I don’t want this to sound like i’m starting a war against wind power, but i wanted to point out that i think there are potentially environmental issues with harnessing the wind, vs that of harnessing the sun. Don’t get me wrong, wind is number 2 after solar as my preferred source of electricity. I choose nuclear, the glass coated “pebble bed”, “safe reactor” 3rd for reducing CO2. 

If you cringe when you read “nuclear”, let me tell you what has started to make me cringe in the world of renewable energy.  It’s harnessing the winds and oceans currents, because of the potential damage that it may cause.  All my feelings on the topic changed when i heard about how the energy of the ocean gulf streams, the global conveyor, could be harnessed to provide clean power.  A number was mentioned, that by capturing just 1/4 of the energy, these streams could provide all the electrical power needed for the planet.  Great, but what happens to europe, to the people in the North Atlantic, etc. if the climate is damaged by “harvesting” clean energy?

I’m sure that their are similar issues with harness wind, to excess. If we believe that man’s CO2 output can destroy the earth’s environment, then we should also be wary of harvesting nature’s “bounty” to solve the problem. It was nature’s bounty, petroleum, coal, etc. that got us here.  Sure wind power is way better than hydrocarbon derived power, but i think that at this point, solar appears to have the fewest issues.  This of course assumes the solar manufacturing process is environmentally neutral, which i suspect is not the case. I guess I’ll be trying to research the manufacturing story to get some facts. keep checking in.

With all due respect to a lot of folks who see hydrogen as the future fuel for cars, trucks and home fuel cell solutions, I don’t see the value.  Today, we are using hybrids and batteries to decrease CO2 output from cars, trucks and even trains. I believe that rechargeable batteries will provide sufficient energy for most local transportation, before a hydrogen infrastructure necessary for the mass of vehicles can be deployed.

Does that mean hydrogen is waste and leading us down a dead end, like Ethanol is? No, it’s not that bad.  When discussing hydrogen, it’s important to keep several things in the mind: 1) the Hindenburg, the stuff is highly explosive 2) it’s the lightest thing on earth, it’s much harder to contain and transport, than methane (natural gas) which is about 6 times heavier. 3) creating hydrogen from anything besides water, will still release CO2 into the atmosphere.  So any benefit of hydrogen, for example, it’s pollution free combustion (when you burn hydrogen you get water) and it’s availability as part of every atom of water. 

So?  What next?

The 3 top problems with solar energy replace all human engery needs are 1) econmic cost of the infrastructure. 2) The cost (the loss of power) of transporting electricity far from it’s generating source. 3) Limited sunlight, at most, the sun is available about 1/2 of the time, depending on geographic location, season and weather.  These 3 issues are major stumbling blocks to solar becoming a widespread solution to human power needs.

Hydrogen solves 2 of the 3 inherent problems facing solar adoption. First, by using solar electrcity to create hydrogen gas to send to “traditional” power plants via pipelines solves the issue of energy loss during transmission.  Granted we’ve already talked about the cost of transporting hydrogen, but by limiting it’s use to thousands of power plants, rather than 10’s of millions of autos it’s a smaller, more rational approach.  The second problem, that of where we get eletricity when the sun is not available can also be solved by creating hydrogen from solar electricity.  Granted we would need at least twice the capacity of solar collection, to generate enough fuel for use by gas fired powered plants at night, but the ability (in theory) to eliminate CO2 from the generation energy production is the most any global warming opponent could/should hope for.

When is green energy not green energy?  To me the answer starts with the source of energy not giving office any toxins into the environment.  The answer ends with sources of energy that give off no CO2 or significantly reduce CO2 emissions from current levels.  So it seems pretty strange that suddenly ethanol and biodiesel are being paraded thru the media and called “green energy”, it is not.

Diesel fuel with less pollution is greener than the fuel with high sulfur another other components that end up in the atmosphere.  Green energy isn’t ethanol and it’s not bio-diesel from animal fats.  These are usually “greener” but serve to reduce US independence on oil, foreign oil especially, which is good, but not inherently green.

Green energy is emissions free.

Green energy is solar, wind, thermal and nuclear (with a solution for waste), sources of energy that power our society without delivering pollution or CO2 (which it turns out is a form of pollution).

On May 24th, GE, the former General Electric Corp and originally Thomas Edison’s company, went all out with their Ecomagination roll out. This huge marketing excercise had serveral purposes, formost among them to show/claim/build GE’s green credentials, their new “Green Products” and their recognition that Green is no longer a niche, but a cultural wave that is exploding across the world right now.

Now those who know about GE’s battles with the EPA and NY state over pollution remediation in the Hudson river, GE’s leadership position in CO2 producing generators, locomotives and jet engines, you might question their green credentials.  Well, i questoin their past, but welcome their moves to improve their processes and create green products.  I’ll discuss a few of the items below.

Of all the “Green” products, the least impressive was the hybrid powered locomotive. It’s a fossil fuel burning locomotive that uses hybrid technologies to generate power from diesel fuel and recover energy from braking.  While this will reduce fuel use, it seems like a minor upgrade to what i remember calling “diesel electric” trains.  In fact GE predicts it will reduce emmissions by about 10%. GE also introduced products to reduce NO and particultates, which is good, but not quite “green energy”

What GE makes that is green is wind generators, solar panels and reverse osmosis water desalination equipment and filters. These products generate energy with NO carbon emissions.  Their water desalination plants use 25% less energy (according to GE) than those typically deployed around the world. 

GE is the largest manufacturer of wind generators that have been deployed in the US.  Three turbine models, a 1.5 MW, 2.5 MW and 3.6 MW are offered by GE, with over 5000 1.5 MW units deployed world wide.  While GE manufacturers solar roof panels, there isn’t much new with that product.  These products can be the salvation of the planet, a way to truly combat global warming. This is a way of eliminating CO2 from the process of generating electricity.

GE did announce announce their reason for this “new” focus. Don’t assume that it’s just for PR.  GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt  explained that GE had enter these business and is out promoting these green products as a way to make money.  Profit is GE’s motive and Immelt is convince that “Green” isn’t a niche anymore, but a society wide realization of the need for fighting global warming, pollution and waste. This new “Green Mainstream” is forcing change quite rapidly since 2000.