The Energy Blog

Making oil out of a Sow's rear - converting pig manure to oil.

---

>

---

I just read an enlightening article about a new source of potential energy,  It seems that scientists at the University of Illinois have developed a process for converting raw pig manure into crude oil.  They go on to say that with further development, the process may even yield biodiesel. Now the actual research was published in 2006. It apparently has taken this long for someone to put this newfound technology to use – making roads.

Now, in case you don’t know, let me bring you up to speed on the US pig industry

According to the US Department of Agriculture in 2007 there were 67.8 Million pigs in the United States. On average, those pigs take up space at the rate of about 8.7 per acre. And those pigs produce about 8 pounds of waste a day. That is a lot of pig poop - two and a half tons a year!

This procedure promises to make a half a barrel of oil substitute (21 gallons) per year out of that 8 pounds of daily pig manure using a thermochemical conversion (TCC) process. How much water or energy is involved in the process (and there is some of both) is unclear.

Now, one of the original sub-licensees of the process, Innoventor Inc., a design and engineering company, is going to use the process to make asphalt pavement for a road leading to Six Flags St. Louis.

This is great news. Any waste that can be successfully re-purposed is not only good for recycling, but good for conserving energy. Not a whole bunch, but, hey, it all counts.

According to the researchers, each pig can produce one half a barrel of oil substitute (21 gallons) per year. With 67 Million pigs contributing, that would be 33 Million barrels per year. –  About three days worth of US Oil imports. OK, it won’t wean us from oil. That would, however, keep us in asphalt for about 100 days. And it would eliminate a big problem for pig farmers, as well as put a few more dollars in their pockets.

And it could be a win-win for the country. We all love Bacon, hate pig poop, and need oil.

Here is the article that spawned this one.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/story/8BD4ECDDEBD84EC686257706000C0410?OpenDocument

Here is a recent article from Water & Wastewater about the process.
http://www.waterandwastewater.com/www_services/news_center/publish/article_002060.shtml

Here is an article from National Geographic about the process.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0701_040702_pigoil.html

And, here is the original research report news item.

http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/news/stories/news3557.html

And finally, here is a place you can read the original research paper OnLine!

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/20627967/THERMOCHEMICAL-CONVERSION-OF-SWINE-MANURE-AN-ALTERNATIVE-PROCESS-FOR

Well, that'll be a "wrap" with bacon and ham.

Vertical Axis Wind Turbines - A case study (Windspire)

---

---

VAWT – The good, the bad, and the Windspire Small Wind Turbine.

I came across this unit recently, and it caught my interest. It would appear that it solves a lot of problems related to small-scale wind power. It is aesthetically “pleasing”, easy to install, self contained, and claims to produce a significant amount of power. Unfortunately, like many of its peers, it does not live up to the promise. I still like the Windspire. I hope they resolve some of the problems. It is a neat concept, and a company that appears to want to make it a success. They have numerous installations already, and I wish them the best of luck. However, I am going to take the opportunity to point out some of the challenges that the Windpsire, and most other VAWT designs, encounter. This is not an indictment of the technology, nor of this particular example. It is, just that, an example to be used for education. I believe strongly in large scale wind power. I do not think small scale is ready for prime time. However, by addressing some of the below issues, it can possibly move closer to reality.

The Windspire  HAWT from Mariah Power.
 


Unfortunately, the Windspire website is devoid of much actual technical information – at least that I can find. Neither can I find much information from their installed base. However, I did find that the NREL (National Renewable Energy Lab) tested the Windspire, and produced some useable data. I want to point out, this data is preliminary, done with an early example. If you look at the report, Windspire answered the NREL findings, and described the ways they are addressing some of the findings. Where that process is right now, I do not know.


So, first, the Windspire description. A VAWT (Vertical Axis Wind Turbine) with a maximum output of 1.2 kilowatts. It is capable of direct connection to the grid, and making use of net metering. The reported minimum wind speed is 8 Mph (Defined as a class 3 area). Best I can tell, the purchase and installation is in the range of $6,000 to $10,000.  This price range puts it on a par with the cost of installed Small scale (residential) Solar PV (PhotoVoltaics), albeit before any of the tax credits or incentives Solar is eligible for. I do not know how those credits would apply to Wind.

Here are the NREL testing results: Be sure to read the response letter from Mariah Power in the first link. It is apparent they took the results seriously, and they were proactive in addressing them.

