Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

What the Economy Needs Now Are Good, Green Jobs

By Kari Lydersen, AlterNet. Posted September 26, 2008.


A national day of action tomorrow for green jobs is showing that clean energy can be our modern day gold rush.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

If a coalition of clean energy and social justice groups has its way, renewable energy will be something of a modern day gold rush, providing both clean energy and scores of stable living-wage jobs for urban and rural Americans. Climate change and declining fossil fuel deposits are igniting interest in renewable energy, and many see the possibility of an economic boom in the building and installation of wind turbines, solar panels and geothermal energy systems along with a blossoming industry in green buildings and retrofits.

Leaders of this new vision are calling for a "green economy" and are sponsoring a national day of action on Sept. 27 called "Green Jobs Now: A Day to Build the New Economy," which will feature events and grassroots actions in more than 500 cities in 48 states. Events range from community gardening and a "green and sexy extravaganza" in Chicago to "fruit gleaning" in Mount Shasta, Calif., and a sunflower harvest on former brownfields in Pittsburgh. Petitions collected at the events calling for federal investment in green jobs will be presented to legislators and both presidential candidates.

"Green jobs" are typically defined as "well-paid, career-track jobs that contribute directly to preserving or enhancing environmental quality," as Green For All's Web site says. "Like traditional blue-collar jobs, green-collar jobs range from low-skill, entry-level positions to high-skill, higher-paid jobs, and include opportunities for advancement in both skills and wages."

Movement leaders have great reason to be optimistic. One of the best things about green jobs is that they're domestic: Green jobs like installing solar panels, assembling wind turbines, cleaning up brownfields and weatherizing buildings can't be outsourced overseas or to Latin America. And rising fuel prices could make the manufacturing of solar panels, wind turbines and other renewable energy technology even more attractive in the United States.

"Right now we are importing wind turbines, which doesn't make sense," said Jeremy Hays, field director of the group Green For All, one of the organizers of the day of action. "They'd be cheaper and higher-quality if they were made in the U.S. With concentrated solar facilities, where you have lots of concrete and steel mirrors out in the desert, the cost-efficient strategy is actually building the manufacturing facility right next to where the plant will be because of the difficulty of transporting these huge half-pipe mirrors."

Hays noted that advocates lobby for labor provisions to be included in renewable energy and other "green" legislation on state and federal levels. In this way, green jobs could potentially strengthen the United States' ailing organized labor movement and bring together union laborers and environmentalists -- historically often at odds in debates about logging, mining, power plants, heavy industry and the like.

This movement also provides an avenue for environmental justice tied with job creation in the nation's poorest and often most environmentally beleaguered communities. Green For All was co-founded in 2007 by Majora Carter of Sustainable South Bronx and celebrated Oakland activist and author Van Jones for just this purpose. The national group aims to replicate state-level efforts for green job training programs on the federal level, focusing on youth in minority and low-income communities. For example, in a Pittsburgh program run by the company Green Tech, low-income youth work clearing and cleaning brownfields and planting them with sunflowers, which are then harvested for biodiesel production.

Brownfield cleanup has also created many green jobs in Wisconsin, where an innovative nationally recognized initiative under the state Department of Natural Resources helps communities identify, test and clean up brownfields, in many cases building environmentally friendly structures, soccer fields, trails or community centers on the sites. About 13,000 sites have been cleaned up.

"These communities are doing infill; instead of going to the outskirts of suburbs and tearing up new land, this is re-using and cleaning up (already developed) land," said Andrew Savagian, outreach specialist for the department's remediation and redevelopment program. "They consider that part of their green effort. And more and more communities are looking at LEED certification, and trying to recycle materials, and trying to incorporate greener methods of cleanup -- like solar power to run instruments."

Green-collar enthusiasts aren't stopping there -- they are also calling on the federal government to help ignite change. Investing $100 billion in green technologies and industries "would create four times more jobs than spending the same amount of money within the oil industry, and would reduce the unemployment rate to 4.4 percent over two years," according to a study released in September by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst under commission by the Center for American Progress.

