Wind Energy

We can't talk about Wing Energy (also known as Eolic Energy) nowadays without talking about T. Boone Pickens and his plan.

The Pickens Plan (http://www.pickensplan.com/ - watch the video presentation) is an energy policy proposal announced July 8, 2008. Pickens' intention is to reduce American dependency on foreign oil imports by investing approximately US$1 trillion to build vast wind turbine farms for power generation, and then shifting the natural gas used for power generation to fuel automobiles.

This is a great move by Pickens, but it has some potential (and very critical) problems, which follow:

1- Problems with the grid (for more on this see the NY Times article). It turns out that all this electricity generated by wind turbines needs power lines to get distributed to the places that need it. The power lines (or power grid) in the US are getting old and have not had an overhaul in quite a while, and like any other equipment that is old and has not been renovated is facing serious breakdowns.

2- Mr. Pickens plan to substitute natural gas for vehicle imported fuel has some downfalls too. Natural gas is better used to provide backup to wind power, not to power cars. Natural gas is burned far more efficiently in power plants than in internal combustion engines. It would be more efficient to generate electricity from natural gas and then power electric cars. Also keep in mind that Natural Gas in non-renewable and is not 100% clean.

3- The plan also has possible ethics dilemma. According to an article in Popular Mechanics, if the plan is accepted, Pickens stands to reap a significant profit by building pipelines to pump billions of gallons of water from an aquifer under the Texas Panhandle, which he has bought the water rights to. The pipeline would follow the same 250-mile corridor that the wind farm would be on, which would be seized from private owners through eminent domain and granted to him. Pickens owns more water than anyone else in the U.S. However, according to Pickens, "I'm 80 years old and have $4 billion. I don't need any more money."

4- Subsidies, government funds… same old. Is there ever a true business model (without having to involve government money)? The CATO Institute (an organization co-founded by Charles Koch, a co-owner of Koch Industries which is the largest privately held oil company in the U.S, and funded by companies including Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell Oil, Tenneco Gas and Amoco) claims that instead of allowing the market to work, Pickens wants government to limit imports of foreign oil along with installing the wind plants so that he can become richer at the expense of consumers. He also says that if wind power were a sensible economic investment, then it would not require the "lavish federal and state subsidies already in place or the additional largesse sought after by Mr. Pickens."

On the other hand…maybe these are Lobbyist acting on behalf of Big Oil, to protect their turf!

ASSUMING ALL OF THE ABOVE IS DISMISSED OR RESOLVED

There are some serious technical challenges for today's wind turbines.

Even though wind turbines (or wind generators) are widely used around the globe (more so in Europe than in America). The existing turbines are far from efficient and some wind farm profitability models are based on government funds. The promise for a next generation of turbines is the solution to increased profitability and lower barrier to entry into the Wind farm market.

How efficient are Wind Turbines?

There are several ways in which a turbine loses its efficiency.

1- There is a fundamental law of physics (Betz Law) which states that the best that could be achieved by a wind turbine is around 59% efficiency. This is due to the fact that if you take ALL the energy from the wind coming into the turbine you should have zero wind speed exiting from the turbine, which is an impossibility (there has to be a FLOW of wind to keep the propellers rotating)

2- Wind Speed: Wind Turbines are designed to be most efficient at certain wind speeds. As we all know (especially here in Florida) wind is very unpredictable. Therefore, today’s turbines lose efficiency because of changes in wind speed.

3- To generate power that can be used by today’s appliances or injected into the electric grid, the turbine has to generate electricity at a constant frequency (60 hertz in the US – 50Hz in Europe) and certain voltage (120 Volts in US – 230V in Europe). In order to achieve this rotor speed has to be “converted” to a constant speed (1500 rpm) and maintained this way throughout the operation of the turbine. This causes loss of efficiency in the speed conversion process as well as in the “monitoring” process (to ensure constant speed).

When all these losses are figured in, you might, if you are lucky, be getting 35% or so of the wind's energy actually delivered as useful electrical energy to the end user in the very best conditions. The average might only be in the twenties.

In the future we will talk about the different types of wind turbines and how each one takes a step closer to maximize efficiency. Until then, SHALOM!

The Gold at the end of the Rainbow

What makes Greentech such an obvious opportunity for me is (a)knowing that the solutions for today's energy, water and waste management problems are within reach, and (b) a lack of worldwide effort to reach for those solutions. In other words, we could (as citizens of the world) decide that regular (incandescent) bulbs should be phased out and use fluorescent bulbs instead. The numbers make an overwhelming point, using a fluorescent 60 watt bulb would save you:

10 light bulb changes
$40.50 in electricity costs
$1.50 in bulb replacement costs
$42.00 in total
Reduce greenhouse gas produced by power plants by: 691 pounds of carbon dioxide

(source http://www.ajdesigner.com/fl_light_bulb/light_bulb.php)

So why are we not doing this obvious things?. Why are governments not taking steps to regulate towards these solutions?

The answer lies within the business opportunity of greentech. People follow the laws of Newton Physics "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it". Its easier to keep buying the same bulbs, its also easier NOT to make the calculation and decide on the cheaper bulb vs the more expensive one ($0.50 for the regular bulb vs $3.50 for the fluorescent). Another factor is the slow reaction of governments, it takes too much time for them to "enforce" the elimination of incandescent bulbs, perhaps there are many powerful interests involved or its not a law that would generate enough popularity. Either way, my "bet" is that in the near future ALL light bulbs will be fluorescent or some other new technology, because a trend with strong "external forces" is causing the "uniform motion" to change.

