EPA Raises Raises Requirements for Renewable Fuels

An item of interest to ethanol producers and other supporters of ethanol is this announcement by EPA, as further clarified by this announcement by EERE:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on November 17 that the 2009 renewable fuel standard (RFS) will require most refiners, importers, and non-oxygenate blenders of gasoline to displace 10.21% of their gasoline with renewable fuels such as ethanol. That requirement aims to ensure that at least 11.1 billion gallons of fuels will be sold in 2009.  . . . While the RFS requirement is increasing by about 23%—from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 11.1 billion gallons in 2009—the percentage requirement is increasing by nearly one third, from 7.76% in 2008 to 10.21% in 2009.

The larger relative increase in the percentage requirement reflects the fact that fuel consumption is expected to be lower in 2009, so a greater percentage of renewable fuel is needed to reach 11.1 billion gallons of renewable fuels. . . .

The 2009 RFS is also pushing up against what is known as the "blend wall." Most gasoline sold in the United States contains at most 10% ethanol (a blend known as E10), but the new RFS requires a slightly greater percentage of gasoline to be displaced with renewable fuel.  . . .  One way to sell greater amounts of ethanol is to sell E85, a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline, but despite rapid growth in the number of E85 pumps, there are still only about 1,800 E85 pumps in the United States.  . . . To address the blend wall issue, DOE and others are studying the use of mid-range blends, such as E15 and E20, for use in standard gasoline-burning vehicles. Allowing all gasoline blends to contain up to 20% ethanol would double the potential market for ethanol.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires that the RFS to have annual increases until it reaches 36 billion gallons of ethanol in 2022, 15 billion gallons must come from corn ethanol and 22 billion gallons from second-generation biofuels. In 2015 corn ethanol is required to reach a peak of 15 billion gallons out of the total renewable fuel target of 20.5 billion gallons. The market share for corn ethanol remains at 15 billion gallons until 2022 when the target total for all renewable fuels reaches 36 billion gallons.

On a purely voluntary basis, gasoline blenders have always used more ethanol than the required minimum because increasingly high oil prices made ethanol an attractive fuel in its own right. Today, 12/1/08, with oil at $50.77/bbl (NYMEX) and RBOB gasoline at $1.095/gal (NYMEX) and ethanol at $1.596/gal at the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) it makes no economic sense to blend ethanol with gasoline.The RFS will become binding for the first time in 2009. Gasoline blenders will have to use 11.1 billion gallons of ethanol because that is what the law tells them, not because it makes economic sense

This was always going to happen at some time, given the much more ambitious RFS volume obligations in the 2007 law. It was never going to be possible to blend 20.5 billion gallons into the gasoline supply by 2015 without much wider uptake of E85 vehicles or other modifications of the U.S car fleet. But the unprecedented cyclical reduction in gasoline demand has brought the blending wall much closer.

While I am a supporter of ethanol as a means of reducing our dependence on foreign oil, I am not a supporter of the use of corn ethanol to the extent required by the RFS. Ten billion gallons per year (bgy) of corn ethanol is about the maximum that should be supported, let alone 11 or 15 bgy. Greater amounts seems to be an irresponsible way of utilizing U.S. farm resources at the present time. I would advocate reducing theses requirements to ten bgy and the total requirement from all sources of biofuels frozen at 11 bgy until cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel and biobutanol become more viable sources of fuel; greater amounts can always be produced if the market supports it. In fact it is time to take the emphasis off corn ethanol entirely and concentrate on cellulosic ethanol made from non-food feedstocks and biobutanol which can be used in up to 100% concentrations in current vehicles.  After these technologies have been proven to be economically viable, say by 2015, then let market forces determine which flavor of fuel is most viable. Supporters of cellulosic ethanol claim that current corn ethanol production facilities can be easily converted to producing cellulosic ethanol, thus increasing the yield of fuel per acre.

The establishment of a market for ethanol and other renewable fuels is a worthy objective to prepare for future times when the cost of oil once again becomes more onerous and in short supply. The market for corn ethanol has been established and should be maintained.  Subsidies for corn ethanol should be dropped as soon as possible, but this will not be possible as soon as I had anticipated, due decreasing prices for oil.  I would favor that any subsidies be based on the difference between the cost of gasoline and the cost of ethanol. Because of corn ethanol, markets for biodiesel, biobutanol, cellulosic ethanol and any future biofuels should develop more easily and subsidies be required for only a short time, if at all.

