• Increased production of electric vehicles being plugged into outlets for recharging every evening,
• Advent of net-zero homes, and
• Expansion of intermittent solar and wind generation into the mainstream of energy supply options.

As these factors begin to take on greater significance in impacting electricity supply and consumption levels, the ability to manage and store energy will be an integral part of the future electric system, particularly given the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources and the increased demand that will be placed on the electric grid. Energy storage will not only assist in making renewable energy more feasible, it will most likely accelerate its growth.

• Even though solar power by its very nature is attractive given its correlation with peak demand, a storm cloud, even for 30 to 60 minutes, can significantly reduce solar output. A grid storage system can smooth out these inevitable cycles of high and low outputs.

  

  Solar Panels

   

• The value of renewable generation can be increased despite periods where supply may exceed demand. An example would be wind generated power produced in the evening when the prices are low, but through storage, can be harnessed and made available during peak demand at higher prices.

The storage options include lithium energy storage, super-capacitors, and flywheel technologies. These technologies have proven effective in load leveling during peak demand, often delaying the need for constructing new substations. The largest grid storage facility in the U.S. is located in Presidio, TX and is a 4 MW system.

Additionally, community energy storage (CES) systems are sprouting up. These are smaller battery systems that typically service 4 to 5 homes and provide:

• Load leveling,
• Backup power,
• Support for plug-in electric cars, and
• Improved line efficiencies.

These CES systems are, by definition, located closer to the customer, and therefore less susceptible to an outage from overhead lines.

Gas Consumption Begins at the Pump

Petroleum is used in everything from medications to lubricants, partially explaining its high usage in the U.S.’s heavily driven consumer economy. According to the EIA, the U.S. consumes approximately 21 million barrels of oil daily, the majority of which is refined into gasoline. To put this in perspective the U.S. consumes more gasoline than South America, Europe, Africa, and Asia combined. This article will focus on this affinity to gasoline and the forces that led to it.

Factors Supporting U.S. Affinity for Gasoline

First and foremost, the U.S. is a relatively wealthy nation, which supported by a number of government policies, sets the stage for high gasoline consumption, namely:

• Relatively low fuel taxes
• Low fuel efficiency requirements
• Poor public transportation system

There are more than 244 million vehicles in the U.S., or over 0.75 vehicles per individual, made possible by relatively low purchase taxes on vehicles, a vast highway and convenient highway system, and a robust infrastructure for refueling these vehicles.

Of course the number of vehicles alone does not equate to these gasoline consumption levels. In fact, many countries maintain the same ratios of vehicles to individuals. And, though it is true that most of these countries do not have the vastness of territory to cover that the U.S. does, the primary reasons for the disparity in usage are:

• The price of gasoline, where Europeans, for example, pay twice as much per gallon.
• Fuel efficiency brought about by the selection of vehicle (e.g. SUV over smaller cars) and government regulation. The average car in Europe realizes 32 miles per gallon as compared to 22 miles per gallon in the U.S.
• The relatively low percentage of diesel fueled cars in the U.S., estimated at 4 percent, as compared to European percentages in the range of 40 percent. This difference is due to the U.S. government taxing diesel fuel more heavily.
• Life style choices as many U.S. inhabitants opt to live in suburbs at a considerable distance from the major cities where other travel and commuting options are more prevalent.
• Ever decreasing levels of government funded public transportation projects, estimated at 50 percent, as compared to that allotted to constructing new highways, typically in the range of 80 percent.

As a point of comparison, people in the U.S. complete only 20 percent of their travel without cars vs. nearly 50 percent in France.

Recent Trends Leading to Reduced Gasoline Consumption

Despite a track record of reduced consumption during the recessions of 1975, 1980 and 1990, only to return to pre-recession levels of gasoline use once the economic downturn abated, the most recent reduction may prove more permanent.

