skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Various Kinds of Alternative Energy
Power is used everyday and there are many option signifies of power. If you are searching for alternative power then in this post we are going to talk about types of option power.
High gas rates at US gas pumps along with other countries around the globe has turn into concern to many.
The USA as well as the rest in the globe has to look into other types of alternative energy and new avenues of power supply and production. We've got to cut back our dependency on oil. What this signifies for us is really a pricey future-until we are able to discover new sources of powering our mechanized and digital civilization, new sources which might be alternatives to oil.
We need to also change to option kinds of power due to the fact our present types are too damaging towards the atmosphere. Coal is one particular other source of vitality that we ought to wean ourselves off of-again, it really is finite, and it's filthy, as well as the mining of it truly is harmful and can damage the environment. We ought to find out new methods of making electrical power hydro-energy instead of employing dams.
Building nations ought to also embark on sources of alternative power and should perform together with the United states of america, Japan, and some European nations to create new option energy sources.
Solar energy is all about us and is the dominant type of power that is employed on the surface of the planet by humans, animals, and plants. Solar power can be a very handy alternative electrical energy technique that is certainly becoming quite well-known for little user and domestic application. Solar One Energy Connections connects New York City residents, businesses, and community based organizations to energy efficiency and renewable power sources via education, outreach, and project partnerships.
Biofuels from issues like "supertrees" and soybeans, refined hydroelectric know-how, pure fuel, hydrogen gasoline cells, the added constructing of atomic power plants, the continued development of photo voltaic energy photovoltaic cells, additional investigation into wind-harnessed energy-all of these are viable power sources that could act as alternatives towards the mammoth quantities of oil and coal that we presently are so dependent on for our really lifestyles.
As opposed to traditional fossil fuels, exactly where nature offered power more than millions of years to convert biomass into energy-dense solids, liquids, and gases--requiring only extraction and transportation technology for us to mobilize them--alternative power depends heavily on specially engineered gear and infrastructure for capture or conversion, essentially making it a high-tech manufacturing process. Sounds excellent: we can consume significantly less fossil fuel and lower our carbon footprint by making a lot more efficient refrigerators, blow dryers, automobiles, Television, and so on. Freeing ourselves from a dependence on classic fossil fuels not just calls for creativity in the lab, it requires the confidence of having the ability to deliver a commercially viable solution.
They are other sources of energy where we are able to develop to feed out industries and supply power for our properties Alternative power sources are abundant - and renewable. Power can be harnessed from the sun, the wind, from soybeans and other food crops, and even from the organic heat under the earth's surface. Making use of such power sources is excellent for the atmosphere - and for the economy. Advances in technology are generating alternative power more sensible and economical for mass use.
Purchased electricity accounts for more than 40 percent of campus emissions at U.S. colleges and universities. For most schools, it is the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions (http://rs.acupcc.org/stats/ghg-source-stats/). As an increasing number of facilities managers examine how to support their institution's sustainability initiatives, purchased electricity holds an enormous opportunity for reducing emissions. While the cleanest (and cheapest) electricity will always be the electricity not consumed, colleges, universities, and schools will continue to purchase large amounts of grid-sourced electricity for years to come. Fortunately, there are an increasing number of ways that institutions can buy clean power - the trick is to understand which option makes the most sense for your institution. The purpose of this article is two-fold: first, to introduce the concept of purchasing clean energy from an offsite project developed on your behalf; and second, to help determine if this approach fits your school's needs. In order to understand the potential benefits of this approach, let's take a quick look at the alternatives. Historically, most colleges and universities that source clean energy have done so through either onsite renewable energy installations or renewable energy certificates (RECs). Each approach presents certain advantages and limitations. ONSITEOnsite clean energy projects can offer a highly visible source of clean power, a tangible commitment to sustainability, and easy educational access for students and faculty. Institutions can benefit from attractive leasing options or PPA structures that amortize