Category: Blog (Page 8 of 10)

Most federal hydroelectric (hydropower) projects are constructed and operated by either the U. S. Corps of Engineers or the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation. Electric power from hydroelectric projects is marketed by the federal government’s power marketing administration (Booneville, Southwestern, Southeastern, Western Area, and Alaska). Most non-federal hydroelectric projects are regulated and licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

At present, hydroelectric plants contribute about 7 percent of total electric power generated in this country. Water flowing through the dams spins turbine blades that are connected to generators. The power produced is sent to homes and businesses. Most hydroelectric power plants have a dam and a reservoir because the process utilizes a large quantity of water. The EIA reports that China is currently the largest producer of hydroelectricity, followed by Canada, Brazil, and the U. S.

Hydroelectric Pros: 1. Hydroelectric is the most widely used form of renewable energy.
2. Hydroelectric is independent of fossil fuels. 3. The operational costs involved in hydroelectric are low.

Hydroelectric Cons:
1. Hydroelectric power generation requires a large reservoir.
2. The location of hydroelectric power can be a challenge because of the area needed to construct a huge reservoir.
3. Droughts can impact hydroelectric generation.

Please let me know what you think, go to www.peopleseenergyplan.com
Facebook: America Needs America’s Energy. — America Needs America’s Energy: Creating Together the People’s Energy Plan!

A recent article that I wrote was entitled, “The FutureGen Project”. In that article I mentioned that I had first heard about The FutureGen Project a few years ago when my company and I were asked to coordinate a meeting with leaders from Oklahoma and Texas at Sarkeys Energy Center, University of Oklahoma, to discuss opportunities of the project for our region. At that time, Texas was putting together a proposal for the FutureGen Project to be located within its boundaries.

The FutureGen Project , a $1 billion-plus government-industry project, was proposed to make the most of coal as a plentiful fuel. Essentially, the goal was to provide a first-of-its kind clean power plant, with a target completion date of 2012. The goal was for this highly energy-efficient, coal-supplied power plant to produce near zero emissions. The question still to be answered: what happens to the toxic wastes composed of ash, sulphur dioxide and mercury?

It is important to note that the FutureGen project was specifically focused on electric power generation not to be confused with coal to liquids such as was first developed by what is known as Fischer Tropsch technology developed in Germany in the 20s and used as a transportation fuel. Also, the Project is not to be confused with coal to gas technology such as the U. S. Synthetic Fuels Corp. efforts for transportation which did not come to fruition.

The FutureGen 2.0 would be a first of its kind near zero emissions power plant. What does that really mean? The program involves upgrading the designated plant with oxy-combustion technology to capture more than 90 percent of the plant’s carbon emissions. The CO2 would be transported and permanently stored underground at the nearby storage site. Bottom-line it is a storage site.

Though I believe and emphasize that we should look at all forms of energy, the articles that I present to you will hopefully assist in determining what you believe that our energy future should be. I want to keep you informed of what the government and Administration are proposing whether I agree with their proposals or not.

From Nixon to Obama, we have been told time and again that an energy policy is in the works and a national energy plan is on the way. It is my belief that as consumers of energy, we must drive the process, evaluating how we can best leverage our natural resources, here at home to ensure long-term energy independence and security. Therefore, the book, www.peoplesenergyplan.com

Although FutureGen appeared to be on hold as of early 2012, US Secretary of Energy Chu remained committed to the FutureGen project as an American energy solution. He stated, “This investment in the world’s first commercial-scale oxy-combustion power plant will help to open up the over $300 billion market for coal unit repowering and position the country as a leader in an important part of the global clean energy economy.” With that said, there are questions to be answered as mentioned above.
Since a quarter of the world’s coal reserves are in the U. S. it has long been considered a major natural resource for America’s energy future. Coal is currently mined in twenty-six states. Most of the coal is mined for the use of generating electricity. The opposition to coal is that it is not a viable option because of the environmental pollution it produces. Therefore, the private-public project: FutureGen.