The report calls for $50 billion in tax breaks, $46 billion in direct government investment and $4 billion in federal loan guarantees for private funders of green projects.

At least half the nation's states have laws requiring that a certain percent of energy be produced from renewable sources. And if or when the United States institutes federal greenhouse gas limits likely including a carbon cap and trade system, industry and municipalities will be forced to turn more to renewable energy.

"It's something that's been building for a while. Folks have been talking about the need to transition to a more stable economy," said Adi Nochur, an organizer with 1Sky, a national campaign to push for federal action on climate and green investment. "With the energy crisis it's not a matter of if we transition to a green economy; it's a matter of when."

The Renewable Energy Policy Project breaks down roughly how many jobs could be created per megawatt of different types of renewable energy. Solar could provide the most at 22 jobs per megawatt; manufacturing could provide 15; geothermal could provide 15 as well. Construction and installation of solar panels would be next at seven, followed by wind at six. A large wind turbine produces one to three megawatts, for example, so a large wind farm of such turbines could produce up to several hundred megawatts. Nationwide, the United States has about 4,000 megawatts of geothermal in development.

Various states and cities already have significant green job training programs and green building plans in the works. The sponsors of the Sept. 27 day of action and other environmental groups want a comprehensive green strategy on the federal level.

"There's definitely a lot of really great local initiatives happening around the country, but we need to see some accelerated attention from the federal government," said Nochur. "Until recently there hasn't really been a constituency that has been pushing for this in an organized way. Now there is really a lot of scope to take this issue forward and start connecting the dots."

The 1Sky campaign was launched in spring 2007 to bring together existing environmental, business, labor and policy groups along with scientists and community leaders to force the federal government to take "bold action by 2010," including: a moratorium on coal-fired power plants, freezing and then ratcheting down greenhouse gas emissions levels, and creating 5 million green jobs.

These groups were instrumental in pushing for the federal Green Jobs Act as part of the 2007 Energy Bill. The act authorized Congress to allocate $125 million to train 35,000 young people a year in green jobs, though it is still in the appropriations process and funding has not been allocated yet. Green For All's ultimate goal is $1 billion in federal funding by 2012 for "green-collar" programs.

The American Solar Energy Society estimates that renewable energy and energy efficiency were responsible for $970 billion in industry revenues and 8.5 million jobs in 2006. But a 2006 report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a division of the U.S. Department of Energy, identified multiple "nontechnical barriers to solar energy use," which could be addressed by governmental attention and investment. These included inadequate workforce skills and training; lack of government policy supporting renewable energy and energy efficiency; lack of consumer awareness about renewable energy; and inadequate financing of renewable energy projects.

Federal, state and municipal programs and policies could help remedy all of these issues. Proponents say results in the private sector and in individual cities show the promise and possibility of such efforts on a federal level. Multnomah County, Ore., and the cities of Washington, D.C., Oakland, Chicago, Richmond, Calif., and Los Angeles, among others, have already created what the report refers to as "green pathways out of poverty" in the form of job training and opportunities for low-income residents.

Last year another group founded by Jones, the Oakland Apollo Alliance, along with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, secured $250,000 from the city of Oakland for a program that trains youth in jobs including installing solar panels and weatherizing buildings.

Richmond 's program, a joint effort between the city and two nonprofit organizations, placed 27 low-income trainees in jobs constructing or installing solar panels. One of the nonprofits, GRID Alternatives, provides solar panels to low-income homeowners along with solar energy job training.

Los Angeles established a Green Career Ladder Training Program to link low-income people with jobs from green investment by the city.

In Milwaukee, a private program known as Milwaukee Energy Efficiency, or Me2, aims to funnel up to $500 million of private capital into residential and commercial building retrofits. The funds will be paid back over 10 years in energy savings, split between lenders and program participants (i.e., building owners).

