There is probably one thing that we can all agree on: the worlds energy reserves are not

unlimited. Actually that's not strictly true, there is a near unlimited supply of energy coming from the sun but we are pretty bad at converting it into useful energy. Look around and ask yourself how much things will change in the near future. It is pretty certain that we will run out of gas in your lifetime. Quite when it will happen is up for debate but a guess of around twenty years would probably be pretty close. That's not long considering that, certainly in the UK, a good portion of houses have only gas powered heating and cooking. We have, in all likelihood, gone to war in Iraq to ensure a steady supply of oil for the next twenty to thirty years but even if we can get exclusive access to that oil, and that's unlikely, it's a rather sort amount of time before people start getting cold and hungry. Make no mistakes, when the oil runs out the western culture will collapse and we will be sent hurtling back to the middle ages. Starvation will become a real problem, medicine will become scarce and transport will be by your own two feet or not at all. The UK currently has around sixty million people. Without oil it could support maybe twenty million but probably less because there will be no oil to power farm machines, no fertilizer to grow strong crops and no herbicides or pesticides to keep the weeds and insects at bay. We will be sent back to a pre-industrial revolution world with no hope of it ending. Winter will be the worst time for us because there will be nothing to burn. The first winter with no gas or oil will see every tree cut down for firewood even though burning unseasoned wood is nearly pointless. Our houses will start to fail as there will be no materials to maintain them with and rats will breed in their masses because we can't transport out waste away. Basic raw materials like wood and steal will become valuable commodities because we won't be able to produce them ourselves but they won't last anywhere near as long as we are used to because we won't have lacquers, paints and varnishes to protect them with. Is there a bright side? Perhaps. There is no shortage of coal yet. Estimations put it at maybe two hundred years if we are careful with it but that is based on usage values from the late 1980's which are unlikely to be a good indication of the future. Once the far and middle east, in particular China and India, starts serious industrialization our world energy demand will sky rocket. Lets not forget Africa as well, one day they may get their act together and when they do the wests energy needs will be tiny in comparison. So lets re-estimate that we have one hundred years of coal left. That's not bad but it's still in the lifetime of our children. Won't somebody think of the children! Of course the coal might be able to keep us warm assuming that we can develop technology that allows us to actually get it out the ground as none of the currently technology that uses oil will be working but the problem then is that it might keep us to warm. Burning all that coal will release trillions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into

the atmosphere. If you think global warming is bad now the forecast is that it's only going to get worse from here. It is fairly clear that we need to do something about this problem now and not in twenty years when it start to really cause us problems. It takes huge amounts of money and a long time to develop a new energy technology to the point where it is useful. Look how long it took to develop the coal fired power station for instance maybe one hundred years to get something really useful. We need to invest a good portion of our countries GDP in researching renewable energy sources so that we don't get caught out. There is no way on Earth the government will put even one percent of the countries GDP into research, let alone into researching alternative energy sources. This is bizarre because one of the few things that we will always need is power. If we could become the world leaders in renewable energy technology we would have the world eating out of our hand in the near future. If you agree even in part with what I have said please write to your MP asking him or her to push for more funding for alternative energy sources. Your way of life and your children's way of life depend on it.

Five big energy problems for the 21st century

A piece by academic and author Vaclav Smil in the OECD Observer (undated, unfortunately) paints a gloomy picture of energy transition this century: An impartial examination of some basic principles reveals five factors that will make the transition to a non-fossil world far more difficult than is commonly realised. These are: the scale of the shift; the lower energy density of the replacement fuels; the substantially lower power density of renewable energy extraction; intermittency of renewable flows; and uneven distribution of renewable energy resources. More on those points: 1. The shift of the scale: He compares the current era to 1850, just before the last large-scale shift of energy supplies. Then, Smil writes, most energy came from biomass (eg woodburning). Today, it comes mostly from fossil fuels. Today, he writes, even if we were to replace only 50% of all fossil fuels by renewable energies during the coming decades, we would have to displace coal and hydrocarbons flows of about 6 TW. The problem is, he says, there is no readily-available source of that scale of power. 2. Energy density: In the last two energy transitions, from biomass to coal and then from coal to hydrocarbons, lower energy-density fuels were supplanted by more concentrated sources of energy. Not this time around. Replacing petroleum with liquid biofuels, for example, would require a 1.5 ratio and that will be more costly and more difficult.

3. Power density of energy production - this refers to the rate of production per area of land. Fossil fuels, Smil writes, yield a hefty 102 103W per square metre; hydro and wind power are more like 10W for the same area; while only solar gets above 20W. 4. Intermittency: Anyone familiar with energy knows about this; many newer sources of energy such as wind and solar arent good for baseload supplies; while storage is also a challenge for non-fossil fuel sources. 5. Geographic distribution: Much is made of an uneven distribution of oil and gas, but renewable flows are also spread out unevenly: cloudiness in the equatorial zone reduces direct solar radiation; whole stretches of continent have insufficient wind; there are too few sites with the best potential for geothermal, tidal or ocean energy conversions, etc. Lots of interesting points there. Smil is a distinguished professor were not sure in what, as his staff page refers to interdisciplinary research in a range of areas, but hes based in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Manitoba, Canada. Weve seen him referred to as a futurist and his interests include energy, population, and China. We were intrigued by a blog post suggesting he believed climate change hasnt been visible in the past 10 years. His views on climate change are described in more detail in this review of Smils recent book GLOBAL CATASTROPHES AND TRENDS: The Next Fifty Years in American Scientist: Smil is blunt in his criticisms of the global-warming pessimists, saying that we simply dont know enough about the complex interactions and feedbacks that may take place to be able to reliably quantify the likely consequences of the warming that is occurring. His estimate is that there will be a temperature increase of 2.5 degrees to 3 degrees Celsius over the next hundred years, a figure that is about at the midpoint of recent projections by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Apparently the industrialized nations in the Northern Hemisphere have the wealth and technical capabilities to handle this increase, but poor countries in the global South, which are already carrying an unmanageable load, will find it quite burdensome. (Smils usual concern with the interaction of variables is not in evidence in this case. Does he think that the multitudes who cannot cope will quietly disappear?) Although he stresses the difficulty of estimating future sea levels, he says that a cautious conclusion would be that they will rise about 15 centimeters by 2050clearly a noncatastrophic change. He concludes surprisingly that the market impacts of a moderate warming will be a trivial sum in all affluent countries (which prorates to about $180 a year per capita), citing in support work by Yale economist William D. Nordhaus. (Other respected economists disagree.) Smils analysis of climate change is more complex and nuanced than that supplied by even sophisticated journalists and essayists. Thus we learn that our actions have