Coal Pros:
1) The U. S. has over a two-hundred year supply of coal.
2) Coal can be transformed into liquid or gas for transportation.
3) A large amount of electricity can be produced using coal at a low price.
4) Coal is relatively cheap in comparison to other energy alternatives.

Coal Cons:
1) Transforming coal to a liquid is a very expensive process.
2) CO2 sequestration is needed.
3) Coal burning produces a large amount of pollution, acid rain and carbon dioxide.

Please let me know what you think, go to www.peopleseenergyplan.com
Facebook: America Needs America’s Energy, America Needs America’s Energy: Creating Together the People’s Energy Plan!

At the beginning of 2013, The Production Tax Credit for wind energy was extended through the end of the year through the American Taxpayer Relief Act. The credit gives a tax break of 2.2 cents for every kilowatt-hour of energy produced by wind.

It is reported that the continuation of tax credit saves over 35,000 plus jobs and maintains over 500 manufacturers.

The Energy Information Administration reports that worldwide wind power generation exceeded 200 billion kilowatt hours in 2008, which was equivalent to the annual electricity consumption of over 18 million average households in the US. One 1.5 megawatt (MW) wind turbine can produce electricity for about 400 homes annually. Denmark gets 20 percent of its energy from wind. At this time, Germany has more wind turbines than any other country. In 2010, China passed the US in newly installed and total wind power capacity.

In order to launch wind energy in Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Department of Commerce funded the Oklahoma Wind Power Initiative which conducted a study to develop a resource map using information from a network of weather stations in the state. With the use of the network’s high-resolution data, terrain, and geographical data, this study assisted companies—and attracted investors—in properly assessing the value of Oklahoma’s wind resources.

Each form of energy has its pros and cons. Though wind turbines alter the scenic view and can be loud, wind energy is clean, produces no pollution, and can, and is revitalizing rural economies.

Senator Udall of Colorado who has been a strong supporter of the tax credit stated that it “gives manufacturers throughout North America the signal that they need to create jobs, make capital investments in the US, and ensure that wind energy remains a strong part of our national energy strategy.”

Please let me know what you think, go to www.peopleseenergyplan.com Facebook: America Needs America’s Energy. — America Needs America’s Energy: Creating Together the People’s Energy Plan!

America has over the last few years been reaching closer and closer to “energy independence”. With the oil and gas shale play throughout the US, we have seen much success in that endeavor.

This past spring, I had the opportunity to be a producer of a documentary film, The Grand Energy Transition, released in April, 2012. The documentary detailed the importance that natural gas and the shale play is to the future energy needs of America. Many of you have seen the film either in Elk City at our premiere western Oklahoma showing and/or on the PBS affiliate OETA.

Recently, a film The Promised Land starring Matt Damon has been released which demeans the oil and gas industry. About the time we are getting closer to American energy independence, we have this movie countering all the important advance of the oil and gas industry.

It is interesting to note that it has been reported that funding for Damon’s film comes in part from Abu Dhabi, not necessarily interested in our energy well-being.

The threats that have been mentioned in the movie such as hydraulic fracturing “fracking” have been addressed in our documentary and I believe, most convincingly.

America Needs America’s Energy, which provides economic certainty and jobs.

Please let me know what you think, go to www.peopleseenergyplan.com Facebook: America Needs America’s Energy. — America Needs America’s Energy: Creating Together the People’s Energy Plan!

The first US nuclear power plant went into commercial production in 1957 at Shippingport, Pennsylvania. At present, 104 reactors are in operation in this country. According to the World Nuclear Association, in 2009 there were 436 reactors in thirty countries around the globe, with 52 more under construction and another 135 planned. Due to the 2011 Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster in Japan, however, the entire nuclear energy sector is facing uncertainty. Primary issues to be resolved include the status of advanced design nuclear power plants, fairness of the licensing process by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the status of a permanent nuclear waste repository.

Nuclear Fission Pros: 1) Nuclear fission is emission-free, 2) Nuclear fission enables 24-7 operations, and 3) Nuclear fission is a less expensive alternative for the consumer.

Nuclear Fission Cons: 1) Regulatory constraints on nuclear plans are stringent. 2) Nuclear fission produces radioactive waste.

Please let me know what you think, go to www.peopleseenergyplan.com Facebook: America Needs America’s Energy. — America Needs America’s Energy: Creating Together the People’s Energy Plan!

The January 5/6, 2013 Weekend Edition of The Wall Street Journal had an article written by Matt Ridley and entitled, “How Fossil Fuels Have Greened the Planet”.

The article states, “Did you know that the Earth is getting greener, quite literally? Satellites are now confirming that the amount of green vegetation on the planet has been increasing for three decades. This will be new to those accustomed to alarming tales about deforestation, overdevelopment and ecosystem destruction.”

A heated debate over proposed legislation for a “cap and trade” system occurred in 2009. In theory this buyer and seller market would encourage companies to become more efficient in preventing carbon emissions. In reality, cap and trade would slowly put producers and users of coal, natural gas and crude oil out of business.

History is also demonstrating that this system, implemented several years ago in the European Union, doesn’t achieve it stated goal. In 2008 the latest data showed that despite the cap and trade program in effect there, greenhouse-gas emissions had actually risen.

“Striving for Energy Efficiency and Environmental Preservation” has been the main theme of our conference, the International Energy Policy Conference, since its beginning in 1992. Twenty-plus years later, we aspire for the success of the theme.

However, we must continue to explore the facts. As Matt Ridley’s article concludes, “The inescapable if unfashionable conclusion is that the human use of fossil fuels has been causing the greening of the planet in three separate ways: first, by displacing firewood as a fuel; second, by warming the climate; and third, by raising carbon dioxide levels, which raise plant growth rates.”

America Needs America’s Energy. America Needs Energy Efficiency and Environmental Preservation. Overall, the energy industry is working striving for that cause.

Please let me know what you think, go to www.peopleseenergyplan.com Facebook: America Needs America’s Energy. — America Needs America’s Energy: Creating Together the People’s Energy Plan!

An international project is underway to build a nuclear-fusion reactor, (not to be confused with nuclear fission) known as the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), at an estimated cost of $12 billion. This reactor would demonstrate that power can be generated using the energy released when two light atomic nuclei are brought together to make a heavier one—a process similar to the one that powers the sun. Scientists working in this sector claim that within thirty years nuclear fusion will become available for commercial use.

Nuclear Fusion Pros:
1. The products of a fusion reaction are not radioactive, so there is no nuclear waste.
2. There is no threat of meltdowns in a nuclear fusion reactor.
3. The fuels produced by fusion that could be used are relatively inexpensive and readily available.

Nuclear Fusion Cons:
1. The ignition temperature of nuclear fusion is extremely high.
2. Large-scale fusion reactions are very expensive.

Please let me know what you think, go to www.peopleseenergyplan.com Facebook: America Needs America’s Energy, America Needs America’s Ene

I first heard about The FutureGen Project a few years ago when my company and I were asked to coordinate a meeting with leaders from Oklahoma and Texas at Sarkeys Energy Center, University of Oklahoma, to discuss opportunities of the project for our region. At that time, Texas as was putting together a proposal for the FutureGen Project to be located within its boundaries.

FutureGen , a $1 billion-plus government-industry project, was proposed to make the most of coal as a plentiful fuel. Essentially, the goal was to provide a first-of-its kind clean power plant, with a target completion date of 2012. Nearly every facet of the prototype plant was to be based on cutting-edge technology that already existed. The goal was for this highly energy-efficient, coal-supplied power plant to produce near zero emissions. But the FutureGen project was withdrawn under the Bush administration.

Then, according to the US Department of Energy, in August 2010 US Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced the awarding of $1 billion in Recovery Act funding to the FutureGen Alliance, Ameren Energy Resources, Babcock & Wilcox, and Air Liquide Process & Construction, Inc. to build FutureGen 2.0, a clean coal repowering program and carbon dioxide storage network.

The project partners plan to repower Ameren’s two-hundred megawatt Unit 4 in Meredosia, Illinois, with advance oxy-combustion technology to capture approx. 1.3 million metric tons of CO2 each year—more than 90 percent of the plant’s carbon emissions.

Although FutureGen appeared to be on hold as of early 2012, Chu remains committed to the FutureGen project as an American energy solution. He stated, “This investment in the world’s first commercial-scale oxy-combustion power plant will help to open up the over $300 billion market for coal unit repowering and position the country as a leader in an important part of the global clean energy economy.”

Please let me know what you think, go to www.peopleseenergyplan.com Facebook: America Needs America’s Energy, America Needs America’s Energy: Creating Together the People’s Energy Plan!

Liquefied natural gas is natural gas (primarily methane) that has been liquefied by reducing its temperature to -260 degrees Fahrenheit at atmospheric pressure.

Should the US export LNG? US natural gas price is approx. 3.65 per million BTUs as of this writing and in Japan, for example, the natural gas price is approx. $17. This makes exporting natural gas look very attractive.

The chemical industry that uses natural gas believes that it is too early to enter the export market of LNG. Because of their dependency on natural gas under current economic conditions and costs, they believe that is important to develop natural gas for domestic use only and that it not be shipped to other countries.

There are those who believe that it is an important time to become an LNG exporter. The US Department Energy is reviewing many requests to build export facilities for LNG.

The US natural gas shale play has been very successful over the last few years to the point that we have a supply glut. Therefore, LNG could become a bigger component of the energy equation over the next several years. LNG is transported to world markets such as Japan in vessels, and considering our abundance of natural gas it could become a potentially major new sector for the US energy industry.

In 2004 LNG accounted for 7 percent of the world’s energy. Despite the fact that natural gas could be a very significant factor in the years ahead, oil continues to be our dominant energy source, so the transition to a natural gas economy has presented us with a great challenge. It will take courage to make the critical and difficult decisions to transform the way we consume and produce energy.

Please let me know what you think, go to www.peopleseenergyplan.com Facebook: America Needs America’s Energy, America Needs America’s Energy: Creating Together the People’s Energy Plan!

First of all, thanks to many of you who are following the “America Needs America’s Energy” page on Facebook! (We recently passed 4000 “likes”/individuals).

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized more than $2 billion for a hydrogen fuel cell program by 2020, along with loan guarantees for nuclear power plants, clean coal technology, and wind energy. Interesting to note is that hydrogen today is used to power commercial buses, and hydrogen is used in many commercial applications for welding metal, to dying fabrics, to making electronic plastics and fertilizers.

Hydrogen Pros: 1. Hydrogen burns cleanly. 2. Hydrogen can be quickly refueled. 3. Hydrogen is the most abundant element on the planet. 4. Hydrogen is twice as efficient as gasoline.

Hydrogen Cons: 1. A large quantity of energy is required to produce hydrogen for energy. 2. There is no hydrogen infrastructure. 3. Few refueling stations for hydrogen-powered cars exist.

How fast we will move towards the hydrogen economy is yet to be seen. As Dr. Woodrow Clark states about my book, America Needs America’s Energy: “As Mark states, ‘The time has come for all of us, the people, to take control of our energy future here in America.’ He and I have discussed the importance of moving inevitably toward a hydrogen economy. I believe, after reviewing all the energy options presented in his book, it should move us closer to achieving that possibility. The future is now for us and our children. We cannot wait any longer”. America Needs America’s Energy! Go to www.peopleseenergyplan.com Facebook: America Needs America’s Energy