In Chicago, a Greencorps program trains participants, including ex-offenders, in four tracks: landscaping and urban gardening, computer refurbishing and recycling, household hazardous waste handling and home weatherization. The city has promised to hire 5,000 to 10,000 people in positions constructing, designing and auditing green buildings. And with two megawatts of solar power generation, city officials say they have the most municipal solar power outside the Southwest. With "green-washing" rampant among corporations and politicians in this day and age, it is worth reserving some skepticism until these programs actually show significant results.

At this point most of the green jobs training programs are still in the early stages, and it remains to be seen to what extent permanent jobs are created and how much savings are actually generated and how those savings are used. Some skeptics say such programs and promises, especially without revised building codes or binding local ordinances to back them up, are a low-cost way for cities to bolster their green credentials while much more challenging environmental issues are slow to be addressed.

That's where federal policy comes in.

"There are a lot of reasons green jobs will continue to grow," said Hays, noting that private investment in the green sector is "vertical" -- escalating rapidly. "However, the growth probably won't happen fast enough on its own to save us from baking the planet -- so we need a smart carbon reduction policy."

Green For All and other advocates are pushing for a "cap, collect and invest" strategy.

"That would not only create a market for clean energy technology, it could also create a huge revenue stream that could finance and support the growth of these things," said Hays. "You make polluters pay for the right to emit under the cap, and take that money and invest it into supporting both the technology and enterprises as well as training programs."

Meanwhile, one of the silver linings to sky-high fuel prices is that they do create a free market incentive for renewable and alternative energy sources and hence a green job market. For example Flint, Mich., is among several U.S. cities following Sweden's example in fueling vehicles with clean-burning biogas. With gas prices more than double those in the United States, Sweden has pioneered technology to make biogas from decomposing household waste, slaughtered cow carcasses and even human sewage. A project under way in Flint, funded by the company Swedish Biogas, will use biogas from waste from the city's municipal wastewater treatment agency to fuel city buses and other vehicles.

"The Swedish technique has been advanced because we have been forced to come up with alternative sources," said Stig Berglind, press counselor at the Swedish Embassy. "In Flint, they're trying to find alternative energy sources, which could take care of some of the thousands of jobs lost in the auto economy. You get away from foreign energy dependence, you can produce energy with your own waste -- isn't that a marvelous thing!"

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: wind, green economy, van jones, green jobs, green for all, solar, 1sky

Kari Lydersen, a regular contributor to AlterNet, also writes for the Washington Post and is an instructor for the Urban Youth International Journalism Program in Chicago.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Great idea but who will manage the "green" industry?
Posted by: NoMcCainPalin on Sep 26, 2008 12:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Probably T. Boon Pickens and all the other fat cats in the energy industry who got filthy rich at our expense the last eight years.

Call me a skeptic, but until working Americans have a REAL say in how their companies are run, "green" employees will be no different than the millions of corporate slaves in America right now who must kowtow to their bosses or get fired.

Old Man McCain and Stupid Sarah -- wrong for America, wrong for the world
For reasons why JM and SP should not be elected
in November, click on: Vote Against McCain/Palin
(HOTTEST anti-McCain/Palin site on the Web)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» NoMcCain is a what? Posted by: PaulK
Ideologues and, worse, corporate shills never learn
Posted by: PaulC on Sep 26, 2008 4:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Michelle Malkin and her ilk are on the air simply to deprive us of a free press, nothing more. They ought to be tarred-and-feathered and run out on a rail.

peace,
Paul

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How to save our economy, Social Security and Medicare
Posted by: bthespoon on Sep 26, 2008 5:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The biggest myth perpetrated on American society is that nationalizing health insurance (that is, switching from profit-driven to not-for-profit coverage and uniting all Americans into one very large and very protected pool) would cost us money... when instead cutting out unnecessary, immoral and very expensive middlemen so we could unite together and utilize efficiencies of scale for the common good would in fact do the opposite. Doctors Himelstein and Woolhandler of Harvard have very convincing evidence that doing so (nationalizing health coverage while leaving care providers independent as they are now) would save us at least $350 billion per year in administrative overhead alone, with savings instead of costs increasing as time goes on. Half of the $350 billion in savings would go to care providers to provide care, and the other half could be used to stimulate our economy and create far more productive jobs. We've never needed to nationalize health coverage to maximize our savings more than we need to do so now. The cost of not doing so will bankrupt our country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bullshit!!
Posted by: 6399 on Sep 26, 2008 5:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What this country needs is another round of cheap liquidity to re-inflate the bubble. We need to immediately approve a $5 trillion bailout followed by $5 trillion in subsidies to bring down the price of Xboxes and Expeditions, iPhones and international travel, bling and boob jobs.