Overview: http://www.nrel.gov/wind/smallwind/pdfs/mariah_report.pdf
Performance: http://www.nrel.gov/wind/smallwind/pdfs/mariah_power_performance_test_report.pdf
Main Testing page: http://www.nrel.gov/wind/smallwind/independent_testing.html


Wind Speed.

Alas, a problem that seems endemic to all small wind turbines, be they Vertical or Horizontal Axis,  is the need for speed – wind speed. Do not believe output claims. The typical wind turbine, in the typical wind, will put out but a fraction of the amount of electricity it claims to. While the NREL results with this particular model are telling, the story they tell can be applied to most, if not all.

Below is the output data  for the Windspire from their web site. Note that it does not produce any usable power at less than 8 mph – it’s stated cut-in speed. At 12 mph it is still producing less than 100 watts (1/12 rated power). It reaches half it’s rated power output, 600 watts in a twenty MPH wind, and does not reach full specified output (1200 watts) until the wind is “howling” at 24 Mph.

http://www.mariahpower.com/testing.aspx

Now, as I said, this seems to be true of most wind turbines, and especially of the VAWT designs I have seen. They need a lot of wind to produce usable amounts of electricity. By perusing average wind speed charts, it can be seen that this high cut-in speed limits the viable areas to a fraction of the US, mostly in the western plains and coastal areas.  Operating at half it’s output rating (20 MPH average winds) it would need to be in a class 5 area on the below chart. As well, the wind is intermittent. This is the average wind speed. Another thing we have to take into consideration is the capacity factor – what percentage of capacity is actually produced. All power sources have a capacity factor. Below I have provided a link to an explanation as related to wind. For a wind turbine of either design, the capacity factor is about 30%. The machine will produce about 30% of what is the calculated maximum. For the above situation, 20mph average, the annual output would be 5,256KWh per year times 30%, or 1,576 kWh per year . About 13% of the average annual US household electricity usage. (Per EIA Data). That is not bad, if you live where the wind blows! At the average electric cost of 11 cents per kWh, that would save you $174.00 per year. That makes the break-even point (at $6000 installed cost) at about 32 years. Oops, didn’t mean to be negative!



Here is a chart of the average annual windspeeds throughout the US.

http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/wind_maps/us_windmap.pdf

If you ever wondered, and you have a flagpole nearby, you can somewhat estimate the strength of the wind. Note that on the Beaufort scale used in the below link, you would need a level 3 wind (Flag flying almost straight out) before any of these small turbines would even start to produce usable power. And, at even half power, the  poor flag would be “stiff as a board”. What is YOUR flag doing?

http://www.redwitch.com/extras/flag_wind_speed.aspx


And, here is that explanation of capacity factor I promised.

http://www.ceere.org/rerl/about_wind/RERL_Fact_Sheet_2a_Capacity_Factor.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor


This link will take you to the specifications of a popular HAWT – The Skystream. It is twice the “size” of the Windspire. Most residential wind turbines are similar.

http://www.talcoelectronics.com/wind-manuals/skystream-specs.pdf

Here is a classroom project that contains power curves for several popular small wind turbines

http://www.kidwind.org/PDFs/LESSON_windpowercurves.pdf


Finally, here is a very interesting, albeit older, article about small wind turbine outputs. The author undertook to test a number of turbines with some revealing, if not unexpected, results.

http://www.wind-works.org/articles/PowerCurves.html




I also want to address Fatigue

A VAWT endures a lot of stress. The bad kind of stress. Repeating and reversing stress. Much more than a HAWT.  Many of the problems the Windspire encountered at NREL were due to poor stress management – in the turbine design, not necessarily in the creators.

 In a horizontal (propeller) turbine, the force of the wind is always from one direction, and pushes the blades in one direction. This stress is transferred via a thrust bearing directly into the tower structure. Propeller blades are a mature technology, and it is well understood how to make them withstand this type of stress. The direct, compressive nature of the force transfer to the support structure is also well understood, and  easy to implement. HAWT’s themselves do not often suffer failures from imposed wind loading.

In a VAWT, on the other hand, in every revolution of the blade structure the wind load reverses. First the blade is pushed one way, then the other. This creates fatigue. If you have ever bent a coat hanger back and forth until it snaps in half, you understand the process. This is not an easy thing to overcome. Some have tried – unsuccessfully – to address this with complex mechanical linkages. Complex and mechanical are not two words you want associated with something that is supposed to have a long lifetime. I want to touch briefly on the effects of these stresses, and the failure modes. While this is based on the NREL experience with the windspire, the principles apply to all.

