Tel: (845) 626-2627   Home   Contact  
Sun Volt

Sun Volt Solar

earth, the final frontier

Clean Energy, Clean Environment

We are at a cross roads in human history, we can choose to continue on as we have been, or we can make a change to improve our future and quite possibly the future for several generations to come. We are here to promote energy independence, a better environment, a secure future and a higher return on investment for your hard earned dollar. It is what I believe in, it is why I am in the solar business.

It’s raining oil, and that is not a good thing

23 Jun 10 | Environment

I am still at wonder with the oil leak (spill?) in the gulf.  The latest thing is this video from New Orleans showing and oily sheen on pavement after a rain storm:

The camera operator seems to think it is coming from the rain, it may be, it may not be.  According to NOAA:

National Weather Service Science and Operations Officer Charlie Paxton says while it’s always possible a water spout could pick up some oil and carry it a short distance, the notion of black rain is just not possible. Paxton says that’s because oil does not evaporate. As a result, talk of black rain is just a myth.

Alright, black rain, myth, I’ll buy that, but crude oil does evaporate, even at low vapor pressures found on the surface of the ocean in the Gulf of Mexico. I don’t know the chemical composition of the crude bubbling out of the broken well head in the gulf, but if it is similar to other gulf crude, then it has a lot of VOC’s mixed in with heavier components. Sunlight shining on a patch of brown crude sludge floating on the surface would more than likely raise the vapor pressure high enough to cause it to evaporate. Based on what I learned in chemistry 101, it would be a safe bet to say that 10-20% percent of the surface oil will evaporate.

It is also not at all a stretch to say that those compounds could condense with the low temperatures at high altitude, the same way water vapor does.  So, while black rain might not be possible, light brown or clear oil rain is possible.  What is not clear in this video is whether or not this is spilled oil seeping up through the pavement and washing away, or if it is light oil coming down with the rain.

Tags: , ,

23 Jun 10 | Environment | Comment (1)

Fixing the blame for the Gulf oil Spill

06 Jun 10 | Conservation, Environment

The Japanese have a very good saying, “Fix the problem, not the blame.”  With all of the anger flowing toward BP for their part in the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, I thought it might be interesting to examine those reactions a little bit.  I understand the frustration, especially of those that live and work on those waters.  Many of the fisherman have been doing that for all their lives, their father’s lives too.  Watching the brown goo wash up on shore, the horrible pictures of birds covered in oil, dead sea turtles, and sharks is heart rending.

Watching the enraged public demonstrating in front of BP service stations and the somewhat muted anger of our chief executive is an interesting contrast to the true situation.  Deep water drilling and production is a hugely complicated and expensive enterprise.  To be sure, no one at BP could foresee these events and perhaps the actions of the drill rig crew were a little lax.  But the truth of the matter is, BP would not be drilling in deep water if there were not customers for their product.  They certainly would not go through all that trouble, expense and exposure to produce a marginal product that might or might not be sold.

To be certain, BP and the drill rig operator, Trans Ocean are culpable, there is a long list of others that contributed.  All of those that drive cars, trucks, ships, ride on trains, aircraft, buses, use electricity from the electrical grid, and use petro chemical products like plastic containers are also responsible.  Without end users, BP would have no reason to be in deep water drilling for oil.   So, while it is all good fun to drive home after the demonstration and upload the photos to the internet, look in the mirror; you can blame that person too.

We know what the problem is, an addiction to oil, it is up to all of us to fix that problem, each in his or her own way.

Tags: , ,

06 Jun 10 | Conservation, Environment | Comments (2)

Gulf oil spill and our energy future

30 May 10 | Commentary

There is not much that I can add to the online discussion about the Gulf oil spill.  It is disheartening to say the lest, the oil spill will have environmental impacts for decades if not generations.  I have been gathering information from several websites, the most informed from an oil production standpoint seems to be The Oil Drum.  There, based on pressures and volumes of mud used in the failed top kill attempt, they have estimated the oil flow to be about 17,000 barrels (715,000 gallons) per day.  On this, the thirtieth day of May, that equates to 680,000 barrels (28,560,000 gallons) of oil spilled.  Add to this the hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemical dispersant and the picture in the Gulf becomes bleak to put it mildly.

In all likelihood, this will continue until the relief well is completed in August.  By that time 1.7 million barrels (71.4 million gallons) of oil will have been released into the Gulf.

There are a few things to keep in mind:

  1. Oil breaks down naturally in sunlight into mostly CO2 and water.  A great majority of oil formed in the past eons has seeped to the surface to evaporate and be broken down by the sun.  Only oil trapped under impermeable rock has formed reservoirs.  This is less than 5% of the hydrocarbons created.  The oil released into the Gulf will go the same course, over time.
  2. The US alone burns 19,498,000 barrels of oil per day.  To give some perspective 29 Gulf oil spills will be needed to equal one day of oil consumption in the US.
  3. An active Hurricane season may hasten the breaking up of oil globs and cause it to break down faster, so long as the storm surge does not push large amounts of oil inland and contaminate shore side marshes.