Enough with this silly talk of green revolutions. You guys need to get back on board the Mall Express and shop 'til you drop!!

You all seem to have forgotten - we can spend our way out of this mess. I can still fondly recall Bush's "get out there and shop", Sermon On The Rubble exhortations. And see, it worked . . . for a few years anyway. Why can't you people see that we just need to inflate the next bubble and it's guilt (and responsibility) free shopping for the next 5 years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

yeah Right
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Sep 26, 2008 6:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think what the economy needs now is REAL LEADERSHIP. Not self serving politicians. But, that will never happen. Wishful thinking.

Johnny FIve
Online Privacy Center

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

X-POLYGAMIST WIFE in ARIZONA
Posted by: X-POLYGAMIST WIFE on Sep 26, 2008 6:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need good Shepherds to lead the sheeple out of despair and into clean air.

BANKING ON HEAVEN . COM

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why Stop There?
Posted by: pdxjoe on Sep 26, 2008 6:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It may not be as hip these days, but jobs are needed rebuilding and in many ways re-designing America's infrastructure. Last time I checked, poverty and ignorance were still rampant. Jobs are needed re-thinking and actually changing the way(s) we live in and around cities. Jobs are needed improving and running public transportation. Jobs are needed attending to the ecological crises of our country and the world. Jobs are needed making sure that "green jobs" and the new energy they intend to cultivate aren't just about paving the way to another useless society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good Idea, But...
Posted by: dockboy on Sep 26, 2008 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As long as no one makes a profit from the green industry. Profiting off customers is evil. Al Gore may be the Green Saviour, but he needs to separate himself from the venture capital firm he's a member of. No one should make a profit, even Mr. Gore. Profiteering is evil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Good Idea, But... Posted by: EncinoM
Great idea. It all begins on local levels.
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 26, 2008 7:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We stop government from oversubsidizing big agri and allow the small/family farms a chance to make a comeback rather than strangling them. Factory farms, not small/family farms, are what's choking the environment and the economy.