As any structural engineer knows, you do not try to resist these forces, you absorb them by moving in a carefully defined way, and by spreading those forces out over as much of an area as you can. Trying to create a structure that will physically, with brute strength, resist these loads results in an incredibly massive structure. The bridge or building will collapse under it’s own weight, and the airplane would never get off the ground, let alone carry anything else. A wind turbine would be too heavy to move, and too massive to support (and cost even more of a fortune). It is much more practical, and in most cases necessary,  to go with the flow, than to fight against it.

If you take that same coat hanger we mentioned above, put your hands at the very, outer, ends of the hanger, and try to break it, you will find the task much more difficult, if not impossible. The stress you are putting on the hanger is no longer concentrated, it is spread out over a large area – the span of the wire.

It would appear the designers of the Windspire forgot this principle. To their credit putting it in practice is a tough job. Their test article at the NREL met with a number of fatigue failures. Interestingly enough, the primary place that these failures were concentrated in was the welded joints.

Now, about, welding. The joints on a VAWT have to be strong, and light. A welded joint does not lend itself well to this. If you look at bridges, large buildings, and Airplanes, you will find they are bolted (or riveted) together. Indeed, all of those structures are designed by people who know a lot about stress and repetitive reversing fatigue– especially airplanes. They learned long ago that you bolt the joints together. Rather than concentrating the stress in one, weak, spot, a bolted joint distributes that stress equally over the entire area. In effect, a bolted joint “gives” a little.

In their answer to the NREL test, it would appear the Windspire folks have learned that lesson, finally. The replaced a number of the failed welded joints with bolted ones. Hopefully this will eradicate some of the problems. I hope they also learned you need more than one engineering discipline to design something like this… Airfoils, electrical, mechanical, AND structural.

The other major source of stress in a VAWT is literally at the bottom. All of the bending loads that are imposed on the rotor are transferred to the bearing at the bottom. A critical, single, point that needs to not only resist all of these forces, but needs to turn freely at the same time. This is one of the major obstacles to engineering a VAWT, and one that especially challenges homebuilders.

Here is an interesting “PowerPoint” presentation on Wind Turbine design from Cornell.

http://cfd.mae.cornell.edu/~caughey/WindPower_09/Presentations/Lyons.pdf


Electronics

Finally, I truly do not understand why the Windspire suffered so many electrical problems, mainly with the inverter. Inverters are a mature technology. Many millions are happily and quietly puttering along converting DC Power to AC.  My guess would be that either they need another electrical engineer on the team, or that they tried to cut corners by making the inverter components just sufficient to do the job – in theory. This is not good engineering or good marketing, practice, especially in something so critical to the success. The cost of properly over-sizing the electrical components is very small compared to the cost of the unit, but the failure of these components exacts a high cost in their reputation. Hopefully a re-design will put these issues to rest.


Well, from the length of this post, It would appear I have overstayed my welcome. These are but a few of the challenges facing wind turbines. I will address others (and perhaps the same ones) from time to time. Eventually we will get there. Perseverance, patience and a commitment to putting one foot in front of the other. For now, I will maintain my belief that our best path leads to Large-Scale Wind power, and small scale Solar. But, who knows. I wish Mariah Power the best of luck, I will be watching.

The Energy Race - WIll we lead, or follow?

---

---

 

As the below article shows, other countries, such as China, are pulling out all stops to be the suppliers of alternative energy systems and equipment - in this case Wind Turbines. As we start reducing our dependency on foreign oil, will we just re-direct those dollars overseas to supply our new energy structure?

We are in a race, an Energy Race. In the sixties we were in a race to the moon. We won that race, barely, but it took perseverance, determination, and commitment to get there. We, as a country, need to regain our dominance in industry, manufacturing and technology. One of the best ways we have to do that right now is The Energy Race. But we cannot sit by and let other countries get so far ahead of us that we will never catch up, let alone succeed.

 We need to get off our stools, stand up and make a serious commitment to our energy future. The time for rhetoric and hand clasping is over, the need for action is being made more clear every day we waste.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35163844/ns/business-the_new_york_times/

Ten steps to a better energy future.

