Concrete CO2 reduction

When businesses trying to reduce their emissions talk about concrete results, they’re generally not being literal. But for a pair of Spanish companies, Tecnalia and the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), their recently patented technology will do almost exactly that: using the solid waste from thermal power plants in place of limestone.

In cement production, limestone is heated up with other materials like clay, releasing the carbon dioxide from limestone to create calcium oxide, or quicklime. It’s this quicklime that is ultimately mixed with other materials and ground with gypsum to form cement.

By removing limestone from the process and replacing it with existing waste from thermal plants, which has been enhanced using nanomaterials, both energy and cement production benefit from recycling. The release linked above also boasts that the process reduces the energy required in the process by 50 per cent.

Of course, reducing the CO2 emissions from one industrial activity doesn’t exactly make the process emission-free. In Canada, despite our heavy use of hydro power, thermal power accounts for about 23 per cent of our total electricity production. Electricity production, in turn, is responsible for about 22 per cent of the country’s CO2 emissions.

Still, any technology that makes better use of the waste these plants are producing anyway makes sense in the short term. According to The Cement Association of Canada, the cement industry currently accounts for 1.4 per cent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Everyone wants to see concrete results on our environmental record, because the future of our planet is heavy, heavy stuff.

Stabilizing Offshore Wind Power

Barring objections from residents with ocean and lakeside views, one of the chief advantages of offshore wind is that it stays out of sight. Even though a recent report by Ontario’s chief medical officer concluded there was no evidence that the noise from wind turbines leads to adverse health effects, for example, residents are often still uneasy about letting a power plant, even a renewable one, in their backyards. That’s why a new kind of wind turbine, set to be released as a prototype in 2012 off the coast of Maine, offers hope for further offshore wind power.

Because they’re buffeted by wind and waves, offshore turbines have to be anchored to the ocean floor. But in deeper water, these supports aren’t practical, meaning that nearer developments have to contend with nearby residents’ objections. That’s why a consortium of companies calling itself DeepCwind is trying to develop a self-stabilizing offshore turbine.

The three models they’re currently testing float at 1/50th scale in a pool at the University of Maine in Orono. One is a large tube with a massive keel beneath and anchors, another is secured using taut cables and the third, also held in place by cables, is balanced by a pair of semi-submersible platforms, like a catamaran’s. Depending on the results of these tests, DeepCwind will select one for the designs as the basis for a 30-metre-high prototype that will be towed to four kilometres off Maine’s Monhegan Island.

Canada doesn’t currently have any offshore wind, though the NaiKun Wind Energy Group had hoped to be the first: installing 110 turbines in BC’s Hectate Strait. Unfortunately for the project, when BC Hydro announced its Clean Call for new sources of renewable electricity supply, NaiKun was not among them. Given the current level of interest in renewable power sources, however, it seems like offshore wind will eventually be a reality in Canada. If that’s true, and residents surrounding the Great Lakes don’t want turbines there, it won’t be long before Canadians begin looking for self-stabilizing wind turbines of their own.

Via New Scientist

Nuclear in New Brunswick

AREVA, a France-based multinational nuclear energy company, recently announced that it would be examining the feasibility of building a second nuclear reactor in New Brunswick in addition to the Point Lepreau facility.

Canada currently has 22 nuclear reactors. Eighteen are currently operational, in five generating facilities: Bruce, Pickering and Darlington in Ontario; Gentilly 2 in Quebec and Point Lepreau in New Brunswick. Nuclear power provides about 12 per cent of the electricity generated in Canada.

At this point, AREVA has only announced a letter of intent for this new light-water reactor, with a more substantive agreement with the province to be inked by the end of 2010. And if nothing ultimately came of the letter, it certainly wouldn’t be the first aborted nuclear project in recent years.

In July 2009, Bruce Power pulled the plug on two additional reactors in Bruce County, focusing instead on refurbishing its existing reactors. The plants had been slated to be built at Nanticoke on Lake Erie, but the rising costs of nuclear production, and the long-term construction period required for a new reactor were likely mitigating factors.

Another important recent development to Canada’s nuclear energy sector has been the federal government’s omnibus bill (Bill C-9), which among other provisions aims to sell off the nuclear power division of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), the crown corporation responsible for the CANDU line of reactors. The recent failure of the National Research Universal (NRU) reactor at Chalk River, which provides radioactive isotopes for diagnostic procedures, was the likely catalyst for the sale. (AREVA’s letter of intent is not coincidental: NB Power recently rejected AECL’s proposal to build a new CANDU reactor, in favour of AREVA).

If New Brunswick successfully commissions a new reactor, it would be the first new reactor built in Canada since the MAPLE II reactor, which, like Chalk River’s NRU reactor, was built to provide medical isotopes. MAPLE II began operating in 2003 but has been subsequently terminated due to technical issues.

Given the volatile fate of recent attempts to build nuclear facilities, it’s worth noting again how early on in the process this letter of intent comes. In any case, it all goes to show that when it comes to nuclear power, things always run a little hot.

