Energy Central Sponsors
A Service of Energy CentralEnergyBlogs.com Logo

I like wind power. Can't help it. Maybe it was the pleasant experience last fall seeing what the Danes have accomplished.

I also like coal-fired generation. Maybe it was because as a young reporter, I toured a fascinating coal-fired plant - inside and out - and was impressed.

It is good news that we can get up to 20 percent of our energy from wind.

Now comes good data that we are marching in that direction. I snooped around the federal government stat shop, the U.S. Energy Information Information, a few days ago and dug up some interesting trend lines. The US is slated to add 920 megawatts of coal generation this year, according to a report last fall. And it in fact added 5,329 megawatts of wind generation last year.

The good news. It seems that wind is boldly attempted to realize its 20 percent potential by vastly outpacing new coal projects underway.

The bad news. The US is the Saudi of coal. What is going on here when even "red state" Kansas is cancelling coal projects left and right?

The answer to both questions: complexity. Our complex energy economy is fast morphing into something quite new.

An anecdote illustrates this nicely. Think of China. Think of Israel.

Your media saturated brain would say OLYMPICS to the first. And MIRED IN TERRORISM to the second.

Think again.

This news report was carried recently on Energy Central's news channel:

 

Energy company, S.D.E., which has developed an innovative technology for generating sea wave electricity, has signed an agreement for selling sea wave power plants throughout China. Construction of the power plants will be financed by investors from Hong Kong and China.

Two joint venture companies, formed in Hong Kong by S.D.E and the investors for the implementation of the agreement, will build an initial model in Guangzhou province in southern China. In the event the model proves to be successful, they will launch the establishment of sea wave power plants throughout China. The process is subject to the approval of the Government of China, which is meant to purchase the entire quantity of electricity generated.

The Agreement was signed in Hong Kong last week by S.D.E.'s Managing Director, Mr. Shmuel Ovadia and advocate Yossi Abadi from the law firm of Ram Caspi.

The innovative technology of generating power from sea waves is becoming increasingly attractive, as fuel prices rockets and demand for clean, green energy is growing. The method has several advantages: high utility, lack of environmental pollution and a relatively low cost for construction and generation of electricity.

Electricity shortages in China are worsening every day and current sources of energy are problematic: nuclear power plants and hydroelectric stations are highly susceptible to earthquake damage; the country is hit by more than 4 typhoons a year, making the building of wind farms extremely difficult, and solar systems are not cost effective.

Additionally, generation of electricity through burning of fossil fuels increases the country's already intolerable levels of air and environmental pollution.

The S.D.E system, which produces renewable and clean energy from sea waves, is the perfect alternative solution. Sea waves have the potential to supply 4 times more energy per square meter than wind, and could supply 500 times more than the electricity requirements of the whole world population, offering a solution to the severe global shortage of electricity that is estimated to be costing billions of dollars.

The huge advantages in the SDE method for producing electricity from sea waves have been identified by many countries and currently, the company is working to apply the sea wave power technology in their territories by attaching the franchise for selling electricity to the financers in order to achieve funding for the project.

Was it Judy Collins - I date myself here - who sang, "I've looked at life from both sides now.... I really don't know life at all."

Israel teaching China the finer points of ocean wave power. That is worth contemplating as you may head to the beach or lakeshore this fine summer weekend.

 

member photo You wanna get rid of high gas prices? Get rid of all the pollution controll. 1965 Caddie 25 MPG no cat converter. 2008 Caddie 20 city 26 hihgway. get rid of pollution controll!!!! + HP + MPG
# Posted By Jason Lamb | 8/1/08 12:23 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Jason Lamb does have a valid point; the structure of our emissions laws was partially dictated by special intrest groups (mineral commodities marketeers) that made catalytic converters the keystone of emmisions control. Because of this, and other shortcomings of the EPA regulations, we have underpowered 4 cylinder gasoline engines that burn twice as much fuel as a high performance 6 cylinder stratified charge engine made in Europe.
As to practical tidal power generation, there are at least two facilities on the coast of Scotland that are well past the modeling and research stage; still, governments and utilities seem to be reluctant to implement what is "on the shelf" technology...unless it was invented in their country.
# Posted By William Norquay | 8/1/08 2:25 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Get rid of pollution control will only bring back the infamous LA Smog and Beijing like conditions to every city in the US. It might achieve a goal, but the cost in human lives and livelihood will be intolerable.
# Posted By Timothy Dibble | 8/5/08 8:09 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Do some math; if you burn more gasoline per mile, you emit more pollutants. The EPA chose to limit emissions to protect urban air quality as opposed to air quality in general, resulting in vehicles that are a lot less "green" than the government and manufacturers would perfer you to believe. The real solution is to maximize the efficiency of internal combustion vehicles, and ban all but electric or hydrogen powered transit from urban areas.
# Posted By William Norquay | 8/5/08 11:41 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo To the person who claims a 1965 Cadillac got 25 mpg -- what color is the air on your planet?

Try and find any contemporary fact checking for this claim. Cadillacs were notorious for great big engines and uncaring about fuel economy. Volkswagen in that era was focusing on fuel economy in their advertising and they made print ads which claimed only 25 mpg. Or try looking up any contemporary road tests by a competent magazine such as Road and Track. That Caddy had approximately a 20 gallon fuel tank, ever hear of anyone bragging about their 500 mile range on a trip? I thought not.

Revisionist history should stay in the realm of the Kennedy assassination and the cause of WW2, don't expand it to dream cars please.
# Posted By Mark R. Johnson | 8/8/08 5:43 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Actually William, your surmise would be correct, burn more fuel per mile=more emissions --- if all things were equal. However when the consumption of fuel per mile is increased because of pollution reducing devices (catalytic converters and other pollution control devices) all things are not equal. Its a separation of energy. Energy used in controling pollution is not available for motive force, hence the drop in miles per gallon. However emissions are not increased, they are significantly curtailed because that energy loss is used to remove the harmful byproducts from the combustion waste stream.

Maybe you aren't old enough to remember the spring inversion layers in LA and Denver and other major cities, causing deaths among the respiratorily infirm and harming children. It used to be major news when LA was having a bad smog day. Now its major news when Beijing or Mexico City has those days because they are not utilizing the pollution control devices. I think that the skies over Salt Lake City were bad enough in the early 80's when the inversion would trap all emissions in the valley in January and February. Things are much better for all of us with the pollution control in place. LNG, solar and electric should also help assuming they can be obtained without significant environmental damage.
# Posted By Timothy Dibble | 9/4/08 11:45 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
 
Toolbox
Blog Editor
Search
Calendar
Recent CommentsRecent Comments
RSS
Energy Central
Power Network


Copyright © 1996-2008 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.
Energy Central ® is a registered trademark of CyberTech, Incorporated.
CyberTech does not warrant that the information or services of Energy Central will meet any specific requirements; nor will it be error free or uninterrupted; nor shall CyberTech be liable for any indirect, incidental or consequential damages (including lost data, information or profits) sustained or incurred in connection with the use of, operation of, or inability to use Energy Central.
2821 S. Parker Rd. Ste 1105 Aurora, CO 80014
Contact: Phone - 303-782-5510 Fax - 303-782-5331 or service@energycentral.com.