Showing posts with label power plant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label power plant. Show all posts

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Little to no progress made on cleaning up energy, according to research


This week, the Clean Energy Ministerial, an organization of representatives from countries responsible for 80% of today’s carbon emissions, will meet in New Delhi to share environmental experiences and encourage the transition to a more stable, globalized energy infrastructure.

However, according to one representative who will be in attendance, Maria van der Hoeven, executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), renewable energy has been shelved in favor of temporarily stimulating national economies. “The average unit of energy produced today is basically as dirty as it was 20 years ago,” she claims.



Modern power plants are the worst polluters of all. Usually dependent upon coal, the dirtiest of all fossil fuels, these power plants emit astronomical amounts of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere. In order to track these levels, the IEA has relied on a system of evaluation called the Energy Sector Carbon Intensity Index (ESCII). The ESCII calculates the average amount of carbon emissions expected in the production of an individual unit of energy. In 2010, the index calculated that, in order to produce energy from one metric ton of oil, 2.37 metric tons of carbon dioxide would be given off – or nearly the exact same number registered back in 1990!

Can you think of any other industry that’s experienced stagnant quality or production costs and actually survived amidst the free-market? Didn’t think so. Hence the reason Apple, Nike, and all of your favorite brands compete for the top designers and then outsource production to manufacturers where laborers have never heard of a “minimum wage.”

The important of developing alternative energy sources has been stressed amongst the media, environmentalist, and politicians alike for decades now. Yet, as van der Hoeven points out, the “growth of coal-fired power is actually outpacing the increase in generation from non-fossil energy sources.”

Why? Because sticking with what’s already in place is usually the easiest option -- not necessarily the right one.


 
Even countries making “honest” attempts to curb their carbon emissions eventually succumb to greed. The United States, for example, is burning less coal than in the past, but is selling their stockpile of unused coal to facilities over in Asia. One way or the other, the stuff is getting burned. It’s polluting our air and waterways. And the problem is only getting worse. Since we consume roughly 50% more energy compared to a decade ago, and yet the ratio of carbon output to energy production hasn’t improved, that means we’re pumping cataclysmic amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

At our current pace, van der Hoeven thinks “the world is on track to have global temperatures rise by 6 degrees Celsius,” or 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit, by the year 2100. If that happens, most scientists agree – we’re done for. (In fact, they estimate that if surface temperatures rise more than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, the world as we know it will cease to exist.)

“The overall lack of progress should serve as a wake-up call,” warns van der Hoeven. “We cannot afford another 20 years of listlessness. We need a rapid expansion in low-carbon energy technologies if we are to avoid a potentially catastrophic warming of the planet.”

NRGLab couldn’t agree more. That’s why we developed the SH-Box, a generator that produces electricity with absolutely ZERO carbon emissions. Not only is it a clean and renewable source of energy, the SH-Box is also a penny-saver, generating electricity for as little as $0.03 per kWh. That’s four times less than your current energy provider is probably charging you!

Want to know more? Check out the SH-Box and NRGLab’s other green initiatives at nrglab.asia.com.

Sunday, April 14, 2013

U.K.'s energy industry on the verge of collapse?


The United Kingdom’s energy industry risks collapse if the government isn’t able to come to terms with EDF Energy on the price-point for electricity from the planned £14 billion nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point.

According to Lord Hutton, chairmen of the Nuclear Industry Association, the strained negotiations could scare future investors away from other energy projects. "If a deal cannot be struck for new nuclear, can it be struck for offshore wind or carbon capture and storage?"



If negotiations do collapse, the future of EDF’s influence in Britain would be uncertain. Currently, EDF controls eight nuclear power plants, employs over 20,000 people and handles 5.7 million customer accounts across the U.K. But these existing plants are projected to stop generating electricity within the next ten years. What then?

Lord Hutton is meeting with senior executives of the French-owned EDF, as well as U.K.’s Energy secretary, Stephen Lovegrove, and Treasury minister, Lord Deighton. The negotiations center on a guaranteed price-point for electricity over the next 30 years – a price which the government plans to subsidize through an energy tax.

However, the two sides appear far apart on the operating costs for the power plant, and the return rate EDF is entitled to. Hutton estimates that roughly £3 billion could but cut from construction costs due to the previous design and development of U.K.’s other nuclear facilities. “Time is of the essence,” he stressed. “EDF Energy has spent £1 billion already and the project is at present costing the company £1 million a day.” (That’s over £100 million EDF’s spent since they missed their December deadline to get the deal done!)

Last week, CEO of EDF Henri Proglio was quoted as saying he expects the two sides to come to an agreement “within a month.” This after EDF missed their March deadline, too.

Critics of the deal with EDF say any agreement will enslave consumers for years to come, forcing them to pay billions of pounds to the French. They also cite recent progress in the natural gas industry as, potentially, a more affordable long-term solution.

Yet nuclear and natural gas are both CARBON-EMITTING sources of energy. If either becomes the predominant industry in the U.K., it will only be contributing to the spiraling effects of global warming.



“Left to its own devices, the market would not choose to invest in capital intensive low-carbon infrastructure,” said Hutton. “This would lead us to a precarious, high-carbon future increasingly dependent on imported gas. This would be absolutely the wrong direction for us to take and is why we must not lose sight of this in the current negotiations.”

He’s right. Just because we’ve relied on fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution doesn’t mean we should be forced to give-in to the unreasonable demands of greedy corporate executives. The free market should be exactly that – free. People should be free to choose their own energy providers. They should be fear-free to invest in innovative new technology.

Technology like the SH-box by NRGLab. Learn more by visiting nrglab.asia, before the energy crises reaches you and your home.