• Not only were higher gasoline prices in 2008 a factor, where Americans drove over 9 billion miles less and consumed 4 percent less gasoline in year-over-year comparisons, but the weak housing and consumer markets have brought about an era of frugality and scrutiny regarding across-the-board discretionary spending.
• And where spending on vehicles has occurred there has been a recent shift to purchasing smaller, more fuel efficient cars; combined with a migration from the suburbs to locations closer to places of work.
• Further, Government policies enforcing more rigorous fuel efficiency standards and offering subsidies in the purchase of hybrid vehicles have resulted in a noted decrease in sales of large cars of over 26 percent and comparable increases in smaller and hybrid vehicles of 6.5 percent and 15 percent, respectively.

A positive by-product of these trends is an overall one-third reduction of CO2 emissions, where U.S. has the dubious distinction of producing more CO2 emissions than any other nation in the world, except China.

Gas Prices at the Pump Fluctuate Daily

Gasoline remains a primary commodity in U.S. consumers maintaining their current quality of life, to the point where severe price fluctuations have devastating impact to the American economy, the lifestyles of its people, and the politicians. The typical person observes and is impacted by these seemingly random changes in price, but has little, if any, understanding of the forces at work that impact the price of gas at the pump. First some basic facts to establish a context for the discussion:

• According to the Motor and Equipment Manufacturer’s Association (MEMA), Americans drive 3 trillion miles per year.
• The Department of Energy estimates that the U.S. consumes in the order of 20 million barrels of oil products per day, half of which is used for gasoline to fuel motors.
• Approximately 178 million gallons of gasoline is consumed in the U.S. per day.

Fluctuations in Gasoline Prices

The option of significantly cutting back on the use of gasoline appears unreasonable. That said, in better understanding the factors that impact price, we arm ourselves with the information to modify our use, or at the very least, plan for fluctuations in price.

• Summer Holidays (e.g. Fourth of July, Memorial Day and Labor Day) equate to spikes in the demand for gas, which usually translates to increases in gas prices.
• Catastrophic weather events such as hurricanes and tornadoes will temporarily drive gas prices up, particularly if they wreak havoc on oil tankers, off shore drilling platforms and coastal refineries.
• As the world crude oil market tightens, lowering inventories, gas prices will increase as will they when demand exceeds the refinery capacity, especially while performing maintenance during the spring.
• Military conflicts in areas close to oil supplies can create challenges in drilling and transporting crude oil, thereby driving the prices up.
• All of the above oftentimes combine to bring uncertainty to the pricing of gasoline. And more recently, legislation to incorporate more ethanol into transportation fuels has added 4 to 12 percent to the cost of regular gas.

Clearly the primary cause of fluctuation in gasoline prices involves the source of oil supply, be it the Middle East, Canada, Mexico, or the U.S.:

• The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is the single largest entity that impacts the world’s oil suppliers, representing 13 nations and over 40 percent of the world’s oil production and much of its oil reserves. By merely reducing production, it can cause gasoline prices to jump. As other countries, most notably the U.S., Mexico, Canada, Russia and China produce oil, OPEC tracks this production and adjusts its own production to maintain its targeted pricing.
• Despite the large amount of oil imported by the U.S., it is the third largest producer of crude oil, with the Gulf of Mexico being the largest region, including the Permian Basin located in west central Texas and eastern New Mexico and off shore drilling areas in portions of the Gulf. Other areas of the U.S. for producing oil include Alaska, Louisiana, California, Oklahoma and Arizona. That said, the U.S. is still heavily dependent on foreign sources, not only because of its extraordinarily high consumption rates but because of the need to hold back and send oil to the federally funded Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). This reserve stores a 60-day supply of oil, one billion barrels as a hedge against the cutting off of all oil imports.
• As an adjunct to any discussion on domestic U.S. supply of oil, the issues around the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) come into play. Established in 1960 to protect the unique wildlife, wilderness and recreational values of the area, the northern portion of this region offers a key strategic leverage point in overall world oil production pricing. By merely threatening to explore the feasibility of drilling for an estimated 7 billion barrels of oil in the northern portion alone, other nations are incentivize to keep the oil production prices within some range of reasonableness.