already changed the global nitrogen cycle much more than the carbon cycle (which gets all the attention), and that those changes will create problems more intractable than the ones resulting from excessive levels of carbon dioxide. Losses of biodiversity and invasive species have impoverished our ecosystem and have had major economic consequences. (Presumably these are not included in the trivial sum.) Finally, the chapter on environmental change takes up the problem of antibiotic resistance. I will spare you the depressing details. In his OECD article, Smil argues that there is no pressing need for a shift away from fossil fuels, apart from climate change (he believes there is adequate fossil fuels for generations to come). On climate change, he writes: Even then, because of the enormity of requisite technical and infrastructural requirements, many decades will be needed to capture substantial market shares on continental or global scales. A non-fossil world may be highly desirable, but getting there will demand great determination, cost and patience. Solving the Energy Problem William Schreiber Global warming is now almost universally accepted as a serious problem caused by human activity mainly burning fossil fuels that demands strong remedial action as soon as possible. Past events, such as the temporary boycott by some of the major petroleum producers in the 70s, showed that the US also has a national security problem related to both price and availability of one of our main energy sources. This note is intended as a contribution to the effort to devise a comprehensive solution to all aspects of the energy problem. Many others have also recognized various aspects of the problem and the need for a rapid response. I have found that most workers in this field have not completely defined the problem, but nevertheless have some favorite solutions to be exclusively pursued. When I began my engineering education long ago, I was lucky enough to have had the tutelage of experienced engineers, not scientists. They all said (preached, actually) that the indispensable first step in devising a solution in the real world was to define the problem. What is the energy problem? It has several parts. In the early 70s, the temporary boycott of the world market by OPEC caused the price of petroleum to rise dramatically, as petroleum is the most common source of energy used in heat generation, production, commerce, transportation, and residential facilities. (1) The ability of major petroleum producers to withhold the supply reveals the importance of energy independence and price.

(2) More recently, global warming has become unmistakably important with widespread melting of ice, noticeable climate changes, and rising sea levels. This is now recognized by nearly everyone as caused by greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide, produced by burning fossil fuels such as petroleum, coal, and natural gas. While nuclear power plants are being advocated by some, dealing with spent nuclear fuel is as problematic as greenhouse gases, and energy must be used to produce nuclear fuel. Note there is now a worldwide shortage of nuclear fuel. Others are pushing ethanol, which is such a bad idea that it is hard to understand how its use has become as widespread as it has. Ethanols production consumes nearly as much energy as it provides, and its use generates greenhouse gas. With only about 1% of gasoline now replaced by ethanol, some growers of corn have become rich, but many growers of domestic animals for food are in dire straits because of the unanticipated rise in the price of feed corn. Solar power, wind power, hydroelectric power, nuclear power, hydrogen power, methane from buried organic material, and other renewable power sources are advocated by some, but so far, no solution has been proposed that would be both affordable and complete. The purpose of this paper is to propose such a complete solution, the development of which requires only resources that we already have in abundance. Unless, by some miracle, we find a substitute for petroleum fuel that can be used with the same technology we use today, takes no energy to produce, has no noxious residue, and has no unexpected consequences (like raising the price of corn) its adoption will require rebuilding our entire energy infrastructure. This will be neither easy nor cheap, but if we hope to preserve the Earth for our descendents, we have no choice but to act now. This will involve diverting manpower and funds from current uses. If we examine how these resources are now being used, military applications will be found high on the list. Many of us believe that such diversions would make our world a better place in which to live. The decisions, of course, will be political, which is beyond the scope of this short paper. Though expensive to build, the proposed system, which abandons fossil fuels, should be cheap to operate, as the fuel, which is sunlight, has no operating cost. Back to top Some preliminaries All the energy the earth has stored and almost all of the energy it receives every day comes from the Sun. About 89,000 terawatts (1 TW = a million million (quadrillion) watts) falls on the Earth, while total usage (in 2004) was only 15 terawatts, of which 87% was provided by fossil fuels. Their use produces most of the global warming that

has become so obvious. If we were to get most of our useable energy from the Sun, we would solve many of the most important problems, including the price and availability of petroleum as well as (3) the noxious by-products associated with using nuclear power and fossil fuels. (4) Relying on the Sun rather than petroleum would also permit us to be much less involved with events in the Middle East. (Anybody who does not realize how advantageous this would be is urged to read Seymour Hershs Annals of National Security in The New Yorker of 5 March 2007.) Cleaning carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases such as water vapor) from the Earths current atmosphere is not one of my fields of expertise, but greatly reducing the rate at which we increase it is clearly a good idea. (Perhaps we shall discover that if we stop adding these gases to the atmosphere, the existing unwanted gases will slowly dissipate.) A way to do this is to move to an electrical economy, producing electricity from sunlight, and then replacing as much of other fuels as possible by electricity. There is cost associated with this, but mostly new technology is not required. The one field in which this is not yet completely possible is transportation, where better batteries (or their functional equivalent) are needed. Fortunately, we still have a lot of competence in developing new technology, in spite of losing a good part of our manufacturing skills. (A very promising battery project is underway at MIT.) Solar power at present is faulted for being available only during clear days, for requiring expensive solar cells of limited efficiency and life, and for not having enough space for the receptors in crowded areas such as cities. This proposal concentrates on dealing with these issues. The main idea When I was teaching in India in the 60s, I learned that some irrigation pumps were solar-powered without using any electrical components. Small collectors concentrated sunlight sufficiently to produce steam of high enough temperature and pressure to operate water pumps. (The motivation was that pilferage of electrical components, even copper wire, was then a problem in the outlying areas where the apparatus was often located.) This idea is one of the elements in the proposal. The other [idea] is to collect the sunlight on large steerable, focusable mirrors in geostationary orbit that would direct the reflected light onto much smaller receptors on the ground. (The orbits would be inclined so that the mirrors would never be in the shadow of the earth.) Initially, the receptors would be located near existing hydroelectric plants, where solar-powered pumps would be used to move water up into the lake(s) behind the dam(s) for energy storage. At NASA, we have the skills to develop such devices as the mirrors and perhaps even have the money if we give up such projects as the space station, which produce no noticeable benefits for mankind. Should the initial installations prove workable, new plants could be built in more remote locations.

Solar power like the kind I saw in India is still used to some extent in the U.S. Heating of swimming pools seems to be the largest application. Some is used for domestic hot water and some for space heating. Numerous small companies are in the business of making and selling the collectors and the receptors for the various applications. The same is true today in India. Details The orbiting mirrors would be, perhaps, a mile in diameter. They would be constructed as transparent inflatable thin balloons, one of the inside surfaces of which would be aluminized to provide the reflecting surface for the required concave mirror. The mirrors would be lifted into orbit while folded, the inflated shape being determined by the thickness of the plastic or other material and by the pressure. It is likely that spherical reflectors would be adequate, and the focal length could be adjusted by the pressure, thus avoiding high precision in their manufacture. Communication satellites already use slanted orbits and incorporate sufficiently accurate steering mechanisms. Note that since the Sun apparently moves through the sky while the mirror apparently remains fixed to viewers on the Earth, the angle of incidence of the sunlight on the mirror changes. Thus the mirror must be constantly redirected. This is preferably done by using feedback from small sensors located around the edge of the mirror to the steering mechanism of the satellite carrying the mirror. These same sensors can also be used to adjust the focal length of the concave reflector by adjusting the air pressure inside the plastic balloon so that the incident beam just fills the receptor surface. At the surface of the Earth, incoming solar radiation in clear weather averages something over 300 watts/sq. meter, but it is much higher and nearly constant above the atmosphere. Measurements show the solar constant to be about 1366 watts/sq. meter. A reflector about 5000 feet in diameter thus collects about 3000 megawatts, which is comparable to the capacity of a typical terrestrial electric power plant. I am guessing that collectors might be 500 feet in diameter, but this must be verified. The fraction of the collected power that would be received by the collectors depends on the weather, and the fraction of that which becomes useful heat to make steam and drive pumps remains to be seen. Close to populated areas, it may be necessary to stop the transmission at night. For these reasons, storage of the collected energy is essential, which makes the use of dams holding pumped water a vital part of these systems. The ability to defocus the mirrors is also important. One of the reasons for using the solar energy directly to produce steam and drive pumps is that solar electric cells, besides being expensive, are not very efficient in

converting light into electricity, and need replacement from time to time. At best, the efficiency is about 20%, the rest of the light energy appearing as heat, which limits the intensity of light that can be handled. There is no such limitation when converting the incoming power into steam, but there probably are some limitations from safety considerations. However the efficiency is surely higher than that of solar cells. Space debris It has been known for some time that thousands of pieces of debris, some very large but most very small, abandoned from previous launches, are in orbit around the Earth. Some objects that have been returned, such as shuttle vehicles, have been found to have suffered minor damage from impact with small pieces. This raises concern for us, since the mirrors we propose to place in orbit are actually quite fragile. Fortunately, almost all space junk is in much lower orbit, where it will eventually burn up as it enters the Earths atmosphere. There are two possible approaches to deal with this problem. One is to make the mirrors less fragile by abandoning the balloon approach and providing a structure to support a single-surface properly shaped mirror. The other is to provide redundancy by placing two or more mirrors in orbit for each receiving location on the ground. The balloon approach is very attractive because it enables focus to be controlled by pressure, rather than making and then placing in orbit a very precise mirror. Although the redundancy approach seems better to me, my inclination is to leave the final decisions to the engineers who will do the actual design, hopefully from NASA. More thoughts This proposal need not be the only scheme used. Higher efficiency in systems that do burn carbon-containing fuels would lessen, but not eliminate contamination of the atmosphere. Conservation, wind power, tidal power, and any other schemes that do not burn fossil or carbon-containing fuels may also be used. I have no special knowledge about hydrogen fuel cells, except to note that water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. Carbon sequestration seems to involve significant new technology and does not free us from the grip of OPEC. References Many of the numbers used here are from Wikipedia, World energy resources and consumption. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy:_world_resources_and_consumption This piece also has a very good list of additional references. It is well written and apparently accurate. However it uses the words energy and power as synonyms in many instances, much to the discomfort of technically trained persons, such as myself. In this paper, I have used these two terms only in their technical sense. Power

