world-water-day-polluted-drinking-water-a-serious-threat-to-public-health-1426978125-3247

6 ways to aid the world water crisis

How important is clean drinking and potable water for household use? Well, 1/3 of the world’s population doesn’t have access to clean drinking water. The water used for cooking, cleaning and bathing must also be clean, as many diseases (especially in developing countries) are water-borne diseases, from bacteria or other microorganisms in unclean water (see: http://globalhydration.com/resources/waterbone-disease). In fact, over 10% of the world’s population doesn’t even have access to clean potable water. Meanwhile, over 70% of the earth is covered in water.

water nano-water filter

1(a). The most immediate way to help the world water crisis is to provide filters to people who lack clean water, primarily to the 3rd world and low-income people of the world. This takes relief funds, both established by governments and private charities. There are many promising and emerging water purification technologies such as LifeStraw. “LifeStraw technology was originally introduced in 2005 as an emergency response tool to filter water…” (http://lifestraw.com)

(more clean water technologies are described here)- http://www.cleverism.com/water-purification-new-technologies-change-world/

Established, available filter technologies also range from: activated charcoal (or other carbon-based materials) to new nanotechnologies which use materials such as graphene, silver and titanium which are made into microscopic filtration membranes. There are a variety of very promising uses of graphene in newly designed and developed filters -(https://agenda.weforum.org/2015/07/can-graphene-make-the-worlds-water-clean/).

More on nanotechnologies (including graphene materials used in combination with other nanomaterials):

http://tinyurl.com/GraPhene123

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3_E24WcMI8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukf74pJes7Q

Another great example of the use of graphene in water filters and water systems comes from the company G2O: http://g2o.co/

“G2O’s graphene filter technology addressing a $2Bn market and reducing energy costs by up to 97%. In addition to use in filter technologies, this company sees applications for its graphene technology in:

  • Environmental maritime applications in aquaculture and oil & gas production
  • Drain water and waste water management
  • Desalination of seawater”

1(b). Develop more water treatment (storm water, river/ stream/ lake water, industrial use water, sewage) plants (http://www.waterworld.com/waste-water/treatment.html)

2. Improve and create new rain water collection systems

3. Water reclamation

http://www.waterworld.com/waste-water/reuse-recycling.html

http://www.waterworld.com/webcasts/2015/11/industrial-water-reuse-economics.html

To effectively capture and prepare water for reuse will require a greater level of coordination between municipal agencies (water/wastewater), an understanding of the economic drivers influencing treatment or reuse, and the means of paying for the required infrastructure.”

desalination

4. Develop more desalination plants

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/27/desalination-quest-quench-worlds-thirst-water

5. Improve water infrastructure (reservoirs, aqueducts, piping networks…) and 6. Utilities (especially in 3rd world countries) to further develop the use of micro-payments via mobile/ smart phones (also great for solar electricity, in addition to water)

world energy mix

Shortfall in International GHG Pledges

There is a shortfall between the pledges that the nearly 200 countries independently, and internationally as a whole, have made at the COP 21 in Paris last November, compared to the reality of what the planet has in its future. There is also a genuine effort to limit global temperature rise to 2 degree celsius average global temperature increase above the normal numbers (using historical numbers as a baseline for comparison) by the end of this century – the number that represents saving the planet from the worst effects of climate change.

In order to prevent the most damaging effects of climate change, the international community has pledged, in Paris, to increase the use of such sustainability technologies as renewable energy and energy efficiency measures, while decreasing fossil fuel use, in order to mitigate GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions…emissions which lead to global temperature rise. The idea is to keep global temperature rise to under 2 degrees celsius above normal (compared to historical values) by the end of this century.

scoreboard banner: result of international climate change action

The reality is that the average global temperature rise will be significantly greater than what was promised at Paris. A 5-8+ degrees fahrenheit rise in average temperature would result if the world simply maintains the status quo. The pledges in Paris, as well as actions by nations and private investors before and after COP21, demonstrate a genuine global effort in the research, development and effective use of sustainable technologies and measures. Of course, this is great, but global temperature rise still will be over the global temperature goals committed to in Paris.

In other words, at least 2+ degrees celsius change over the acceptable 2 degrees limit by the end of this century will result, even if all pledges by all countries are actually met. Even in this positive scenario (and the best-case scenario discribed below), as of now, there is still a shortfall – this NYTimes infographic clearly illustrates this problem – http://tinyurl.com/gct333

If all nearly 200 nations keep all of their promises from COP21, temperature rise will be limited to just 0.035°C (0.063°F) annually (best case). Even if every government on the planet that participated not only keeps every Paris promise, reduces all emissions as promised by 2030 (2030 was the year of note discussed in Paris), and shifts no emissions to other countries, but also keeps these emission reductions going throughout the rest of the century, temperature rise will be kept to just 3°C (5.4°F) by the year 2100.