Also, support Ron Paul's second attempt to OVERTURN THE BAN ON INDUSTRIAL HEMP and allow farmers the FREEDOM to grow it. A global economy can only sustain when we quit choking the local ones first.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Industrial Hemp? Posted by: pdxjoe
HEMP!!!!!!!
Posted by: garry minor on Sep 26, 2008 8:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hemp is the #1 source of biomass on the planet! It grows with little or no fertilizers, herbicides, or pesticides to foul the soil and water, in climates and conditions other crops won't grow. Anything made from oil, coal, timber, or cotton can be made ecologically friendly with it. All paper, plastics, fuels, lubricants, textiles, paints, varnishes, insulations, plywood, structural components, concretes, many cosmetics, health foods, and medicines, over 25,000 known products!
Hemp is at the very minimum four times more efficient per acre than corn for ethanol production or timber for pulp. Farming just six to eight percent of our farmland in hemp would satisfy our current demands for oil and gas. Henry Ford built and fueled a car primarily with it. The cellulose plastic panels ten times stronger than steel. Synthetic plastics were developed using cellulose technology. Neither he or Diesel intended on running their engines with petroleum. Before prohibition alcohol and gas were sold equally, many farms had stills, not for drinking, but for fuel. Prohibition put an end to that and gave control to the oil companies.
Canvas is Dutch for cannabis. For thousands of years all ships sails, ropes, nettings, and most clothing were of cannabis fibers, which are the longest and strongest in nature. Cotton requires more chemicals than any other crop and produces only a fraction of the fiber hemp does!
Hemp composite plywood is proven to be two and one half times stronger than wood MDF composites and has three times the elasticity than wood composite boards.
All mammals, birds, fish, and reptiles have cannabinoid receptors throughout their body that work independent of those that govern the heart and breathing which is why cannabis can't kill you. It's the safest medicine known to man and has been used for thousands of years. The ancient Sumerians called it "A.ZAL.LA," the Egyptians "shemshemet," the Chinese "Ma," and the Hebrews "Kaneh bosm." In 2000 Dr. Manuel Guzman of Complutense University in Madrid Spain rediscovered that THC injected into tumors destroyed the tumor with no negative side effects whatsoever. His team also irrigated healthy rats brains with THC for seven days and again found no physiological or neurological damage. In 2005 Dr. Xia Zhang of the University of Saskatchewan found that THC actually promotes the growth of brain cells. The same year the Scripps Institute found that THC was a superior inhibitor of the plaque that causes Alzheimers and may well prevent it. Cannabis has also been found very helpful treating epilepsy, autism, MS, ALS, ADHD, OCD, chronic pain, migraine, arthritis, nausea, asthma, emphysema, cystic fibrosis, tuberculosis, glaucoma, diabetes, depression, alcoholism, obesity, skin and eating disorders, herpes, Parkinsons, Huntingtons, Tourettes, Crohn's disease, and more.
The hemp seed is the single most nutritiously complete food source on Earth and provides the most balanced source of Omega fatty Acids. Our Government stockpiles this seed as a strategic food source under Executive order #12919. The ancient Persians called it "Sahdanag," meaning "Royal Grain." The Chinese reported growing seeds the size of peas. The Zoroastrians write that it alone supported them through famines. Reintroduced to our diets this seed can alleviate many of the above mentioned diseases and help end world hunger.
Currently the United States is the only major nation not growing industrial hemp. China is growing 40% of the worlds supply and developing new technologies for it that will keep the U.S.A. at an economic and strategic deficit for years, as if we already aren't! Hemp industrialization in the United States will create millions of Earth friendly jobs from the farm to the laboratory, begin a redistribution of wealth, and provide us with food, fuel, shelter, medicine, pleasure, spirituality, and unity!

The Tree of Life!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» WOW Posted by: Yam
Thank you to individuals
Posted by: PaulK on Sep 26, 2008 9:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm trying to start a small (it might grow) solar business.

Thank you to the woman who knows us, who volunteered to put up a good deal of investment money.

Thank you to the carpenter who gave five days of his time, and the use of his basement and truck, to help me put up a prototype model.

Thank you to the friend who let me put the prototype in his back yard.

I've noticed that it's two small private colleges / technical schools who are taking the lead in research and development with me. They simply want to look good to their students, and they want to train their students in solar construction. The big universities seem to be all lost inside themselves. They signed some kind of commitment to further this research, but they don't carry through. If you're a student at one of those hot universities, please understand that your college president has gum on her/his shoe so she/he can't move quickly, or at all.

I'll be honest. In general, the state and federal governments don't get it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Amen brother. Posted by: maxpayne
Solar for California and Beyond
Posted by: macdon1 on Sep 26, 2008 4:10 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm in California where we have so many sunny days that rain is a treat. Solar should be everywhere here but it is not. Recently a new plant started producing a new type of solar panel and the first 100,000 were sold for a solar generating plant in Germany. Germany??? Not exactly the sun center of the world. If we were to go on a national solar and wind push and use that $700 billion to build plants,train workers and subsidize installation, no bailout would be needed. Furthermore, if we updated our national electricity grid, which is much needed, we could move some of our wind and sun generated electricity around the country as it is needed. Imagine that...clean energy and hundreds of thousands of new jobs that cannot be outsourced!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wind and solar don't shut down coal fired power plants
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Sep 26, 2008 5:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wind energy requires that Direct Current [DC] be transmitted over enormous
distances [more than one continent] to provide continuous power because wind
varies from minute to minute. Direct current is required because the voltage and
frequency of AC would change minute by minute with wind speed. AC lines
longer than 1500 miles are antennas radiating the power out into space. Long
distance DC transmission requires superconducting cable. DC just doesn't go far
otherwise.
Reference:
http://www.terrawatts.com: Liquid nitrogen is still required.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/69888

Following the http://www.terrawatts.com lead, you arrive at the statement that the
"high temperature" superconductor will be cooled by liquid nitrogen. See:
http://www.azom.com/details.asp?
ArticleID=942#_When_will_HTS
The need for liquid nitrogen or liquid helium is the Achilles heal of this scheme.
It isn't really a "room" temperature superconductor. Any accidental warming
brings the grid to a halt. Energy is required to make liquid nitrogen. Dry
nitrogen must be cooled to 77 degrees Kelvin to make it a liquid. [Zero degrees
Kelvin is absolute zero, -273.15 degrees Centigrade.] Liquid helium is at 4
degrees Kelvin or colder. Superconduction usually means a requirement for liquid
helium. High temperature superconductors only require liquid nitrogen. Liquid
Helium is very expensive. The cable has to be thermally insulated and cooled its
entire length. The cable also must be physically separated into "out" and "return"
wires, and the force between the 2 wires will be large. As stated in the article I
gave you the URL of, it won't be cheap.

The same problem happens to solar power. Solar power never works a night
unless you have a superconducting power line that goes all the way around the
earth, an that is 2 pies in the sky.

Any warming above the superconducting temperature or too much magnetic field
will cause the cable to quit superconducting at that point. The cable will instantly
melt, creating an electric arc. All of the energy that was flowing through that spot
will instead be dumped there, creating an explosion. The power grid will be
disabled for some time since repairing a superconducting cable is not as easy as
splicing a wire. Is this the kind of electric service you really want? We really
don't have the technology yet.

What about storing wind energy as compressed air? Check the efficiency, the
availability of leak proof caverns, etc. Storing wind energy as compressed air is a
pie in the sky. What about storing wind energy in batteries? The lead for that
many batteries would remain poisonous forever. Another pie in the sky.

Wind energy wastes energy because the wind varies so much that a "spinning
reserve" is required in most locations. If you are running the steam powered
generator at the spinning reserve rate, you may as well use the steam as your
energy source and forget about the wind. Wind turbines are decorations, not
sources of energy for the grid until we have room temperature superconductors.
There are special locations and circumstances where wind energy is useful, but
wind cannot replace coal and nuclear any time soon. Nuclear power is the only
kind that can actually take coal fired power plants off line. If allowed to compete,
nuclear power would already have replaced coal fired power because nuclear is
30% cheaper and 24000 American lives per year safer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The proper way to write the law
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Sep 26, 2008 5:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The proper way to write a law to require the use of non-fossil-fuel
energy to make electricity is to cap and lower the carbon dioxide
put into the air per 1000 megawatt years. It is now 14.7 million
tons per 1000 megawatts in one year for a coal fired power plant.
Lower the amount of CO2 allowed per 1000 megawatt years each
year. Allow the private sector to figure out how to do it. If you
just require that a certain percentage of power come from
renewable resources, the production of CO2 will diminish only
slightly because of the "Spinning Reserve" problem, described
below.

Wind energy wastes energy because the wind varies so much that
a "spinning reserve" is required in most locations. The coal fire
has to be kept burning so that the steam turbine will keep spinning
fast enough to generate electricity instantly when the wind dies.
If you are running the steam powered generator at the spinning
reserve rate, you may as well use the steam as your energy source
and forget about the wind. Wind turbines are decorations, not
sources of energy for the grid until we have room temperature
superconductors or super batteries. There are special locations
and circumstances where wind energy is useful, but wind cannot
replace coal and nuclear any time soon. The object of the new
law must be to shut down coal fired power plants by replacing
them with base load sources that don't make CO2.

We don't have batteries that are good enough and cheap enough to
solve the problem of wind variability yet. We need research into
energy storage and room temperature superconductors. The
research will take an unknown amount of time. We don't have
that time. Batteries and room temperature superconductors have
been under research for a very long time already, so don't expect
any breakthroughs next week.

There is one and only one practical way to replace coal fired
power plants at the present time. That one way is nuclear power.
Nuclear power works for base load and nuclear power is clean and
safe. Nuclear fuel is recyclable. There is no such thing as
nuclear waste. Since we need to build 10,000 new nuclear power
plants worldwide to replace coal fired power plants, there will be
more thasn enough jobs. Nuclear power is the greenest.

I am NOT connected with the nuclear industry in any way. I am
a retired Department of the Army civilian engineer and scientist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CO2 per kilowatt hour
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Sep 28, 2008 7:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by Gwyneth
Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about nuclear power. Gwyneth Cravens
is a former anti-nuclear activist.

Page 13 has a chart of greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production.
Nuclear power produces less greenhouse gas [CO2] than any other source,
including coal, natural gas, hydro, solar and wind. Building wind turbines and
towers also involve industrial processes such as concrete and steel making.

Nuclear power plants produce a total of 30 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour, the
lowest.

Wind turbines produce a total of 58 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Solar power produces between 100 and 280 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Hydro power produces 240 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Natural gas produces between 439 and 688 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Coal plants produce the most, between 966 and 1306 grams of CO2 per kilowatt
hour, the highest.

Remember the total is the sum of direct emissions from burning fuel and indirect
emissions from the life cycle, which means the industrial processes required to
build it. Again, nuclear comes in the lowest. Nuclear would produce even less
CO2 per kilowatt hour if the safety were lowered to the same level as other
sources of electricity. Switching from coal to nuclear is a 97% reduction in
electricity's 40% of our CO2 output.

Page 211: In 2005, the production cost of electricity from:

nuclear power on average cost 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour

from coal-fired plants 2.21 cents per kilowatt-hour

from natural gas 7.5 cents per kilowatt-hour

from oil 8.09 cents per kilowatt-hour

American nuclear power reactors operated in 2005 around the clock
at about 90 percent capacity

geothermal plants operated at 75 percent capacity

coal-fired plants operated at about 73 percent capacity

hydroelectric plants at 29 percent capacity

natural gas from 16 to 38 percent capacity

wind at 27 percent capacity

solar at 19 percent capacity

[The costs per kilowatt hour for solar and wind are 600 or more times the cost
for coal, and that is in sunny and windy places, respectively. Batteries not
included. Why did wind and solar operate so far below capacity? Simple:
Wind power never works when the wind isn't blowing. Solar only works at
capacity during the noon hour in the summer, when the sun is closest to directly
overhead.]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CO2 per kilowatt hour
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Sep 28, 2008 8:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by Gwyneth
Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about nuclear power. Gwyneth Cravens
is a former anti-nuclear activist.

Page 13 has a chart of greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production.
Nuclear power produces less greenhouse gas [CO2] than any other source,
including coal, natural gas, hydro, solar and wind. Building wind turbines and
towers also involve industrial processes such as concrete and steel making.

Nuclear power plants produce a total of 30 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour, the
lowest.

Wind turbines produce a total of 58 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Solar power produces between 100 and 280 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Hydro power produces 240 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Natural gas produces between 439 and 688 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Coal plants produce the most, between 966 and 1306 grams of CO2 per kilowatt
hour, the highest.

Remember the total is the sum of direct emissions from burning fuel and indirect
emissions from the life cycle, which means the industrial processes required to
build it. Again, nuclear comes in the lowest. Nuclear would produce even less
CO2 per kilowatt hour if the safety were lowered to the same level as other
sources of electricity. Switching from coal to nuclear is a 97% reduction in
electricity's 40% of our CO2 output.

