Renewable energy is big, big, big: Josh just wrote about the world’s largest wind farm possibly going up in South Dakota (yahoo!), California could see the world’s largest solar power plant, and now Singapore is in the foray with landing the largest solar manufacturing facility the world’s ever seen.

A Norwegian company called Renewable Energy Corporation (REC) will build the complex, which will be completed in different stages to incorporate wafer, cell, and module production. REC already operates the world’s current largest solar plant in Norway, which produces about 650 megawatts of energy annually.

A solar manufacturing plant would be the first of its kind in Southeast Asia, and REC looked at 200 locations before settling on Singapore. A combination of tax incentives, grants, and a skilled workforce were some of the reasons REC liked it. Likewise, Singapore officials are thrilled about playing center stage in the world’s rush to clean technology. Ko Kheng Hwa of the Economic Development Board explained:

The project will be a ‘queen bee’ to attract a hive of solar activities to Singapore — big companies and young start-ups engaged in research and development, manufacturing and innovation, as well as the supplier ecosystem… This investment will be a tremendous boost to our national drive to develop the solar industry.

Once completed in 2010, the capacity of all the products the plant produces will generate up to 1.5 gigawatts (GW) of energy each year — that’s compared to the total global industry output of 2 GW in 2006. That large of an impact, combined with the 3,000 expected jobs, shines a new light on an emerging area of the world hungry for innovative and clean technology.

Accelerating Innovation
All Headline News
Manufacturing.net

Depending on whom you ask, emissions from air travel make up 2-6 percent of the planet’s total CO2 emissions (as a whole, the transportation sector makes up about a quarter of those emissions). But airlines in particular have been getting a bad rap among some in the environmental community because of it, and a recent conference of European airline industries debated how to brighten their image.

One British strategic communications firm argued that the airline industry essentially needs a PR makeover. Steve Dunne of the Brighter Group went so far as to say that the industry risks sliding into a reputation akin to that of cigarette manufacturers in the U.S.: "The aviation industry is just not representing itself properly or effectively to put the lobbying efforts of the eco-warriors into some kind of perspective."

I’m not convinced the risk is that dramatic — at least here in the U.S. While there are certainly efficiency measures airlines should be considering — such as being towed to a starting point on the runway instead of burning fuel to get there – advocating a total ban on air travel as some do (or even very high taxes) is a losing cause (by the way, I want to hear a convincing argument as to why flying on a commercial plane isn’t public transportation, like taking the bus).

But the pollution problems for the industry could take off: The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that while the CO2 emissions per passenger kilometer have decreased, the increased number of passengers overall has negated that efficiency. Furthermore, the World Wildlife Fund predicts airlines to make up 15 percent of all global CO2 emissions by 2041.

So while the airlines may not be likened to cigarette manufacturers yet, they should consider some reputation management now. And there are good things happening: The International Air Transport Association says they saved 6 million tons of CO2 by shortening routes worldwide. Virgin’s Richard Branson just announced that he’s planning a 747 biofuel test flight for early next year, and Northwest put together a taskforce of employees and managers that came up with ways to cut inefficient fuel use by 31 million gallons per year. To keep up with the increasing number of passengers and the increasing concern about global warming (including carbon regulation), however, the airlines industry will have to continue decreasing their contribution to the problem and keep telling the public about it. Telling their side of the story — while performing real, meaningful leadership — will keep their reputation from taking a nose dive.

Cross posted on Maria Energia

International Herald Tribune

Here’s an example of a global warming consequence that wasn’t exactly on my radar, and some strange news from our neighbors to the north.

The Canadian navy has traditionally had a good relationship with the garbage on board its ships: the cold Arctic temperatures have kept the mess frozen, allowing refuse and olfactory senses to live harmoniously.

Then came global warming. The increased temperatures have caused quite the stink on Canadian naval ships, so much so that the navy is relaxing regulations and allowing ships to dump the garbage and even raw sewage at sea. A portion of an internal navy memo was reprinted by The Canadian Press:

The changes ‘help alleviate our COs (commanding officers’) concerns (with regard to) accumulated food remnants stored in garbage bags on decks during ever-increasing global warming summers…These food remnants may decay or putrefy and generate an occupational health and safety issue on board ships (that) our COs can ill afford while striving to enforce Canadian sovereignty in our internal Arctic waters."

The orders – part of the more relaxed provisions in the Arctic Water Pollution Prevention Act – allow for dumping if there are "operational" or safety reasons, or if capacity is exceeded.