Obama’s Clean Power Plan, his moratorium on drilling for oil in the Atlantic, the U.S.’s 3 year moratorium on building coal mines on federal land, China’s 3 year ban on building new coal mines, and their shutting down of thousands of older coal power plants are all very positive signs. Other promising signs include the U.S.’s increased development and use of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies (as well as in China, India and much of the developing world). Europe has been leading the way for many years, in many respects, in terms of sustainability technologies. However, optimism, in the face of the undeniable math of climate change which clearly tells us more needs to be done, should be weighed carefully against climate change realities.

Green City Times is a resource on sustainability, urban planning, renewable energy, sustainable mass transportation, energy efficiency and green building. Find facts on renewable energy including: hydroelectric (from dams, mills, waves, currents and tides), solar, wind, geothermal, biomass (and biofuel). Also get info. about everything from recycling to clean coal…

You will discover information on 7 of the world’s most sustainable cities. Green City Times also features articles on the latest sustainability technology. Please feel free to contact us with any questions or comments.

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/GCityTimes
Twitter: https:[email protected]

http://www.greencitytimes.com

For more on Green City Times, please see: https://about.me/gctimes

desalination

World water crisis solutions: desalination

Desalination

The two desalination plants featured in this article, one in San Diego, California, and one in Tel Aviv, Israel, represent the two largest of these plants in the world. Desalination represents a part of the solution to the world water crisis, along with wastewater treatment, and distributing water filters to the poor, especially in 3rd world areas. Worldwide, only 1 in 9 people have access to clean drinking water, Although Carlsbad and Tel Aviv don’t represent the struggles with water scarcity in the third world, they do represent solutions to the growing need for clean water in the world, as a whole. Both plants use a technology called reverse osmosis as part of the process.

http://www.citylab.com/tech/2015/12/a-look-inside-the-largest-desalination-plant-in-the-western-hemisphere/420501/

The largest ocean desalination plant in the Western Hemisphere is open in Carlsbad, San Diego, heralding what may be a new era in U.S. water use.

http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/533446/desalination-out-of-desperation/

Global desalination output has tripled since 2000: 16,000 plants are up and running around the world, and the pace of construction is expected to increase while the technology continues to improve. Desalination is ripe for technological improvement. A combination of sensor-driven optimization and automation, energy-efficient technology that is said to nearly halve energy consumptionplus new types of membranes, could eventually allow for desalination plants that are half the size and use commensurately less energy. Among other benefits, small, mobile desalination units could be used in agricultural regions hundreds of miles away from the ocean, where demand for water is great and growing. Already, some 700 million people worldwide suffer from water scarcity, but that number is expected to swell to 1.8 billion in just 10 years. Some countries, like Israel, already rely heavily on desalination; more will follow suit.

http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/534996/megascale-desalination/

10 miles south of Tel Aviv, Israel, a vast new industrial facility hums around the clock. It is the world’s largest (larger than the Carlsbad plant) modern seawater desalination plant, providing 20 percent of the water consumed by the country’s households. Thanks to a series of engineering and materials advances, however, it produces clean water from the sea cheaply and at a scale never before achieved, demonstrating that seawater desalination can cost-effectively provide a substantial portion of a nation’s water supply.

cop21

COP21 – good news for the planet

 On the 12th of December, 2015, high-level representatives from 195 nations, including many presidents and prime ministers, agreed to try to hold warming “well below” 2 °C above pre-industrial temperatures. On April 22, at the UN in NYC, the agreement takes full effect (once nations representing a majority of the planet’s GHG emissions sign the agreement). Unfortunately, the truth is that, even if the agreement in Paris is carried out by every nation, and to the letter, global temperatures will still be on course to rise by around 2.7°C by the end of the century.

Luckily, the best news of the entire COP21 came on Day 1 with the announcement of the Breakthrough Energy Coalition (breakthroughenergycoalition.com). The Breakthrough Energy Coalition is a group of more than 20 billionaires (including Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg {CEO of Facebook}) who have agreed to invest in innovative clean energy. The Coalition wouldn’t be able to fund and meet all of its goals without the most important international commitment by governments to invest in clean energy to date. Mission Innovation (mission-innovation.net) is a group of 20 countries including the U.S., Brazil, China, Japan, Germany, France, Saudi Arabia and South Korea, who have pledged to double government investment in clean energy innovation and to be transparent about its clean energy research and development efforts. In a statement from the Coalition, the importance of both groups is highlighted –

“THE WORLD NEEDS WIDELY AVAILABLE ENERGY that is reliable, affordable and does not produce carbon. The only way to accomplish that goal is by developing new tools to power the world. That innovation will result from a dramatically scaled up public research pipeline linked to truly patient, flexible investments committed to developing the technologies that will create a new energy mix. The Breakthrough Energy Coalition is working together with a growing group of visionary countries who are significantly increasing their public research pipeline through the Mission Innovation initiative to make that future a reality.”

Brazil was one of the last countries to join the ‘high ambition coalition’, while China and India were hold outs to this section of the pact. The ‘high ambition coalition’ are a group of countries, including most of the “Mission Innovation” countries and a group of the most vulnerable (smaller generally, and poorer) nations, that are looking towards a more ambitious goal of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C. China and India are the major emitters in the developing world, and were the last agree to the main pact, but not the high ambition goal, at COP21.

Below are some major resources for more information on the COP21:

 

COP21 Paris – breakdown of the event

coal plant

Stabilize greenhouse gasses

There are numerous ways that we can stabilize greenhouse gasses, thereby “stopping” climate change. Governments of 1st world and even developing nations must implement some of the following policies (and most might, at least implement some of the following, especially after the upcoming COP meeting of the UNFCCC in Paris). Clearly, the path to stabilize GHG emissions includes making it a priority for governments to financially invest in at least some of these solutions:

 

1. A carbon tax, or carbon cap-and-trade system, or both

2. Further investment in, and development of all forms of renewable energy including: wind, solar, geothermal and biomass/biofuel etc…

3. Carbon capture and storage

4. Widespread adoption of hybrids, plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles, as well as sustainable mass transportation using biofuel or electricity (bus systems, light rail etc…)

5. More use of, and development of smart grid infrastructure – smart meters, home energy management systems etc…

6. Energy, especially renewable energy, storage

 

 

This is certainly an incomplete list, so please feel free to add points.

hybrid car charge

The benefits of hybrid cars

hybrid vehicle combines energy from a gasoline engine and an electric motor to increase efficiency. Hybrid automobiles increase MPG compared to standard vehicles (50+ for the vehicles addressed in this article), while lowering CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. The benefits of hybrid cars include financial savings even above and beyond the $5000-$6000 in savings on gas (over 5 years) that the cars in this article average. For example, hybrids help to avoid road tolls such as London’s congestion charge. Hybrids typically offer features with advantages over standard cars, such as regenerative braking, electric motor drive/ assist and automatic start/ shutoff.

Regenerative braking refers to energy produced from braking and coasting that’s normally wasted, which is stored in a battery until needed by the motor. During electric motor drive/ assist, the electric motor kicks into gear, providing additional torque for such things as hill climbing, passing or quickly accelerating.  For automatic start/ stop, energy is conserved while idling, as the engine is shut off when the vehicle comes to a stop, and is re-started when the accelerator is pressed.

Whereas a normal hybrid car simply combines an electric motor and a gas engine, a plug-in hybrid can run only on electric power, when charged, and can be recharged without using the gas engine. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV’s) have high capacity batteries, and charge by plugging into the grid, storing enough electricity to significantly reduce gas use.

There are two basic types of plug-in hybrids: extended range electric vehicles and blended plug-in hybrids. Extended range electric vehicles work by having only the electric motor turn the wheels, and can run only on electricity until the gasoline engine is needed to generate electricity to recharge the battery that powers the electric motor (or the gas engine can be eliminated entirely, on short rides). Blended plug-in hybrids work by still having both the gas engine and the electric motor connected to the wheels, both propelling the vehicle most of the time.

Electric vehicles (EV’s) drop the gas engine entirely, becoming much more environmentally friendly. The MPG goes way up, but the cost tends to go up as well, and the driving range goes down. These factors; the MPG, cost and range are tied to how efficient, how much capacity, the battery has. The higher the capacity of the battery, the higher the cost, MPG and range. Although EV’s emit no tailpipe pollutants, it remains important that the source for the energy from the grid that charges the vehicle’s battery remains green (i.e. renewable energy) as well.