costs over many years. However, an onsite facility may be difficult to build at a scale that significantly reduces an institution's footprint, and can be comparatively expensive. These drawbacks may be even more apparent on urban campuses with limited space. RECSRenewable energy certificates are notably easier and less expensive to procure than are onsite clean energy projects. RECs allow institutions to claim not only the environmental benefit of clean power generated elsewhere, but also to support the development of new projects. While a thriving REC market may be crucial to the health of renewable energy project markets, many colleges and universities believe that this financing mechanism falls short of delivering direct emotional and financial connections to a particular clean energy project. The abstract nature of the REC purchase often carries less appeal for institutions and their stakeholders. A THIRD APPROACH - OFFSITE CLEAN ENERGY PROJECTSTo overcome many of these limitations, one option for facilities managers to consider is to source clean power from an offsite renewable energy project that is relatively close to campus. LOCATIONOffsite projects can be sited in much better locations than can onsite ones, in terms of both the available sun or wind and the ease of connecting the project to the power grid. In addition, ground-mounted, offsite systems are often less expensive to install and maintain than are many onsite rooftop projects - savings that can be passed on to the end-user. SIZE AND SCALEOffsite systems also help overcome size limitations that confront many onsite systems, allowing a school to benefit from efficiencies of scale. Beyond the ability to create larger, more meaningful projects, offsite systems present the flexibility of a scalable system. This means an institution can size a project based on desired energy output (e.g., 10 or 20 percent of energy use) rather than on available space on campus. While offsite installations may not be visible from campus, there are many ways to integrate these projects into student life. Schools can bring larger offsite facilities to life by installing kiosks that display real-time power generation data and avoided carbon emissions, and students can take advantage of academic and vocational opportunities afforded by a large offsite project. If awareness and technology demonstration are particularly important to a school, small-scale on-campus demonstration projects can complement the offsite power plant. IS OFFSITE SOLAR ON-TARGET? 5 QUESTIONS To help you determine if an offsite project makes sense for your institution, consider these five questions: 1. Is your institution interested in purchasing clean power directly, but doing so on-campus is limited due to cost, complexity, or available space? 2. Is your institution reluctant to source clean power through RECs (either through a utility green power program or RECs provider)? 3. Is your institution in a deregulated electricity market? Deregulated markets can offer schools greater power purchasing options. 4. Is the solar or wind resource strong enough in your region? A higher quality resource allows a renewable energy system to generate the same amount of energy at a lower cost. Check the quality in your area by visiting the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's PVWatts Viewer online at http://maps.nrel.gov/node/25. 5. Is your institution located in a region with strong support for renewable energy? This assistance also helps lower the cost of power from an offsite project. Some states have "Renewable Portfolio Standards" (RPS) with specific requirements for solar. A map highlighting those states is available through the U.S. Department of Energy online at http://www.dsireusa.org/summarymaps. If facilities managers can affirmatively answer some of these questions, then an offsite project is a possible viable source of clean energy (in addition to RECs and onsite projects). By considering these three options, institutions can make powerful decisions about how to reduce the impact of purchased electricity, and can move closer to reaching their sustainability goals.
In today's society, global warming has been a huge controversy. The dilemma has been about the amount of fossil fuels we have burnt and released in the air, which has cause a slow decay in our ozone layer. The biggest factor to this has been the amount of gasoline/oil we use everyday. Now that we realize and understand more about the impact on the Earth of the burning of fossil fuels, we have started to develop more alternative sources of energy, for example, solar energy.
Solar energy uses the UV rays emitted by the sun and converts it through these solar panels and converts it into energy. Most of the solar energy panels that have been place are in remote areas where there is a lot of sun light. Although solar energy has been used in remote areas, many houses now accepted this technology and have become green by installing solar panels on the roof tops for energy in the homes. This new technology has not only expanded in electricity though, but it has been converted to heat things, like pools. Some of the top uses of solar energy in homes have been heating your swimming pool, heating your bath water, or even use the converted solar energy to cook.