These provisions, and the increased number of ships being sent north on sovereignty patrols, have many people arguing that taking the smelly garbage to a port for unloading is the worth the inconvenience, especially when the alternative is dumping it at sea.

However, navy officials say dumping would be worst-case-scenario, and that navy ships are still much more restrictive in their environmental stewardship than the law requires them to be.

The Canadian Press

Besides the Udall-Platts amendment to the House energy bill that calls for a federal renewable energy standard (requiring 20 percent of our energy to come from renewables by 2020), another progressive energy bill may up for a vote this week.

It’s far reaching – both in terms of what it would do for the country, and that actually passing it may be a bit of a reach.

Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) has authored a bill that increases the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards (a.k.a. “fuel efficiency”) to 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2018. Currently the requirement is 27.5 mpg – and that number has hardly changed in more than 10 years.

Unlike the current requirement, however, Markey’s proposed standard does not have a lower mpg rate for most pickups and SUVs. The Senate’s 35 mpg version that passed earlier this summer also didn’t distinguish between cars and pickups/SUVs. The Senate bill was strongly opposed by the auto industry and lawmakers from states with auto factories.

On the other hand, Reps. Baron Hill (D-IN) and Lee Terry (R-NE) have a bill requiring cars to have a 35 mpg standard and trucks to reach 32 mpg by 2022. This version is supported by automakers.

CNN reports that speculation is swirling over what will happen in the House. If neither of these fuel efficiency proposals makes it to the House floor, then the House will work off the Senate’s version – which is stronger than the Hill-Terry proposal. So in the end, the House may not vote on fuel efficiency standards at all, thus avoiding the gamble that the Hill-Terry bill passes and guaranteeing that the Senate version heads to conference committee.

Or, is a perfect bill the enemy of a good bill in this case? If there’s a piece of legislation, supported by automakers, that gets us to 35 mpg for cars and 32 mpg for trucks by 2022, should we pass it in 2007 in lieu of waiting for perhaps another bill and another vote in 2008? Or, are we setting the bar too low altogether?

CNN
National Public Radio

Global warming concerns, government policies, and money-saving efficiency benefits have spurred clean energy systems to spring up all over the world. But a giant wind farm in the middle-of-nowhere North Dakota doesn’t do much good if there aren’t transmission lines to connect the power with the more populated areas that need it.

Europeans are facing similar distribution and reliability issues with their burgeoning renewable energy growth, and some see a continent-wide grid as the solution. Dr. Jurgen Schimd of ISET, a renewable-energy institute at the University of Kassel in Germany, says a transmission system that stretches across Europe is the answer. It could, for example, move electricity generated from a Spanish wind farm to the Netherlands where the wind is not blowing.

Norway is key to Dr. Schmid’s plans, as the Scandinavian nation is well-supplied with hydroelectric plants that can store energy from sources like the wind. For instance, the wind power is used to pump water up into the reservoirs that feed the hydroelectric turbines, so the power is “on tap” when needed. According to Dr. Schmid, even if the wind died and wind farms shut down all across Europe, Norway’s hydropower would leap to action and fill in the gap for up to four weeks.

This continent-wide transmission system for renewable energy has also sparked a renewed interest in direct current (DC). Over 100 years ago, when power grids covered shorter distances, alternating current (AC) transmission was favored because it loses less electricity than DC. However, as transmission lines have grown longer, high-voltage DC lines now suffer lower loses than AC. So using a DC transmission system would allow electric grids to be restructured more efficiently, losing less energy while transmitting it from Point A to Point B.

Some nations have already started work on a DC transmission system. A group of Norgwegian companies have begun building high-voltage DC lines between Scandinavia, the Netherlands, and Germany. An Irish wind power company called Airtricity proposes what it calls a Supergrid that would link offshore wind farms in the Atlantic Ocean with customers in northern Europe.

The electric grid in the U.S. is in sore need of an upgrade, and we should consider ideas that utilize the different forms of renewable energy abundant across the country (like hydroelectric in the Northeast, wind in the Midwest, solar in the Southwest). It’s a combination of these renewable sources – along with crucial upgrades in efficiency – that will provide a clean, reliable network of distribution in the 21st century.

Thanks to Working Dad at Housekept for the tip.

The Economist
Wikipedia

Photo Courtesy of Solaicx

Solaicx, a manufacturing company that produces high-efficiency silicon wafers for photovoltaic solar power, has announced a new facility planned for Portland, Oregon.

