WaveNET has created a new way to generate electricity from waves and is testing it in the rugged waters off Scotland. The arrays have a low profile, are easy to install, and developer Albetern says they can generate far more power per km2 than offshore wind and other types of wave energy. Possible applications are for remote villages, offshore drilling rigs, and salmon farms.
WaveNET is an offshore array-based wave energy converter that uses the motion of waves to generate electricity. The floating structure of the WaveNET is flexible in all directions, and capable of capturing power from the ocean regardless of wave direction and array orientation.
The units use a standard hydrostatic transmission system to gather the generated hydraulic energy at a central point, and convert it into electrical energy through a “power take-off” module, from where the generated electricity can be transmitted to shore.
Yet again, a supposed climate accord produces little if anything of substance. Countries can now decide what they want to do about climate change and when to implement the changes. If they do anything at all. Which they don’t have to. Basically, the Lima Accord is PR fluff, a bedraggled attempt to put a happy face on a failed climate change conference where nothing much was accomplished.
The split between developed and developing countries remains huge. Developed countries want developing countries to have comprehensive climate change remediation too. Developing countries say, with some justification, that developed countries have air conditioning and electricity for all and we want and need that, even if it does mean more carbon.
Climate negotiators forged a new climate agreement this past weekend. It’s been named the Lima Accord, and it relies on countries to individually decide if and by how much they want to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. In other words, the Lima Accord sets out to solve a problem that was caused by countries doing whatever they wanted by letting countries do whatever they want. So maybe they didn’t nail it.
The South Park underpants gnomes have come to New England. Their business plan is 1) Stop fossil fuel energy. 2) Something happens. 3) Renewable energy for all!
Electricity prices are New England are already extremely expensive yet winter has barely started. A 2 room print shop in New Hampshire paid $788 for power in November, says the NYT. Much of New England’s power (and some home heating) comes from natural gas. Even though there is a glut of natural gas naytionwide, a dearth of pipelines is throttling supply in New England. Idiotic NIMBYs have ferociously blocked new pipelines and sources of energy because they want the area to transition to renewable energy. A regional plan to bring more energy in was killed by the Massachusetts legislature because it might slow the growth of renewable energy. These elitist NIMBYs have no clue about what to do in the meantime except to let the poor (and increasingly the middle class) freeze in the dark so our Glorious Renewable Energy Future can somehow emerge years from now. Good luck with that.
Here we see the clear tradeoff in action. Reducing carbon emissions has a clear human and economic cost. High electricity costs wallop household budgets in a region with many communities that are struggling or even outright impoverished (as recently as last year, for example, a third of the residents of Woonsocket, RI were on food stamps). This particularly harms poor and minority residents. What’s more, it helps contribute to the region’s low ranking as a place to do business and its anemic job creation.
Given that gas itself is dirt cheap and will be for the foreseeable future thanks to fracking, hurting residents through high electricity prices designed to drive energy transition is clearly a deliberate policy choice.
It’s difficult to comprehend the arrogant stupidity behind Greenpeace putting advertising for themselves on an ecologically delicate World Heritage site. Even worse, they’ve not even bothered to put their legalistic apology on their home page. I’m guessing Greenpeace is now facing a financial crisis since contributions during the important holiday season are now sharply down. And they have no one to blame but their condescending selves. Because of course Peru has no clue about climate change and renewable energy and needs Exceptional Anglo-Americans swooping in to explain things to their befuddled brains. And if laws were broken and historical sites damaged, well, that’s just the price of spreading the Gospel According to Greenpeace.
The Nazca site is clearly and unmistakably protected. Greenpeace deliberately broke laws to install their advertising. And make no mistake, the message was all about advertising and branding for Greenpeace, with faux pretensions about it being a ‘message of hope.’
The area is so fragile, and so very sacred, that presidents and high-ranking officials have been forbidden from setting foot anywhere near it – so one can only imagine the public outcry about the disrespect that Greenpeace has shown by trespassing here.
Their “apology” was clearly written by lawyers and is numbingly stupid, as well as evasive and sleazy.