Requiring all new vehicles be flex-fueled vehicles makes a lot of sense to me.  This is the least costly way to enable widespread use of biofuels.  Some $30 to $100 per car seems to be a reasonable price to pay to enable wider use of biofuels.  Pontiac's new G6 is available with a flex-fuel 3.5L V6 at no additional cost over the gas version in the full range of body styles.  Is this a sign of things to come? and by an American car company!

Vinod Khosla, the well known Silicon Valley, in his words, venture assistant, to technology based ventures, has a good, seemingly objective, White Paper, Food vs Fuel that should be of interest to readers of this post and thosee interested in the renewable fuels market in general. His view on corn ethanol is very similar to mine (which I developed independently, much before I heard of him), but expressed much more eloquently:

The future that Professors Runge, Senauer and Lester Brown and many other critics of corn ethanol see is similar to what we envision – cellulosic and biomass-based biofuels that offer better potential solutions, higher efficiencies, and a better environmental footprint. However, it is vital to note that none of this would have been viable without corn-ethanol in the first place – none of the university research, financial capital, or political backing for cellulosic would exist without the corn-based version proving its functionality and priming the market and infrastructure. Ethanol in its current manifestations has provided a valuable stepping stone away from the age of oil, and the transition to a cleaner and more environmentally friendly future based on cellulosic biofuels.

Comments

[David B. Benson]

More can be found by following

http://www.icis.com/blogs/biofuels/

[kim]

On your suggestion, I clicked through to Ballard, the maker of hydrogen fuel cells. It seems they are selling fuel cell generators like gangbusters in India and Europe. The company is doing well, unlike the rest of us.
What was that you guys said about "forget hydrogen fuel cells"?
Thanks for the suggestion, but my question remains -- is there any other general energy news site like this one?

[Clee]

Who said "forget hydrogen fuel cell generators"? I see "hydrogen fuel cell vehicles". Are they selling hydrogen fuel cell vehicles like gangbusters in India and Europe?

Personally, I think using waste hydrogen (as from the manufacture of other chemicals) for use in HFC fleet-vehicles works. I'm not convinced it will ever become standard for the masses.

[Kit P]

@Kim

In the context of general transportation you can "forget hydrogen fuel cells" because the safety issues will always make them too expensive compared to other alternatives.

HFC are a good application for fork lifts in enclosed warehouse and very reliable power supplies for Internet servers.

[Will]

Ethanol of Hydrogen ?
Ethanol is use as low as 10% in the fuel, while we can inject 30% Hydrogen in the engine in order to lower fuel consumption.
Drivers shouldn't wait for the fuel industry to provide them with solutions. Solutions (like on http://www.hydromake.com) are already available.
It's a matter of taking awareness and taking the first step to a greener planet oneself!

[kim]

kit -- What safety issues do hydrogen cars have that fork lifts in enclosed warehouses and internet servers don't have?
hydrogen is significantly less explosive than gasoline, but it's more dangerous enclosed than in the open. do you mean that it needs to be pressurized?

[Kit P]

@Kim

Various codes and standards including process safety must be considered. Each hazard is considered independently. Both hydrogen and gasoline must be made safe to a standard since an explosion of either could potentially result in death.

Hydrogen is very dangerous and and handling requires very strict preventive measures. In an industrial setting, it is easier maintain the safety measures. However, there is not free lunch. Charging batteries for fork lifts also produces hydrogen and batteries blow up. Propane fueled fork lifts produce carbon monoxide.

It is sad to say but every time there is a power outage, there is a epidemic CO poisoning. Smart people with lots of money buy a portable generator. While they know not to run their car in the garage with the door closed, the do not make the connection between the ICE under the hood and the one in plain site.

[Beek]

I hope you are feeling better.

We feel for you and wish you the best.

Beek

[Jon Leiman]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

CONTACT:
Jon Leiman
QMS Partners
(484) 875-3150 telephone
(484) 875-9273 fax
jleiman@qmspartners.com
www.qmspartners.com
www.marketresearchbulletin.com

New market research report on the Global Wind Energy Market, 2009
Exton, PA, February 19, 2009: QMS Partners, a leading international market research firm, announced today the publication of a new market research report on the Global Wind Energy Market.
This global market research report provides a detailed description of the Global Wind Energy Market and considers key business issues such as;
1. What is the projected growth for Wind Energy, and what is its projected penetration rate in comparison to other alternative energy technologies?
2. How will market structure changes affect growth for new and established participants?
3. How are existing participants positioned to serve increased demand?
“Global Wind Energy- 2009” places a concentrated focus on the commercialization and industry dynamics in-play today by outlining the current path to market and commercial barriers driving change in this industry. The report also provides a series of in-depth profiles of leading participants within the Global Wind Energy Industry.
For additional information on Global Wind Energy-2009, contact Jon Leiman at (484) 875-3150 or visit http://www.qmspartners.com . A detailed report prospectus is also provided on the Market Research Bulletin, http://www.marketingresearchtv.com
About QMS Partners: QMS Partners is a leading international market research and strategy consultancy offering fresh advice with lasting impact. Our focus and unique "down to earth" business model enable us to serve a broad range of client needs, remaining globally connected to the alternative energy industries. Together with our clients, we develop robust strategic and tactical action plans to effectively assess new opportunities and markets, implement go-to-market strategies, expansion decisions, product launch timing, market entry strategies, merger & acquisition due diligence, and more.

[Elaina]

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Elaina

http://www.freearticletrove.com

[kim]

Kit P -- You said, again, that hydrogen is very dangerous. Could you be more specific about what is dangerous about it? They didn't say anything about it being dangerous when we visited the California Fuel Cell Partnership in Sacramento, so I am counting on you to enlighten me.

[Kit P]

Hydrogen detonates over a large range of mixtures and generates high pressure shock waves that can be very destructive. A few years ago a worker was killed and 5 sent to the hospital when hydrogen was being delivered to a coal plant in Ohio for a non-fuel use.

Other transportation fuels such as gasoline and natural gas are much easier to mitigate the danger (i.e., make it safe for consumer use). Diesel is very difficult to explode. When you see cars blow up in movies it is because of special effects.

While I can make HFCV safe for the consumer, it remains to be seen if it can be done at a low enough cost that there will ever be any consumers.

[Kit P]

Draft Hydrogen Technologies Code for public comment:

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/CodesStandards/NFPA2Draft.pdf

[kim]

I read about 25 pages of those proposed regulations, and they seemed pretty standard stuff to me.
If people make their own hydrogen in their garage, they will have to have an inspection service come in annually to inspect all of the equipment. I'm supposed to do that for my fire extinguisher now.

Hydrogen is lighter than air, and when it's released, it disperses. That makes it not particularly flammable -- certain not compared to gasoline, which is heavier than air and the vapors not only puddle and burn, but they climb up hill!

[Kit P]

“Hydrogen is lighter than air, and when it's released, it disperses.”

Or it can could collect in a high point and detonate as it has when professionals did not properly evaluate the hazard. The welder needed new eyebrows and the roof did not land on anyone. A near miss can be humorous but a work place fatality is not. What the HFCV gang does is convincing demonstrations of a car fire in an open field.

Kim does not seem to appreciate difference between burning and detonating. A gasoline leak presents a noticeable odor. A friend and I were repairing my car. A gasoline leak resulted in a fire. I got the fire extinguisher from the kitchen and put out the fire.

Yes, gasoline should be handled carefully. The day I was born my dad set him and the house on fire using gasoline as a solvent. Since my mom car pooled to the hospital with the human torch, she decided not to waste the trip.

By the time I was responsible for fire safety in the navy my father had been in the hospital 4 times with serious gasoline burns. Two plane crashes during WWII, the day I was born, and pulling 4 kids out of a burning car. I asked him about setting the house on fire; he understood all the principles of handling gasoline but made a near fatal mistake.

Close to the time my dad was retiring OSHA came to his business and threatened him about the yellow lines not painted on the floor. Government weenies should understand that old WWII vets can be dangerous.

“If people make their own hydrogen in their garage, they will have to have an inspection service come in annually to inspect all of the equipment.”

Times have changed Kim. Before the inspectors come, someone like me has to perform a hazard analysis per OSHA requirements so the inspector knows what to look for. All of this costs big bucks.

So Kim, if you were paying me to evaluate making hydrogen in your garage, the first thing I would ask you is why?

[kim]

Well, there were remedies in those pages you had me read for hydrogen collecting at the roof.
But that's just an argument for not using hydrogen indoors. You originally said it was better to use indoors than in a car, which is usually outdoors when used or fueled. I asked why? You never answered that.