The 136,000-square-foot plant will produce silicon ingots, which are logs of pure silicon that get heated to high temperatures and sliced like lunch meat to make silicon wafers. The wafers are the semiconductor materials in solar panels. The process for producing and processing silicon wafers for solar power is difficult and expensive, but Solaicx claims it uses silicon more efficiently and thus creates a more cost-competitive product.

The plant will provide about 100 new green collar jobs and, by the time it reaches full capacity in 18 months, may produce enough material for 142 megawatts of solar panels.

Why Portland? The Oregon Department of Energy created a Solar Energy Working Group charged with developing and implementing a strategic plan to lure clean tech companies to Portland. Jeff Jones, Vice President of Manufacturing for Solaicx, said the state’s incentives were key in the company’s decision to locate there:

"We looked at the state of Oregon's generous financial incentives for renewable energy and Portland's deep base of skilled labor in silicon manufacturing, and decided that the port is an ideal place for our continued growth as a company. This welcoming atmosphere will allow us to meet our goals and rapidly ramp-up to full production by the end of 2008."

Although many manufacturing facilities are located in or are moving to China, precision manufacturing is expanding in the U.S., Japan, and Europe.

CNET News
Oregon Energy Model
Solaicx

There’s a lot of talk about China’s staggering amount of planned coal plants, and the narrowing gap between it and the U.S. for the title of Planet’s Biggest Carbon Dioxide Emitter. But China is examining at least one unique way to develop more sustainably.

Welcome to Dongtan, the world’s first CO2-free city. Developers are building this $1.3 billion eco-city just outside of Shanghai. Renewable energy will be used extensively, the layout of the city maximizes walking and biking rather than cars, and transport vehicles will run on batteries or hydrogen fuel cells. Other plans include recycling organic waste, green roofs, and rainwater capture.

Dongtan will cover an area about three-quarters the size of Manhattan on wetlands at the mouth of the Yangtze River. However, Peter Head of Arup, the London-based firm heading the planning, said the wetlands are not at risk from the development. From the Architectural Record:

“‘First of all, water usually discharged into the river will be collected, treated, and recycled within the city boundaries,” he says. ‘There will be a 2-mile buffer zone of eco-farm between city development and the wetlands.’ While farming is water intensive, relatively small amounts of water reach the plants themselves. Head says Dongtan ‘will capture and recycle water in the city and use recycled water to grow green vegetables hydroponically. This makes the whole water cycle much more efficient.’”

But what will the habitants do in this eco-utopia? City officials and consultants expect jobs in education like at the planned Institute for Sustainable Cities, and they anticipate attracting companies pursuing clean technologies, food research and production, and health care. Dongtan is also expected to rely heavily on ecotourism.

Designers hope CO2-free city will serve as a model for the rest of the urbanized world. Its first phase includes a marina village of 20,000 habitants that will be unveiled at the 2010 World Expo in Shanghai. Nearly 80,000 people are expected to live in the city by 2020, and eventually designers hope to see 500,000 citizens living the good, green life there.

Architectural Record
Jetson Green

I’m not one to think a hydrogen economy is right around the corner – let’s make sure our energy efficiency and current renewable technology are maxed out first – but this invention caught my eye.

The WindHunter is the concept of an offshore, floating system of wind turbines that make electricity, electrolyze sea water, and make hydrogen. The architects of the idea envision four two-megawatt wind turbines mounted on a moveable framework connected to the deck of a ship. The electricity produced from the turbines is sent to four electrolyzers in the hulls or inside the deck, and then the collected hydrogen is compressed and stored in tube tank trailers until transported to shore. From the website:

“This continuously manned, safe and stable system will be easily maintained on-board while relocating to the best wind conditions for the wind turbines…. These large ships or platforms will operate out of sight of land either moored or anchored while facing into the wind and the oncoming waves. Millions of them can operate on the world’s oceans with minimal environmental impact and human resistance.”

The WindHunter is an interesting concept and we’re going to need to consider all ideas to transition ourselves to a clean energy economy. But this system has quite a ways to go before it sees the light of day, let alone feels an ocean breeze. The WindHunter company is in Phase One of developing a feasibility study of a vessel and its wind turbines. Next come the design, build, and launch of the system and then finally producing the hydrogen. According to the company, the estimated total cost is $100 million of the research and design process, and could take at least six years.