---

---

Last year this country used 4,110,259,000 Megawatt-hours of electricity.  23.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and  7,117.5 Million Barrels of oil. All of this went to supply our never ending thirst for energy. We are an energy happy society. Seventy percent of that electricity was generated by fossil fuels – Coal and Natural Gas. Seventy Eight percent of the Oil we used went to move us, and our stuff, around – transportation. In fact, over 85 percent of ALL our energy came from non-renewable, finite, fossil fuels. Only 7% came from renewable or replaceable sources. The rest came from nuclear generated electrical power.

It is simple common sense that we cannot go on like this, even without the average annual 3.4% growth in energy consumption. Fossil fuels were created millions of years ago, after mass extinctions of animals and plants. Over those years, sediment built up over the dead matter, which rotted, and then, under mounting pressure from the built up layers of sediment, became the Oil & Gas we use today. So far, in just the last 100 years we have consumed well over half of the known or suspected Oil on this planet. We have consumed well over 1/3 of the known Natural Gas and Coal.  Much of what is left of all of these resources has to be recovered by ever more complex, challenging, expensive, and time-consuming methods than were used previously. At this rate we will be completely out of obtainable fossil fuels well within the next 100 years. And, to get any more, the earth will have to go through a mass extinction of life, and still wait a million or so years for it to “cook”.

Of course, eventually, we hope science will find a way to generate unlimited amounts of power. Eventually, someone will develop warp drive, and the associated matter-antimatter power plant. Shortly after that, we will meet Vulcans for the first time. Yet, in the lore of science fiction, even that  happens well past when we run out of our current fossil fuels. So, until that day, we need to make the best of what we have, and find other ways to power our society. The clock is ticking. Time is running out.

To be sure, I like my technology. And technology takes energy. I am not one who advocates we should do without. I believe that with reasonable conservation, new sources of energy, and a firm, unwavering commitment to putting those sources in place, we can continue to enjoy today’s technology, and whatever tomorrow will bring. Along the way, we will be saving those finite fossil resources to be used in ways that cannot be replaced – such as that ’66 GTO for Sunday drives.

So, Presented here is my roadmap to energy wealth. With 10 points, this is the path I believe we have to set upon to feed our need for energy, allow us to enjoy our technology, show respect for our planet and it’s environment, and provide for our future needs. In the vernacular,  to have our cake, and eat it too.


1 - We need to encourage green building practices and conservation where appropriate and effective.

We are not going to stop driving our cars. We are not going to stop running our Air Conditioners, furnaces, microwaves and lawn & garden equipment. Where we CAN make a difference is in places like making our homes more passively efficient. Installing insulation, plugging air leaks, putting in weather stripping. Building green. We can take advantage, where appropriate and economically sound, of newer appliances and lighting methods. Government can require increasing, but readily achievable, efficiency standards for our gadgets, toys, and tools. We can try to turn our lights off when not in use, without running around in the dark.

2 - We need to start integrating Plug-In Hybrids and Electric vehicles into our transportation system.

Electricity is the most efficient, widely available, and most useable means we have to transport energy. It is also highly amenable to powering our vehicles. With the sole exception of batteries, electric vehicles are mature technology, easily manufactured, and work, drive, and perform virtually the same as current vehicles.

Electricity, from an engineering standpoint, is actually a simpler, more desirable and more flexible drive system than current internal combustion drivetrains. Except for those darn batteries. But, as a couple of manufacturers are already proving, the battery technology is already there to support a large part of our short trip, and commuting driving. The only difference to the owner is plugging it in at night – verses stopping at the gas station.

While we currently generate most of our electricity with fossil fuels, large electrical generating plants are far more efficient at using resources than a conventional internal combustion vehicle. While those plants produce pollutants and greenhouse gasses, it is much easier to control those at a relatively small amount of places, as opposed to a couple hundred million point sources. Electricity can be distributed with relatively little loss, and electric vehicles themselves are quite efficient at making use of the electricity. With all things considered, electric vehicles are still several times more efficient at using our fossil fuels than gasoline powered ones. Electric vehicles also remove the source of emissions away from crowded inner cities, contributing to a cleaner local environment in our cities.

But, more important, most alternative energy sources – wind, solar, hydro, wave & tidal, Biogas fuel cells, produce electricity as their end product. That makes them a natural for integrating into our larger electric grid. As all these distributed sources feed their, maybe small, portion of power to the grid, electric vehicles can use the amalgamated sum of their energy.  Eventually these alternative sources will start displacing our fossil power plants, moving us closer to the goal of total renewable energy, and less fossil fuels. Every time we convert energy to another form, we lose some of it, It is much more efficient to use the energy in the form it is created – electricity.