Enormous Storage In A Tiny Battery

The researchers who discovered it say it’s ”the most condensed form of energy storage outside of nuclear energy.” That’s big talk for something so small: a “battery” capable of storing a million atmospheres worth of pressure in a white crystal called xenon difluoride (XeF₂).

By squeezing the xenon difluoride in a tiny diamond anvil (yes, that is exactly what it sounds like), researchers at Washington State were able to compress the xenon difluoride into a two-dimensional superconductor. When compressed even further, the substance formed 3D metallic “network structures” that stored the mechanical energy of the compression in chemical bonds.

The end result was an incredibly small “battery” (though based on a much simpler chemical reaction than the ones we’re used to) capable of storing an incredibly large amount of power. And storing power cuts to the heart of everything we’re interested in when it comes to new sources of energy.

Since renewable sources like solar and wind are intermittent, for example, they need energy storage to bridge the gap between periods of low sun or wind. In addition to conventional batteries, a host of solutions have been put forward, including water storage and even salt storage. But since there’s no telling how large a facility these far-out solutions could need, and since there’s a limit on how small and efficient conventional batteries can be, the idea of a battery so small and powerful that it could fit inside a two-inch by three-inch anvil is terribly interesting.

In the end, all energy research is ultimately about releasing or transforming energy: even fossil fuels are essentially storing sunlight that was converted into chemical energy by the organisms that have since decomposed. And, when it comes to storage, smaller really is better.

Via Science Daily

A Bright Idea: Keeping Things Dim

Since most of us aren’t ready to pack up our belongings and pitch a tent in the middle of the wilderness, the steps we take to reduce our environmental impact tend to be small ones. Government websites like the Office of Energy Efficiency provide a host of energy-saving tips like choosing low-energy lighting fixtures and checking the insulation on our windows, but these tips are still part of a recognizable pattern of energy consumption.

Even carbon offsets, those “get out of jail free” cards of the greenhouse gas world, aren’t 100 per cent effective in reducing emissions — The Christian Science Monitor published a damning six-part series in April 2010 that outlined many of the failings outlined in a similar report by The Suzuki Foundation and Pembina Institute.

But if the steps we’re taking are small, there’s at least some hope that they’re at least larger than we’d thought before. According to a study published in this month’s Energy Policy, the US government (and, therefore, likely the Canadian government as well) may have underestimated the CO2 emission savings of reducing electricity use by as much as 60 per cent. Because plants that burn fossil fuels are generally more able to respond to changes in use than their lower-emission counterparts (nuclear and renewable), lumping the two categories together skews the data. The authors recommend dividing electricity generation between low and emission-free sources and more variable, higher carbon sources, to give a more accurate picture of exactly what volume of emissions are being released.

Precisely estimating the volume of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions continues to be one of the largest problems when trying to estimate the environmental fallout from human activity. The environment is still an incredibly complex system that has both surprised us with its ability to process our emissions, and shocked us with the rapid effects of climate change, such as ocean acidification. It’s hard to get a firm grasp of the large picture, which might explain why we tend to want small changes that we can make in our daily lives. So, knowing that the small might not be so small after all is definitely good news.

Via Science Daily

A Little Leak

The Alberta Government has invested two billion into carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, hoping to sequester the province’s emissions deep within the earth. As one of the only provinces to rely heavily on coal-generated power (Alberta currently has nine coal-fired facilities), and one whose economy relies heavily on oil and gas, this sequestration is an essential part of the province’s overall energy strategy.

In the province, the University of Calgary, in particular, has made a name for itself in the field. Its research is coordinated by the Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy (ISEEE). The ISEEE also provides a central online location for its own reports and others’, exploring the complex issue.

According to the university’s researchers, the Wabamun Area CO2 Sequestration Project (WASP) demonstrates that the costs of injecting CO2 and storing it in geologic formations are relatively low — about $3 per tonne of carbon dioxide. The cost to capture the CO2, pressurize it and transport it from the site where it was generated, however, would be about 10 times more than the cost of storage.

But beyond costs, one of the biggest questions about CCS technology is whether it can permanently sequester CO2. Obviously, if the CO2 leaks out, the entire point of the exercise is moot.

But just how much leakage is too much? That number, it turns out, is very small: one per cent.

According to research published in Nature Geoscience, unless CO2 leakage can be kept below one per cent of the reserve per year, CCS will not be able to mitigate the effects of climate change, such as rising sea levels and ocean acidification.

The severity of a one per cent leak decrease as the periods of time increase (from years to decades to centuries), but such a leak wouldn’t actually be problem-free until the thousand-year mark. It’s a huge span of time, but when it comes to waste disposal of any kind, we’re definitely talking about the long haul.