I have had a first hand experience with solar energy because back home, we have solar panels on our roof. From first hand experience, solar energy has helped reduce the cost of our electricity bill, along with our heating bill. Another surprising thing about solar energy is the cost. Although solar panels aren't cheap to install, I remember my mom telling me that the government pays half of it if you get solar panels, reducing the cost enormously! This just goes to show that the government is pushing to pursue the technology of the uses of solar energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar power
http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/technology/solar-power/
http://electrical.about.com/od/appliances/tp/Top-10-Solar-Energy-Uses.htm
The Wisconsin Public Service Commission voted for a rate plan submitted by We Energies that environmentalists say penalizes customers who conserve energy and jeopardizes the fledgling solar industry in southeastern Wisconsin."We feel like what the PSC approved for the We Energies rate case is a huge setback for Wisconsin in the area of clean energy development," said Keith Reopelle, senior policy director for Clean Wisconsin, a statewide environmental advocacy group.In a mid-November vote, the commission split 2-1 in approving We Energies proposed rate changes. The plan will be finalized in December and take effect in January.The commission approved a 75-percent increase in the monthly fixed charges that residential customers see on their bills in southeastern Wisconsin and the Fox Valley area. Monthly fixed fees will go from 9.13 to 16. We Energies said it needs to increase the charge so all customers - large users and small users - share in maintaining the company's infrastructure."What we're proposing is fair rates for all our customers who use the grid," said We Energies spokeswoman Jessica Williamson, according to the AP.As the fixed fee goes up, hourly usage rates would drop by less than a cent per kilowatt-hour.The two commissioners who backed the increase, Phil Montgomery and Ellen Nowak, were appointed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker. The commissioner who voted no, Eric Callisto, was appointed by Democrat Jim Doyle."Under this decision, customers who use more will see lower bills and customers who use less will see higher bills," said Robert Kelter, senior attorney with the Environmental Law and Policy Center, a nonprofit active on conservation issues throughout the Midwest. "It sends the wrong price signals on energy efficiency because it makes it harder for customers to control their monthly bills."A 'solar tax'The We Energy plan also involves billing changes for customers investing in renewable energy systems, with a provision that existing owners of solar systems will be grandfathered for 10 years.Under the changes, customers with renewable energy systems will pay We Energies 3.80 per kilowatt per month, based on the size of the system. This means that a property-owner with a 4 kW solar system would pay 182 annually to We Energies for owning that solar system. Additionally, We Energies reduced the price credited for excess generation from the current 14 cents per kilowatt-hour to just 3 cents per kilowatt-hour. "This decision is bad for job creation, bad for energy independence, bad for the environment and bad for customers," stated Tyler Huebner, executive director the conservation group RENEW Wisconsin.He continued, "Our Republican-appointed commissioners approved a new tax, killed jobs and restricted energy choice in Wisconsin."Huebner said the commission ignored facts and a "record level of over 1,900 public comments" in reaching its decision on the We Energies rate changes.And Reopelle recalled the results of a pre-election poll showing Wisconsinites overwhelmingly support more reliance and investment in clean energy, not less. "We Energies' proposal was especially egregious in terms of how it treated solar power," he said, adding that there is great potential for developing clean energy sources in the state but "the policies we have in place are not particularly friendly."'rapacious demands'We Energies is not the only Wisconsin utility seeking rate changes that involve increased fixed monthly fees and slightly lower hourly rates. The PSC voted to raise Wisconsin Public Service Corporation's fixed monthly charge to 9, less than the 15 that the utility asked for. As WiG went to press, a request from Madison Gas and Electric was pending.The regulatory decisions drove Democratic lawmakers to call for an investigation and reform of the state regulatory process and pushed Alliance for Solar Choice, a group advocating solar energy, to announce plans to sue once the We Energies plan is finalized.Democratic state Sen. Tim Carpenter, calling for "major reform," said, "The PSC has shown that it is either unwilling or unable to protect residential customers in the face of rapacious and predatory demands of large public utility corporations. The PSC members are supposed to balance the public utilities' desire for a regulated profit with what is fair for the customers. The failure of the PSC to provide such balance is simply unacceptable."Meanwhile, state Rep. Christine Sinicki questioned the integrity of the regulatory process in the wake of a Capital Times report finding that some people identified on a "Consumer Energy Association" list as advocates of We Energies' plan didn't actually back the requests.She said her husband "was falsely listed as a supporter" and "was not contacted by the CEA and does not support the We Energies proposal. Further, he does not support raising fixed fees on utility bills in a way that harms homeowners, seniors and clean energy development."Sinicki characterized the CEA as a Houston-based lobbying group for the fossil fuel industry and said its list of supporters for the We Energies proposal was oddly identical to a list it submitted in support of Madison Gas and Electric's rate hike plan.The lists were tossed in late October by an administrative law judge who determined they contained "inadequate and incorrect information."Sinicki said she's concerned about fraud and corruption.SourcePost from CleanTechLaw.org: www.cleantechlaw.org
Japan, the only country to have experienced not one but two atomic weapon blasts which devastated two major cities, has now suffered what is probably going to become the third worst civil nuclear disaster in the world.