We already discussed some of these "external forces" that are bringing greentech about in The Greentech Wave (1-People are changing their attitude, 2-Companies are channeling resources to greentech, 3-Major economic players are influencing the market). All of these are responses to economic or sociopolitical trends that are causing the scales to tip towards greentech. In the case of the light bulb: the cost of electricity has jumped - in the US - by 33% since the year 2000, and is expected to raise even more as fuel costs climb and the electric infrastructure gets older. When those variables become a stronger "external force" then whoever is better positioned to provide these new technology bulbs to the market will benefit immensely. AND THAT IS THE GREENTECH OPPORTUNITY!

In the case of the light bulb, General Electric has already taken the steps to ensure they are also THE manufacturer of fluorescent bulbs. But there are many other areas of greentech where the market leadership is up for grabs. We will talk about these areas of opportunity in the near future. For now, as always I bid you farewell with a cordial "Shalom!".

No Perfect Solution

“The more I learn, the less I know”, I believe that’s how the saying goes. Well in the Greentech world this saying holds very true. As new technologies are presented to me and as I discover more and more facts about alternative energy, about water purification, about waste recycling, the more I am convinced we have not reached a perfect solution yet.

Let me start from the beginning, and let’s take the automotive industry as an example.

A “perfect” solution according to my book would be one that (A) would not contaminate the environment, (B) would make economic sense (make a profit) and (C) could be implemented without disrupting the existing industry so much as to destroy it (i.e. putting thousands and thousands of auto workers out of jobs)

So, let’s analyze the existing alternatives:

- Diesel fuels generate toxic gases (at lower levels than Gasoline!) and therefore are far from being a “perfect” solution

- Hybrid cars: they are great because they can increase the mileage of a regular car. But, they consume gas, they cost more than regular cars and we are uncertain about how to dispose the batteries these cars carry which may damage the environment even more than the gas they save.

- Plug-In Hybrids: These cars have the capacity to run longer distances on battery and therefore save even more gas. Like the plain Hybrid car these cars also have the battery contamination factor and the additional problem of the source of electricity they require. Is that source a “clean” source of electricity?

• If the electricity comes from coal or any other fossil fuel, then we are just redistributing the contamination (perhaps the contamination level will be lower, but certainly not a perfect solution)
• If the electricity comes from Nuclear power then we have the problem of nuclear waste. Nuclear fuel is only utilized on 10% of its energy content in modern day nuclear plants. This leaves behind a large mass of radioactive material that takes hundreds of years to become non-threatening to human beings.
• We are still very far from achieving a substantial amount of power from wind (Denmark is the leader with less than 20% of their electricity from wind, I believe in the US the number is closer to 2%)
• Solar Photo Voltaic cells are also a very small portion of today’s power generation percentage and that responds to the high cost of manufacturing of these cells. Each cell uses silicon which is very costly (and also non-renewable!) or some other substitute which has not been 100% proven yet. The other problem with Solar PV is the “conversion” factor, these cells are only converting up to 30% of the solar energy they receive (very inefficient!)
• Solar Thermo Electric requires large spaces for the reflectors and is also very poor converting the solar power in to energy (I believe its even less efficient than PV)

- Another option for car fuel is the Hydrogen Fuel Cell. The car is loaded with hydrogen and a “fuel cell” converts hydrogen into electricity with water as byproduct. The electricity generated powers the car and the water can be disposed (or used!). Two issues with this solution are: the high cost of building fuel cells and the energy needs to generate Hydrogen. In my opinion Hydrogen is more a means of storage than a “fuel”. To obtain hydrogen you inject an electric current into water and break the H2O particle into its components. The amount of energy needed to obtain Hydrogen is less than the amount the hydrogen can release through a fuel cell. Hydrogen can also be obtained using chemical reactions, but the cost and the energy consumption for this process is equally high.

- Bio fuels where all the rage a couple of years ago, until the calculation was made for the impact of using edible corn, sugar cane and other potential food sources to fuel our energy appetite. New sources of Bio-Fuels are on the horizon (like fuel generated from algae) but none have been tested successfully yet.

So, what is the answer? Where is the “golden rainbow” at the end of this energy and natural resources crisis?

I don’t have the answer for that. I do know that it helps to look at the past to attempt to predict the future. I look into other similar situations the world has faced and try to extrapolate from those.

What could be a good parallel to this situation? (please send me suggestions if you have a good parallel situation)

Perhaps the development of modern medicine is a good parallel? In older times people looked for their religions to provide answers to their illnesses. Little by little people started to develop the science of medicine, as positive results increased more people turned to “doctors” to find cures. This created a snowball effect because it also allowed “doctors” to gain more experience and also experiment more and more to find their answers. The modern health system is not “perfect” either, but the medical results, compared to those of religious rituals, is certainly more effective!

The parallelism: as we adopt more alternative technologies we also give those technologies a chance to develop into something closer to the "perfect" solution.

Another good example could be the industry of personal computers; In the 80’s personal computers were awkward and hard to use. Little by little this industry has grown and has learned very basic lessons on the way. Nowadays we are only starting to see applications where the personal computer is “transparent”. In other word, the application is so “user friendly” and so well fitted to its purpose that the user never has to think about what goes on in the background (unlike managing Windows XP or Vista!!!!)

Perhaps we, as habitants of Planet Earth, will struggle to find a “perfect” solution to our energy, water and waste reduction needs. But we have started a path towards what will be called in the future “modern” energy, water and waste systems. The path to “perfect” solutions is rarely a straight line.

I apologize for my three week absence, from now on please expect our usual weekly entry into this blog. Best regards and SHALOM!