Via Ecogeek
WindHunter

Gary Reysa and his wife cut their energy use in half with their self-designed “Half Plan.” A retired airplane product development engineer from Boeing, Gary continues to satisfy his mechanical and creative curiosity with an array of efficiency and renewable energy projects at his home near Bozeman, MT.

I spoke with Gary by phone on April 5th.

Green Options: Why did you decide to cut your energy use in half?

Gary Reysa: I’m very concerned about global warming, and now that that I have a new grandchild, I see the impact it could have on future generations. It’s easy to get the feeling that there’s not much an individual can do, so my wife and I thought: What can we do? Could we make a significant cut in our energy use and global warming emissions? Could we cut it in half?

GO: How did you begin?

GR: The Half Plan seemed really ambitious to us at first. For one thing, we had no access to special technology. But I had begun some projects back around 2000 when we moved into our house and I started keeping track of our energy bills. When we officially began the Half Plan, we decided to do the projects that offered the most energy saving per dollar spent for our climate, house, skills, and habits.

GO: Wouldn’t it have been a lot easier to just buy carbon offsets?

GR: I have mixed feelings about carbon offsets. I wouldn’t criticize anyone for doing it, but it’s just not for me. I do believe there are a lot of places in the world where you can spend a few bucks and get carbon reductions. But I feel like some people use them to get out of doing real action.

I feel better about doing something directly that reduces my carbon footprint. But even with the Half Plan, we still have to buy green power from Northwest Energy to make up for what we use. We’re not completely independent of the power grid.

GO: You said you didn’t have access to any special technology for cutting your energy use. Did that affect the execution of your plan?

GR: Not at all – once we started researching it, we found out that almost all the equipment we needed was actually available locally.

We did a lot of different projects to cut our energy in half. We bought a Toyota Prius, installed a solar water heater, energy-efficient light bulbs, better insulation in our attic, sealed up the windows, put our computers on power strips (shutting off the power strips stops the computer from continuing to “sip” electricity, even when it’s supposedly off) and installed dryer venting. And those are just a few of the projects.

GO: Has the Half Plan been very expensive?

GR: So far we’ve spent $8800. The single biggest expense has been the Toyota Prius - but it’s also been the single biggest energy savings and biggest cut to our global warming emissions. It cut our transportation energy use by about 60 percent! We thought we’d be making a sacrifice by buying a smaller car, but it’s been great and we use it for 85 percent of our driving. We do live in the snowy mountains, so we need bigger car with 4-wheel drive part of the time.

I factored in a $4000 cost for the Prius into the overall $8800 cost of the Half Plan, because $4000 is the premium we paid for the hybrid features. We were due to replace our old Outback vehicle anyway (it had 205,000 miles on it), so the decision was whether to buy a conventional or a hybrid car.

Our other big expenses included the solar projects. In fact, I just finished another big solar project, but I haven’t factored that into the cost yet. It's a solar space heating project that uses solar water heating collectors to provide space heating for the house. The collectors are on the south wall of our new garden shed. They heat water in a 500 gallon tank behind the shed which gets pumped to the house.

Solar collectors for space heating

GO: Have the savings outweighed the initial investments?

GR: The savings has been phenomenal. We’ve invested $8800 and I’ve calculated that we’ll save $4600 in energy costs and 20 tons in global warming pollution each year. The cost savings will continue to go up as electricity and fuel prices go up.

One really neat project has been making our computer use more energy efficient. Our two computers and related equipment use about 270 watts of power when turned on. We put all of it on power strips. At night, we hibernate the computers and then turn everything off with the power strip switch. During the day we have the computers set to hibernate if they are inactive for 15 minutes.

This saves a total of 1624 kilowatt hours of electricity per year, 3200 lbs of global warming emissions, and $162 per year! This just knocked me out.

GO: What was the Half Plan’s biggest surprise?

GR: The biggest surprise was that there were no surprises. It was pretty painless except for the money invested into the projects, but we’ve already earned a big chunk of it back in our first year of savings.

It was relatively easy to do these projects, too. We live pretty normally – as in we waste a lot of energy! – but we started paying more attention to how we use our energy. To me, it would be fall-off-the-log-easy for people to do this without sacrificing or paying much. It’s just a lack of focus that keeps it from happening.

GO: Now that you’ve found the Half Plan so easy to do, have you thought about cutting your energy even further?