Page 211: In 2005, the production cost of electricity from:

nuclear power on average cost 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour

from coal-fired plants 2.21 cents per kilowatt-hour

from natural gas 7.5 cents per kilowatt-hour

from oil 8.09 cents per kilowatt-hour

American nuclear power reactors operated in 2005 around the clock
at about 90 percent capacity

geothermal plants operated at 75 percent capacity

coal-fired plants operated at about 73 percent capacity

hydroelectric plants at 29 percent capacity

natural gas from 16 to 38 percent capacity

wind at 27 percent capacity

solar at 19 percent capacity

[The costs per kilowatt hour for solar and wind are 600 or more times the cost
for coal, and that is in sunny and windy places, respectively. Batteries not
included. Why did wind and solar operate so far below capacity? Simple:
Wind power never works when the wind isn't blowing. Solar only works at
maximum during the noon hour in the summer, when the sun is closest to directly
overhead. "Capacity" isn't even defined as this peak.]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Global Ocean Wind Energy Potential according to NASA
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Sep 28, 2008 9:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/
Newsroom/NewImages/
images.php3?img_id=18090

Large images [On the original web site. If you look at the images, you see
that the best wind is at very INconvenient locations, like near Antarctica and in the
North Pacific ocean.]

Wind energy has the potential to provide 10 to 15 percent of the world’s future
energy, according to Paul Dimotakis, chief technologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion
Laboratory. Once windmills are installed, wind can be converted to electricity
inexpensively. But not everyone likes wind farms. The giant collection of whirling
blades mars scenic views and can kill birds and bats, particularly if located in a
high-traffic flyway. To minimize these risks, one solution may be to place wind
farms in the ocean. Wind tends to blow stronger over the ocean than over land.
The ocean presents a smooth surface over which wind can glide without
interruption, while hills, mountains, and forests tend to slow or channel wind over
land.

But, as any sailor could tell you, wind over the ocean isn’t consistent. In some
places, the air is still, while in others, the wind blows fiercely. To identify potential
wind farm locations, NASA scientists Tim Liu, Wenqing Tang, and Xiaosu Xie, all
at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, mapped out average wind intensity over the
ocean between 2000 and 2007. They created their maps from data collected by
NASA’s Quick Scatterometer (QuickSCAT), which measures wind speed and
direction over the world’s oceans. The satellite sends pulses of microwave energy
through the atmosphere to the ocean surface and measures the energy that bounces
back from the wind-roughened surface. The energy of the microwave pulses
changes depending on wind speed and direction. The scientists averaged
QuikSCAT’s measured wind speeds by season, and then calculated the wind
power density, the amount of energy that could be derived from a wind turbine in a
given location. Their maps for the winter and summer seasons are shown here.

Wind strength is influenced by seasonal patterns, land-ocean interactions, land
topography, and ocean temperatures. All of these interactions are evident in this
pair of images. Areas of high wind power density, where winds are strongest, are
purple, while low power density regions are light blue and white.

The largest patterns shown in the images are seasonal patterns. In December,
January, and February, winter storms fuel strong winds in the mid-latitudes of the
Northern Hemisphere. In June, July, and August, winter reigns in the Southern
Hemisphere, and the pattern is reversed. The Asian monsoon also controls the
seasonal distribution of wind. In June, July, and August, strong winds gust across
the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea. From December to February, the monsoon
winds blow over the East China Sea. Finally, the trade winds trace their way
across the tropics, stronger in the winter than in the summer.

==================article continues at the URL above=========

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The DC Transformer Problem for Wind Power
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Sep 28, 2008 7:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem with high voltage DC power transmission lines is the
DC transformer problem. Since there isn't one, you have to
convert the DC into AC then transform it then rectify it. Same on
the other end of the transmission line. Since you are working
with high power and high voltage, getting transistors to do the job
gets difficult, complicated, lossy and expensive. You get a lot of
failures and electric arcs. Eventually, you realize that DC to DC
power conversion is a bad idea at high voltage. There is a limit to
the voltage a transistor will switch. Transistors are, by nature,
low voltage devices. The engineers who work for power
companies gave up on the project long ago. That's why the
proposal for DC transmission by a real power company chose to
use superconductors and low voltage. Of course, imaginary
transistors will do whatever you want in your head. So, good
luck PaulK.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wrong again Posted by: greenknight
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement