By Yuliya Chernova
Bill Clinton, speaking at a Department of Energy conference this week, said that despite new ways of recovering oil and gas in the U.S.–and despite the efforts of climate change naysayers and other opponents–the country should still pursue cleaner energy sources and energy efficiency.
Associated Press Shown here in a Thursday speech, Clinton spoke earlier in the week at a clean-technology conference.
This sector, said the former U.S. president and head of the Clinton Climate Initiative, will bring jobs, reduce climate change and allow the country to stop being affected as much by volatile oil and gas prices.
“Our economic future isn’t threatened by what you are doing, but is dependent on the success of what you are doing,” said Clinton, addressing hundreds of listeners in National Harbor, Md., many of them representatives of start-ups working on advanced-energy technologies and recipients of grants from the Department of Energy’s ARPA-e program, which is tasked with backing high-risk, high-potential energy technologies.
But Clinton said that despite an imperative for continued support for clean energy technologies, several entities are trying to derail the efforts.
While not all Republicans are against clean energy–Senator Lamar Alexander was one of the keynote speakers at the ARPA-e conference–Clinton said that the party has made it “ideologically imperative to delay realities of climate change.”
It’s not true, he said, that reducing carbon emissions has to correlate with slower economic growth, pointing to the examples of Sweden and Denmark.
“I think the government should invest even more money in ARPA-e,” said Clinton, referring to the Energy Department’s grant program that was funded initially through the Recovery Act of 2009. President Obama’s new budget proposal is asking to put $350 million more into the program. It previously received about $445 million.
The Obama administration has received strong push-back from many in the Republican party who do not see continued clean-energy government investments as wise policy, especially after the notorious bankruptcy of solar panel maker Solyndra.
Clinton said that it’s not just those efforts that are making things unnecessarily difficult. He slammed government-sponsored Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, two of the nation’s largest mortgage holders, for refusing to allow homeowners to pay for energy-efficiency retrofits via mortgages. Clinton said that people are ready and interested in making their homes use less energy but “the biggest obstacle is from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
“It’s not true that it undermines the value of the house,” he said, of homes that are retrofitted. “The house is worth more, not less.”
Clinton laid out the most important ways he sees that the country should undertake to pursue the development of clean energy. He cited the Department of Defense as one that will deploy many technologies. “We need more reliance on the military and their capacity to organize and implement” technologies.
The U.S. DoD is on track to spend $10 billion each year on clean energy by 2030, according to the Pew Project on National Security, Energy and Climate.
He said the country should stop emitting as much methane and other rapidly dispersing greenhouse gases that are more of a contributor to climate change than carbon. “I don’t think there should be any open landfills anywhere in the U.S.,” he said. Methane can be captured and turned into fuel, he said.
Before the U.S. asks developing countries to do something about climate change, “We should go after methane, prove there are financeable, affordable models that can work,” he said.
Clinton also touted decoupling, or removing the direct link between a utility’s sales of energy and its profits, which is aimed at giving utilities incentive to invest in clean energy projects. In 20 states, said Clinton, utilities are paid not simply on how much electricity they sell, but rather they receive a certain rate of return based on expenses that can include investments in energy-efficiency and distributed-energy programs.
Even as he called for more investments in non-fossil-fuel energy, Clinton said that the audience should “remove ambivalence on natural gas. We will take it out of the ground.” There are many benefits to that, he said, like jobs created in his state of Arkansas, and the U.S. recently becoming a net exporter of fuel for the first time in a long while.
In an earlier speech at the same conference, Frederick W. Smith, chairman, president and chief executive of one of America’s largest corporations, FedEx, drove home some of the same themes as as Clinton.
“The U.S. cannot operate as a growing industrial society without access to low-cost energy,” he said. “Our dependence on imported oil constitutes our country’s largest security risk and largest economic risk.”
FedEx, a $28.8 billion company by market capitalization, is involved in several initiatives to increase the use of electric cars and natural-gas-driven vehicles.
Reach Yuliya Chernova via email at yuliya.chernova@dowjones.com and follow her on Twitter at @ychernova.
Monday, 5 March 2012
New device heralds potential to turn sewage plants into power stations
Breakthrough that combines fuel cell with other technologies could provide power for entire water grids, scientists say
Damian Carrington
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 1 March 2012 19.00 GMT
Sewage can be used to generate electricity using a new device revealed by scientists on Thursday. It combines a fuel cell with other technologies to convert waste water treatment stations into power plants, which the researchers believe could provide the power for entire water grids.