We fully understand that this looks bad. Rather than relay an urgent message of hope and possibility to the leaders gathering at the Lima UN climate talks, we came across as careless and crass.
This doesn’t “look bad”. It is bad. Greenpeace didn’t come across as “careless and crass”, it was careless and crass, as well as being criminally reckless.
We have now met with the Peruvian Culture Ministry responsible for the site to offer an apology. We welcome any independent review of the consequences of our activity. We will cooperate fully with any investigation.
We take personal responsibility for actions, and are committed to nonviolence. Greenpeace is accountable for its activities and willing to face fair and reasonable consequences.
Again, Greenpeace arrogance shines through. Greenpeace will face what penalties Peru deems fit and it matters not if Greenpeace is willing to face them.
Google has tried long and hard to reduce the cost of renewable energy to that of coal. They now say this is not possible and further, entirely new methods of generating energy are needed because renewable energy, even in a best-case scenario, can’t do it all in reducing carbon emissions. Renewable energy is too variable and too location-specific. Further, the cost of replacing coal and natural gas with new energy sources needs to include the cost of shutting down the old plants, building new ones, then producing power at 4-6 cents per kWh with the power company making a profit (or at least paying for expenses and debt, if it’s a public utility.)
Google engineers explain their conclusions.
Suppose for a moment that it had achieved the most extraordinary success possible, and that we had found cheap renewable energy technologies that could gradually replace all the world’s coal plants—a situation roughly equivalent to the energy innovation study’s best-case scenario. Even if that dream had come to pass, it still wouldn’t have solved climate change. This realization was frankly shocking: Not only had RE
Read that again. This needs to be understood. Google says entire new methods of producing energy need to happen, and fast.
What’s needed are zero-carbon energy sources so cheap that the operators of power plants and industrial facilities alike have an economic rationale for switching over within the next 40 years.
Google doesn’t know how this will be done, only that is needs to be, and suggests governments and business focus on energy R&D.
To reverse climate change, our society requires something beyond today’s renewable energy technologies. Fortunately, new discoveries are changing the way we think about physics, nanotechnology, and biology all the time. While humanity is currently on a trajectory to severe climate change, this disaster can be averted if researchers aim for goals that seem nearly impossible.
Oddly, Google doesn’t even mention nuclear. One of the comments does.
China has 28 reactors under construction today and plans to build 100 more by 2030. In addition, China has hundreds of engineers and scientists working on molten salt reactor (MSR) technology, and plans to have a prototype working by decade’s end. MSRs are Generation IV reactors and can provide high-heat for industrial processes, such as making cement and steel and producing hydrogen (for those clean fuel cell cars) without releasing CO2. MSRs are incredibly safe. They can’t melt down (they’re molten by design).
The Ivanpah concentrated solar power plant in the California Mojave desert near Primm Nevada is not producing nearly as much electricity as predicted. Natural gas, not the heat of the sun, is being used more than originally projected to power the turbines. CSP works by reflecting the heat of the sun from heliostat mirrors to a central tower to run the turbines. Ivanpah has produced a mere 25% of expected electricity since December 2013 when it began production, a dismal result indeed.
The scale of Ivanpah is much larger than any other CSP plant. The plant operator says the weather wasn’t as sunny as expected. This seems a bogus excuse. Was there really 75% less sunshine than projected?
[Second quarter] sales totaled 133,807 MWh and at an average price of $167.85/MWh that generated $22.46 million in revenue.
That relatively small output, combined with the project’s $2 billion price tag, could no doubt hurt all three Ivanpah owners
Increasingly, CSP is having trouble competing with solar PV. If Ivanpah continues to under-perform, then future CSP plants may not get funded. . Ivanpah was funded by NRG Energy, Google, and BrightSource Energy primarily by using a $1.6 billion federal loan guarantee. If Ivanpah continues to falter and the federal government get stuck with the loan, it’ll seriously affect renewable energy funding going forward.
Another sign of the plant’s early operating woes: In March, the owners sought permission (PDF) to use 60 percent more natural gas in auxiliary boilers than was allowed under the plant’s certification, a request that was approved in August.
