Below are a few letters received at EnergyBiz Insider on topics that appeared in the past few weeks. They capture the essence of how many readers say they feel.
________________________________________
Germany's Example - April 30, 2010
This is very interesting. At a time when global warming theory is becoming more and more discredited, with more evidence of manipulated data and withholding of data, and at a time of soaring deficits, we continue to put more and more of our limited resources into saving the world through green energy. And the municipalities and engineering firms jump on the bandwagon as fast as they can, to not miss out on the chance to grab some federal money, which as we all know grows on trees in Washington, DC.
Richard Racette
I was very interested to see how well Germany is doing on the green energy front.
There is only one minor detail you left out of your article, what do the Germans pay for their electricity? I know in Denmark where they are very aggressive in installing renewable energy they pay around $.40/kw for their power. If we in America are going to apply renewable energy as Europe has we need to understand what it is going to cost and not just assume everything will be all right in the end.
The cost of renewable energy is 2-3 times what we are now paying for power in most areas. This is something that the American energy consumer needs to understand as we go forward with any energy policy. It doesn't matter if the increase in cost is covered by government subsidies (higher taxes) or higher direct electric prices, the consumer can expect their bills to more than double if we have the amount of green energy that Europe has.
Philip T. Flowers, P. E.
Performance Engineer
TMPA
What a great article. In few and simple terms anybody can realize the potential in the U.S. to become energy independent and carbon emission reducing country. We need more awareness, consciousness and willingness from both parties to work together on a clean energy bill and policy for the U.S.
Alberto Morantes Linares
Cape Wind Gets off the Ground - May 03, 2010
While offshore wind energy has its supporters, it also has its opponents. Like several groups in Massachusetts, groups of citizens who live along the eastern shore of Lake Ontario between Oswego and Cape Vincent in New York State have opposed plans to develop offshore wind farms along the eastern side of that lake. There are few regions across North America that do offer potential for offshore wind energy. Powerful winds blow over Hudson Bay toward the west coast of Quebec and near Hydro Quebec's massive James Bay hydroelectric installations. There are some 1600 small offshore islands along that coast. This may be one of the few locations where opposition to offshore wind energy may be minimal.
Harry Valentine
Based on your columns, I have discovered the strategy for energy development in the U.S. If it is wind that might disturb the view, block it with lawsuits. If it is solar that might harm turtles, block it with lawsuits. If it is a transmission line that might require cutting down trees, block it with lawsuits. If it is nuclear that might be dangerous, block it with lawsuits. If it is drilling in Anwar that might disturb caribou, block it with lawsuits. If it is coal that might require disturbing some ground and is dangerous to mine, block it with lawsuits. If it is natural gas that requires drilling in pristine areas, block it with lawsuits. If it is anything that might improve our energy supply, block it with lawsuits.
Our national "energy policy," driven by lawsuits, is becoming quite clear. "Don't develop anything."
Michael Z. Lowenstein
"The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which studied the Cape Wind project for three years, says that several hundred birds would be killed annually while fish and shellfish beds would be displaced. It also said that the national historic properties located near Horseshoe Shoal where the 24-square-mile project would be based, would have their seascape changed.
But the corps' report goes on to say that the economic and overall environmental benefits would outweigh the costs."
Do you really think that spending $2 billion (probably much more in the end) on 468 MW of unpredictable generation at a capacity factor of maybe 30 percent is sensible? It works out to about $4275 per kW.
A nuclear power station would generate three times as much and would be available 95 percent of the time, so the wind farm is directly equivalent to a nuclear power station costing about $15,000 per kW. And that is without allowing for the fact that the wind farm will need support from other thermal stations and will do nothing to increase the security of supply because, at times, the wind farm will be producing nothing. And don't forget that most wind farms never produce more than 80 percent of installed capacity for anything but a tiny proportion of the time.
There is a modern technology available (atomized refined coal) that could increase the efficiency of coal-fired power generation (and reduce carbon dioxide emissions) by 30 percent without increasing the cost of generation. And nobody is interested in it.
We certainly live in a crazy world.
I would expect that people in your position would, at the very least, point out some of the hard facts.
Engineers are supposed to be pragmatic people devoted to "doing for 10 cents what any fool can do for a dollar". Instead, in the Western world at least, they seem to have joined in the madness inspired by those who damned themselves in their Climate-gate emails.
When will it end?
Bryan Leyland
Hydrogen's Limits - May 10, 2010
Even your most ardent fans -- which include me -- smiled at this one:
"Some say that the amount of energy used to make hydrogen is more than the amount of power produced by fuel cells. If fossil fuels are extracted to make the hydrogen, then more pollutants would be released. Green energy, meanwhile, could create the electricity to produce hydrogen but it may not be as predictable or as cost effective."