"We certainly could take care of the whole water system: the treating and pumping of water, which currently requires substantial amounts of power," said Prof Bruce Logan at Pennsylvania State University in the US. "We also treated the organic matter much faster."
His team's work is published in the journal Science and is "the proof of concept", Logan said. "Our hope now is to optimise the electricity generation as much as possible."
Switching sewage plants from users to generators of electricity would be especially useful in developing countries, said Logan, an environmental engineer specialising in water systems. "There are 2 billion people in the world who need sanitation, including 1 billion who need access to clean water," he said. "If you go into a country and give them a waste treatment system - the World Bank and others have done this - they do not keep it going, as it needs power and maintenance. It is a drain on the community. But if you can also provide electricity for lighting, or charging mobile phones, that's a game-changer."
The new device combines two types of energy-producing technology: a microbial fuel cell, in which bacteria consume organic matter to produce a current, and a reverse electrodialysis system, in which positive and negative ions are separated by a series of membranes, also creating a current. Microbial fuel cells are relatively inefficient while reverse electrodialysis requires many specialised membranes, making it expensive.
"By combining the two technologies, we overcame the limitations of the fuel cell and synergistically generated energy for the reverse electrodialysis system," said Logan. A crucial factor was using ammonium bicarbonate as the fuel for reverse electrodialysis, which performs better than the seawater typically used. Lastly, said Logan, the combination of technologies meant it was possible to use just five membrane pairs rather than the 20 pairs typically needed to generate electricity.
The device produced 0.9 kilowatt-hours of electricity per kilogram of organic waste. In contrast, sewage treatment usually consumes 1.2kWh per kilogram.
"There were a lot of people looking at fuel cells and a completely different group looking at reverse electrodialysis," said Logan. "We brought the technologies together."
The scientists said broths of other organic material, such as crop waste or other sources of cellulose, could be used to generate power in their device. They also said it could be used to produce electricity from the 7-17% of energy used in the US that is lost as waste heat.
In 2011, British water company Thames Water said it would produce 16% of its electricity by burning sewage flakes. Another company, Wessex Water, has launched a trial running a car on methane gas derived from the sewage treatment process at its Bristol works.
Damian Carrington
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 1 March 2012 19.00 GMT
Sewage can be used to generate electricity using a new device revealed by scientists on Thursday. It combines a fuel cell with other technologies to convert waste water treatment stations into power plants, which the researchers believe could provide the power for entire water grids.
"We certainly could take care of the whole water system: the treating and pumping of water, which currently requires substantial amounts of power," said Prof Bruce Logan at Pennsylvania State University in the US. "We also treated the organic matter much faster."
His team's work is published in the journal Science and is "the proof of concept", Logan said. "Our hope now is to optimise the electricity generation as much as possible."
Switching sewage plants from users to generators of electricity would be especially useful in developing countries, said Logan, an environmental engineer specialising in water systems. "There are 2 billion people in the world who need sanitation, including 1 billion who need access to clean water," he said. "If you go into a country and give them a waste treatment system - the World Bank and others have done this - they do not keep it going, as it needs power and maintenance. It is a drain on the community. But if you can also provide electricity for lighting, or charging mobile phones, that's a game-changer."
The new device combines two types of energy-producing technology: a microbial fuel cell, in which bacteria consume organic matter to produce a current, and a reverse electrodialysis system, in which positive and negative ions are separated by a series of membranes, also creating a current. Microbial fuel cells are relatively inefficient while reverse electrodialysis requires many specialised membranes, making it expensive.
"By combining the two technologies, we overcame the limitations of the fuel cell and synergistically generated energy for the reverse electrodialysis system," said Logan. A crucial factor was using ammonium bicarbonate as the fuel for reverse electrodialysis, which performs better than the seawater typically used. Lastly, said Logan, the combination of technologies meant it was possible to use just five membrane pairs rather than the 20 pairs typically needed to generate electricity.
The device produced 0.9 kilowatt-hours of electricity per kilogram of organic waste. In contrast, sewage treatment usually consumes 1.2kWh per kilogram.
"There were a lot of people looking at fuel cells and a completely different group looking at reverse electrodialysis," said Logan. "We brought the technologies together."
The scientists said broths of other organic material, such as crop waste or other sources of cellulose, could be used to generate power in their device. They also said it could be used to produce electricity from the 7-17% of energy used in the US that is lost as waste heat.
In 2011, British water company Thames Water said it would produce 16% of its electricity by burning sewage flakes. Another company, Wessex Water, has launched a trial running a car on methane gas derived from the sewage treatment process at its Bristol works.