Using much more natural gas to produce energy rather than using solar heat as planned could, if it continues, might make Ivanpah not able to qualify as being renewable energy under the California plan for 33% in-state renewable energy by 2020. Plus, it’ll make foes of renewable energy chortle with laughter.
Some CSP plants store excess heat in underground molten salt caverns and thus can product energy when the sun isn’t shining. Inexplicably, Ivanpah doesn’t do this, a decision probably made to save money. In retrospect, this seems short-sighted and may imperil the entire project.
The Mandalay Bay casino and convention center in Vegas is ginormous. MGM Resorts, who owns it, has installed 21,324 photovoltaic panels on twenty acres of convention center roof. Yes, twenty acres… The 6.4 MW system will provide 20% of power for the center, with an additional 2 MW coming when the convention center is expanded. Well done, MGM.
How big is Mandalay Bay? The main hotel is upscale. Delano, an even-more upscale hotel, is in a separate building. A super-upscale Four Seasons occupies five floors of the main hotel. The casino is 135,000 sq ft, The convention center is 1,000,000 sq ft. An events center has 12,000 seats. There are 30+ restaurants, shopping malls, multiple bars and other venues. Plus, Mandalay Bay connects to Luxor (semi-upscale) and Excalibur (low-end), which are also owned by MGM.
The project is being done in partnership with NRG Energy. Once it is complete, Mandalay Bay will buy from NRG the solar energy through a Power Purchase Agreement at prices below the peak rates on the traditional NV Energy electrical grid (Based in New Jersey, NRG is also a major partner in the Ivanpah solar plant that opened earlier this year near Primm, Nev.).
Silicon Valley billionaire Vinod Khosla has learned the hard way that financing tech startups is trivially easy compared to alternative energy like biofuels. He has financed several biofuel startups, and they’ve all crashed and burned, taking lots of investor and tax money with it. A big problem is his arrogance that Silicon Valley could do what ginormous energy companies haven’t been able to do, which is manufacture cost-effective biofuel on a commercial scale.
What Khosla didn’t appreciate is that he isn’t smarter than the people in the oil industry. It’s just that the computing and information technology industries were still relatively new, and a great deal of innovation was still taking place in a young field with lots of room for innovation. The oil industry is 150 years old, and while the fracking boom shows that innovation still takes place in the oil industry, it is a very mature industry. Thus change tends to be incremental, not exponential. Almost everything that appears novel to an outsider like Khosla has almost certainly been investigated by multiple companies.
There’s no oil company conspiracy here, says Robert Rapier of Energy Trends Insider. Energy companies have invested hugely in trying to develop biofuel and have no reason to hold such developments off the market, as a patent on such a process would immensely profitable. The reason they have done so is because no one has figured out how yet.
Khosla glossed over the problems and made it sound easy as pie. He is accustomed to seeing technical challenges solved in Silicon Valley. Again, that’s primarily because these challenges are often relatively new. They are not like some of the challenges in the energy business, which have seen decades of work and billions of dollars spent on some of these approaches. The easy challenges were all solved long ago.
Higher levels of energy efficiency does not decrease demand. Instead it increases it. This counter-intuitive effect is called rebound. Thus, expected energy savings and reductions in emissions from better efficiency are substantially less than might be expected.
The IPCC made clear: climate mitigation strategies that heavily rely on energy efficiency measures must be re-evaluated. After years of simplistic accounting, which was roundly criticized by Breakthrough and independent scholars, the IEA has finally caught up to the academic literature. Their latest report, Capturing the Multiple Benefits of Energy Efficiency, acknowledges that direct rebound in wealthy countries ranges from zero to 65 percent and agrees with a major modeling effort finding globally averaged rebounds from energy efficiency could reach as high as 52 percent by 2030.
“Rather than saving energy, in many cases we can expect the adoption of energy efficiency-improving technologies to contribute to processes that lead to an overall increase in energy consumption.”
This pattern is similar to water use in the Imperial Valley of California. Big agriculture is constantly and successfully finding ways to grow crops with less water per acre. However, water usage there is increasing because farmers simply plant crops on more land. Water usage per acre has dropped. The number of acres growing crops has increased. The same process is true for energy usage. Increase efficiency and demand increases too.