Hydrogen is very difficult to crack. As a fuel it is quite efficient, but producing the hydrogen is terribly inefficient. Notwithstanding the technological issues, the Second Law of Thermodynamics really does apply here -- even if we had an efficient hydrogen technology, we still would still be losing energy over the cracking/fuel cell cycle. I think "some" in your essay was a bit cautious.
Notwithstanding, keep up the good work.
Robert McCullough
Managing Partner
McCullough Research
Fuel cells are likely to be confined to specialty applications for a long, long time. If you read between the lines, Bloom's boxes cost around $7,000 per kW, which is about the same as competing fuel cell technologies. It's not yet clear that their "stacks" -- the element that converts hydrogen and oxygen to electricity -- will last any longer than batteries costing half or less as much. Modern gas-fired combined cycle plants have efficiencies around 50 percent when operated at full load, yet their capital costs are 80 percent lower.
The one advantage fuel cells have is very high conversion efficiencies if the waste heat they produce can be put to use. Operations that require continuous power and continuous heating and/or cooling loads could well find fuel cells worth the additional cost. They may make sense for the likes of Whole Foods, but they will not make sense in most applications
Jack Ellis
Resero Consulting
Settling Coal Ash Controversy - May 12, 2010
You seem to have been infected with the virus that renders media reporters unable to describe coal ash without using adjectives such as "toxic" and "toxin". What evidence do you have to justify this description? Coal ash contains heavy metals in concentrations very similar to soils and rocks found all over the US. Does this make soil and rock "toxic" as well? I would expect a source close to the energy industry to be more responsible in its description of coal combustion products.
Also, it is curious that when seeking industry comment on the issue, you went to the National Association of Manufacturers, not organizations that have been in the midst of this issue since the EPA decided to create regulations. Several organizations are far more qualified to comment including the Edison Electric Institute, the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, and the American Coal Ash Association. I see you had no problem finding an environmental NGO, Earthjustice, for comment.
Should you be interested in facts surrounding the beneficial use of coal ash, please visit www.coalashfact.org . We are available to provide additional data upon request.
Thomas H. Adams
Executive Director
American Coal Ash Association
Coal fly ash can be processed for a profit. The salable products are alumina, titania and iron oxide. The other oxides, magnesia, calcium oxide and silica are less profitable. The biggest cost in processing ore is the cost of reducing the particle size (increase the surface area per unit mass) in order to increase the reaction rate of diffusion limited reactions. This cost is not required for using coal fly ash as a process input.
When examining this process in the `90s, it was profitable on the sale of alumina alone. The process which uses hydrofluoric acid can also be used to clean up Superfund sites. The HF only exists in the piping between the acid regenerator and the digester, i.e. about one cubic meter of gas which can be easily quenched.
I ran the Skunk Works project in the Advanced Systems Development Center (ASDC) at Rockwell Space Systems Division. It was a commercialization of a process designed to produce oxygen, metals and oxides on the moon.
Edward D. McCullough
Reviving Climate Legislation - May 17, 2010
Having watched this debate for several years now and recently seeing a documentary from the BBC, I have come to have serious doubts concerning the science behind the concept of man-made global warming.
Before we plunge our world into enormous and crippling rises in the cost of energy, we would do well to listen to the critics of global warming. I do not believe this science is settled at all, the skeptics are not fools and politicians are running this show.
While I make no claims of infallibility, I suspect from your writings you may not agree with this position but I would respectfully ask your reconsideration and encourage you and others in the energy communications business to seek out the BBC documentary and give it your careful review.
Bill Asbury
Product Engineer P.E.
Pressure Products Division
Peerless Mfg Co.
I am very disappointed in your fact checking relating to this article. Senator Graham did not "team up" on the bill, he removed himself from the final version before it was introduced in the Senate.
You also failed to address the growing support for the view that man has very little to do with climate change, and that anthropogenic global warming is nothing but hogwash.
For a while now I've noticed your coverage in most of the Energy Central publications as it relates to global warming has been becoming more biased. This time however, clearly misrepresenting some basic facts in order to create the perception that this bill represents "all angles of the spectrum", I believe is over the top and screams of agenda journalism, not unbiased reporting.
Patrick Good
Sr. Programmer Analyst
Longmont Power & Communications
I appreciate you telling me what you think. I do realize Sen. Graham's position on this, although I think his "distancing" himself had to do with the healthcare vote. I think with the drilling issue, he came back on board. At least that is what my sources told me. -Ken
Respond to the editor.
