political administration in Russia has done the last few years. First step would be to offer a more aggressive role in Azerbaijan to secure the Nabucco project and its implementation.

EU?s alternative of upgrading the Ukrainian gas pipeline network is a real alternative and should be addressed as soon as possible, and the political will to support such a modernization of their network came at the right time. Failure of Russia to be more pro-active in securing its existing transit route has bloomed out in EU?s effort to take the matter into its own hands. Moscow has argued that the new northern and southern pipelines are needed to reduce the EU’s dependence on the dilapidated Ukrainian network. The EU-funded modernization and expansion of Ukraine’s pipeline system could call that argument into question. Also one has to question Russia motives as both alternatives supported by Russia, still only will deliver Russian gas, and leave no room for alternative sources in the future. Therefore seeds the doubt about diversification argument totally.

If Ukraine’s transit capacity is increased, it will no longer be necessary to build alternative routes, seen from a security standpoint of view alone. The capacity and security of the pipeline will be taken care of as Ukrainian authorities stated that modernizing Ukraine’s outdated gas pipelines, which span 37,600 kilometers and comprise 73 compressor stations with 13 underground storage facilities, will cost approximately 5.5 billion Euros. This will become cheaper compared to building alternative northern and southern stream pipelines, as the EU is contemplating.
The European Commission has provisionally estimated Ukraine’s modernization program at approximately 2.5 billion Euros, but has not committed a sum to the project.

Therefore, EU need to make a strategy in short to mid term aspect to modernize the Ukrainian gas network at the same time as it builds the Nabucco gas pipeline network. This will secure and diversify EU?s energy needs for traditional energy sources. It will also release EU from having to rely too much on a sole source for its majority of gas needs, and be less prone to blackmailing by sellers of energy.
In the longer term, EU need to address the focus on use of alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar and geothermal sources. A strong focus on these areas will enable EU to reach a diversified and sustainable energy delivery for its needs by 2030, no earlier.

A proposed strategic plan for EU to achieve a secure and strategic diversified energy supply both in near and long term perspectives would consist of these points;

1. EU needs to break the Russian Gas monopoly situation by advocating a real diversification of suppliers of needed energy.
2. Upgrading the Ukrainian gas pipeline network needs to start immediately under the control of EU.
3. Nabucco project has to be realized with a strong effort from EU on the commercial and long term strategic levels.
4. A strong focus on alternative energy and its use both for industrial and residential purposes to achieve a competitive export edge of products from Europe.
5. A stronger dialogue with European owned companies and their role in energy related projects that could affect European energy security

« Older Entries