(typical unit is watt) is the rate of providing energy (typical units are BTU British thermal units or joules). Global Energy Problems When you look at the present time, you will see that energy problems are not only encountered in your own country. The global energy problem faced by mankind today is set to worsen comes a time that energy sources are not used properly. For instance, one expensive commodity today is fuel, which comes from oil a nonrenewable energy resource. This is fairly abundant in Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Libya and Iraq. Other countries that produce oil are Russia, United States, Canada and Mexico. There are still more countries that produce oil but the large concentration of which are in Middle East countries. Due to the growing number of world population, the demand for fuel also increased. More vehicles are produced because a lot of people would like to have their own cars instead of riding the public transportation. And with the increasing number of cars on the road, fuel production is also increased. The sad thing is, the rate of replenishment of oil could not equal the rate of depletion. This means that oil reserves decrease very fast, but the creation of new underground oil is very slow. Aside from oil, another global energy problem is the increasing demand for electricity. The increasing population also contributed to this demand. More communities are built resulting to more power consumption. Hence, the necessity to build power plants also comes into existence. Before, most power plants that are built derive their energy source from coal. Fortunately today, real efforts are made towards the utilization of renewable sources like wind, hydropower, solar, geothermal and wave energy. Although this global energy problem takes a heavy toll on the shoulders of individuals in this planet, there is still hope that one day this problem could be overcome. All it needs is the will to prefer renewable sources over fossil fuels. Could Helium-3 really solve Earths energy problems? If you watched the movie Moon, you remember Helium-3 as the substance Sam Bell was sending back to Earth, during his onerous three year tenure on the Sarang lunar base. Helium-3 is not a piece of science fiction, but an isotope of helium that really could provide for all of our energy needs in the future. With absolutely no pollution. Helium-3 is slightly different than the gas that fills birthday balloons. Rather, Helium3 is a stable isotope of helium that is missing a neutron, with this missing neutron allowing for the production of clean energy. The moon holds a tremendous supply of Helium-3 on its surface, but will Helium-3 really be the answer to our energy problems on Earth? Full size

Clean energy is only a missing neutron away Two types of fusion reactions make use of Helium-3 to produce clean energy. The first uses deuterium (deuterium is hydrogen with a neutron) reacting with Helium-3, to produce helium and a proton. The second type of reactions uses two atoms of helium3 to create helium and two protons. The protons created during the reaction are the crown jewel of Helium-3 fusion. One of the best parts of the proposed Helium-3 reaction is the complete lack of radioactive byproducts. No neutrons are emitted, and no isotopes are left as products that could radioactively decay. The proton is a particularly nice side product, since clean energy can be harnessed from this stray proton by manipulating it in an electrostatic field. Traditional nuclear fission reactions create heat, which is then used to heat water. The boiling water forces turbines to spin and generate energy. In the Helium-3 fusion process, energy is created via the reaction itself, with no nasty radioactive material for future generations to monitor. The Helium-3 fusion process is not simply theoretical the University of WisconsinMadison Fusion Technology Institute successfully performed fusion experiments combining two molecules of Helium-3. Estimates place the efficiency of Helium-3 fusion reactions at seventy percent, out-pacing coal and natural gas electricity generation by twenty percent. Finding Helium-3 Helium-3 is transmitted with solar winds, but Earth's magnetic field pushes the isotope away. Thanks to its negligible magnetic field, the moon doesn't suffer from this fate, allowing Helium-3 to build up in regolith, the layer of rock and dust covering the moon. The existence of Helium-3 on the moon is verified by samples retrieved on Apollo and Luna missions. Geologist-turned-astronaut Harrison Schmitt acquired and analyzed over 200 pounds of lunar rock acquired during 1972's Apollo 17 mission.

Helium-3 exists on our Earth, but in extremely small quantities. Tritium (hydrogen with a total of two neutrons, or deuterium with an extra neutron if you prefer) naturally decays into Helium-3 over time. Helium-3 is also created, oddly enough, as a byproduct of nuclear weapons testing. The United States' Helium-3 reserves are just shy of 30 kilograms, much less than the theoretical 25 tons of helium-3 necessary to provide for the energy needs of a country our size for one year. Full size

Mining the moon Obtaining helium-3 from lunar regolith will not be an easy task. Best estimates of Helium-3 content place it at 50 parts per billion in lunar soil, calling for the refining of millions of tons of lunar soil before gathering enough Helium-3 to be useful in fusion reactions on Earth. Should we be so eager to strip mine the moon and destroy its surface to provide a clean energy source for Earth? Full size

After mining lunar rock, Helium-3 is separated by heating the mass to over 600degrees Celsius, consuming a large amount of energy in the process. And meanwhile, transporting large quantities of Helium-3 back to Earth will be another problem. A spacecraft would likely be able to only carry a few tons of Helium3 as payload, necessitating a revolving door of shuttles to supply enough Helium-3 to care for the Earth's energy needs. Thus, it's likely that Helium-3 is more likely to become a fuel source for lunar colonies, eliminating a need for start-up additional supplies and costly flights to and from Earth.

