Wave energy a bit closer to commercialization

Renewable Energy World published a good article on PG&E developments in the wave energy deployment. It looks like the "new" industry is picking up and is a bit closer to the commericalization

PG&E Dives Headlong Into Wave Power Project

Nuclear power in the news this week

After President Obama announced a multi-billion loan program to fund the construction of several nuclear power plants, various websites turned to the "old" technology and featured articles about the benefits and disadvantages.

One article by the New York Times describes the numbers behind nuclear power. Ok, it is not new that this power source requires large amount of capital expensises before the very first electron will leave the plant, the numbers were still astonishing.

The author Katie Fehrenbacher mentions $10 Billion as the price for a larger nuclear power plant (I assume a power range of 5-10 GW, giga watts). This number is gigantic for the costs, because beyond the construction, the power plant needs to be operated, maintained, updated, and at some point, the waste needs to be disposed (but where). And finally, someone has to guard the waste, so that no one builds dirty bombs out of it.

What would you say if you could have 10 GW of clean and renewable power?
Let me guess? Nuclear is clean, supposely it does not produce CO2, and the wind is not always blowing? Right?
I believe that nuclear could be an alternative to coal fired power plants (because I do not believe that the carbon capture technology will easily work in the near future), but nuclear is not emission free! Over the entire life cycle (all steps from the mining of the uran, the production of the enormous amount of concrete, and the transportation of the radio active material), nuclear power is not really emission free.

Could we then replace a nuclear power plant with renewable sources?
Probably not in a small scale. But several thousand mega-watts of wind power (an average wind turbine produces currently between 1-3 MW) distributed over a large geographical area could offset some of the power desire.

But most important are three other aspects:

• Several wind power plants installed over a large area would create more jobs than a single, fully automated nuclear power plant (unless you hire many people for the security personal)
• If you distribute the wind power plants over a large area, then the possibility of no power production because of no wind is very, very limited - almost impossible, and not more likely than a fault in a main transformer of the nuclear power plant
• Your installed wind power plants could be erected and commissioned very fast - probably before 2012. The permitting for a single nuclear power plant takes several years. It is currently expected that the announced power plants will be ready not before 2016 (not to mention that no nuclear plant was commissioned below budget and before commissing date). But also if the financing halts for the wind power plant, the already erected fraction of the plant can be connected to the grid and generated revenue. The nuclear power plant has to be fully completed and only then it returns revenue.

Who benefits from a solid Copenhagen treaty and who does not? Who wants to see it fail?

In December, the UN is meeting in Copenhagen to discuss a follow treaty to Kyoto to reach reductions in the CO2 emissions. Right now it is highly debated if the summit will result in a solid treaty. Who would be interested in a failure of the treaty? Which company should support the process towards a solid treaty. Let's discuss it here!

Who would benefit from a solid reduction of CO2?

• Renewable energy industry (SolarWorld, GL, Suzlon, etc.)
• Nuclear industry (Coal plants would be reduced and replaced by nuclear power plants until renewable sources are reliable enough)
• Battery manufacturers (It would give a push towards PEVs and they need batteries, many batteries)
• Insurance companies (Why? Simple: Less CO2, less water level rise, less floods and more stable weather, thus less cases for insurances to cover)
• Local economies (Do you believe that it possible to ship a 50m turbine blade from China to the U.S.? And that cheap and at high quality?)
• ...
  

Who would benefit of a failure of the climate talks?

• Oil rich countries
• Countries with many ressources (coal, copper, etc.)
• Major companies like Siemens, GE (because they offer everything from gas plants to coal plants)
• Car companies (No need for further improvements in efficiency standards, etc.)
• Airline industry (No need for emission trade for them)

Anything else? Shoot me an email to extend the list ...

The new secretary of energy Dr. Chu

Yesterday, Dr. Chu was interviewed by Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing was interesting, even some of the senators asked really ***** questions.
However, Dr. Chu pledged to increase the funding for the Hanford clean up project, grant more transmission rights to BPA, invest in recycling research of nuclear waste as well as clean coal.
Clean coal? Yes, even so he said otherwise a year ago in a presentation "Why coal is my biggest nightmare". Will see how he does his job ...
(Photo: Berkeley.edu)

How much CO2 does your google search produce?

The German magazine Spiegel and the British newspaper Times were reporting on a study about the CO2 emission produced by Google. The research included the "entire" life cycle of a search, including the electricity for the internet provider, and even your own computer.
The numbers are huge if you accumulate with every search with is done. The Spiegel argues that Google would cause more CO2 than the airline industry. Judge yourself ...
(Photo: www.riverwired.com)

CNN goes green on news

Probably, CNN is reporting about money, but other news sites are reporting more and more on environmental and energy issues. It looks like this issue becomes mainstream.
Last week, TIME magazine was reporting about the MNN.com website (MNN stands for Mothers Nature Network).
In connection with this article, TIME was mentioning other interesting energy websites worth reading like treehugger or grist.
Enjoy reading it ...

2009 starts with good news - popularity of wind energy surges

This morning I found an article that stated the increasing popularity of wind energy. The effects of the current recession where also discussed. Enjoy reading it ...

UPDATE:
In regard to the mentioned article, I want to add three more:
The history of wind power - Economist
Effect of recession on wind power - NYT
What might happen under the Obama proposed plan