Many voices are lining up to say that this is the nail in the coffin for nuclear power. There have been anti-nuclear demonstrations in Germany and Greenpeace is calling for the phasing out of all existing power stations. They say nuclear power is simply too dangerous.
Those on the pro-nuclear side have in the last few days been consistently underestimating the way that events have actually unfolded. My inbox has been filled with nuclear pundits offering their prognoses which have been proved invariably wrong.
Nevertheless even some environmentalists such as Mark Lynas are arguing that we still need nuclear power and that it's worth the risk because the alternative - runaway climate change - is unavoidable without it.
NUCLEAR OR RENEWABLE FUTURE?
Japan imports 90% of its oil and has used nuclear power to help fuel its economic success with a measure of energy independence. Up to now, the Japanese public have largely trusted the authorities.
The terrible consequences of the tsunami, the attendant economic collapse, the lack of services, electricity and food, and the terrifying prospect of an invisible enemy in the air or in the food around them has shattered this trust.
Hideki Ban, a Japanese antinuclear movement activist and leader of the Citizen's Nuclear Information Center (CNIC), commenting on the disaster, said at the weekend in an interview with an Italian newspaper "By an accident of this magnitude it is very likely (and is also our hope) that the close dependence of Japan on atomic energy will come to an end."
Yet would Japan be able to power all of its needs with renewable energy? And if it can, how long will it take to build the generation capacity? It would not do so with solar photovoltaic and wind power alone. However, it is an island and there is no shortage of marine energy or geothermal energy, whose effect could be magnified by the use of combined heat and power and heat pumps, or of food and crop waste for anaerobic digestion.
All new buildings to replace those lost could be constructed to become zero energy using the Passivhaus standard. If Japan can achieve energy security using renewables, then certainly so can the rest of the world.
And if it can't, then presumably the rest of the world cannot successfully tackle climate change either.
Mark Lynas argues that if we abandon nuclear power then in the immediate term coal will take up the slack. Without any proven (at scale) carbon capture and storage, this could well accelerate global warming.
THE RENEWABLE VISION
But it doesn't have to be like this. Large-scale deployment of anaerobic digestion, solar thermal power plants, marine energy and wind power linked by high-voltage supergrids can power economic revival.
The map right shows where it has been calculated that six large solar thermal plants situated in the hottest spots on the planet could power the whole world with such supergrids.
The European Desertec project is one such example of a project that could revolutionise North Africa and Europe and the Middle East.
The far east could have just such a super grid.
Is it feasible? Is it affordable?
What really brought nuclear power to a halt after the Three Mile Island disaster in America was the refusal of insurance companies to foot the bill for new construction given the potential damage to them were there to be another accident.
The same reaction is extremely likely again, in many countries of the world.
All renewable energy technologies carry far less inherent risk but more up front costs. If they are more expensive in capital terms, they are less expensive in terms of their running costs, security requirements and insurance requirements.
What the fulfillment of this dream requires is the political will and about the same amount of capital as it will take to build nuclear power stations and maintain their security and insure them against disaster in the future.