Due to the effort and energy needed to mine, heat, and transport Helium-3 back to Earth, it will not be a cheap energy source, but a clean alternative, one we might have to turn to in the next 100 years. Frequent trips to the Moon may also open up the lunar tourism industry, as passengers travel along with canisters of Helium-3 destined for use in fusion reactions back on Earth. "Claiming" the Moon The first nation (or conglomeration of nations) to establish a Moon colony and begin mining operations will likely set the standard for control of resources on the Moon, especially if exploration of the Western world plays a role as precedent. Let's hope the nation has kind, altruistic motives at hand - otherwise, we might be better off with a private company (as inMoon) making it to the Moon first, with an intention of harvesting its resources. The Russian company Energia claimed in 2006 that it would have a permanent moon base in 2015 and harvest Helium-3 by 2020. But the company appears to be woefully behind in making these claims become reality. A monopoly on clean energy would catapult any major nation into a "ultrapower" - will we see this happen in the next century? Will the first country to create a permanent moonbase share the wealth and help developing nations create a clean energy supply? But even if the Moon's Helium-3 reserves are too expensive to transport back to Earth, our only natural satellite could one day become a space-faring "gas station" for vessels traveling into space, as humanity takes to the stars. Energy Conservation is the Best Option for Solving Our Environmental and Energy Challenges. Reducing the amount of electricity and oil consumed is the most effective and affordable way to reduce carbon emissions, pollution, and dependence on foreign oil. Industrial Wind Power only adds energy to the system, it does not replace the fossil fuel burned to create baseload electricity. Programs and incentives to reduce the amount of electricity and fossil fuel used, however, do reduce carbon emissions, pollution and dependence on foreign oil. Conservation works and every taxpayer dollar spent on subsidizing industrial wind power, instead of energy conservation programs, is a dollar wasted. Energy Conservation Techniques

Insulation and Air Sealing Energy Efficient Doors, Windows and Skylights Efficient building heating and cooling systems

Biomass

Insulation and Air Sealing The most effective way to reduce a building's heating and cooling costs and energy use is through proper insulation and air sealing techniques. In addition to making buildings more energy efficient, these techniques also make them more comfortable. Proper moisture control and ventilation strategies will improve the effectiveness of air sealing and insulation, and vice versa. Thorough energy efficiency is achieved by combined all four elements:

Air sealing Insulation Moisture control Ventilation

Learn more about Insulation and Air Sealing Technology. Energy Efficient Doors & Windows Energy efficient doors and windows are an essential component of thorough insulation and air sealing. Replacing old doors and windows of existing buildings is the most complete method of lower heating and cooling costs and more efficient energy use. Significant energy saving can also be achieved by adding storm windows and weather stripping to doors and windows in good condition.

Replacement doors and windows Storm doors and storm windows Weathersealing older doors and windows

Learn more about Energy Efficient Doors and Windows. Efficient Heating Systems Upgrading a furnace or boiler from 56% to 90% efficiency in an average cold-climate house will save 1.5 tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year with gas fuel, or 2.5 tons with with oil fuel. Heating and cooling account for about 56% of the energy use in a typical U.S. home, making it the largest energy expense for most households. A wide variety of technologies are available for heating and cooling your home, and they achieve a wide range of efficiencies. In addition, many heating and cooling systems have common

supporting equipment, such as thermostats and ducts, which provide opportunities for more energy savings.

Understanding the Efficiency Rating of Furnaces and Boilers Retrofitting Furnaces and Boilers Replacing Furnaces and Boilers

Learn more about Energy Efficient Heating Systems. Efficient Cooling Systems Ventilation is the least expensive and most energy-efficient way to cool buildings. Ventilation works best when combined with methods to avoid heat buildup. In some cases, natural ventilation will suffice for cooling, although it usually needs to be supplemented with spot ventilation, ceiling fans and window fans.

Avoiding Heat Buildup Natural Ventilation Ceiling Fans and Other Circulating Fans Window Fans Whole House Fans Air Conditioning

Learn more about Energy Efficient Cooling Systems. Biomass Biomass is plant matter such as trees, grasses, agricultural crops or other biological material. It can be used as a solid fuel, or converted into liquid or gaseous forms, for the production of electric power, heat, chemicals, or fuels. Sources of Biomass:

Wood Burning Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Collecting landfill gas or biogas Ethanol Biodiesel

A Broad-Based Solution to Our Energy Problem

With instability in the Arab world causing oil prices to surge, and Republicans proposing, with typical venality and idiocy, to solve the problem through eitherrampant domestic oil drilling or stealing the oil in Iraq and Libya, President Barack Obama is striking a more reasoned tone. In a recent speechat Georgetown University, the president proposed reducing America's foreign oil imports by one-third by 2025. In itself, this sounds like a worthy goal, but given the breadth of the environmental and economic problems that our oil consumption causes, it's unambitious at best. Part of the problem is that Obama's approach is entirely conventional. He calls for reductions in oil use through boosting alternative-energy sources like natural gas and biofuels and increasing domestic oil production. This shows a fatal flaw in Obama's conception of the problem. He views our massive oil consumption as an issue that should be solved through energy policy. In fact, the real solutions to our energy problems lie in other policy areas: transportation, education, housing, and urban development. When Republicans chant "drill baby, drill" and the country's leading Democrat responds with "drill but also build solar panels" as an opening offer rather than a final compromise, the whole debate is skewed rightward. Our reliance on oil is a problem caused by excessive demand, not inadequate supply. The way to solve such a problem is not to scurry in vain to produce enough oil to match demand -- an exercise akin to running in quicksand -- but to reduce demand. And to do that requires changing rules that no president has ever identified as falling under energy policy at all. Our rapacious oil consumption results from decisions made long ago, especially when it comes to transportation. According to the World Resources Institute, in 2005 the U.S. consumed 1,618.6 litres of petroleum per person; Japan and Germany -- two nations with robust automobile industries -- used around a quarter of that per person compared with the U.S. It's not that Americans can't enjoy the benefits of building or owning cars but the U.S. has unwisely encouraged development patterns that forced us to drive everywhere and to drive longer distances. Because of this, the U.S. has set lower taxes on gasoline compared to other developed nations, and we use the revenue to build roads -- about 80 percent of federal transportation dollars go to highways -- rather than subways and regional rail lines. We need to raise the federal gas tax, which hasn't even risen to keep pace with inflation since 1993, and reapportion the way we spend that revenue.