[Clee]

Personally, I don't like the smell of the exhaust emitted by a hydrocarbon-fueled vehicle, especially when it concentrates indoors. But the real safety issue would be the carbon monoxide in that exhaust. Which is worse, the CO at ground level or the H2 at ceiling level?

[Kit P]

“Which is worse?”

H2 at ceiling level is worse but dead is dead. Both hazards must be mitigated.

So Clee how do you feel about instantaneous death by blunt force trauma?

Clee, asking which is better is a better way to die not a question I have ever asked during a hazard analysis.

[none]

ワイシャツ
Yシャツ
ボタンダウン
ショッピングモール
EC-CUBE
ネットショップ 構築

[Kit P]

“You originally said it was better to use indoors than in a car, which is usually outdoors when used or fueled. I asked why? You never answered that.”

I made a statement about good applications of HFC to explain Ballards market. I have also explained the hazards of using hydrogen. Safety standards are an absolute that must be met.

However, get the concept of better out of your head.

Folks like to debate if Coke is better than Pepsi, if a Ford is better than a Chevy.

Safety standards are an absolute that must be met. If you would like to have a debate about marketing HFCV we can change the topic. Do you want to discuss the cost of meeting safety standards?

[alisha]

Hello
Great Blog I will definitely bookmark your blog. I am also having a blog related to Energy news ( http://energymarketnews.blogspot.com/ ) which gives latest analysis and trends in Energy industry in the present recession period. I would appreciate if you could kindly bookmark my blog too.

[Clee]

Duh, I wasn't asking which was the better way to die. I was asking which was the greater risk, which has something to do with how quickly each gas would accumulate given same amount of usage of H2 vehicles vs hydrocarbon fueled vehicles, how quickly the gasses might dissipate on their own, how quickly the gases might reach dangerous levels, how likely a spark might reach the H2 near ceiling level, and how easy it is to mitigate the risks for each. That is not a hazard analysis I am qualified to do. Maybe you are and can share your insight. I expect the building and usage is a factor, but maybe it's a small enough factor that you can say if the CO2 or the H2 is typically the greater hazard.

[cherzheng]

try to use solar energy in your every day life .
i suggest amorphous silicon solar panel .
www.solarglobal.blogspot.com

[Kit P]

Clee, on a gut level I am more afraid of H2.

Simplifying the hazard analysis process to get a number you would identify the hazard, estimate frequency of occurrence, and estimate how often mitigation might fail.

Carbon monoxide from a running car in an enclosed garage is a potentially fatal hazard.

Looking at the numbers, if you park a car in an enclosed garage 365 days a year; how many times would you fail to open the garage door before starting your car? Let us say once a year (+0). Now how many times would you sit in your car with obnoxious fumes until the levels of CO in your blood stream become fatal? I would suggest that it is not creditable to sit in enclosed garage with a running car producing noxious fumes unless it is suicide.

For a H2 fuel car, the potentially fatal hazard would be a leak followed by a detonation.

Based on my experience a H2 leak might occur once a year (+0). With proper ventilation, the hazard is mitigated. The next question is how often might ventilation fail? Again, failure might occur once a year (+0). In the similar case my team was analyzing, operators were trained to leave the building if ventilation was lost except the emergency response team (ERT). We estimated that one out of 100 times, operators would fail to leave (-2).

The goal of the hazard analysis is to add up all the numbers until the risk is insignificant (-6 or one in a million). Typically we can reduce work place hazards much lower. Three out of 5 members of my team had a near miss related to H2. Judging from the damage to the concrete, I missed death or serious injury by too steps. In this case, actual experience of several near misses supported the estimate of a fatality every hundred years.

“how quickly the gases might reach dangerous levels”

This is when our team called in a H2 specialist to answer just this question. The answer was really fast. As a result, the chemical process line we were evaluating was determined to be a serious accident waiting to happen. The line was shut down, H2 sensors added (-2) . Blow out panels added were also added so that the force of the detonation would be directed to an unoccupied space rather that the area where the ERT was donning breathing gear (-2). With added mitigation, the risk became insignificant (-6 or one in a million)

The chemical process line had several hazards that were considered much more dangerous than H2. It had operated safely for 30 years under very strict regulations. New process safety regulations were the most difficult to meet for only H2 hazards.

This process line has a compelling reason to use H2 since there was no substitute and US, Japan, and EU competition all have similar regulatory burdens.

At this point, HFCV safety is a mute point because there is not yet a compelling reason to market them to the public. Making HFCV safer than the poisons stored under the kitchen sink is not a technical challenge. Meeting standards becomes an economic issue.