GR: We plan to cut it in half again. This time we will have to use solar PV panels for our electricity, which has a higher cost and a slower return than our other projects. But I’m not doing this next phase for the financial return; I’m doing it to cut my carbon dioxide pollution that causes global warming.

GO: So the next half may not be so easy?

GR: We did the Half Plan without changing our lifestyle at all. But to cut our energy further, we’re going to have to make changes like drive less or bike more. That’s not a downfall for us, it just requires more work. There will certainly be lifestyle changes this time.

For example, we just got back from Hawaii. I felt guilty for spending 2500 lbs of CO2 to go! But I think if we’re going to get serious about making another 50 percent drop, then we will need to start thinking harder about trips like that.

GO: So how do you entertain yourself out in Big Sky country?

GR: I love the TV show Living with Ed. It's a reality show with Ed Begley Jr and it's about how he lives his green lifestyle with his wife in Studio City, CA. It makes technical sense, it’s very entertaining, and he really cares about the issue and lives his life accordingly.

For a good read, I’d recommend The Carbon Buster's Home Energy Handbook by Godo Stoyke. It gives a long list of projects that people can do to cut their CO2 emissions and save money. It details the equipment needed, cost, return, energy saving, and carbon saving. I like the book so much I bought a second copy for our local library.

GO: Your website is a fantastic resource; very easy-to-understand information, graphs, and calculations. Any specific tips on how folks can get started on the Half Plan?

GR: At my website, Build It Solar, I have a Half Plan for People Who Like Plans and a Half Plan for People Who Don’t Like Plans, so folks can choose what works best for them.

I’m an engineer, and I know that simplicity is everything. When you have trouble with a design, it’s almost always because it’s too complex. For example, I found that the solar thermal designs are really simple and that anyone should be able to build it.

The other thing folks have to realize is that we are the problem. When you get mad about global warming, you have to look at yourself in the mirror. I read stuff on the Internet and I get the feeling that people are pointing fingers but aren’t identifying the problem as themselves. Instead, they want a quick fix or someone else to come along with the technology that will allow us to not have to do anything. And they feel comfortable about the fact that they’re not doing anything.

We’re the ones generating this problem, but that also makes it easy for us to do something about it. We’re in the driver’s seat to make drastic reductions. It’s easy to do. For example, efficiency is something you can implement quickly, and we can get a significant drop in emissions right away and painlessly. If enough people do that, we’ll have really made a difference.

GO: Do you think this can all really make an impact?

GR: My actual CO2 reduction is about 20 tons each year. If 100 million families did the same thing, the energy we would save we be about 25 percent of all of the U.S. CO2 emissions. That's huge! And the best part is that we know this can be done – with no help from new technology or George Bush. We can do this ourselves, right away.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. and Canada have enough geological storage capacity to sequester about 3500 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) underground. That’s about 900 years worth of CO2 emitted by power plants.

Carbon sequestration is the process by which CO2 is captured from a source (like a power plant) before it’s released into the air and pumped into an underground rock formation. This is called geological sequestration. Another type of carbon sequestration is terrestrial sequestration, where the carbon is stored in long-lived sources like trees or soils, for example.

A new Carbon Sequestration Atlas reports that 4,000 power plants and other stationary CO2 sources are located above sequestration sites. Dawn Deel, a carbon sequestration manager at the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) said that most power plants would have the capacity to store CO2 nearby or directly underneath them. She told Reuters: “The capacity sites are very widespread. They cover the majority of the area in the United States and a good bit of Canada.”

But one of the major hurdles of sequestration – the enormous cost – was not included in the study. The equipment to capture the CO2 at the power plant, transport it, and then bury it underground could add up to 20 percent to our electric bills, according to a study done by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology this year. That’s also what a 2005 United Nations study found.

Carbon sequestration is not commercially available yet in the U.S., but other nations have been moving forward with it. Norway has been pumping CO2 into a natural gas field for a decade, with no leaks detected so far. And in February 2007, the largest experimental carbon sequestration project began in Australia with the drilling of a 6000 foot well. If there are no leaks, researchers will begin injecting CO2 into the well in July.

I’d like to hear from readers on this one (not that you’d hold back!). I’m personally a bit up in the air on carbon sequestration. It’s incredibly expensive, so why not first push forward with efficiency measures and renewable energy? Or, because global warming is such a threat, should the U.S. push forward with this technology at the same time we increase renewable energy and efficiency, despite the cost?

Mongabay.com
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Ecosystems
Reuters, via AlertNet
Technology Review
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency