Bayu Indrawan Info

The enormous increase in the quantum and diversity of waste materials generated by human activity and their potentially harmful effects on the general environment and public health, have led to an increasing awareness about an urgent need to adopt scientific methods for safe disposal of wastes. While there is an obvious need to minimize the generation of wastes and to reuse and recycle them, the technologies for recovery of energy from wastes can play a vital role in mitigating the problems. Besides recovery of substantial energy, these technologies can lead to a substantial reduction in the overall waste quantities requiring final disposal, which can be better managed for safe disposal in a controlled manner while meeting the pollution control standards.

Waste generation rates are affected by socio-economic development, degree of industrialization, and climate. Generally, the greater the economic prosperity and the higher percentage of urban population, the greater the amount of solid waste produced. Reduction in the volume and mass of solid waste is a crucial issue especially in the light of limited availability of final disposal sites in many parts of the world. Although numerous waste and byproduct recovery processes have been introduced, anaerobic digestion has unique and integrative potential, simultaneously acting as a waste treatment and recovery process.

Waste-to-Energy Conversion Pathways

A host of technologies are available for realizing the potential of waste as an energy source, ranging from very simple systems for disposing of dry waste to more complex technologies capable of dealing with large amounts of industrial waste. There are three main pathways for conversion of organic waste material to energy – thermochemical, biochemical and physicochemical.

Thermochemical Conversion
Combustion of waste has been used for many years as a way of reducing waste volume and neutralizing many of the potentially harmful elements within it. Combustion can only be used to create an energy source when heat recovery is included. Heat recovered from the combustion process can then be used to either power turbines for electricity generation or to provide direct space and water heating. Some waste streams are also suitable for fueling a combined heat and power system, although quality and reliability of supply are important factors to consider.

Thermochemical conversion, characterized by higher temperature and conversion rates, is best suited for lower moisture feedstock and is generally less selective for products. Thermochemical conversion includes incineration, pyrolysis and gasification. The incineration technology is the controlled combustion of waste with the recovery of heat to produce steam which in turn produces power through steam turbines. Pyrolysis and gasification represent refined thermal treatment methods as alternatives to incineration and are characterized by the transformation of the waste into product gas as energy carrier for later combustion in, for example, a boiler or a gas engine.

Biochemical Conversion
The bio-chemical conversion processes, which include anaerobic digestion and fermentation, are preferred for wastes having high percentage of organic biodegradable (putrescible) matter and high moisture content. Anaerobic digestion is a reliable technology for the treatment of wet, organic waste. Organic waste from various sources is composted in highly controlled, oxygen-free conditions circumstances resulting in the production of biogas which can be used to produce both electricity and heat. Anaerobic digestion also results in a dry residue called digestate which can be used as a soil conditioner.

Alcohol fermentation is the transformation of organic fraction of biomass to ethanol by a series of biochemical reactions using specialized microorganisms. It finds good deal of application in the transformation of woody biomass into cellulosic ethanol.

Physico-chemical Conversion
The physico-chemical technology involves various processes to improve physical and chemical properties of solid waste. The combustible fraction of the waste is converted into high-energy fuel pellets which may be used in steam generation. Fuel pellets have several distinct advantages over coal and wood because it is cleaner, free from incombustibles, has lower ash and moisture contents, is of uniform size, cost-effective, and eco-friendly.

Factors affecting Energy Recovery from waste
The two main factors which determine the potential of recovery of energy from wastes are the quantity and quality (physico-chemical characteristics) of the waste. Some of the important physico-chemical parameters requiring consideration include:

• Size of constituents
• Density
• Moisture content
• Volatile solids / Organic matter
• Fixed carbon
• Total inerts
• Calorific value

Often, an analysis of waste to determine the proportion of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and sulfur (ultimate analysis) is done to make mass balance calculations, for both thermochemical and biochemical processes. In case of anaerobic digestion, the parameters C/N ratio (a measure of nutrient concentration available for bacterial growth) and toxicity (representing the presence of hazardous materials which inhibit bacterial growth), also require consideration.

Significance of Waste-to- Energy (WTE) Plants
While some still confuse modern waste-to-energy plants with incinerators of the past, the environmental performance of the industry is beyond reproach. Studies have shown that communities that employ waste-to-energy technology have higher recycling rates than communities that do not utilize waste-to-energy. The recovery of ferrous and non-ferrous metals from waste-to-energy plants for recycling is strong and growing each year. In addition, numerous studies have determined that waste-to-energy plants actually reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere.

Nowadays, waste-to-energy plants based on combustion technologies are highly efficient power plants that utilize municipal solid waste as their fuel rather than coal, oil or natural gas. Far better than expending energy to explore, recover, process and transport the fuel from some distant source, waste-to-energy plants find value in what others consider garbage. Waste-to-energy plants recover the thermal energy contained in the trash in highly efficient boilers that generate steam that can then be sold directly to industrial customers, or used on-site to drive turbines for electricity production. WTE plants are highly efficient in harnessing the untapped energy potential of organic waste by converting the biodegradable fraction of the waste into high calorific value gases like methane. The digested portion of the waste is highly rich in nutrients and is widely used as biofertilizer in many parts of the world.

Waste-to-Energy around the World
To an even greater extent than in the United States, waste-to-energy has thrived in Europe and Asia as the preeminent method of waste disposal. Lauding waste-to-energy for its ability to reduce the volume of waste in an environmentally-friendly manner, generate valuable energy, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, European nations rely on waste-to-energy as the preferred method of waste disposal. In fact, the European Union has issued a legally binding requirement for its member States to limit the landfilling of biodegradable waste.

According to the Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants (CEWEP), Europe currently treats 50 million ton of wastes at waste-to-energy plants each year, generating an amount of energy that can supply electricity for 27 million people or heat for 13 million people. Upcoming changes to EU legislation will have a profound impact on how much further the technology will help achieve environmental protection goals.

A Glance at Feedstock for Waste-to-Energy Plants

Agricultural Residues
Large quantities of crop residues are produced annually worldwide, and are vastly underutilised. The most common agricultural residue is the rice husk, which makes up 25% of rice by mass. Other residues include sugar cane fibre (known as bagasse), coconut husks and shells, groundnut shells, cereal straw etc. Current farming practice is usually to plough these residues back into the soil, or they are burnt, left to decompose, or grazed by cattle. A number of agricultural and biomass studies, however, have concluded that it may be appropriate to remove and utilise a portion of crop residue for energy production, providing large volumes of low cost material. These residues could be processed into liquid fuels or combusted/gasified to produce electricity and heat.

Animal Waste
There are a wide range of animal wastes that can be used as sources of biomass energy. The most common sources are animal and poultry manures. In the past this waste was recovered and sold as a fertilizer or simply spread onto agricultural land, but the introduction of tighter environmental controls on odour and water pollution means that some form of waste management is now required, which provides further incentives for waste-to-energy conversion. The most attractive method of converting these waste materials to useful form is anaerobic digestion which gives biogas that can be used as a fuel for internal combustion engines, to generate electricity from small gas turbines, burnt directly for cooking, or for space and water heating. Food processing and abattoir wastes are also a potential anaerobic digestion feedstock.

Sugar Industry Wastes
The sugar cane industry produces large volumes of bagasse each year. Bagasse is potentially a major source of biomass energy as it can be used as boiler feedstock to generate steam for process heat and electricity production. Most sugar cane mills utilise bagasse to produce electricity for their own needs but some sugar mills are able to export substantial amount of electricity to the grid.

Forestry Residues
Forestry residues are generated by operations such as thinning of plantations, clearing for logging roads, extracting stem-wood for pulp and timber, and natural attrition. Wood processing also generates significant volumes of residues usually in the form of sawdust, off-cuts, bark and woodchip rejects. This waste material is often not utilized and often left to rot on site. However it can be collected and used in a biomass gasifier to produce hot gases for generating steam.

Industrial Wastes
The food industry produces a large number of residues and by-products that can be used as biomass energy sources. These waste materials are generated from all sectors of the food industry with everything from meat production to confectionery producing waste that can be utilised as an energy source. Solid wastes include peelings and scraps from fruit and vegetables, food that does not meet quality control standards, pulp and fibre from sugar and starch extraction, filter sludges and coffee grounds. These wastes are usually disposed of in landfill dumps.

Liquid wastes are generated by washing meat, fruit and vegetables, blanching fruit and vegetables, pre-cooking meats, poultry and fish, cleaning and processing operations as well as wine making. These waste waters contain sugars, starches and other dissolved and solid organic matter. The potential exists for these industrial wastes to be anaerobically digested to produce biogas, or fermented to produce ethanol, and several commercial examples of waste-to-energy conversion already exist.

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
Millions of tonnes of household waste are collected each year with the vast majority disposed of in landfill dumps. The biomass resource in MSW comprises the putrescibles, paper and plastic and averages 80% of the total MSW collected. Municipal solid waste can be converted into energy by direct combustion, or by natural anaerobic digestion in the landfill. At the landfill sites the gas produced by the natural decomposition of MSW (approximately 50% methane and 50% carbon dioxide) is collected from the stored material and scrubbed and cleaned before feeding into internal combustion engines or gas turbines to generate heat and power. The organic fraction of MSW can be anaerobically stabilized in a high-rate digester to obtain biogas for electricity or steam generation.

Sewage
Sewage is a source of biomass energy that is very similar to the other animal wastes. Energy can be extracted from sewage using anaerobic digestion to produce biogas. The sewage sludge that remains can be incinerated or undergo pyrolysis to produce more biogas.

Black Liquor
Pulp and Paper Industry is considered to be one of the highly polluting industries and consumes large amount of energy and water in various unit operations. The wastewater discharged by this industry is highly heterogeneous as it contains compounds from wood or other raw materials, processed chemicals as well as compound formed during processing. Black liquor can be judiciously utilized for production of biogas using anaerobic UASB technology.

Conclusions

Waste-to-energy plants offer two important benefits of environmentally safe waste management and disposal, as well as the generation of clean electric power. Waste-to-energy facilities produce clean, renewable energy through thermochemical, biochemical and physicochemical methods. The growing use of waste-to-energy as a method to dispose off solid and liquid wastes and generate power has greatly reduced environmental impacts of municipal solid waste management, including emissions of greenhouse gases. Waste-to-energy conversion reduces greenhouse gas emissions in two ways. Electricity is generated which reduces the dependence on electrical production from power plants based on fossil fuels. The greenhouse gas emissions are significantly reduced by preventing methane emissions from landfills. Moreover, waste-to-energy plants are highly efficient in harnessing the untapped sources of energy from a variety of wastes.

An environmentally sound and techno-economically viable methodology to treat biodegradable waste is highly crucial for the sustainability of modern societies. A transition from conventional energy systems to one based on renewable resources is necessary to meet the ever-increasing demand for energy and to address environmental concerns.

Written by Salman Zafar, Renewable Energy Expert.

source : http://www.alternative-energy-news.info

Welcome and Join us with our respect, peace and love, IBSN Planet….

The Place where the life’s more meaningful by beautiful sharing….

Join with IBSN in democratizing the social blogging….

If you think the IBSN is great, join us and make it fantastic and useful networking….

If you could travel around your imagination.., trust me, you would be able get anything you want…..

The IBSN banner like this:

PHOTO: Tim Robberts/Getty Images

23 April 2008—Remember when you were a kid and your parents made a big fuss about turning off the light when you left a room? Who knew that, besides adding to the monthly electric bill, keeping a single 60-watt lightbulb lit for 12 hours uses as much as 60 liters of water? According to researchers at the Virginia Water Resources Research Center, in Blacksburg, Va., fossil-fuel-fired thermoelectric power plants consume more than 500 billion L of fresh water per day in the United States alone.

“That translates to an average of 95 L of water to produce 1 kilowatt-hour of electricity,” says Tamim Younos, associate director of the center and a professor of water resources at Virginia Tech, where the center is housed.

Why so much? Water plays a number of roles in energy production, including pumping crude oil out of the ground, helping to remove pollutants from power plant exhaust, generating steam that turns turbines, flushing away residue after fossil fuels are burned, and keeping power plants cool.

Younos and his colleagues have combed through dozens of government and academic research papers in order to tease out just how much water is consumed during the production of a dozen types of fuel. “The basic information is generally available from scientific literature and governmental documents. However, these documents do not express water use for various technologies in a consistent unit,” says Younos. The team, after gathering the numbers from disparate sources, converted them to gallons of water per million Btu of energy. IEEE Spectrum converted their findings to L/1000 kWh, or the amount of energy required to power 1000 homes in the United States for one day.

What the Virginia Water Resources group found is both heartening and distressing. Natural gas, the fuel of choice for most of the ultraefficient electricity-generating turbines being built to meet the world’s growing energy demands, yields the most energy per unit volume of water consumed. Fewer than 38 L of water are required to extract enough natural gas to generate 1000 kWh of electricity. By the time a coal-fired power plant has delivered that much energy, roughly 530 L of water has been consumed.

The big shocker is that biodiesel doesn’t look so “green” when considered in the context of water consumption. More than 180 000 L of water would be needed to produce enough soybean-based biodiesel to keep the lights on for one day in 1000 homes. Younos explains that it takes a lot of water to irrigate the soil in which the soybeans grow, and even more is used in turning the legumes into fuel.

Here are the Virginia Water Resources Research Center results by fuel source:

The researchers also looked at water consumption by type of electricity generation:

source :  http://spectrum.ieee.org/apr08/6182

PHOTO: Valcent Products

21 April 2008—Food riots erupting around the world have been partly blamed on the growing use of food products to produce fuels like biodiesel and corn ethanol. But biofuels need not come from food crops. According to some researchers, the best source of biofuel may be algae, best known as pesky green pond scum.

As anyone who has had to clean a swimming pool or fish tank knows, algae grow quickly. All they need is light, carbon dioxide, and a little water to grow like, well, weeds. It turns out that algae produce oil that can be processed to make biodiesel. In some species, this oil represents more than half of the plantlike organism’s mass. Researchers are also trying to genetically alter algae to make them give off copious amounts of hydrogen to meet the needs of future fuel-cell-powered cars.

Algae’s biodiesel capacity compares well with today’s sources, says Glen Kertz, president and CEO at Valcent Products, a Vancouver, B.C., start-up that aims to become a leading algae oil supplier. A single hectare planted with corn will yield about 40 liters of oil per year; a hectare planted with oil palm would yield 1000 L. But according to Kertz, an algae bioreactor occupying the same space could yield more than 48 000 L. “And we think we can do far better than that,” says Kertz. “In a few years, when we come to understand more about this crop we’re growing, we could see bioreactors producing more than [150 000 L per hectare per year].”

Valcent’s proprietary technique, called Vertigro (which the company is also applying to the cultivation of plants like lettuce), is one of a bunch of approaches to growing algae. Instead of growing pond scum in large open ponds —whose yields are affected by seasonal variations like air temperature and relative humidity—Valcent uses the area above a plot of land to increase its yield. Hence the name Vertigro.

Kertz began working on vertically oriented crop production for other plants about 15 years ago, when he noticed that he was paying to heat and cool a huge amount of space above and below the crops on a surface in a traditional greenhouse. Growing vertically increases the surface area that is exposed to light, making the method very efficient at capturing solar radiation. “Though I’m not the first person to think of it, so I can’t take credit for it, I was determined to find an economically viable way to use all that space,” says Kertz.

The Vertigro process starts off with a volume of algae-infused water in an underground tank, where its temperature will stay pretty constant. A pump pushes the fluid up to a holding chamber located 3 meters above the surface in a greenhouse. The pump then squirts the algae water into a series of clear plastic sheets, each containing several interconnected bladders arranged in a raster pattern. As gravity pulls the fluid through the bladders, the algae-laden liquid soaks up sunlight. The fluid is collected in a second containment chamber at the bottom of the sheets and then returned to the underground tank. Inside the tank, the algae receive carbon dioxide, and the oxygen from the photosynthesis process is extracted. Then the whole cycle begins again.

Once the algae density reaches a predetermined level—say, 1.5 grams per liter of fluid—the harvesting begins. Over a 24-hour period, half the fluid is skimmed off, the algae is removed, and the water is returned to the tank. Because the skimming rate is set to match the rate at which the algae will grow back to their original density, the system becomes a continuous process, perpetually generating oil as long as CO2 and sunlight are available, says Kertz.

A continuous process is far better for energy production than the process used with crops like corn and soybeans, which have a defined growing season, says Kertz. “If you have to wait 70 or 80 days for the feedstock to grow, then harvest it, plant it again, and wait some more, it just doesn’t make any economic sense.”

Valcent is currently building a small-scale production facility in El Paso, Texas, that will serve as a test of the company’s ability to scale up its biomass production to the levels Kertz predicts. The plant, which Valcent expects to have up and running by this summer, will also allow the company to calculate the true cost of growing algae on a commercial scale, including the ratio between energy input and output, and how much water will be consumed in the production of a given amount of oil. Depending on the results, Valcent plans to build a 1-acre pilot plant that will produce a steady stream of the feedstock that refineries can use to make biodiesel.

“If we don’t run into any major issues—and I don’t foresee any—we’re looking at 18 to 24 months before we would have a commercially viable alternative to light crude oil that we could scale up,” says Kertz.

Meanwhile, other researchers are trying to ratchet up algae’s natural production of hydrogen to make pond scum bioreactors a fuel source for fuel cells. One group hoping this is the answer to the world’s energy crises is ANSER, short for the Argonne-Northwestern Solar Energy Research Center, a joint effort between researchers at Argonne National Laboratory and Northwestern University, both just outside of Chicago.

David Tiede, a senior scientist at Argonne, says he and his colleagues are looking to manipulate an enzyme called hydrogenase, which generates small amounts of hydrogen gas during a process that is concurrent with photosynthesis. Tiede hopes to take the part of the hydrogenase enzyme that produces hydrogen and insert it into a protein integral to photosynthesis. Doing so, he says, could yield amounts of hydrogen equivalent to as much as 10 percent of the algae’s mass, or roughly the same as the amount of oxygen they create.

Tiede admits that attempts to get hydrogen from algae are still in the basic research stage. But he and Valcent’s Kertz agree that the funding now being focused on algae will hasten the pace of that research. For example, ANSER is one of a half dozen so-called Energy Frontier Research Centers soon to be funded under a $100 million U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) solar energy program. The program was originally slated to begin in 2006 but remained on hold until early this month, when the DOE issued a new call for proposals.

Algae’s fecundity is so great that researchers at the DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory say that algae bioreactors covering less than 40 000 square kilometers—roughly one-tenth of the sun-baked state of New Mexico—could churn out enough biodiesel, bioethanol, and molecular hydrogen to completely replace petroleum as transportation fuel in the United States, the world’s largest automotive market. That’s a lot of pond scum, considering that in 2006, U.S drivers burned through more than 800 billion L of fuel, according to the Energy Information Administration, which is part of the DOE.

But biofuel experts foresee a day when algae bioreactors like Valcent’s will be set up not only in places like New Mexico’s deserts but also in urban areas, atop the smokestacks of industrial plants or coal-burning electric generation plants, and in rural areas where the algae would act as remediators, using human or animal waste streams as a food source. “The reality is that from an ecological standpoint, algae already play a huge role because they’re the primary oxygen source for the planet,” says Kertz. “Most people don’t know that. But I think it’s time for some algae awareness.”

A Vermont farmer decides to get rid of electric heating for his greenhouses and instead burns waste oil collected free from area restaurants, saving about US $25 000 in four years, after an initial investment of $12 000. A woman living uncomfortably in an old, drafty house insulates the attic and walls, buys new windows, and weather-strips doors, cutting her electricity costs by 30 percent and her heating bills by half. Similar improvements, plus new energy-efficient fans for a walk-in freezer, helped a village general store reduce its annual energy costs by $1800, with an initial investment of $8000. All those energy-reduction success stories and many, many more can be traced to the activities of Efficiency Vermont, an independent nonprofit provider of energy-efficient services. Similarly structured service providers are now operating with positive results in a number of other states. Established in 2000, Efficiency Vermont helps electricity customers find ways to cut their consumption, often just by providing them with free technical advice—as with the farmer switching to waste vegetable oil—but sometimes by subsidizing the purchase of energy-efficient products like lightbulbs or boilers. The program, administered by the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC), is funded by a 4.5 percent fee attached to each customer’s electricity bill.

Having helped close to 60 percent of the state’s electricity customers in seven years, Efficiency Vermont is responsible for an electricity load growth of –1.8 percent in 2007, making Vermont the first state to achieve that goal through efficiency measures alone. Wisconsin and Oregon have established similar efficiency utilities, and this summer, Delaware will launch its Sustainable Energy Utility, or SEU—the most ambitious and wide-ranging variation on the model yet.

The notion of offering energy-efficiency services to the public is by no means a new one. Following the oil crises of 1973 and 1979, U.S. state regulators—with some encouragement from the federal government—often ordered utilities to set up programs to encourage customers to cut electricity use. Such programs generally went by the name of demand side management (DSM) or integrated resources planning, and they played an important part in curbing the growth of U.S. electricity demand well into the 1990s. But then along came electricity deregulation, and with it a tendency to reduce the role of the state regulatory bodies. DSM programs tended to atrophy too.

Efficiency utilities and DSM have a good deal in common, concedes Martin Kushler, who handles utility issues for the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), in Washington, D.C. But the emphasis in the early days of DSM tended to be on conservation, he says, recalling U.S. President Jimmy Carter donning a sweater on national television. In the independent-efficiency utility, the accent is squarely on efficiency and on the economic advantages to be had from making improvements.

Now Delaware is poised to join the ranks of states that operate efficiency utilities, but with much more ambitious goals. Its SEU, expected to be operational this summer, will oversee perhaps the most comprehensive energy savings and distributed renewables program in the United States. The SEU will be charged with reducing energy use from all fuels in Delaware by 30 percent by 2015—a third in homes, a third in businesses, and a third in the transportation sector.

source : http://spectrum.ieee.org/may08/6216

The use of solar energy is versatile; it is used for electricity, central heating, hot water, cooking, for producing salt and even for desalination. The energy comes from the sun’s rays and is known to be very environmentally friendly. However, when the sun rays enter the earth’s atmosphere it is quite dilute. Although the advantages are clear there are also disadvantages.

Let’s start with the biggest advantage; it is a clean form of energy. To produce electricity or heat you only need the sun rays. There is no need to use fossil fuel in combination with sun rays to produce electricity or heat. You just need a solar energy collector or solar power panels in order to convert the energy into electricity.

Another advantage is that it is cheaper than to use traditional electricity for heating. If you are using traditional electricity for heating you can save a lot of money. In return you will get lower electric bills and it also means that you don’t have to maintain heaters.

If you live in a remote area where there are no power-lines solar energy can be the solution. There are remote areas where power companies have no means to access your home. This great alternative can provide you with anything from heating water, electricity, and even cooking.

Another great use is for desalination in areas where fresh, drinkable water is scarce. The brine is evaporated and leaves the salt crystals in the bottom of the basin. The water in turn condenses back in another basin where it is now drinkable.

The advantages mentioned above are tremendous but there are some disadvantages. These disadvantages also need to be discussed to paint a better overall picture.

The main disadvantage of solar energy is that it’s dilute. This means you have to have a lot of solar collectors installed around your house. The energy itself is free, but the solar collectors are relatively expensive and some require regular maintenance in order to work properly and efficiently. If you decide to go solar you need to calculate the return on investment in order to know if the investment will be worth it.

One big disadvantage is that you need the sun rays to make use of it. If you are situated in a part of this beautiful planet where there is not much sun light then this could be a problem. In other areas, the sun rays are almost always covered in clouds making solar energy collectors less efficient. You should first know if the sunshine in your area is abundant for the most part of the year. Of course if you live in desert areas like in Arizona or Mexico the sun produces a lot of sunshine for the most part of the.

Lastly the sun only shines during the day. Therefore if you need electricity or hot water during the night, like many of us do, it can be a problem. You will need a backup system like the ‘old’ utility grid or you will need to store the electricity for later use. There are battery systems that can store solar energy for later use. The hot water collected during daytime is often stored in a tank for later use. The modern systems are becoming more sophisticated in storing electricity or hot water. If you are still using your grid, the produced electricity can be pumped back into the grid.

Solar energy is very clean and is a good alternative for traditional electricity. Although this is true it is also good to mention the disadvantages. If you are considering using solar energy you must read this first to make a balanced decision.

There are two fundamental flaws with the approach of energy conservation as it stands. First is that there is a very large difference between what we as consumers use to produce the workload we require (kilo Watts) and what the utility is required to generate (kilo Volt-Amperes) in order to meet this demand. The difference is known as Power Factor, or the measure of electrical efficiency. You may already be familiar with this concept. In order to reduce KW, we require more efficient technologies to be developed and implemented. This costs us valuable resources, including energy. The ironic part is that the emphasis is placed on what consumers see as a reduction but the generation of energy has really been left in the dark.

Oddly enough the technology exists, and has for decades, to improve the Power Factor (or level of efficiency) where we can realize a reduction the amount of energy generators are required to produce (KVA) while providing the same workload (KW) to the customers. This means more available power to use, if necessary, to begin developing new products which focus on reductions at the consumer end of things.

The second problem relates more to the lighting side of things you mentioned in your article. Although we may be reducing KW by implementing new lighting solutions, these bulbs require electronic ballasts. The use of solid state electronics has introduced yet another ingredient into our energy pot in the form of Harmonics. Harmonic disturbances can adversely affect both the equipment itself along with any other piece of equipment on the electrical system causing decreases in lifespan, poor performance and even catastrophic failures. In the long run, the proliferation of events like this will have much greater effect on us than using a little extra power to light our homes.

Once the threshold of 5% THD (total harmonic distortion) has been reached, further increases will begin to effect efficiency. For every 2% increase over 5%THD, consumption is increased by about 0.5%.

Example 1

We have a facility that uses 2 million kWh of electricity a month where approximately 10% of the load is lighting (about 200,000 kWh). The facility is already operating at 5% THD, which is quite common and still within accepted practices. Some new lighting with electronic ballasts were installed which should reduce the lighting load by about 40% or 80,000 kWh. These lights then increase the harmonic distortion by about 8% for a total of 13% THD. This increase doesn’t just apply to the lights, but the entire facility. The 8% increase in THD will then equate to an increase of about 4% of the total consumption or about 80,000 kWh.

In this instance, all of the energy that the lighting change saved was then lost again by the harmonics these very same lights are generating. Doesn’t make much sense does it? Especially considering a premium was paid to have the lighting installed. There is now no energy saved and the lights never pay for themselves!

Ok, so I agree that there have been advances in technology and that this is only a hypothetical situation. But it also only considers the lights and not other devices that are generating harmonics as well. All too often, harmonics distortion levels are in the range of 20%, 30% and even 40%.

The harsh reality is that it is unlikely for us to reduce the amount of energy we’re consuming by some 50% whether we change our thinking or not, at least for the near future. What we need to consider is how we can begin to use our energy more efficiently and in doing so, ensure we are not creating a whole other world of problems. Only when we understand how to use our energy properly will we be able to reduce our energy consumption by anything significant.

Are You Can Do It???? Hope sooo..!!!

Today solar systems are cheaper, better made and designed with the aesthetics of the building in mind. Along with solar being much more pleasing to the eye, it is also more pleasing to the wallet. Federal, State and Local incentives, along with personal tax breaks make the purchase and installation of a photovoltaic power system, and solar powered water heaters very affordable. In some areas it is also very feasible to install a small to medium sized wind generator to supplement the home’s power needs.A photovoltaic system (PV) may not be the complete answer when it comes to power, depending on where you live. It may only give you supplemental power due to light availability. But the combination of PV and wind where available should make a very nice power package for most every lifestyle.

The initial cost can be daunting for any alternative energy solution. Solar or wind are both expensive to start, and take a bit of time to repay. But people don’t seem to consider the long term effects. You have now given your home its own power supply. For most people, having your own source of power on a home you are considering buying, is probably a little more moving than a great bed of petunias. Today, people know that their homes are their biggest investments, they also know that a large portion of their bills are going to be in their utilities. The more you can make your home self reliant for power and also more energy efficient, the better it is for your bank account.

Also a lot of people think that alternative power is expensive because they price the size of their PV system based on their current useage. Many people don’t realize that their current useage is probably way more than what they actually need. To get an accurate idea of how much PV system is actually needed a person should first make sure that their home is as energy efficient as possible. Make your home energy efficient before considering alternative energy.

Low Cost Energy Efficient Actions:

• Install low flow showerheads and sink aerators to reduce hot water use.
• Seal and weatherstrip your windows and doors Install a water tank insulation wrap. They are very cheap and keep the water tank insulated
• Check your windows. Old windows may save you from replacement, but that savings is offset by what you lose in money each month trying to heat/cool a house with leaky windows
• Use ENERGY STAR appliances.
• Fluorescent lights use much less energy than standard incandescents

No Cost Energy Efficient Actions:

• Turn off everything not in use. Lights, tv’s radios.
• Check Furnace or AC filter each month.
• Clean and replace as needed during hot months,
• keep window coverings closed on the south, east and west windows. In winter, let sun in
• Glass fireplace doors help stop heat from being lost up the chimney.
• Activate ’sleep’ features on computers and office equipment to power down when not in use.
• When cooking, keep the lids on pots. Microwaves are more efficient than ovens. Use when possible.
• Dress for the weather. Its cheaper to put another blanket on the bed than to turn the ac up
• About 15 percent of the average home utility bill is the water heater.
• Take shorter showers and only wash full loads of clothes.
• Lower the temp of your waterheater.
• Only heat rooms you need. Close vents and doors on unused rooms.

Once your home is energy efficient, and you trim down your usage, then you will really see what your actual power usage is and most likely see that the alternative energy solution for your home doesn’t need to be quite as large or expensive as you first thought.