Ottawa To Winnipeg On A Gallon Of Gas? No Problem

Team aiming to achirve over 3,200 miles on one gallon of gas

Full Story [The Gazette]

Polluters Pay To Promote Parallel Projects

No one’s figured out how to snatch money from thin air, but 30 Alberta companies recently cashed in by doing almost that: reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

From CO2 capturing in Exshaw to solar and wind power installations in 9,000 homes across the province, Alberta’s climate change fund is paying out for the first round of emission-reducing energy projects.

Launched in April 2008, the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund allows companies annually producing more than 100,000 tonnes of GHG emissions to pay $15 for every tonne over their allowed limit (companies must reduce the intensity of their emissions by 12 per cent). Companies can also buy carbon credits in the Alberta-based offset system, but the fund has proven to be a popular option: to date, it’s collected about $40 million.

Now, the province’s Climate Change and Emissions Management Corporation is providing the first round of funding, designed to support projects that will ultimately reduce the same GHG emissions that fuel the fund.

The corporation selected 30 projects from 223 project submissions. These include $8.2 million for a Lethbridge biogas cogeneration plant (ECB Enviro North America Inc.), $3 million for a solar thermal power project (City of Medicine Hat) and $1.8 million to develop a pilot plant to produce biofuel and utilize carbon dioxide (Enerkem Inc.). But the province won’t just be seeing carbon-reducing projects that generate power.

The 30 projects run the gamut from renewable energy generation, like Calgary-based Enmax’s plan to install 9,000 wind- and solar-generation kits in Alberta homes over five years, to energy efficiency and carbon capture and storage (CCS), like a CO2 capture facility at a limestone production facility in Exshaw. It’s a slate of projects that shows the diversity of the province’s carbon mitigation efforts, and the growing interest in unconventional approaches to energy. And even if it’s not exactly magic, pulling project funding out of invisible gases still isn’t a bad trick.

Via CanWest

Making Waves With Tidal Kites

When you think about it, a lot of our renewable energy methods are basically just closely related technological cousins. For example: the humble turbine. Whether it’s being spun by a raging river, or a strong breeze a turbine is just a turbine, wherever it is. And that might be why, in the end, it isn’t so hard to imagine putting a kite in the water.

Manufactured by a Swedish company called Deep Green, these tidal “kites” are capable of capturing tidal energy at 10 times the speed of the surrounding water. Anchored to the sea floor by a 330-foot cable, these 39-foot-wide kites would each hold a turbine, the kind already used in existing tidal plants like the 20-MW Annapolis Tidal Generation Station.

In Canada, most of the attention for tidal energy has been focused on a single province: Nova Scotia. And that’s because of a little bay named Fundy.

Each day, 100 billion tonnes of seawater flows through the Bay of Fundy. And because of its great tidal range — the vertical distance between high and low tides —the bay is considered a prime location for tidal power generation. The Fundy Ocean Research Centre for Energy (FORCE) coordinates the province’s research on tidal power, and would be the body that could ultimately allow technologies like Deep Green’s tidal kites into Canadian waters. While the current design for the kites is still in early testing, it’s a sure bet that an increasing demand for renewable energy across the world will bring a variety of interesting-looking devices into the Bay. And it won’t matter that some of these technologies look like they belong in the sky, rather than the water.

In fact, tidal technology has a long history with unconventional designs for its generators. A kite “flying” in the ocean might be an odd image, but it’s certainly a lot more comforting than the notion of 200-metre-long anacondas slithering through our waters. And in the end, when it comes to a comforting image for future renewable energy development, most people would probably prefer a lazy, sailing kite to an enormous snake, technological cousins or not.

Go Small

A lot of the energy solutions we talk about are massive — power plants with outputs measured in megawatts, wind turbines that tower above us, national energy strategies (or the lack thereof). Sometimes, though, the most innovative solutions to our energy woes are downright microscopic.

Take, for example, a pair of genetically engineered bacteria called Geobacter and Shewanella capable of converting carbon dioxide into fuel, such as butanol or octanol. Essentially, the using sunlight and carbon dioxide to produce fuel is simply the next step beyond biofuels — rather than trying to extract the chemical energy stored in plant matter that originally derived its energy from the sun, these microorganisms would jump straight to the fuel. And where current fuel cells are still struggling to reduce their size, these artificial microscopic organisms already function as microscopic fuel cells— stealing electrons via protein tubes that extend from their central mass and generating electricity.

A similar pilot project in Texas uses modified single cell organisms to convert sunlight and carbon dioxide into ethanol or diesel fuel. Using solar panels to collect sunlight — a method of enhancing the light absorbed that is also being used with the Geobacter and Shewanella bacteria — the organisms “sweat” out hydrocarbon fuel, which can then be easily separated from the water in which they’re suspended.

Add Flow’s earlier article “Water power” on a nanotechnology that allows water molecules to be split into their constituent hydrogen to those microorganisms, and you’ve got tantalizing glimpses into the microscopic world of energy generation. We’re often encouraged to go big or go home, but in a world where we can engineer microscopic solutions to our massive energy use, maybe sometimes it’s better to go small after all.

Image Georgia Tech

Next Page »