Renewable Energy: Geothermal

So we have discussed two of the four major renewable power sources in our last two post and the pros and cons of wind and solar energy. Geothermal energy is another fair option for energy production in the world.
Geothermal energy is created by the heat emitted from magma underneath the Earth’s crust. The heat is produced from the radioactive decay of elements such as uranium and potassium. The heat is captured by a system of pump stations that either convert the heat energy into electrical energy or use it to heat and regulate air temperature in a home. Geothermal energy is suspected to be able to supply 50,000 the same amount of energy as all of the oil and natural gas reserves worldwide. (UCS) Geothermal is a viable option for most countries for energy production including the United States. For example, more than 8,900 megawatts (MW) of large, utility-scale geothermal capacity in 24 countries now produce enough electricity to meet the annual needs of nearly 12 million typical U.S. households (GEA 2008a). There are only a few real problems with geothermal energy that makes it a slow fuel to transition. Geothermal is cheap energy, but the initial cost for the plants to harness it are extremely expensive. Even the small scale home versions can substantially increase the cost for a home owner. Also another problem is location, currently geothermal plants require areas that have a high underground heat index. (Refernce above picture). The plants are required to be built in areas with either volcanoes or plate faults in the Earth’s crust. These conditions; however, are required to produce electricity, the smaller home ones are pretty much available for heating and cooling anywhere in the world. Perhaps someday every home will be installed with a geothermal system to heat and cool our homes lowering one of the largest energy consumption in the world.

Renewable Energy: Wind energy

In the last post we talked about the four types of renewable energy that are most used throughout the world today. We discussed how solar energy could benefit the growing populations of the world. The next energy source, wind energy, is also a viable option that is already being used widely throughout the world.

Wind energy is derived from the most powerful energy source in our solar system, the Sun. The Sun heats the air and the changes in pressure due to hot air rising and cooled air sinking causes wind. This energy is currently being exploited through the use of wind turbines. Wind energy is one of the fast growing clean energy sources in the United States according to the AWEA. Today, U.S. wind power capacity represents more than 20% of the world's installed wind power. (AWEA) Wind energy does seem like a great solution to the current energy crisis, it’s clean, relatively cheap, and is even a readily available technology. So what’s holding back the entire country from switching to wind energy? Well the main problem is real estate, not every place is a prime area for wind power generation. An area with a large amount of constant windy conditions is required which is why a lot of the country’s wind parks are located in relatively open areas. The next large hurdle is that for every acre used a fossil fuel using plant could supply more energy for the amount of space used. The current and rather recent solution to this is to start building large offshore wind parks. This provides a large wind rich environment that takes up no inhabitable space. Who knows perhaps one day wind energy will power the United States and other countries; one day some may look from the coast to a coast line with large propellers spinning in the distance.

Renewable Energy : Solar Power

A renewable energy source comes from either the sun or other environmental mechanism that occur on planet Earth (TREIA Industries Association). After all of the talk about oil pipelines I thought it would be a good idea to talk about alternative energy. The U.S has nearly a 60 % foreign oil dependency and consumes on average 20 million barrels of oil per day (Department of Energy). With all of the current political and economic issues surrounding oil production and prices as well as the global impact clean renewable energy sounds like a great option, right?

The four main renewable energy sources currently being used are solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric. Solar power has gained a lot of attention in recent years with new technologies and funding from private investors and governments alike. Now solar energy sounds like a great option, its clean, provides more than enough energy for the inhabitants of the entire world, and will be around till the end of the Earth’s days. Yes, truly solar seems to be the way to go, but there are some issues that currently stops every nation from building solar power plants everywhere. The first and largest problem is the cost per watt of energy. Compared to fossil fuels the energy prices are outrageous which is why many developing countries choose fossil fuels over clean energy. The second problem is how fragile the solar panels are. The solar panels are currently made from crystalized silicone. The silicone is prized for its high thermal properties and is ideal for the capture of solar radiation. The problem with making a crystalized panel is that it’s a lot like glass and is prone to cracks and shattering. Other things that plague solar energy are just getting large energy consuming nations on board with the new technology although strides are being made, is it enough to save the planet? I’m no environmentalist or anything, but wouldn’t clean renewable energy be worth the investment to both a cleaner planet and energy security.

Keystone pipeline Environmental disaster or Economic asset Part 2

Last week I began to touch on the subject of the recently proposed Keystone pipeline. In this post I would like to discuss more of how the economy will be affected by this new project and what it would mean for everyday Americans.

In terms of jobs supplied by the pipeline’s construction and active use, the only independent study, conducted by Cornell University’s Global Labor Institute, concludes that it may generate 6-7,000 temporary jobs, but no more than 50 permanent jobs when the work is done. This means that most of the new jobs would wear out by the end of construction as usual for large building projects. The permanent jobs are mainly plant hands and engineers that control the flow of the line. Now one may ask what about the lines maintenance? Well since TransCanada is a Canadian Company they have the choice to hire which ever contractor they wish, which will likely be Canadian. So is the large construction project worth the short term economic spike? Well it would help Americans in the area for a few years and provide jobs, however; it provides a false short term since of security for the families. The main idea for the new addition to the pipeline is to get to the refineries in the south of Texas. What many do not know is that after the product is finished and refined TransCanada plans to sell the oil to the world market not the American citizen. This does provide more production in the United States, but does it really grow the economy? Now I am definitely no economist so is this a great idea I don’t know the argument makes sense either way to me. There is one simple concept of economics that I do understand, every time quantity supplied is increased prices fall.

Keystone pipeline Environmental disaster or Economic asset Part I

The proposed Keystone XL pipeline project formed by the TransCanada oil company has suffered plenty of political fallout in the past couple of weeks. Obama, who is a supporter of clean energy, openly denied the oil giants proposal to expand the pipeline. In defense of the pipeline the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, also felt, “President Obama is destroying tens of thousands of American jobs and shipping American energy security to the Chinese. There’s really no other way to put it. The President is selling out American jobs for politics". Now I can see both sides of the argument from environmentalist and pro oil supporters. I myself find that I’m torn between the two sides; as a current sophomore in civil engineering I know that a society has certain needs to meet, while minimally impacting the environment as economically as possible. Often to meet these needs the economy and environment have to be interchanged to meet the problem at hand.

Having said all of that, environmental concern is an important topic. A civil engineer must find the best way at the time to get the job done for society. Many environmentalists fear a possible rupture in the pipeline will harm the country’s farmland. Now as far as engineering is concerned steel oil pipeline is among the safest and most economical transportation methods to date. According to the Association of Oil Pipelines there are 168,000 miles of liquid pipelines in the USA, and these are the "safest, economical and environmentally favorable way". So in my eyes there is no real environmental concern that’s any bigger than that of other pipelines throughout the United States. With all of that said there are still reasons for environmental concern, but the main things I want to leave everyone with is stop trying to think politically and try to think in terms of the positive and negative benefits.

I will have more posts on this topic to come in the following weeks.