Housing policy, too, needs to change. Supporting consumer spending on buying a new home instead of renting or rehabilitating an older home in the inner-city has led to suburban sprawl. Not only does this mean people drive more and drive farther but that they live in detached houses and work in suburban office parks and strip malls, all of which consume more energy than apartment buildings, town houses, and urban skyscrapers. We need to stop favoring new homeownership over renting (via the mortgage interest tax deduction and other subsidies). Decreasing the emphasis on homeownership and single-family home development will have the added benefits of preventing future housing bubbles and increasing socioeconomic and racial integration. Middle-class families are also lured to the suburbs by education policies that allow those schools to be so much better than the ones in inner cities. Whereas many countries finance schools largely through general revenues at the national or regional level, the U.S. leaves most school funding up to localities, which often rely largely on property taxes. The result? Suburban school districts have more advantaged populations and better resources. Most suburban students rely on school buses or cars to get to school. This, of course, uses more oil than walking and the cost of all that gas guzzling has become a major problem for districts struggling with rising gas prices. But the bigger problem is that the socioeconomically segregated schools create inequality of opportunity and, from a land-use perspective, this means that middleclass families will keep leaving the city to give their children a better chance in life. If we raised state and federal income taxes and provisioned funding more equally across districts and also created regional mega-districts to integrate suburban and urban school districts, we could remove this incentive for white flight and suburban sprawl. Unlike domestic drilling or subsidizing the construction of nuclear reactors, these policies do not risk catastrophic accidents. The "all of the above" approach to energy independence Obama advocates also raises the risks of future disasters like the BP oil spill. As a report released today by the NAACP to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the spill illustrates, the economic, health, and environmental impact on Gulf-area residents is still devastating and prevalent. April 2010 also featured the Massey coal mine explosion in West Virginia and a deadly accident at a coal mine in Kentucky. As a new reportfrom the Center for American Progress demonstrates, fossilfuel extraction is among the most dangerous industries for workers. In theory, the best way to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels across all sectors of the economy would be to put a price or tax on carbon emissions and let the market sort out which are the best sectors to find efficiencies. With Republicans controlling the House of Representatives, though, that will not happen. But fiscal conservatives should in theory be amenable to removing market-distorting subsidies. On the federal level, those include subsidies in the tax code for fossil-fuel production, our disproportionate funding of highways over mass transit, and federal policies that subsidize buying a new home but not renting or renovating an existing home in the

inner city. In fact, Obama favors many of these positions: He has released a forwardlooking model for reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Act, proposed expanded high-speed rail, and endorsed removing tax expenditures like the home mortgage deduction. But Obama has not made any of these a political priority, letting the overdue Surface Transit reauthorization languish and accepting cuts to high-speed rail in the 2011 budget compromise. Most important, Obama has left these ideas in their respective silos -- tax expenditures are tax policy, rail is transportation policy -instead of calling them what they are: a plan to reduce our dependence on oil. Some of the other elements of combating suburban sprawl -- such as integrating and equalizing funding between school districts and changing local zoning codes that currently require parking lots, low-density construction, and segregated uses -- are largely not within the president's control. Others are within his authority, but he has avoided endorsing those policies -- such as increasing the tax on gasoline to fund mass-transit priorities -- which are, admittedly, political nonstarters with a Republican House of Representatives. But our consumption of fossil fuels and its malign effects -- climate change, the Gulf oil spill, worker deaths, the distorting effects on our foreign policy, and the tax we pay to hostile foreign governments -- is the single biggest problem our nation faces. To address such a sprawling problem requires leadership, political courage, and outsidethe-box thinking. In winning election and passing health-care reform, President Obama showed he has all those qualities. Unfortunately, when it comes to combating the real reasons for our oil dependency, Obama has yet to bring any of them to bear.

The Real Solution to the Energy Problem

We have now spent over $1 trillion to get oil from the Middle East. We spend billions of dollars to maintain military bases in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait. We've stirred up a hornet's nest in order to keep crude flowing out of the Middle East. Say what you will, but everyone knows that the only reason we are in the Middle East is because of the oil. We didn't get involved in Rwanda or Myanmar or Sudan because they didn't have massive reserves of oil. Next, we decided on using our food supply as energy in the form of ethanol. That's benefitting companies such as Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) and other ethanol players, but how about the rest of us? We have skyrocketing corn prices. Along with that, other food prices dependent on corn are skyrocketing. Corn is used to feed cows, which provide us with milk and beef. It's used to feed chickens. Now the price of meat, milk and eggs are going up. The Law of Unintended Consequences strike again. It's about time that we turn to the real solution - conservation. Some people say that the market will correct oil prices and the government should stay out of the market. As prices get too high, consumer pain and a recession will reduce demand. Should we wait and do nothing while tens of billions of our dollars are siphoned to other