On a personal level, when the building usage includes my children; my standard is a all electric house. Gasoline for lawn mowers is stored in a detached shed. Propane for the grill is stored on an open deck.

[kim]

...he chemical process line we were evaluating was determined to be a serious accident waiting to happen.

Was this "chemical process line" in an automobile? I'm having trouble following exactly what you are talking about.

As to ventilation in a garage -- I live in California -- most of the garages around here you can see daylight between the boards. :-)

[OZ Battery]

Solar energy is the best. it is renewable, clean, environment friendly. Food price will not be go up because of it is used extensively.

OZ Battery
http://www.ozbattery.com

[Paige Green]

With regards to the oil dependency issue, while its important, it takes away focus from the main problem...even if we just stick with the current oil supply we have, we have enough oil to burn up the planet 35 times over BEFORE we run out of oil!

Oil dependency is a problem and we need to curb our habit, but isn't melting ice caps and rising temperatures enough of a reason?

Going green is a universal requirement.

[energychina]

mmh. Renewable fuels. All the countries in the world pay more attention now.

[male enhancement]

However, the EPA said it recognizes that in the short term there may be some catching-up required for the distribution infrastructure to deliver the required volume of renewable fuel.

http://www.maleok.com

[Mats Maatson]

Great blog! Im writing blog myself. About solar power. Visit it here if you got the time.

Have a great day!

[List Of Internet Domain Extensions]

List Of Internet Domain Extensions

http://blog.wahidqazi.com/list-of-internet-domain-extensions/

[SEO Consultant]

SEO | SEM | Internet Marketing Guide.

http://www.wahidqazi.com/

[GCSE Coursework]

Free GCSE Coursework. We are providing free services.

[oilfield equipment]

this is so good to see. hope for the future.

[Construction]

I think this is quite a good step taken by US EPA. Indeed renewable fuels should be put more into use than it is done in the present days.

[xexxonmobil]

The Chad/Cameroon Pipeline (CCP) is a safety and environmental timebomb
which will make the Exxonvaldeez look like a lawn mower oil leak in
comparision.
The CCP has been operating in a legal void for nearly 7 years and has
not been provisioned with minimum safeguards as required by Law.The
irregularities and anomalies with the CCP are too voluminous to print
here but include the following:
1. No Oil Spill Plans approved and in place.
2.Emergency Shutdown Valves (ESDV) not installed on BOTH sides of the
major rivers as reported by the Project Authorities and the World Bank.
3.Single Hull rust bucket and asbestos riddled Tanker used as Offshore
Floating Storage Tanker(OFST)
4.Fabricated risk assessments and worst case scenarios used for oil
spills.
5.Fabricated Public Liability Insurance Certificates used on the CCP.
6.No environmental management plan(EMP) in place.
7.No security,transparency and accountability for oil revenues which
has resulted in US federal funds being used to purchase arms.
8.USAID surpressing information and misleading the US Congress prior
to Federal Loans.
9. World Bank and CCP oversight authorities disseminating false and
misleading information to US Congress and the public domain.
10.US &UK Government Ministers coveringup serious crimes on the CCP.
11. No capacity managemet plan in place.

These irregularities are compounded by the fact the World Bank has
failed its duty of care to protect US Federal funds and have now washed
their hands on the CCP and simply walked away from the CCP.

It is only a mater of time before the CCP goes BANG and the end net
result is a catstrophe of the size no man has yet seen.

Former Exxonmobil Project Consultant

[xexxonmobil]

The Chad/Cameroon Pipeline (CCP) is a safety and environmental timebomb
which will make the Exxonvaldeez look like a lawn mower oil leak in
comparision.
The CCP has been operating in a legal void for nearly 7 years and has
not been provisioned with minimum safeguards as required by Law.The
irregularities and anomalies with the CCP are too voluminous to print
here but include the following:
1. No Oil Spill Plans approved and in place.
2.Emergency Shutdown Valves (ESDV) not installed on BOTH sides of the
major rivers as reported by the Project Authorities and the World Bank.
3.Single Hull rust bucket and asbestos riddled Tanker used as Offshore
Floating Storage Tanker(OFST)
4.Fabricated risk assessments and worst case scenarios used for oil
spills.
5.Fabricated Public Liability Insurance Certificates used on the CCP.
6.No environmental management plan(EMP) in place.
7.No security,transparency and accountability for oil revenues which
has resulted in US federal funds being used to purchase arms.
8.USAID surpressing information and misleading the US Congress prior
to Federal Loans.
9. World Bank and CCP oversight authorities disseminating false and
misleading information to US Congress and the public domain.
10.US &UK Government Ministers coveringup serious crimes on the CCP.
11. No capacity managemet plan in place.