THE HEALTH RISK
Nuclear power is inherently dangerous. The whole supply chain including mining in countries like Niger promotes environmental desolation and conflict.
Mark Lynas argues that there have only been 50 deaths as a result of the Chernobyl disaster and this is an acceptable price.
But that is not the whole picture. There has been a great increase in thyroid cancers as a result of the ingestion of caesium-137, which can remain in the environment and food chain for 30 years.
Several of my friends around where I live have for many years received visitors from the Chernobyl area - children badly affected by radiation with terrible deformities. They come for holidays. It is awful to see them.
According to the World Health Organisation, an expert group from the US National Academy of Sciences has concluded that "there may be up to 4,000 additional cancer deaths among the three highest exposed groups over their lifetime". These groups contain 630,000 people.
Those who argue that all of this is an acceptable price to pay to tackle climate change have not seen the suffering themselves close to hand. If it was happening to them or their family, friends and neighbours they would not be so gung ho about it.
It's time to say no to the nuclear lobby. We don't trust you any more.
Allocation on Tumblr
Nearly 80% OF Solicit votes PARTICIPANTS WERE Against HYDRAULIC FRACTURING.
A statewide respect that was commissioned by the Inborn Cash Missile Assembly (NRDC) set up that touch on 8 out of 10 New Yorkers who took division in the cast your vote were in rotation of the state's fracking moratorium, making it flattering real that concerns about the steadiness of the drilling improve are collective.
THE Keep an eye on What's more Discovered THAT THE Simplification OF RESPONDENTS Greatly Accept Boss RENEWABLE Turn Come to life.
The respect was congress from Franklin, Maslin, Maullin, Metz ">fracking at home their borders. The moratorium has tell somebody to flattering a big concede considering New York is home to a component of the Marcellus shale formation, which is one of America's leading shale gas basins
The Schedule of the Individuals Missile Instance, Kate Sinding, imaginary that "Diagonally band together lines-from the city to the country-New Yorkers hold back complete it clear that they pressure a outperform providence for this state than relations that hold back been ravaged by the oil and gas industry." Sinding went on to say that "fracking is a circle oil mend for economic woes, one that comes with overpriced reimbursement." She explained that these reimbursement puff in the form of air pollution, water pollution, strength problems and communities vanished.
Cohorts Of Fracking Say That It May Be Awful For The State's Cutback.
Andrew Cuomo, New York's manager is concept better whether or not the fracking ban call for be lifted in the state. Nonetheless, for instance relations in rotation of the improve take it may perhaps benefit the economy, the NRDC cast your vote satisfactorily reveals that inhabitants do not agree.
60% of respect respondents felt that jobs that would ramification from hydraulic fracturing would latent be self-employed, for instance 26% alleged that the jobs would be persistent or that drilling would restore the economy. Also, 55% feature that the put forward mining improve is by and large bad for household communities due to the impact on strength, land and water, as 27% dimple it to be good for household communities arrant equally it would ramification in tax revenues, jobs and economic development.
Instead of fracking, Sinding imaginary that the employees of New York pressure to power their homes, create arrogant jobs and gasp life goodwill participating in the state's economy by harnessing renewable energy from sources enjoyment the sun and wind.
For arrogant alternative energy news headlines at the present time.
Southeast Europe faces a wide range of political and economic challenges, not least in the energy arena. Infrastructure quality in the region varies widely, and the emphasis on coal and hydropower to the exclusion of other renewables sets the area apart from the rest of Europe. But plans are in place that could turn the region into a budding energy storage market -- helping it improve the grid network and making it more energy-secure. "Energy storage can play a major role in contributing to the energy security of the region," said Gabriela Cretu, an electricity and renewable energy expert at the European Union-backed Energy Community policy group. Gjergji Simaku, head of Renewables and Energy Efficiency at the Albanian Ministry of Energy and Industry, says that the top driver of that country's deployment of renewable energy is domestic energy security, followed by sustaina...
Source: help-save-planet.blogspot.com