countries? It's about time that we leverage our technology to our advantage. We laid down billions of dollars worth of fiber prior to and even after the dotcom boom. Let's put that to use. Congress needs to pass a law that will give tax breaks or other incentives to companies that allow as many of their employees as possible to telecommute. In today's global economy of laptops, broadband, Blackberries, wireless, email, instant messaging and other technologies, why are office workers being forced to drive to the office five days a week? Managers often have employees in several different cities, states or even countries. Does it make a difference if those employees are sitting in a cubicle or sitting in their home office or coffee table? Imagine how many billions of gallons of gasoline will be saved with such an initiative. Think of the tens of billions of dollars saved on energy that could be spent or invested on other parts of the economy. Companies will benefit with reduced office space and the associated costs. Parents can still work when their children are sick so that projects don't falls behind schedule. Employees will benefit with a more flexible schedule and lower transportation costs. How many people are exhausted and stressed out after fighting through and hour of morning traffic? Then there are the side benefits to the rest of society. Think of the reduction in smog and traffic without cars idling on the highways. The reduced demand will even result in lower energy prices for everyone. Over 60% of our oil consumption is used in the transportation sector, which adds up to a staggering $453 billion dollars each year. If we can cut transportation costs by just 20%, that would save this country over $90 billion per year, which could be used in other parts of the economy to create jobs and pay down debt. That's nearly as much as the entire $600 tax rebate program passed by the government this year. We could have that stimulus package every year! Along with that, there will be a significant reduction in CO2 emissions due to fewer cars, and fewer traffic jams every morning and evening. Whether you believe in man-made global warming or not, everyone believes in having cleaner air to breathe. As for those complaining of government interference in the free markets, what about the mandate that car companies install seatbelts in every car? Was that such a bad idea? In rare instances, government interference can be of benefit. So let's look at the advantages of such an initiative: lower energy costs, cleaner air, lower costs for companies, more flexible hours for employees, lower food prices, less dependence on foreign oil, less traffic and wear and tear on our infrastructure, better economy I realize that not everyone can work from home, but a far greater number should be able to than are currently allowed by their employers. We need to have a major paradigm shift so that we can remain competitive as a nation in this global economy.

Distributed Energy - Solution for India's energy problems In my view, renewable energy has the potential to solve power problems of India much more than for the developed world. Because 70% of our population is in 600 thousand villages across India, we need sources of energy which are distributed in nature and can use local resources to generate energy avoiding grid capital costs and distribution losses. Also most of our industries use captive power sources because of unreliable grid availability and these power sources are either Diesel ot coal based. Fortunately, renewable energy solutions are usually very modular in nature and fit very well in a distributed infrastructure setting, be it solar, wind, biomass or small hydro. If we see from an Indian lens, renewables is more an enabler of distributed energy generation rather than a cleaner energy source (which may matter more for developed world). It being clean is a by-product for us, which is good since then there is no conflict. India is by and large a sunny country with potential for lot of solar power year round which can be captured using lower technology intensive solutions like micro Solar Thermal. India has large arable land (55% of land is arable which is best in the world) part of which can be used for energy plantation if agriculture yields are increased. Weeds like Babool can be a great source for biomass power because water requirements are very low for Babool and can grow on wastelands (55 million hectares in India is wasteland). India has huge Agri-waste (600 million tonnes) which can be used locally for power generation using either biomass gasification or bio-methanation route. Biomass is a natural solar cell and storage issues, which exist in Solar PV, do not exist because nature stores energy as plant material which can be used for baseload /on-demand power unlike in Solar PV. We do not need Wests complex Solar PV technologies if we can concentrate on growing and efficiently using our biomass resources. The good thing is that economically too, the distributed energy sources like biogas plants are cost competitive to grid electricity if you take into account also the grid cost. India has about 20 million agriculture pumps which are grossly inefficient. Of these 20 million, 5 million run on diesel which make them very costly to operate (farmers usually pay minimal amount for grid connected electric pumps but they have to pay for diesel). There is an opportunity to create distributed sources of energy which can power these diesel pumps on a standalone basis. The cost of running a diesel pump can be very high (given that it costs close to 30-40 cents/KWh of electricity). Distributed sources of energy therefore can be very useful in Indian context which may not make sense from developed world perspectives. They usually prefer very high concentrated scale of operation because of good grid connectivity and primary urban power demand. In India, I see first Diesel Generators going out of fashion once the distributed clean energy solutions start coming which are easy to operate, generate

power on-demand and are affordable. I think it is time somebody starts thinking replacing DGs given that 25k MW of power is generated by DGs in India. Entrepreneurs are you listening? Energy Innovators: 4 creative solutions to energy problems The nation is turning to alternative energy as never before amid concerns about global warming and runaway fossil-fuel prices. Wind and solar power, for example, each grew 45% last year, while the U.S. consumed 633,000 barrels of ethanol a day in June, up 43% from a year earlier. But alternative energy has not broken into the mainstream because of myriad roadblocks. Solar energy, for example, is expensive. Wind power is available only when the wind blows. But hundreds of companies are working to overcome the obstacles. Through June, venture capital investments in alternative energy companies this year totaled $980 million, up 92% from a year earlier, says Dow Jones VentureSource. Here are four technologies that show promise: Thin-film solar panels: Printing process cuts down on the cost of silicon, a key material Here's one way to bring down the price of solar energy: make churning out solar panels as easy as printing a newspaper. That's precisely what start-up Nanosolar has done. The company says it's poised to be the first among dozens of manufacturers to make solar competitive in price with conventional electricity. While solar-system costs have fallen, they're still about 20 cents to 30 cents per kilowatt hour, or more than twice the price of electricity from your local utility. That's largely because traditional solar-system makers use expensive silicon as a semiconductor to generate electricity from sunlight. Thin-filmmakers have pushed down costs by using a tiny fraction of the semiconductor. But most still employ a slow and expensive condensation method to attach the semiconductor onto a base. Yet with production volumes rising, solar energy generally is expected to be competitive with grid electricity in 2010 or after. Nanosolar, a Northern California company, says it can achieve that next year because of its printing process. It embeds tiny semiconductor particles in ink, then coats a layer of it onto mile-long rolls of aluminum foil, which is later cut into solar panels. The company says it can