The bad news is that as the oil breaks down, especially the underwater oil plumes, they will rob oxygen from the surrounding water creating huge dead zones.  There will also be deposits of residual chemicals such as sulfur and heavy compounds that will settle to the bottom of the sea.  No one really knows what effect the chemical dispersant will have on life in the Gulf, but one can hazard a guess that it will not be positive.

So, what effects has this had on the energy discussion in the US?  Sadly, not much.  There are a number of outraged persons demonstrating in front of BP gas stations, that is true.  Unfortunately, unless members of congress can be swayed, nothing bad will happen to BP or the oil industry in general.  I would expect the oil lobby to contribute handily to many re-election campaigns this year, ’cause thats how business is done.  Once the spill is capped, everyone will calm down and it will be business as usual for the oil business.

As an energy and environmentally conscious individual, all I can do is turn inward and make sure that I and my family do everything possible to reduce our own use of fossil fuels.  That is all any of us can do.

Tags: , , ,

30 May 10 | Commentary | Comments (0)

How clean is the electricity you use?

13 Feb 10 | Environment

The US EPA has a web site, Energy and You,  to help you find out. For the basic information and statistics, you simply need to know your zip code. This will show a break down of how much SO2, Nox and CO2 is produced per mWh (1,000 kWh) for electricity used in your area.  If you would like specific information about a home or business, then the annual electric usage in kWh for that structure is needed.

The breakdown of fuel types also gives a good idea of waste products.  Coal is the dirtiest fuel, not only in terms of emissions but in terms of byproducts after combustion.  Fly ash from coal burning power plants is ever present and represents a real disposal issue for the power plant operator.  Of course, nuclear, in it’s current configuration, generates hazardous materials that need to be stored for 10,000 years.  This, by the way, can be changed with a different type of reactor.

Oil and natural gas have the fewest byproducts, and of course, hydro is renewable.

All in all, a good source of information, goes along with the theme of the last few posts.

Tags: ,

13 Feb 10 | Environment | Comment (1)

Mountain top removal

11 Feb 10 | Conservation, Environment

Every time anyone says “clean coal technologies” I cringe.  This goes back to what I wrote about in the last post, the true cost of energy in this country.  Everyone complains of high taxes, deficit spending and the like.  No one thinks twice about when they turn on a light switch, they just expect it to work.  Moving that switch from “off” to “on” is a part of your tax dollars at work.  Here are some of the things that money is paying for:

  1. Subsides for large oil and coal corporations to fund exploration and technological developments
  2. Payments into medicare, medicaid and other medical programs to treat persons near the mining sites for illnesses related to release of chemicals into air and water
  3. Payments into environmental funds to pay for cleanup and mitigation of pollution
  4. Payments into government assistance programs for displaced persons in coal mining areas
  5. Payments to medical entitlement programs to treat those near coal fired power plants for illnesses
  6. Losses incurred due to acid rain in east coast forests, lakes, ponds and streams
  7. Losses in the seafood industry due to increased mercury levels in higher fish species
  8. incalculable costs of added pollutants such as Uranium, Thorium, Mercury, Nickel, et. al in the environment and the effects such have on developing human beings

Then there is the human costs, as this video shows:

The old adage “out of sight, out of mind,” is what the coal companies and their congressional sponsors are hoping for. There is no such thing as clean coal.

Tags:

11 Feb 10 | Conservation, Environment | Comments (0)

Carbon Dioxide; cap and trade, sequestration, climate change

02 Dec 09 | Commentary

I have been reading with interest the debate on the evils of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and various proposed methods to reduce its presence in the atmosphere.

First a few basic facts:

  1. Carbon Dioxide is a product of combustion, all combustion of any organic material creates heat and carbon dioxide.
  2. Carbon Dioxide is a know green house gas.  It traps heat in the atmosphere by reflecting long wavelength IR back to the surface of the earth
  3. Carbon Dioxide is an extremely resilient molecule because of the energy in the carbon – oxygen bond.  It does not readily break down in the atmosphere as other green house gases do.  The best proven way to break it down is by plants using photosynthesis.
Carbon Dioxide Molecule

Carbon Dioxide Molecule

The only sure fire method of reducing carbon dioxide emission into the atmosphere is to reduce combustion.  Some fuels produce less CO2 than others, say natural gas over coal, for example.  However, the differences are not that significant, burning natural gas still releases tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each second of every day.

Cap and trade is a polution reducing scheme that was put in place by the first President Bush to reduce acid rain.  It was designed to reduce Nitric and Sulfur emissions from various industry types, most notably electric generating facilities.  Since both nitrogen and sulfur, particularly sulfur, can be remove from the combustion process before the fuel is burned and after with smoke stack scrubbers, it was a good incentive for polluters to clean up their act.  CO2 on the other hand, cannot be removed from the combustion process, it is like saying you are going to remove the wet from water.  Cap and trade would then have to be based on the type of fuel burned, since natural gas produces less CO2 per BTU than coal or oil, most electrical power plant operators would be forced to convert to natural gas.  That would be hugely expensive and in the long run, net little result in reduction of CO2.

CO2 sequestration is an even sillier idea.  In order to store CO2 in the ground, it would have to be liquified, which requires reducing the temperature to -70° F and keeping it there.  Underground temperatures at oil well depth are generally 150° F and higher, thus it would be difficult to keep the CO2 underground.  A leak from a CO2 storage facility could potentially displace the Oxygen in the surrounding area, creating a hazard for those living and working nearby.  Further, storing vast quantities of CO2 under ground could lead to things like atmospheric Oxygen depletion.

And to what end?  The roll that CO2 is playing in climate change is still debatable.  The best way to reduce CO2 and all other emissions that come from burning fossil fuels is to install renewable energy systems.  Wind, Solar, Hydro, Wave power and even Nuclear Power (although nuclear is not a renewable energy source) have zero CO2 emissions.  Zero emissions is far better than any “clean coal” technology (which doesn’t exist), Cap and trade schemes for CO2 (which will not work) and CO2 squestration (which seems dangerous).

Tags:

02 Dec 09 | Commentary | Comments (0)

Ground Source Heat Pump; same as a coal stove?

03 Jan 09 | Conservation, Environment, Geothermal

I read a lot of information on a daily basis.  A few months ago, somebody commented that a Ground Source Geothermal Heat Pump is the same as using a coal stove to heat your house.  The notion is that by purchasing and installing a GSHP, a homeowner is only pushing the problem further away (to the electrical generation plant), not actually reducing pollution.

Is that right?  Perhaps a little research is in order.

First, a little background.  A Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) uses a refrigeration cycle to move heat either to or from a heat sink which is typically a large coil of PEX pipe burried in the ground.  Wells, ponds and other sources can be used also.  The idea is that using the ground (or other source), which is a constant temperature of around 50 degrees F, a heat pump can be much more efficient than using resistance heating.

GSHPs are rated by a coefficient of performance, known as COP.  This is a comparison of the amount of electricity used by the heat pump vs. electricity used in resistance heating.  Thus a COP of 5 means the heat pump is producing 5 KW of heat for 1 KW of electric used.  The highest COP is about 6, or 600% efficiency compared to electric resistance heating. A COP of 5 is considered very good.

The electrical distribution system in the US is about 31.2% efficient.  Therefore, a head to head comparison of power used vs. heat produced would look something like this:

1 kWh = 3413 BTU

A GSHP using 1 kWh of electric with a COP of 5 produces 17,065 BTU heat.

The electric plant producing the current to run the GSHP burned 10,939 BTU of fuel to produce 1 kWh.  Therefore, a very well designed, well installed GSHP is about 156% efficient when all the energy requirements are considered.

A typical coal stove is about 60-65% efficient, therefore it would require 26,254 BTU to generate 17,065 BTU of usable heat.

Conclusion: A Ground Source Heat Pump ≠ a coal stove.  GSHPs are energy efficient and a good way to heat a home where solar resources are not available.  They are not 500% efficient, as some companies would have you believe, but are greater than 100% efficient if properly designed and installed.

Tags: , ,

03 Jan 09 | Conservation, Environment, Geothermal | Comments (10)

Developments in LED lighting

31 Dec 08 | Environment, Solar Electric
Philips Lumiled high power light emitting diode

Philips Lumiled high power light emitting diode

As part of a general trend toward more efficient energy use, LED (AKA solid state) lighting shows promise.  From EE times.com:

White organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) are already producing more light per watt than incandescent bulbs, according to engineering professor Stephen Forrest, but it is trapped inside the device. By fabricating a tandem system of grids and micro lenses on a white OLED, the device can achieve a brightness of over 70 lumens per watt, compared with 15 lumens for incandescent bulbs–almost as much as fluorescent tube lights (90 lumens).

And from Scientific Blogging:

Current white LED’s require a substrate made of sapphire and an additional mirroring layer to reflect light that would otherwise be lost… Researchers at Purdue University have found one method of significantly reducing the cost of a white LED by eliminating the expensive layer of sapphire. Instead, they used silicon as the substrate (the material the diode is printed on) and zirconium nitride as the reflector.

And from RPI:

Solid-state lighting that replaces incandescent and fluorescent bulbs with light-emitting diodes can reap enormous savings in cost, natural resources and pollution, according to a recent study by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. RPI’s Troy, New York-based Smart Lighting Engineering Resource Center claims that over the next 10 years savings of more than $1.8 trillion will eliminate the need to burn almost a billion barrels of oil in power plants that would otherwise produce 10 gigatons in the carbon dioxide emissions.

Lighting accounts for 22% of all electrical consumption in the United States.  If even half of the reduction claimed in the RPI report is realized, a significant step has been made toward reducing pollution and increasing energy efficiency.  For most people, the current color rendition of solid state lights (SSL) is harsh with too much blue light used.  This problem is being worked on.

Further, SSL systems are great companions to off grid PV systems that can use DC power distribution.  In an AC (alternating current) system, losses come from inverters, power supplies, and the LEDs themselves.  In a DC (direct current, e.g. 12 or 24 volt) system, the only losses are the LEDs.

Look for more developments in SSL in the near future.

Tags: , , , ,

31 Dec 08 | Environment, Solar Electric | Comments (0)

Is this coal clean?

27 Dec 08 | Environment

The dam around a retaining pond a TVA’s coal fired Kingston power plant burst and an estimated billion (B) gallons of coal ash and sludge flowed out covering more than 300 acres of adjacent land.  Several neighbors had to be evacuated from there homes as fears of water and airborne contamination spread.

There is no technology that can get rid of coal ash, also known as fly ash, which is a byproduct of coal combustion.   The TVA insists that fly ash is non toxic, however the EPA is of a different mind, from the New York Times:

A draft report last year by the federal Environmental Protection Agency found that fly ash, a byproduct of the burning of coal to produce electricity, does contain significant amounts of carcinogens and retains the heavy metal present in coal in far higher concentrations. The report found that the concentrations of arsenic to which people might be exposed through drinking water contaminated by fly ash could increase cancer risks several hundredfold.

The post industrial revolution development scheme tends to use the strategy of building super regulated subdivisions miles away from power plants or other industrial activities.  After all, who want there back yards to look like this:

This merely pushes the problem further away, which allows the problem to grow bigger and bigger and bigger until it takes over and ruins the entire area. Our coal use should be getting smaller with an eye toward phasing it out all together. Soon.

Tags: ,

27 Dec 08 | Environment | Comments (0)

A false sense of security

19 Nov 08 | Conservation, Environment

I continue to watch in amazement as fuel oil prices (and energy prices in general) plumet from there summer time record highs.  Home heating oil has decreased by nearly 38%, from $4.80/gallon to the current price of $3.018/gallon.

The reason given on most news channels is the demand dropping off due to the bad economy.  Maybe, but I have another theory.  Demand is off by roughtly 5.2% over the same period last year.  The price per barrel of oil has dropped from a high of $147/bbl to about $56/bbl today, or a decrease of 62%.

Something doesn’t quite add up here.  Perhaps it has something to do with the less than transparent oil hedge fund speculation.  In fact, the hedge funds came to light last summer, when congress considered banning the practice, but choose not to.  So what is a hedge fund?

That is an investment that is betting on the price of some comodity will go up.  The idea is to buy low, sell high.  With oil, that was a pretty safe bet until recently.  Some hedge funds completely collapsed, leaving investors holding the bag.

As oil prices began to fall toward the middle of July, these funds began to dump there crude holdings, thus, the market became very soft for crude which lead to the price collapse.  So, was the the end of high oil/gas prices?

No, most experts agree that oil prices will go back up, even before the economy begins to recover.  Indeed, OPEC has already cut production once to prop up prices.  That effort was ineffective, so no doubt they will try again at their next meeting.

In the grand scheme of life, spending money, especially large amounts of hard earned cash, is always somewhat difficult.  The exact perfect time to invest in a renewable energy system may never arrive.  After all, there are many other things to spend money on, a new car, a new bathroom or kitchen, that trip the the Bahamas that you always wanted to take.  However, wouldn’t it be nice to know that you are not being manipulated out of your money by wealthy hedge fund operators?  Wouldn’t it be nice to know that you are not dependent on buying oil from people who don’t like us?  Wouldn’t it be nice to know that you have lessend your impact on the environment, even if it did cost a little more in the short run?

In the coming months, we may be called upon to sacrifice for the good of our country.  The time has never been better to install a renewable energy system, what better way to support the local economy, create jobs, reduce imports, reduce the trade deficite, improve the environment and take back control of your life.

Tags: , ,

19 Nov 08 | Conservation, Environment | Comments (0)
« Previous Posts