Hybrid cars take numerous different forms, including the types mentioned above, and then compete against standard gas cars, flex-fuel vehicles, diesel vehicles, etc… European sales of standard hybrid vehicles have increased, but with roughly half the cars in the EU being more fuel efficient diesel engines, EV’s and plug-ins are the more popular choice. These cars can better compete in the global market, in terms of fuel efficiency.

The global hybrid market is still dominated by Toyota, in particular their Prius line, including the Prius Plug-in. The Prius remains California’s most popular car, as a testament to its global popularity. The Prius gets around 50 MPG, costs $25-30K and has a driving range of 540 miles on a full tank of gas. The plug-in model costs $30-35K and gets 95 MPG running on electricity only or 50 MPG running on both electricity and gas, with a driving range of about 600 miles.

The Tesla Model S and the Nissan Leaf are examples of successful electric vehicles. The Tesla Model S with a 60 kW-hr battery pack gets up to 102 MPG’s, costs around $70K and has a driving range of 208 miles on a fully charged battery. The Nissan Leaf costs $30-35K, can get 80 miles on a full charge and hits 128 MPG’s.

(*All figures are as of 2015.)

nuclear power plant

Nuclear – one necessary energy supply to fight climate change

Nuclear energy is necessary to fight climate change and decrease fossil fuel use. Wind and solar are often distributed energy sources which are always intermittent and variable. Nuclear, however, is continuously available and represents a much more concentrated source of energy than renewables, with a much higher production capacity. Both nuclear and renewable energy’s contribution to energy production on the planet must increase to a combined energy production level which is a little more than what coal alone currently provides.

In order to significantly cut down on the share of fossil fuels in the world energy mix, at least double the production of that which is illustrated in the chart above is needed by 2035. (A total of 40% of the world’s energy mix for renewable and nuclear energies combined is needed to reach significant GHG targets. Only 20+% of renewable and nuclear combined is projected in 20 years – by 2035).

In order for the entire planet to achieve at least 25% greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction by 2025 compared to 2015 levels (a reasonable, yet challenging, GHG reduction goal for the planet), nuclear energy is going to have to augment truly clean, renewable energy in the effort to dramatically reduce fossil fuel use. Once it’s at the operational stage, carbon dioxide emissions from a nuclear reactor and the power plant’s site are minimal. Other than reduction of emissions, nuclear offers, by far, the most energy dense resource available.

Fossil fuels are more energy dense than renewable energy sources, but 1 kg of coal can only keep a light bulb lit for a few days, while the same quantity of a nuclear energy source will keep the same bulb lit for well over 100 years. Nuclear does this without any CO2, or most other GHG, emissions from the nuclear plant.

Current reactors, 1st and 2nd generation plants, rely on water and uranium. Therefore, these nuclear plants still deplete water supplies, create nuclear waste, use a fuel source that can be enriched to convert the material into a bomb, and represent a source of potential danger, as in the Fukushima disaster (although this risk is dramatically minimized in a 3rd generation plant).

A safer, cheaper, and still energy abundant and emissions-free design that uses relatively benign energy sources and relatively much less water than previous designs and operational plants, is being envisioned in 4th generation nuclear, and is currently available in 3rd generation designs.

Using a small fraction of the water as previous designs, the 4th generation nuclear plant designs are safe, cost-effective, environmentally-friendly and still offer tremendous potential for energy production. Molten salt reactors using depleted uranium, nuclear waste from other plants, or thorium, are being designed as 4th generation nuclear plants. 4th generation designs (and many 3rd generation plants, both planned and operational) are autonomous, smart plants that are even being designed to run on different fuel sources.

Thorium, instead of uranium, is being looked at as a fuel source, as it is abundant, much less radioactive than uranium, and also creates by-products from burning the fuel source, that can just be used again in the reactor. Thorium reactors are being designed with low up-front capital costs, and little manpower is needed to run and maintain 4th generation plants, due to the advanced computer technology set to be deployed in the plants.

Thorium, and depleted uranium, have a very low chance of being developed into a nuclear weapons, produce less radioactive waste, are abundant fuel sources, and are safer, cheaper and cleaner.

Thorium, in particular, is being looked at by developing nations like China and India because of the relatively low cost, increased safety, abundance of the material, and tremendous energy potential of this energy source. The U.S. has huge amounts of thorium, in places like Kentucky and Idaho, and there are large quantities in countries like India, Australia and Brazil.

The U.S., Europe and even some of the aforementioned developing countries also have large stockpiles of depleted uranium, with more being produced every day, which would work in many of the 4th generation designs. 3rd generation nuclear plants are already operating, and some 4th generation plants are projected to be developed and ready for operation by 2025. 4th generation nuclear promises to produce abundant, low-cost energy safely, and with little environmental impact.

coal plant

Carbon Cap and Trade: putting a price on carbon

Carbon cap and trade systems are plans in which countries, provinces, states and even cities set regulations (a cap) on the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions industries/ power plants can emit, and then implement an Emissions Trading System (ETS). Companies included in cap and trade systems, often companies that operate power plants, have a limit (cap) on the amount of GHG emissions they can produce that is set by the government. Governments may either “grandfather in” GHG allowances (essentially give away credits based on past GHG production) or auction allowances off. Companies with extra carbon credits because their plants go under the limits can then trade their excess carbon allowances to companies that need to buy carbon credits to avoid going over the limit.

Auctions for carbon permits (one carbon permit is usually = to 1 metric ton of GHG pollution) are an essential part of the carbon cap and trade system, helping to establish a price on carbon, and are  much more effective than the system where credits are just ‘”grandfathered in”. The cost of carbon permits is essentially the price of carbon. As GHG emission credits are auctioned off, a price on carbon is established. Companies can also keep carbon credits for future use in trading or for their own allowances. For companies that run over their GHG emissions limits and don’t cover their allowances, a heavy fine is imposed. Carbon cap and trade systems are designed to lower the cap annually, gradually reducing the allowable limit of GHG pollution for those industries targeted by the cap and trade system.

There are trades that offset GHG emissions; trades for credits with companies that have forestry projects and that are reforesting areas or that limit deforestation, or companies that have livestock projects that incorporate sustainable practices, or companies that invest in clean coal technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) or other carbon sequestration measures. To make cap and trade systems even more effective, there should be more offset credits allowed for trades with companies that implement GHG emission saving and energy efficiency technologies like renewable energy, integrative gasification combined cycle (IGCC), and anaerobic digestion (AD), combined heat and power (cogeneration) (CHP) etc…

For some companies, it might make more financial sense and be more cost-effective to make the effort to reduce emissions through emission saving and energy efficiency technologies and/ or expanded use of renewable energy, and then sell their allowances to companies that are over their GHG limit. However, usually most companies tend to buy carbon allowances if it’s cheaper to buy them than to try to lower emissions. Carbon permits can be invested in by businesses, industries, or even the public in some regions, via a carbon futures market.

Carbon cap and trade systems are in effect in about 40 countries and 25 states/ provinces/ cities globally. The largest market for cap and trade is in the EU with the European Union Emissions Trading System. The EU ETS covers more than 11,000 power plants and industrial stations in over 30 countries, as well as airlines (for flights within Europe until 2016). The primary focus of the EU ETS is to fight climate change by lowering GHG emissions.

The EU ETS remains the largest (and first) international trading organization for trading GHG emission allowances. The EU ETS has successfully put a price on carbon, with its system of trading allowances of GHG emissions, and has also watched GHG emissions fall by a few percent annually since it began in 2005. The cap, or limit, set on GHG emissions will be, on average, over 20% lower on all power plants and industries by 2020 from 2005 levels (when the program started), as the EU continues to make efforts to reduce pollution.  Clean, energy efficient, low-carbon technologies like CCS, IGCC, CHP and AD, as well as renewable energy, have grown in popularity throughout Europe, in part, because of the rising price of carbon resulting from cap and trade programs.

All countries deal with cap and trade differently. Most have cap and trade for industry and power sectors. South Korea has cap and trade for heavy industry, power, waste, transportation and building sectors. China has six provinces testing out cap and trade, and along with South Korea, represents a very large carbon market (with just those 6 provinces China is a large market, the entire country represents the single largest carbon market, by far). The U.K., Ireland, Iceland and the Scandinavian countries Norway, Sweden and Finland have legislated both a carbon tax and cap and trade programs.

The nine state agreement in the U.S. northeast (the Regional Greenhouse Gas InitiativeRGGI) is another major carbon cap and trade trading pact, and is, at least partially, based on the pioneering EU program. These states have auctioned off carbon allowances to industries in RGGI states, and have thereby collected well over $1 billion from carbon cap and trade programs, much of which has been reinvested in energy efficiency, renewable energy and other clean energy programs. Since carbon cap and trade has started in the U.S. northeast, GHG emissions have steadily dropped. Like the EU, this in part due to investment in clean energy technologies, but also because some companies in the U.S. northeast have switched from dirtier fossil fuels like coal to cleaner natural gas generators in power plants, or to renewable energy.