turn out panels at a rate of 100 feet a minute, 20 times faster than typical thinfilmmakers at a tenth of the cost. "It's all about higher throughput," to more cost-efficiently leverage fixed labor and equipment costs, Nanosolar CEO Martin Roscheisen says. In December, Nanosolar opened a factory in San Jose that's capable of pumping out 430 megawatts of solar capacity a year, nearly the size of an average coal-fired power plant. It plans to produce huge solar panels for cities and other utility-scale users this year and target businesses and homes next year. Consultant Paul Maycock of Photovoltaic Energy Systems says Nanosolar's systems "could be one of the more exciting products" in solar energy's history. But he says the company has not delivered the production volumes it promised a few years ago. Roscheisen would not discuss its output, noting Nanosolar is private. E-Coal: No greenhouse gas in coal substitute Imagine an electricity source that kind of looks like coal and packs all of coal's energy punch but is cheaper and produces no greenhouse gas emissions. That's what Seattle-based NewEarth Renewable Energy says it developed with E-Coal. It's biomass made from plants or other organic waste and heated to boost its energy content. "We can produce (clean) fuels that are pound-for-pound replacements for coal," NewEarth CEO Ahava Amen says. In 2004, after making a small fortune in cosmetics, Amen and some former associates reunited to tackle global warming. They hunted for a substitute for coal, the biggest greenhouse gas producer. Biomass emits carbon dioxide when burned but absorbs the same amount in its lifetime. Yet it yields a third to half of coal's energy, raising fuel costs and limiting the size of current biomass power plants. NewEarth boosts its energy content by placing the biomass in an oxygen-deprived chamber and heating it to 250 degrees. The resulting solid is condensed, and unwanted gases and moisture are removed. The heating process was invented decades ago, but Amen says NewEarth has made it costefficient. It's using as its feedstock a fast-growing plant, Nile reed. Because the energy value equals coal's, he says, there's no need to spend millions to upgrade plant boilers. Plus, he says, E-Coal costs 5% to 40% less than regular coal. Initially, a utility likely would blend a small amount of E-Coal with its coal. But Amen

says a plant's entire fuel stock can be replaced. He says he's negotiating with dozens of utilities. Larry Joseph, former U.S. Energy Department official and investor in the company, says utilities are very cautious and want clear evidence they're not going to harm their equipment. Algenol: Company uses algae to make ethanol more eco-friendly Corn-based ethanol is getting slammed for straining the world's food supply and contributing to global warming by encouraging the plowing of grasslands. Cellulosic ethanol, a more eco-friendly version derived from switch grass or wood chips, is several years away. Maryland-based Algenol says it can solve the problems by making ethanol from algae, starting next year. The start-up recently agreed to license its technology to BioFields, which plans to build an $850 million saltwater algae farm in Mexico's Sonoran Desert and churn out 100 million gallons of ethanol the first year. It will sell the gasoline substitute to Mexico's state-run oil monopoly. A handful of companies are working on turning the abundant marine organism into biodiesel. That requires growing algae and killing them to extract their oil, a timeconsuming and expensive process. Algenol adds enzymes to the organisms to enhance their normally limited ability to convert sugar into ethanol, a waste product. To maximize ethanol production, the algae are placed in regions with abundant sunlight and grown in 50-foot long tubes filled with seawater. Ethanol is captured as a gas in the bottle and condensed to a liquid. Since algae aren't destroyed, the same ones keep yielding ethanol, holding down costs. Algenol CEO Paul Woods says production costs are half those of corn-based ethanol, and the fuel will wholesale for $1 less than gasoline. His goal: Woods wants to build 20 plants in sunny areas such as Texas and Florida to generate 20 billion gallons of ethanol by 2020. "We don't have any limitations, because we're not competing with the food supply," Woods says. Philip Pienkos, of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, says Algenol's goal is "definitely doable." But he says there will still be a need for fuels with higher energy content than ethanol. Compressed air: Facilities put stored air to work when wind dies

Wind farms are sprouting across the country as wind energy costs become competitive with those of coal-fired power plants. But there's a rub: no wind, no electricity. Batteries can store electricity generated by wind for use on a day when the wind doesn't blow. But they're expensive. PSEG Global, a sister company of a New Jersey utility, says it has the answer. It recently teamed with energy storage pioneer Michael Nakhamkin to market compressed-air technology. Here's how it works: During off-peak hours, wind turbines compress air that's stored in underground caverns or in more expensive above-ground tanks. The air is released at peak periods to run turbines and generate power when gusts flag. The nation's only compressed-air generator was built in Alabama in 1991. PSEG says it has improved on the technology and hopes to deploy it with power providers. PSEG says its advanced system can transform the industry. It's about half the price of batteries, partly because it uses off-the-shelf power-industry parts rather than customized compressed-air gear. The technology is more than 25% cheaper than current systems, says Stephen Byrd, president of PSEG Energy Holdings. Also, it can generate electricity in five minutes, vs. current systems that take 20 minutes. That's vital if the wind suddenly stops blowing. "It really is likely to further enable the growth of renewable" energy, Byrd says. While the system is largely designed to supplement intermittent wind or solar power, it can be used to stockpile cheap electricity at night and use it midday when the grid is strained. Energy consultant Stow Walker says it sounds promising, but finding suitable underground storage can be challenging.