Price Breakdown of Gasoline

Gasoline, like any consumer product, has a supply chain and several entities to which monies are distributed. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, dollars spent on gasoline are allocated to a minimum of four areas:

• Taxes – 15 percent. Both Federal and state governments place excise taxes on gasoline, and depending on the state additional sales taxes, gross receipt taxes, oil inspection fees, and various environmental fees.
• Distribution and Marketing – 11 percent. These costs include transporting crude oil to the refineries, and then to distribution points for ultimate transportation to gas stations, as well as costs to market the brand of a particular oil company. There are also markups provided to the gas stations themselves, though usually a very small percentage.
• Refining – 7 percent with the cost of refining diesel fuel being higher than that of regular gasoline.
• Crude Oil Suppliers – 67 percent: This is determined by oil exporting nations where the amount of crude oil produced determines the price of a barrel of oil. Rather dynamic, the price of oil has ranged between $35 and $150 a barrel over the past 6 years. This dramatic and continuous fluctuation in price was caused by investments in oil futures as well as increased demand from larger developing countries like India and China.

On any given day, the price of gasoline will vary from state to state:

• Taxes account for the majority of this price fluctuation,
• Competition among local gas stations also can impact prices, and
• Distances between the supplying refineries and the gas station can have an effect.
• Environmental standards regarding reducing the amount of smog created by burning gasoline vary across the U.S., recognizing that producing cleaner burning gasoline adds cost to its refinement, distribution and storage.

Impacts of Gasoline Prices

The price of gasoline has had and will continue to have a major impact on our economy:

• Individual consumers are frequently reminded of escalated prices as they fill their gas tanks on a daily or weekly basis.
• Travel plans revolve around the cost of gas as do decisions regarding the make and model of automobile to purchase. And, for that matter, fuel costs reflect in airfares and other modes of public transportation.
• To the extent that an increase in gasoline prices is steady, it will lead to inflation, though its pricing swings due to weather, labor strikes, military conflicts, etc. keep it from being a reliable leading indicator of inflation.

Energy Efficiency in General

In purchasing a new appliance, the consumer needs to understand that there are actually two price tags:

• Actual purchase price
• Projected price of operation

ENERGY STAR Label

An appliance purchased at rock bottom price may well be a huge consumer of energy with a high electric bill, where as one that is fairly expensive to purchase may be more energy efficient, and could well pay for itself within a relatively short period of time. So, a key criterion in selecting a specific appliance is its efficiency.

• Typically, this can be gleaned from the yellow and black EnergyGuide label that is affixed to the front of the appliance in accordance with Federal Trade Commission law. It states the appliance’s estimated annual energy usage, it’s capacity the efficiency ratings of comparable models.
• Also, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the ENERGY STAR program, which identifies the more significantly energy efficient appliances. Appliances so classified use less energy and reduce emissions. According to the EPA, products that were certified to meet ENERGY STAR requirements saved consumers $17 billion on their utility bill.

Energy Efficiency among Specific Appliances

The following discussion provides insights regarding average energy consumption and related costs, and some energy saving tips in terms of design and operation:

• Refrigerator: The refrigerator is among the highest energy users in a typical home, using between 1,000 and 1,500 kWh per year and operating at an average cost of $90 per year. As a point of comparison, the older models can cost upwards of $250 per year to operate. In selecting a refrigerator, models with the freezer on the top or bottom tend to be more efficient that the side-by-side models and a refrigerator with an “energy saver” switch allow the homeowner to turn down the heating coils. Optimal temperature settings in terms of energy efficiency range between 35 and 38 degrees F.
• Washing Machine. Washing machines use around 800 kWh per year at an average annual cost of $75. Front loader machines tend to be more efficient that top loaders, but there are advantages and drawbacks to each configuration. The key items to look for include:

-         Control of temperature. Cold water consumes less energy without compromise cleaning effectiveness.

-         Control of water level. By being able to adjust the water level, one can wash smaller loads. Otherwise, the most efficient operation of a washer requires a full machine. In either case, one should not use too much detergent as it will tend to make the machine use more energy.

• Dryer. One can assume that a dryer uses the same amount of energy and incurs operating costs similar to a washing machine. Since dryers operate similarly across various makes and models and there is little, if any, variance in energy usage, they are not tracked by the ENERGY STAR program. That said, there are differences between gas and electric dryers, and there are some operational features to consider:

-         Gas dryers are more expensive to purchase but less expensive to operate.

