Alternative Energy, Part 1. Replacing Coal.

There are two kinds of energy that we need to find alternatives for: transportation-gas and diesel, and those sources from which we derive electricity, namely coal and nuclear.  I plan to look at a number of viable replacements for these two needed sources of energy, what they offer and their shortfalls.

First, though there is something I need to discuss to get it out of the way.  There has been much tooting of the horn by the coal industry of the clean coal technology.  First, it isn’t really clean (though it does create fewer pollutants than normal coal burning plants).  In addition, it takes a tremendous amount of processing to get the coal to the “clean” stage.  Lastly, and most importantly, though, we need to leave coal behind simply because the mining of it has gotten to such a point that the landscape is being ruined because it is cost effective for the mining companies.  Regulations were relaxed when Bush the Younger first took office, but he has also recently done so again, now that he is getting ready to leave.  Mining companies are simply grinding up mountains from the top down, pushing everything that isn’t coal into the valleys that surround them.  Western Pennsylvania and West Virginia are slowly being turned into the eastern plains, and would continue to be so if it were left up to the mining companies.  Strip mining is the most cost effective method of mining, which is why the coal companies like it so much, but it is also the most destructive to the landscape and environment.  Simply look at any of the satellite photos that you can find from Google or Live Search in West Virginia, and you will find huge swaths of excavated earth.

Next to coal is nuclear power.  There are many who say it is a clean and renewable energy source.  There is only one problem, the waste.  The Yucca Mountain site for storing the nuclear waste is still languishing in Congress, and I doubt if anything will be finished on it in Obama’s first term.

First, let’s look at the energy needs to replace the coal fired electrical plants.  Nuclear plants can continue generating until a more viable solution is found, but I would not advocate the building of new plants.  Hydro-electric plants are fine, and will continue to operate, although there is a limit to the number of times a river can be dammed for the production of power, and America’s energy needs will do nothing but increase over the coming years.  (I have heard of some anecdotal evidence of power companies not using the power potential available from existing hydroelectric plants to keep electrical prices higher.  I haven’t been able to find any support for this, but I will be looking into it more thoroughly.)

The total electrical production in the United States in 2006 was 4.065 billion megawatt hours (MWh).  Forty-nine percent of the electricity generated in 2006 came from coal fired power plants; this number is down slightly from 2005, and hopefully it has fallen again in 2007, but I haven’t been able to find the statistics to confirm it.  Even if we were to consider more nuclear sites, the licensing of those sites alone would take two to three years, and then construction of them to follow, inspections and start-up.  From seven to ten years is what we would have to wait for nuclear.

The best and most viable choice in the short term is natural gas.  It is abundant, fairly clean, and we already have the pipeline infrastructure in place to transport it.  It would take some doing to convert all the coal fired plants to natural gas, but with the stimulus package that Washington will be considering in the coming year estimated at over one trillion dollars, I think this would be a good project to spend some of the money on.

For the long term though, what options do we have?  There has been a good deal of talk about wind power, and the abundance of wind resources we in America enjoy.  Aside from all the hot air coming out of politicians, I don’t see how turbines could replace, or even produce enough to make a majority of the electricity in this country.  Even if we use the American Wind Energy Association‘s (AWEA) numbers of the largest wind turbine creating 5,600 MWh per year, we would have to have turbines everywhere to match the electrical output needed by Americans.

Thus, the first thing we realize is that we are going to have to have a diversified energy strategy when it comes to providing electricity for homes, businesses and industry.  The second thing we are going to have to realize and stick to, is that most of the possible solutions are a decade away.

Solar panels are another viable energy source; though again, they cannot completely replace the energy created by coal.  For those people who can afford it, one can purchase enough solar panels to power one’s house.  While the prices are coming down, and will continue to do so, they are still prohibitively expensive.  In addition, solar panels will simply not provide enough energy when mounted in an urban setting to provide enough power for an apartment and office buildings.

The southwest is custom made for solar collection.  Solar farms will have to be developed, much like the one that Global Solar Energy has in Tucson, Arizona, which will produce an estimated 1100 MWh per year.  The operation noted here is based on CIGS, or copper indium gallium diselenide, thin-film solar cell technology.  While it is not as efficient as silicon-based panels, thin film panels are both easier and less expensive to manufacture.  There is also a variety of solar collection technology coming of age as well.  Larger silicon based panels will be used to provide energy for the larger populace such as this one in Nevada.

On the silicone based panels, though, a number of advances are helping out as well.  A University of Delaware advancement has led to a solar cell that is 42.8% efficient, where earlier cells were only operating at 40% efficiency.  Not only is the increase a great help in collection and energy generation, but the technology will lead to cheaper, more easily accessible panels that are manufactured more quickly.  Another technology developed for the silicon cells is one by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, based in Troy, NY.  This team has developed a coating that will help the silicon cells absorb more of the light that shines upon them.  The anti-reflective coating will help the cells collect 96.2% of the sun’s rays while cells without the coating are only able to harness 67.4% of the light.  Again, in time, I imagine that this technology will be able to be applied to the thin film solar cells, making them more efficient as well.

When items become more efficient, they can then produce the same amount of energy in a smaller size, which is another technology that is being developed where photovoltaic collection is concerned.  Currently there are two different tracks to making paintable solar cells.  The low-tech method, being pursued by Swansea University in the UK, is a four part painting method.  First, a primer is painted on the panel, next comes the electrolyte layer.  On top of this is painted a coat of titanium dioxide pigment, over which a protective clear coat is painted.  The titanium dioxide, when the sun shines on it, will transfer electrons to the electrolyte layer, which are then collected.  From what I have been able to find out so far, I am not sure how these electrons are then transferred into a grid, though I imagine the university and its commercial partners wish to keep this unknown.  Right now, the only problem I see is that the paint is layered on a steel panel, which would provide a number of problems from conductivity to corrosion.

On the high tech side of research on the nano scale are a couple of different methods under investigation.  The first is a material of metal oxide nanowires that are sprayed onto surfaces, or even applied by high-speed printers.  The surfaces painted would be roofing tiles or building panels.  The New Jersey Institute of Technology, though, is working on a photovoltaic paint that is made of carbon fiber nanotubes and Buckyballs (or Fullerenes).  This paint could then be applied to any surface, though I am still unsure how the electrical charge would be drawn off.

Another technology working with nanowires comes from University of California at San Diego.  In this application, the nanowires are grown on the electrodes of thin film solar cells, increasing their efficiency by six to seven orders of magnitude.  If this technology is combined with the anti-reflective coating noted above, then the thin film solar cells could become a much more viable option.

High tech paint and nano tubes aren’t the only things that are being researched where solar cells are concerned.  At MIT, scientists are working on a solar cell that will mimic photosynthesis, breaking water into its component parts, hydrogen and oxygen.  This system would overcome the problem inherent in solar systems, what to do when the sun goes down.

I have tried to touch on a number of what I see as the most promising technologies that are currently being researched.  Unfortunately, they are all about a decade off, but I am hopeful that with a strategy combining all these tools, including wind, and maximizing hydroelectric, we can start to see a clear way.  I imagine that high efficiency silicon-based cells would be used for solar farms where thin film would be used to meet a variety of immediate needs.  The paint, though, offers the most hope of a completely green and sustainable energy source.  I will look at the energy in the transportation sector in part two of this article.