Of course, many people do not have one car for commuting, and another one for longer trips. Most vehicles have to support many uses, For that reason, Plug-In hybrids are a sound alternative.  With a plug-in, short trip driving is accomplished with electricity from our grid. When there is a need to drive further, old, reliable gasoline is still  there to provide the range. A win for practicality, energy, and the environment.

3 –  We need to encourage the conversion of fleet vehicles and long haul trucks to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG).

There are some places where electric vehicles or plug ins do not make sense right now, either for technical, or economic, reasons. Fleet vehicles – Busses, city trucks, taxi cabs, the list is long. These vehicles have to make many short stops, often with longer distances mixed in. These are conditions that will deplete a battery rapidly. However, these vehicles are normally fueled at centralized locations, where infrastructure can be put in place readily. These vehicles should be encouraged to use CNG – Compressed Natural Gas. Simularly, long haul and inter-city trucks make long trips, and need significant levels of power. This is also well outside the capacity of current battery technology. But, the fueling points for these are also contained to a relatively small number of places that could also easily support CNG refueling infrastructure. The technology for CNG fueled vehicles and trucks currently exists and is readily obtainable.

CNG is also a highly suitable bridge fuel for our other vehicles. Currently CNG is much cheaper than gasoline per Gallon Gasoline Equivalent (GGE), and it creates less pollution and greenhouse gasses than gasoline.  There are many CNG vehicles available already, and many more on the way. Fueling with CNG is also getting easier. There are currently as many CNG fueling stations in the US as there are E89 stations, and more are being put in every week. Unfortunately they are most concentrated in certain areas, but that will change as the market expands. You can also purchase a compressor station for your home, and use your own natural gas supply to refuel. There are currently some subsidies and tax credits in place for purchasing both the vehicle, and the fueling station. The conversion is a simple one for a manufacturer, and dual fuel vehicles are becoming common. CNG tanks do take up room in the vehicle, and their range is normally shorter than a comparable gasoline or diesel one. However, these are things that are easy to live with. Finally, a plug-in hybrid using CNG for it’s internal combustion engine would be the best of both worlds.

We must keep in mind though,  CNG is only a bridge to eventual electric when the battery technology is there or replaced by something else. Our current natural gas supply is getting smaller, and new supplies are more expensive to recover. This, along with increased demand, will certainly drive prices much higher. And, remember, it is still a finite, fossil fuel.

4 - We need to strengthen, expand, and upgrade our electric distribution infrastructure.

Of course, to power all these new electric vehicles, and in order to power our existing homes, buildings and industry, we need to get the electricity from all these generation sources to the end user. We also need to be able to combine the outputs of the many smaller distributed generators. That is the job of our electric grid.

Currently our nation's electric grid is frail, outdated, and in many places, overburdened. It also does not have the control capacity currently to accept large amounts of power from wind farms or other power producers, nor can it presently take advantage of a large amount of distributed generation. We need to expand, enlarge, and update the grid. Larger, more efficient conductors, better, more flexible switch and distribution yards, and many more ways to allow power to be fed into the grid from many more, smaller, sources of electricity. Supply and demand of the electric grid has to be managed in real time. The grid cannot store electricity – yet – we must make exactly as much electricity as we use, no more, no less. So, achieving the goal of distributed generation requires better and more flexible control systems.

This is the purpose behind Smart Grid. Putting in place more flexible and robust control mechanisms to allow this management. At the user end, Smart Metering will allow, not only better monitoring, but the ability to control individual distributed generation at our homes and offices (such as Solar PV), and allow for the accounting and  measuring of the energy produced or consumed. Smart metering will enable the economic benefits of distributed generation.

5 - We need to find ways to incentify large scale wind power projects, and make it easier for them to supply power to our national grid.

Wind power scales up nicely. Large wind turbines are very efficient, and can be sited where many of the objections to them - noise and aesthetics are two - are not as relevant. However they are an expensive initial investment, they require much maintenance, and the electric infrastructure has to be in place to deliver the power they produce. There are also many ecological concerns - bird strikes, and even concerns by Air Traffic Control with radar interference. While wind has the potential to be a formidable source of our electrical needs, we need to aggressively identify and resolve the issues facing it's adoption. This is a place where government, in the arenas of regulation, rights, licensing, and subsidies or tax abatements, can have a significant positive impact.


6 - We need to encourage and promote residential solar Photovoltaic power, and distributed generation.

Solar Photvoltaics, unlike wind, scale DOWN very well. A large solar installation is very expensive, uses a lot of land, and is complex. A small installation however, which can supply a significant percentage of a homes electrical needs is simple, reliable, and becoming much more cost effective every day. This kind of distributed generation removes much of the burden from our electrical grid, brings our homes closer to energy self-sufficiency, and is the ultimate in environmentally friendly. Again, government, via subsidies to homeowners, and regulatory oversight, can do much to get this technology in place.


7 - We need to rebuild our Railroads, and encourage more use.

Railroads are the second most energy efficient way we have to move goods - after Ships. They are four times more efficient than trucks for moving large amounts of material long distances. Although I truly do lament the effect it would have on our trucking industry, we need to move more of our long distance shipping to this old, stable, and efficient method.

8 –  Biogas

While Biogas is not sufficient in quantity to power our vehicles, it is already proven as an effective source for small, distributed, electrical generation. It also can serve well in third world countries for cooking, refrigeration, and some space heating. In combination with Large Scale Wind, and small-scale Solar PV, biogas from landfills or agricultural and livestock waste, can make a significant contribution to our overall supply of electricity.

9 – Small-scale electric generation – distributed generation.

From small hydro, to tidal currents, there are many ways to generate electricity from natural phenomena. By promoting, and encouraging these small-scale systems, and not trying to make them the be all – end all of power, they can also make a significant contribution to our overall electricity supply. We need to encourage small scale innovation, and make it easier and economically possible for small companies, with a good idea, to put their creations in place, and connect them to our infrastructure. With appropriate modernization, our electric grid is an enormous resource. It has the potential of allowing the interconnection of a multitude of small scale power producers, all contributing their share to the national need for energy. Not only will this reduce our need for fossil fuel generation, but it can be the incubator for the creation, and proliferation of profitable and innovative small business. Combining residential and small commercial solar photo-voltaics, with the outputs of thousands of producers like “Bob’s tidal power”, we can switch this country from centralized fossil fuels to decentralized, reliable, and environmentally sound distributed power sources.



10 – Industry and manufacturing.

While there is much basic research into alternative energy going on in this country, the sad fact is much of the applied research, design, and especially manufacturing of alternative power systems is happening in other parts of the world. We need to find ways to bring both the technology, and the industry back home. This is again a place where local, state and federal government can rightfully encourage progress. By encouraging technology transfer from basic research to private industry. By providing financial backing to those industries to support and develop innovation. By economic and political incentives to re-purpose idled production assets, factories, and facilities into the production of the physical hardware we need to accomplish our energy goals. By making it easier and less expensive for companies to acquire and retain skilled workers, engineers and managers. By a vigorous, directed, and unrelenting push to rehabilitate our basic educational systems. By a purposeful, and high profile campaign to enhance science, technology, engineering and math education and interest in our schools. By encouraging Americans to once again embrace science and technology.



Finally, incorporating all ten of these steps, I would propose a project, and an investment, by this country and it’s citizens. A project on the scale of, and in the spirit of, Apollo and the moon landing in the sixties. We need to set forth an agenda, a time-line, and a goal. We need not have all the answers, we need not specify how we will accomplish it, but only what it is we will accomplish. We need to make it not only a national priority, but a national agenda, and a national passion. We have spent many billions propping up our financial systems. Whether that was necessary is not the subject of this dialog. However, moving forward, we need to dedicate the same level of resources, financially, politically, and spiritually, to achieving not only energy independence, but responsible, renewable, abundant energy. We CAN do it. We have the technology - now. We have the need – now. We only need the intestinal fortitude from our politicians, our government, our leaders, our industry, and our citizens, to make the commitment, and follow through.

So, there it is. My Ten steps to a better, cleaner, more vibrant and sustainable energy future. I am available for consulting work if the fee is right. Drop me a line!

No, really, I want your thoughts. Please comment!

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 - Text of bill

---

---

<

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was a far reaching, and sweeping revision of many of our energy standards. From revising cafe (corporate average fuel economy) standards, to making many of our existing incandescent light bulbs outlawed by 2012, it has significant impact for all of us. The act creates new efficiency standards for appliances, commercial machinery, and the aforementioned lighting equipment. It sets new (still low) requirements for renewable fuel usage, and it repeals a couple of Oil and Gas subsidies...  It may also order lunch.

It is a document well worth reading if you have any interest in our energy future.

For those who may have an evening without plans (preferably a cold one with you curled up next to a warm fire), here are links to the actual bill, and a summary of the bill.

The actual document is a long and winding road. I would suggest reading the summary first, so you have some idea of what you are reading in the actual bill.

So, here is the summary: http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/RL342941.pdf

and here is the actual bill. At 304 pages, not quite the health bill, but...

 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h6enr.txt.pdf

Finally, you know, I fully understand why we cannot just "edit" or change an existing piece of legislation. It was voted in with the original language. We can only vote new legislation to "amend" what the older ones say. That is why new bills say "replace section 6b with the text 'because we want to' ". However, in this day and age, can't we come up with a better method of modifying them? In order to read ONE piece of legislation, you have to have on hand (and possibly read) all the other ones that are being effected. This is annoying. This is rampant in our state legislature. I also suspect it is why many citizens - and, I'm sure, many legislators, do not read or understand the stuff they are voting on. An alternative would be just ONE topic, subject, paradigm per act... Nah.

TVA Announces Wind Energy Contracts.

---

---

The Tennessee Valley Authority announced on Jan 14 that it had signed contracts to purchase up to 815 megawatts of wind generation. Two of the contracts with Invenergy Wind affiliates are for a total of 350 megawatts from wind farm projects at the White Oak Energy Center in McLean County, Ill., and the Bishop Hill Energy Center in Henry County, Ill., both beginning in January 2012.

A third contract with CPV Renewable Energy Co. will provide up to 165 megawatts of wind energy from the Cimarron project in Gray County, Kan., beginning as early as January 2012.

Finally, A fourth contract, with Iberdrola Renewables Inc., will deliver up to 300 megawatts from the Streator Cayuga Ridge project in Illinois, starting in mid-2010.

You can read the entire press release here: http://www.tva.gov/news/releases/janmar10/contracts_wind.htm

---

A little more about the Tennessee Valley Authority.

The TVA was established in 1933 during Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. It was created by the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933. (http://www.tva.com/abouttva/pdf/TVA_Act.pdf ). It's mission, as described in the act is:

To improve the navigability and to provide for the flood control of the Tennessee River; to provide for reforestation and the proper use of marginal lands in the Tennessee Valley; to provide for the agricultural and industrial development of said valley; to provide for the national defense by the creation of a corporation for the operation of Government properties at and near Muscle Shoals in the State of Alabama, and for other purposes.

You can read more about their history here: http://www.tva.com/abouttva/history.htm

According to the TVA 2009 annual report, the TVA has 27,000 megawatts of baseload generation capacity, and 7,000 megawatts of peaking and backup capacity. Ignoring the peaking plants (all gas turbines), 51% percent of their capacity comes from coal (14,000 megawatts).

The rest (49%) already come from "non-carbon emitting sources". Nuclear accounts for 25% (7,000 megawatts), and hydroelectric for 22% (6,000 megawatts). 2% is from "other" and includes wind, solar, methane, etc.

You can read their 2009 Annual report at: http://investor.shareholder.com/tva/sec.cfm
(Select "10-K annual report Nov 25,2009" The above info is on pages 12-14, but the entire report is good reading, and a good look inside a major power producer.)

While on the subject of the TVA, there is a mis-conception is that TVA is "subsidized". Indeed, many people, when they hear "government company" make the assumption "MY TAX DOLLARS!". But, like the Post Office and others, that is not always true. The TVA act requires that their rates cover all costs of operations. They sell debt securities to finance projects. Note also, they are a wholesaler, who sells power to distributors, who then sell it to customers.

Nowhere in their annual report cited above, are there any government subsidies. The below is from that report:

" Initially, all TVA operations were funded by federal appropriations. Direct appropriations for the TVA power program ended in 1959, and appropriations for TVA’s stewardship, economic development, and multipurpose activities ended in 1999. Since 1999, TVA has funded all of its operations almost entirely from the sale of electricity and power system financings. TVA’s power system financings consist primarily of the sale of debt securities. TVA is owned by the United States and is not authorized to issue equity securities."

They are exempt from Federal Taxation. They do have to pay "tax equivalents" to county and state.