Support for wind energy remains strong
Any suggestion that investment in UK wind energy is 'grinding to a halt' does not chime with reality
Maria McCaffery
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 1 March 2012 19.32 GMT
In a series of articles this week, you reported on some of the challenges faced by the wind energy industry (The wind war, 27 February-March 1). This did an excellent job of highlighting what the UK stands to lose – in terms of investment, jobs and energy security – if we don't overcome these challenges and grasp the reins of this new industrial revolution. However, in places it also injected some uncertainty over the future of this crucial industry which does not chime with reality.
In particular, your front page subheading on 27 February wrongly stated: "Investment in wind energy grinds to a halt as companies doubt political will." This year the UK has already benefited from hundreds of millions of pounds of investment pledged by multinational companies planning to create jobs across the country. Since January, Samsung has announced a £100m project in Scotland to develop its new offshore turbine at Fife Energy Park, which will employ up to 500 people. The wind turbine manufacturer Vestas has submitted a planning application to build a factory at Sheerness, Kent, which could create 2,000 jobs. Siemens wants to build a wind turbine factory in Hull, creating 700 jobs directly, and many more in the supply chain, when it opens. Samsung has also agreed a multimillion-pound deal to design and manufacture gearboxes for the new turbine. No "grinding to a halt" there.
You also stated that there are "concerns over the government's commitment to wind energy". The opposite is true. Although the industry is not complacent about recent backbench opposition, last month a No 10 spokesman said: "We need a low carbon infrastructure and onshore wind is a cost effective and valuable part of the diverse energy mix." And this was backed up by deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg.
In another article, you stated that "Turbines bring millions for rich landowners" and reported how the Prince of Wales would benefit from leases for offshore wind farms. Well, there are community-owned windfarms such as the Fintry Renewable Energy Enterprise near Stirling, where villagers earn tens of thousands of pounds for community projects.
Local people who host wind farms also reap financial benefits. The wind industry stipulates that communities must receive at least £1,000 per megawatt per year of wind energy installed. These benefit funds are handed over to local people so that they can decide how to spend that money. This is how residents in Burton Latimer, Northamptonshire, were able to afford solar panels for a sheltered housing scheme, children's books for the local library, and energy-efficient glazing for a health centre. That's why, as you reported with a new opinion poll, "a large majority of the public (60%) remains firmly in favour of wind energy".
Maria McCaffery
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 1 March 2012 19.32 GMT
In a series of articles this week, you reported on some of the challenges faced by the wind energy industry (The wind war, 27 February-March 1). This did an excellent job of highlighting what the UK stands to lose – in terms of investment, jobs and energy security – if we don't overcome these challenges and grasp the reins of this new industrial revolution. However, in places it also injected some uncertainty over the future of this crucial industry which does not chime with reality.
In particular, your front page subheading on 27 February wrongly stated: "Investment in wind energy grinds to a halt as companies doubt political will." This year the UK has already benefited from hundreds of millions of pounds of investment pledged by multinational companies planning to create jobs across the country. Since January, Samsung has announced a £100m project in Scotland to develop its new offshore turbine at Fife Energy Park, which will employ up to 500 people. The wind turbine manufacturer Vestas has submitted a planning application to build a factory at Sheerness, Kent, which could create 2,000 jobs. Siemens wants to build a wind turbine factory in Hull, creating 700 jobs directly, and many more in the supply chain, when it opens. Samsung has also agreed a multimillion-pound deal to design and manufacture gearboxes for the new turbine. No "grinding to a halt" there.
You also stated that there are "concerns over the government's commitment to wind energy". The opposite is true. Although the industry is not complacent about recent backbench opposition, last month a No 10 spokesman said: "We need a low carbon infrastructure and onshore wind is a cost effective and valuable part of the diverse energy mix." And this was backed up by deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg.
In another article, you stated that "Turbines bring millions for rich landowners" and reported how the Prince of Wales would benefit from leases for offshore wind farms. Well, there are community-owned windfarms such as the Fintry Renewable Energy Enterprise near Stirling, where villagers earn tens of thousands of pounds for community projects.
Local people who host wind farms also reap financial benefits. The wind industry stipulates that communities must receive at least £1,000 per megawatt per year of wind energy installed. These benefit funds are handed over to local people so that they can decide how to spend that money. This is how residents in Burton Latimer, Northamptonshire, were able to afford solar panels for a sheltered housing scheme, children's books for the local library, and energy-efficient glazing for a health centre. That's why, as you reported with a new opinion poll, "a large majority of the public (60%) remains firmly in favour of wind energy".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