Some carbon cap and trade markets are:

EU ETS:

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfNgsKrPKsg

The U.S. Northeast region:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/07/14/carbon-caps-help-northeast-economy-report-says/jPcTMPG6f6SjcRU8CBCSnO/story.html#

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/14072015/cap-trade-shows-economic-muscle-northeast-13-billion-RGGI-clean-power-plan

“To comply with the federal Clean Power Plan’s requirements for cutting carbon pollution from power plants, states have several options—including joining RGGI or similar schemes such as California’s cap-and-trade system.” – from: Cap & Trade Shows Its Economic Muscle in the Northeast, $1.3B in 3 Years (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative offers blueprint to all states as they begin to think about how they will comply with Clean Power Plan.) By Naveena Sadasivam, InsideClimate News

The RGGI states and California are ahead of the curve as far as complying with the Clean Power Plan.

California, Quebec:

http://daily.sightline.org/2014/05/22/17-things-to-know-about-californias-carbon-cap

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rosaly-byrd/an-introdu put a quotaction-to-carbon-cap-and-trade_b_6737660.html

Please also see: Carbon Tax – a levy on pollution whose time has come

cap and trade

 

Combined heat and power

Combined heat and power (cogeneration) – making the most of energy

Combined heat and power (CHP, also known as cogeneration) is the simultaneous production of power (electricity) and heat from: natural gas (dominantly), coal, oil, biomass, biogas and waste heat (recovery), among other sources. Waste heat can be heat from waste incineration, waste heat from power production and/ or industrial/ commercial/ even residential waste heat. Fuel sources vary from project to project, country to country.

For example, in Iceland, the dominant source for CHP is geothermal. Over half the energy use in Iceland, which has the highest energy use (per capita) of any nation in the world, is geothermal, and much of it CHP. This is energy production for electricity and heated water/ steam for fish farms, pools, etc… and also for geothermal district heating and space heating in general.

 

CHP can be seamlessly integrated in a number of energy technologies. Often, systems are developed exclusively for onsite generation of electrical and/ or mechanical power, in addition to HVAC and water heating. CHP is most often developed with a gas turbine and  a heat recovery unit or a steam boiler with a steam turbine. CHP exists in industrial and commercial buildings, institutional campuses, municipal facilities (district energy systems, wastewater treatment facilities, etc…) and is also implemented for residential properties.

CHP significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 1/3 to ½ or more, and is significantly more efficient, requiring less fuel to produce a given energy output. CHP can produce electricity and thermal energy on site, avoiding the grid and avoiding energy losses that occur via standard transmission and distribution, as well as power outages. The high efficiency inherent in CHP saves consumers money on their utility bills, offering a reliable source of high-quality energy.

From: http://www.greencitytimes.com/

 

Community Solar

Community solar and net metering – pushing renewable energy forward

Community solar refers to energy generated by a solar farm that is invested in by a relatively small portion of the estimated 85% of residential customers who can’t have solar panels on their rooftops or property due to their roofs being physically unsuitable, because the roof/ property is often in shade by another building or trees, because they are renters, or for some other reason. The solar farms are constructed by individual developers, or a group of investors (the construction can also be done by the utlity itself), in select areas that are suitable for community solar, have a demand for the service, and can range from a few dozen panels to thousands. The customer invests in a few or more of the panels, receives credit for the power they consume at a fixed rate (usually fixed) per kilowatt-hour that is then deducted from their utility (electric) bills.

Net metering, on the other hand, is for residential customers who have PV systems on their rooftop/ property that may generate more electricity than the home uses when the sun’s out. The PV systems are connected to the grid via the owner’s service panel and meter. The owner of the PV system is credited when excess energy is generated than is needed for the home, i.e. times when the meter moves “backwards”. The customer then pays the “net” of the meter moving in both directions – forwards to measure power purchased (when the home demand is greater than the power generated by their PV panels), and backwards when power is returned to the grid. The net consumption is then charged on the utility bill.

Both community solar and net metering encourage power consumption in homes by means of solar energy. Both are great ideas for states in the US (where both of these ideas have found some success), and for countries all over the world. Both represent concepts that enable renewable energy to reach more of the public (illustrated more in the case of community solar) and make solar more desirable (highlighted in the case of net metering). Whether the purpose is to spread clean energy or to reap the financial benefits of the solar boom, both community solar and net metering are undeniably positive ideas.

From: http://www.greencitytimes.com/