These irregularities are compounded by the fact the World Bank has
failed its duty of care to protect US Federal funds and have now washed
their hands on the CCP and simply walked away from the CCP.

It is only a mater of time before the CCP goes BANG and the end net
result is a catstrophe of the size no man has yet seen.

Former Exxonmobil Project Consultant

[xexxonmobil]

The Chad/Cameroon Pipeline (CCP) is a safety and environmental
timebomb
which will make the Exxonvaldeez look like a lawn mower oil leak in
comparision.
The CCP has been operating in a legal void for nearly 7 years and has
not been provisioned with minimum safeguards as required by Law.The
irregularities and anomalies with the CCP are too voluminous to print
here but include the following:
1. No Oil Spill Plans approved and in place.
2.Emergency Shutdown Valves (ESDV) not installed on BOTH sides of
the
major rivers as reported by the Project Authorities and the World
Bank.
3.Single Hull rust bucket and asbestos riddled Tanker used as
Offshore
Floating Storage Tanker(OFST)
4.Fabricated risk assessments and worst case scenarios used for oil
spills.
5.Fabricated Public Liability Insurance Certificates used on the CCP.
6.No environmental management plan(EMP) in place.
7.No security,transparency and accountability for oil revenues which
has resulted in US federal funds being used to purchase arms.
8.USAID surpressing information and misleading the US Congress prior
to Federal Loans.
9. World Bank and CCP oversight authorities disseminating false and
misleading information to US Congress and the public domain.
10.US &UK Government Ministers coveringup serious crimes on the CCP.
11. No capacity managemet plan in place.

These irregularities are compounded by the fact the World Bank has
failed its duty of care to protect US Federal&UK/EU funds and have now
washed
their hands on the CCP and simply walked away from the CCP.

It is only a mater of time before the CCP goes BANG and the end net
result is a catstrophe of the size no man has yet seen.

Former Exxonmobil Project Consultant

[bSaves]

Wow, this was very informative. I had no previous knowledge on this subject. thanks

[kim]

Does anyone know what happened to Jim, the owner of this site? I'm concerned about him.

[Kg]

Great info. A lot of information being shared.

[Alternative Energy]

Let's keep this blog going! We need to spread the word and get more involved to find solutions for our energy crisis,

[Eric Melin]

hi,

Very nice to visit your blog and found very interesting. I also have an blog www.jazdenergy.com , which is a free online B2B business directory for Sales Solution with Guaranteed Results for the blogs and sites related to science, energy, physics industry. I Want that You will give me a link on your blog and I will do the same for you.

Thank you

Eric Melin

[Super Science Fair Projects]

Students who are interested in finding a viable science fair topic should look towards sustainable energy sources. This is a big field of study that needs all the help that it can get.

[kim]

What would happen if someone developed a way to make electricity from solar that was really efficient, so that you could run a whole house on a PV that was about 2 feet by 2 feet? What if the whole apparatus cost about $800?

[Kit P]

Kim, you express yourself very for 8-year old. The problem with solar PV is not cost or efficiency.

Four square feet of collection area can only the amount of energy that comes from the sun. Fortunately this is not very much. Think about it. What would happen if you got a sun burn in 10 minutes in the sun?

At nigh it is a different story.

PV output = 0 watts/sq ft x 4 sq ft = 0 watts

The problem with solar is it does not work very much of the time and when it does it depends on a defuse source of energy.

[WhichBurner]

anything that helps the planet and stops us from relying on middle east is good, think people!

[solar-energy]

this blog is good for energy.

:) i will visit it more and more. keep posting :)

thanks for your articles.

[kim]

kit p -- Ha ha ha. You must be dark skinned: I do get sunburned in ten minutes in the sun! It's the redhead's complexion.

You aren't using your imagination -- what if a motor/generator was so efficient that it only needed a very small input of energy to produce an amount of energy that would be the equivalent of a big gas generator? How would the world change?

[Heartland Energy Colorado]

Heartland Energy Colorado is a site that is dedicated to bringing about more information on sustainable energy resources and development that go right in line with the content of this post. You might find more useful information on top of the information provided here.