-         Moisture sensors in the drum will allow the dryer to automatically shut off when the clothes are dry, obviously saving energy.

-         The “cool down” period capability provides for cooler air to finish the drying of clothes, reducing the use of heat throughout the entire cycle.

And, for safety and efficiency reasons, users should be sure to clean lint filters regularly.

• Dishwasher. Typically, dishwashers consume around 600 kWh per year at an annual cost of $50. Interesting to note, dishwashers actually use less water for one load of dishes than if they are washed by hand, assuming they are run efficiently. This implies a full dishwasher, use of “air dry” instead of  “heat dry” capability, and use of specific energy saving cycles like “short wash” when appropriate. Location within the kitchen is also important as installing a dishwasher next to the refrigerator will make the refrigerator work harder to remain cool.

Inertial Confinement Process

As the debate around the viability of nuclear power continues, particularly as the reality of the limitations of renewable energy sources become better understood, the advantages of fusion become ever more apparent:

• Abundance of the primary fuel, deuterium, which is one of the hydrogen isotopes. It can be readily extracted from seawater and tritium, another of the hydrogen isotopes originates from lithium which is readily available in the earth’s crust.
• Lower levels of radioactive waste than current fission reactors as there is no high-level waste, and any low level waste generated will not be of weapons grade nuclear material,
• Less radiation leakage as most fusion reactors will make less radiation than the natural background radiation of normal daily living.

Though there are no working fusion reactors in operation, there are a few in experimental stages at a number of laboratories around the world. In fact, a consortium of the U.S., Russia, Europe and Japan has formed to build the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) to explore and demonstrate the feasibility of nuclear fusion technology.

Nuclear Fusion Reactions

Current nuclear reactors apply the principles of nuclear fission, where energy is produced by the splitting of an atom of uranium. In addition to yielding large amounts of energy, fission produces high levels of radiation and contaminated wastes which last many years. With fusion, energy is produced by the joining together of one of two hydrogen isotopes, deuterium or tritium, to form one helium atom, resulting in a process that is:

• Cleaner,
• Safer,
• More abundant, and
• More efficient than nuclear fission.

The challenge with fusion involves its very process, the combining of two nuclei of the same charge, similar in concept to placing the same poles of two magnets together: a natural repulsion. Thus to achieve fusion, special conditions must exist:

• Temperatures above 100 million Kelvin, 6 times hotter than the sun, are required to provide the hydrogen atoms sufficient energy to overcome the natural repulsion.
• Intense magnetic fields are required to increase pressure and literally “squeeze” the hydrogen atoms.

With today’s technology, these parameters can only be achieved with deuterium-tritium fusion. Deuterium-deuterium fusion is likely the best long term solution as it is easier to extract deuterium from seawater than to make tritium from lithium, deuterium is not radioactive and the combination will yield more energy. But the temperatures required to make this combination work are considerably higher.

And given, that these parameters can be met, there are two ways for hydrogen fusion to occur:

• Magnetic confinement, used in the ITER project in France, deploys magnetic and electric fields to heat and squeeze the hydrogen atoms. Accelerators formed from microwaves, electricity and neutral particle beams heat a stream of hydrogen gas, turning the gas into donut-shaped plasma. Super conducting magnets squeeze the plasma, enabling the occurrence of fusion.
• Inertial confinement, currently under investigation at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in the U.S., uses laser or ion beams to heat and squeeze the hydrogen atoms. Current plans are to focus 192 laser beams on a pea-sized pellet of deuterium-tritium within a 10-meter diameter target chamber, heating the chamber and generating x-rays. The power from the lasers, estimated at 1.8 million joules, will convert the pellet to plasma, applying pressure until fusion occurs. The fusion reaction will last less than one-millionth of a second but provide almost 100 times more energy that required to initiate a fusion reaction.

In both methods of confinement, the heat generated will be passed through a heat exchanger to make steam that produces electricity.

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle

With the increased importance of electricity in our day-to-day lives and overall economic prosperity, the notion of depending on outdated, centralized power grids that inefficiently deliver power and occasionally fails to meet basic needs for power may be insufficient, if not outdated. This has brought about the application of localized power grids, as part of an overall U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) smart grid strategy, by:

• Providing locally produced power requiring less need to import from outside power plants or depend on the network,
• Decreasing the likelihood of a run on electricity during periods of skyrocketing temperatures,
• Increasing the potential of an energy reserve to be sold as excess electricity within the local network or to other customers serviced by the local utility.

The key to making this happen is technology where fuel cells, micro tubes, reciprocating engines, solar cells, and wind farms present viable approaches to powering neighborhoods, retail areas and industrial facilities. As the concept of micro grids takes holds, power sources may be in one’s backyard as a micro-turbine no larger than a refrigerator, or in using one’s electric car to charge the micro grid.

Advantages of Micro Grids

Micro grids allow for choice regarding use of power, as they are not necessarily apart from the larger power grid, but in optimizing:

• Power sources; allow local communities to choose where and when to purchase their electricity from outside or local sources.
• Power uses; by prioritizing vital needs and limiting the use of superfluous uses in dealing with temporary energy shortages.
• Heat energy taking advantage of unused heat and converting it to electricity.

Cities, industries and military bases are all in the process of implementing this type of technology, just one part of an overall plan to modernize and improve the efficiency of the future power grid.

Control Room for Nuclear Fusion

The search for viable forms of clean alternative energy continues as each potential solution carries with it significant shortcomings:

• Nuclear power presents environmental challenges, in the disposition of high and low level radioactive waste or in the event of a nuclear accident (e.g. Chernobyl),
• The sun can be impacted by the presence of clouds,
• Winds are inconsistent or intermittent, and
• Hydro power dams are viewed as disruptive to the environment.

Nuclear Fusion – Energy From the Moon

Research in alternative energy sources continues, either to address the apparent shortcomings of the aforementioned energy sources or to discover new extraterrestrial sources. One such source is helium-3, originating from the moon, which would combine nuclei to produce energy. This process, termed nuclear fusion, has already been tested with hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium, but with challenges regarding safety and production.

Helium-3 appears to be safe in that it does not emit any pollution or radioactive waste. With respect to potential, just over 2 pounds combined with 1.5 pounds of deuterium produces almost 20MW-years of energy; alternatively, 25 tons of helium-3 would provide enough power to sustain the U.S. for one year.

To capture 25 tons of helium-3 will require more exploration of the moon. Lunar rock is estimated to contain more that 1 million tons of the element, 10 times the amount of energy found in all fossil fuels or $4 billion a ton in energy equivalence of oil.

In order to operationalize this potential solution, there are two primary issues to address:

• Extraction and refinement of helium-3 from the lunar surface, particularly considering its low concentration in the soil, and
• Fine tuning of the fusion process, particularly in achieving sustainably high enough temperatures to actually produce electricity.

Solar Panels in Space

The sun may still present the most promising space-based source of fuel, but perhaps by harnessing it beyond the stratosphere where we avoid the large and inefficient footprints of solar panels. Termed space solar power (SSP), this approach removes obstacles like rain, clouds and darkness and is immune to seasonal fluctuations. As currently conceived, SSP attaches solar panels to orbiting satellites or the moon, and the electricity created is converted into microwaves which in turn, are received on the earth through rectifying antennas. In essence, the process is quite similar to the use of satellites in transmitting cell phone conversations, to the point where the current infrastructure of communication satellites pose a potential platform for this approach.

The challenge lies in the economics. Initial studies envisioned stationary 18 square mile solar panel arrays transmitting microwaves to similarly sized rectifying antennas; which though impressive in the amount of energy produced (one such station would generate twice the energy of the Hoover Dam), proved extremely costly. More recently, the use of smaller satellites, less than 1,000 feet in length, orbiting at 300 miles above the Earth are being evaluated, each with the potential to power 1,000 homes. But, challenges, primarily economic remain:

• Launching, initializing and maintaining “solar farms” on the moon is both capital and manpower intensive.
• Launching a satellite remains expensive, over 1,000 times more than transporting an object across the U.S. via airplane.

The key to making this work will be the development of reusable launch vehicles and further analyses to determine the break even point in terms of energy used to send a satellite into orbit.

In considering these options one cannot help but surmise that the solution to mitigating the exhaustion of Earth’s natural resources may well be in space.

• Growing soy involves no drilling or spilling, and
• It is a successful domestic industry that precludes sending dollars overseas.

Given that soy can be transformed into oil for use in building products, thus removing all food value and becoming pest resistant without added chemicals, it is an ideal insulation solution for those consumers with chemical sensitivities or who strive for cleaner indoor air.

Alternative Insulation Materials

Prior to addressing the features of soy-based insulation, let’s first explore the more traditional insulation materials used today:

• Fiberglass – Rolled out and placed between studs in a wall before the sheet rock is installed, fiberglass is economical and can be installed by the layperson. But, if not properly sized and leaving gaps, the exterior cold or heat will get in your home.
• Cellulose – Wood-based and treated with borate to repel pests, this fluffy material is into wall cavities and attics.
• Rigid Foam – Made from petroleum-based oils, these panels of stiff foam are placed between the studs.
• Blown in Foam – Traditionally coming from petroleum-based materials and blown into wall cavities as an urea formaldehyde liquid that expands up to 100 times and seals every nook and cranny as a rigid foam, this type of insulating process is where the soybean oil-based material can play a major role. First, traditional blown in foam is classified as a carcinogen, and rather than using the urea formaldehyde liquid, soy-based foam uses water as the blowing agent.

Types and Benefits of Soy-Based Insulation

There are two basic types of soy-based foam insulation:

• Open cell has a lower R-value but is less expensive.
• Closed cell has a higher R value, is more expensive, and acts as both a vapor and an air barrier.

And the benefits are noteworthy:

• Saves energy,
• Comes from a renewable source, and
• Less toxic for humans.

Ocean Power

The scientific community remains intrigued by the prospect of harnessing the energy of the ocean, if for no other reason than the fact that oceans covers over 70 percent of the earth’s surface. A few successes have been experienced in this area:

• Tidal power plant in France, designed to produce 240 MW, which is larger than a typical wind farm and about 30-50 percent of the capacity of a new coal-fired generation unit
• 20 MW plant in Nova Scotia
• 0.5 MW plant on the White Sea in Russia

Despite this relatively short list of successful implementations, there are a number of research projects underway to apply technology of converting the energy generated by waves, tides, and currents into electricity and there is general belief that ocean power can be competitive as compared to other sources of renewable energy.

The article provides a brief description of the basics of ocean power and some of the more promising technologies that may be applied in harnessing this source of energy.

Capturing Ocean Power

The more noticeable aspects of the ocean, and key to capturing ocean power, are waves and tides:

• The wind drives waves, traveling over long distances as a series of crests and troughs. This oscillating motion can be converted into electricity.
• Tides, on the other hand, are the result of the gravitational pull of the moon. All coastal areas experience two high and low tides every 24 hours, but only approximately 40 are suitable for generating electricity. There are requirements regarding the differences between high and low tide-must be at least 16 feet, to support the water flow necessary to produce electricity efficiently.

Harnessing the kinetic energy of all this moving water is the challenge:

• Building a dam whose sluice gates open when the tides produce sufficient difference in water level, facilitating the flow of water across turbines, very similar to the traditional hydroelectric process. In this case the turbines turn a generator which, in turn, produces electricity.
• Tapping into tidal currents provides an alternative approach, where turbines, similar to those used in wind farms but designed with the rotor underwater, are used. These rotors spin as the tidal currents go past the turbines, turning the generator and producing electricity.

An Alternative to Producing Ocean Power

The building of dams and use of turbine rotors to produce electricity represent the more traditional mechanical energy approaches. There is also tremendous potential in exploring how heat stored in the ocean can produce electricity. In fact, the ocean is the largest collector of solar energy, providing the equivalent of 250 billion barrels of oil in the form of thermal energy each day. Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) is the process used to convert this potential energy into usable electricity. There are three types of OTEC systems, each exploiting the difference in temperature between the warmer surface water and the colder deeper ocean water:

• Closed Cycle Systems: These systems contain a fluid with a low boiling point, such as ammonia, that, when exposed to the warm seawater immediately boils into a vapor that passes over the turbine, causing it to turn. This vapor is then exposed to the cold seawater and condenses back into its liquid form, ready for the next cycle.
• Open Cycle Systems: The warm surface water is pumped into a vacuum chamber and boils as the air is removed. The resulting steam is used to drive a turbine, which is then cooled by the cold seawater, and converted, back into water.
• Hybrid Systems: The warm surface water converts to steam in a LP container, which then vaporizes a low-boiling point fluid in a closed loop that drives the turbine.

OTEC systems current account for a small amount of electricity. But, given the amount of potential thermal energy that is collected in the ocean on a daily basis, many feel that the viability of ocean power as a key element of any energy diversification strategy will largely hinge on our ability to further develop and refine these systems.

Benefits of Ocean Power

Besides the obvious potential of the ocean as an enormous and seemingly endless source of clean energy, it is also fairly predictable:

• High and low tides can be calculated down to the minute,
• Dimensions and velocity of currents are well-documented

Additionally, seawater is three times the density of air, representing significantly more potential in transmitting energy to turbines placed in the ocean. The output of a tidal turbine in currents of only 5 miles per hour exceeds that of a wind turbine operating in strong winds.

Last, ocean power requires less space, far fewer units than wind farms or solar facilities, is quieter than wind power, and operates offshore and often below the surface,

Concerns Regarding Ocean Power

The primary hurdle to overcome the significant gap between ocean power’s current contribution to global electricity generation and that provided by fossil fuels is reliability. Marine environments are extremely harsh on mechanical systems, driving costs to the point where currently, the costs of wave energy (9 to 16 cents per kWh) and tidal energy (6 to 8 cents per kWh) is significantly higher than coal (3 cents per kWh) or natural gas (4.7 cents per kWh).

There are also environmental challenges to overcome, namely the effect of large structures in the ocean on marine life, normal flushing of silt and other pollutants, and water quality.

The following summarizes the specifics of these challenges by source of ocean power:

• Waves: The intensity can vary and equipment survivability is in question. Issues with navigation and sea space.
• Tides: The intervals can be extended and there are only a limited number of “qualified” sites; Major impact to environment.
• Tidal Currents: Equipment survivability and high operating costs.
• Ocean Currents: Limited number of sites and potentially impacts the circulation patterns of the ocean.
• Ocean Thermal Energy: High initial capital costs, remote sites and requirement to transmit electricity over long distances.

Despite these challenges, the ability to tap into a vast resource that produces carbon-free energy provides sufficient impetus to explore further ways to counter or mitigate these effects.

Compact Fluorescent Light Bulb-Energy Efficiency

Significant investments have already been made in designing and constructing an electric grid that is automated, managed, and controlled by information and communications technologies. Thus far, the approach has been to place these enabling capabilities on top of a relatively aged and obsolete infrastructure, somewhat offsetting the potential advantages to be realized by the electric utilities and their customers. This sub-optimal implementation is driven somewhat by current funding realities because there appears to be more interest in these newer technologies than the seemingly basic infrastructure required to transmit and distribute electricity. This situation will likely resolve itself as electric utilities engage the regulators and legislators in discussion and negotiation around the topics of reliability, safety, security, and environmental stewardship.

Smart Grid  Affected by  Social and Cultural Aspects

With that as a backdrop, the long-term success in the electricity industry’s evolution to a 21^st century electric grid – though dependent on these technical and operational factors –  must also take into account the social and cultural aspects implied by smart grid and customer premises automation. These social and cultural factors include:

• Personal data regarding electrical usage will be available to individuals outside the normal customer and electric utility relationship.
• The customer will have the opportunity to be a producer of electricity with little, if any, understanding of the energy market.
• The pricing structure will inevitably change as electric utilities recoup their investments, yet create incentives to shape customer behavior.
• Issues around social equity will come into play as those with less money and education will need to participate.

In short, the topics of privacy and equity will need to be viewed on an equal footing with the decisions around system design and revitalization, to ensure the investment in this worthwhile endeavor produces the desired impact.