Salt Power

From wildsingaporenews.blogspot.com

Two pilot projects are testing the potential of "salt power", a renewable energy that relies on the differing salinities at river mouths to make watts

Adam Hadhazy, Scientific American 19 Oct 09;

In the hunt for alternatives to polluting and climate-warming fossil fuels, attention has turned to where rivers meet the sea. Here, freshwater and saltwater naturally settle their salinity difference, a phenomenon that two pioneering projects in Europe will try to harness to generate clean energy.

This concept of "salt power"—also known as osmotic, or salinity-gradient, power—has been kicked around for decades, and now, proponents hope, technology has advanced enough to make it economically competitive.

On November 24, the world's first large-scale prototype facility for developing a form of salt power called pressure-retarded osmosis is expected to begin fully operating in Norway. "The big reason to build this thing is to answer important questions [about osmotic power], and while we've done a lot of theoretical studies, we need live experience," says Stein Erik Skilhagen, vice president of osmotic power at Statkraft, Norway's state-owned power utility that built the plant. The prototype will have no customers, although the very small amount of electricity it generates will technically be directed into the power grid.

Statkraft's approximately $5-million prototype plant is a converted paper mill in the seaside village of Tofte, about 60 kilometers south of Oslo. The plant's pressure-retarded osmosis setup will place freshwater and brine on either side of a semipermeable membrane that prevents the passage of salt particles but allows water through. Water from the fresh side naturally flows into the salty side, generating pressure equivalent to a column of water 120 meters high. This pressurized water can be used to turn a turbine to make electricity. Statkraft's goal is to yield five watts per square meter of membrane, although current capacity is about three watts. If successful, the utility hopes to build a commercial salt power plant for paying customers around 2015 with a targeted cost ranging from seven to 14 cents per kilowatt-hour (pdf) (at current euro–dollar conversion rates), which at the low end would be competitive with coal and natural gas prices.

To the south in the Netherlands, a Dutch research firm called Wetsus has fired up its own salt power experiment to evaluate what is essentially a saltwater–freshwater battery.

Wetsus, with the collaboration of a spin-off company called Redstack, is pursuing a version of salt power dubbed "blue energy". A pilot-scale installation that is about two times the size of a big American refrigerator is up and running in Harlingen, by the Wadden Sea, says Gert Jan Euverink, Wetsus's deputy scientific director. The technology relies on reverse electrodialysis, wherein a series of fresh and saltwater streams are diverted via underground pipes to opposite sides of two kinds of membranes. These let sodium or chlorine ions—the constituent elements of salt—dissolved in the water to pass into separated freshwater streams. This builds an electrical potential across the membranes, like a battery, and this charge reacts with iron to form an electric current. Joost Veerman, a researcher at Wetsus, says the company aims to get five watts per square meter of membrane, the same result as Statkraft's process.

Neither Statkraft nor Wetsus expects to crank out more than just a few kilowatts—enough to boil water—with their initial experiments. Instead, they plan to demonstrate what could be scalable, commercially viable energy production as well as determine if salt power endangers the health of source-water estuaries. Statkraft estimates salt power's worldwide electricity-generating potential at up to 1,700 terawatt-hours, or about 10 percent of global demand.

Salt power is attractive for several reasons: For one, unlike renewable energy technologies for harvesting solar or wind power, salt systems are not dependent on the weather and could provide baseload (constant, predictable) electricity like that supplied by coal, natural gas and nuclear energy. "The river water is flowing into the sea 24/7, so you have a constantly available source of energy," Skilhagen says. He also points out there are no emissions besides brackish water, which swirls in the river's mouth anyway.

Unlike conventional hydropower, a saline power plant does not require damming off a waterway, and it may require less infrastructure than, say, riverbed-mounted turbines or floating fleets of generators for equivalent tidal and wave power. A salt power plant, including its membrane stacks, turbines, cleaning facilities and offices, could actually be located in a riverside industrial complex's basement, for example, or constructed underground within a riverbank with pipes extending into the waterway, Statkraft's Skilhagen says—a big advantage for incorporating such facilities into already-developed, populated coastal areas.

Membrane design and performance remain the biggest hurdles for both Statkraft's and Wetsus's approaches. The membranes must be made more efficient, durable and resistant to microbial buildup, or so-called biofouling. Pretreating the pumped-in water by filtering out organic matter and river-borne debris helps, but this critical step consumes energy and is expected to be expensive, Skilhagen says, adding that it is too early to know just how expensive.

Accordingly, experts remain cautious about salt power's prospects. "Both these methods are promising and certainly worth researching," says Ari Seppala, a mechanical engineer and thermodynamicist at the Helsinki University of Technology in Finland, "but both may still need a breakthrough innovation before commercialization." Seppala sees no physical or chemical showstoppers standing in the way of producing much-improved membranes, although he also points out that a better, membrane-free method could yet be found for exploiting salinity differences to yield electricity.

Another key uncertainty: a salt-power plant's effect on the local aquatic environment. "This is a completely new process that has not been tested on this scale," says Menachem Elimelech, a professor of chemical and environmental engineering at Yale University. "I doubt there will be no [environmental] impact at all." If the ecological footprint is minimal and the membrane technology advances, however, he adds that salt power could be a "significant renewable energy option."

Free Dishwasher!

From: Tom Haynes-Paton
Date: Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:31 pm
Subject: FW: Free used dishwasher wants rescuing... tomhaynespaton

Recycling is good. Free used dishwasher wants rescuing from landfill fate....
Tel. Digby 245-2347.
(signed) SPCD

Wind Turbine Dealer Misleads Consumers

Wind turbine dealer misses restitution deadlineText Size: A | A | A
turbine dealer misses restitution deadline Former state Rep. Mark Howland, owner of a Freetown-based wind turbine company that was shut down for misleading consumers, has failed to pay nearly $500,000 in restitution to the state Attorney General's Office.

A consent agreement reached last October set a deadline of Oct. 9, 2009, for Howland of WindTech-Co. to pay $488,000 in restitution. Howland notified the agency on Oct. 8 that he would not be making the payment, said Attorney General's Office spokeswoman Jill Butterworth.

According to the agreement, Howland now owes $638,000 in restitution. The Attorney General's Office has the right to foreclose on his property, although Howland's attorney has asked for additional time to market the property.

Howland lost his former Freetown home at 15 Mohawk Ave. to the bank weeks before it burned in a suspicious fire last November. He owns three parcels of undeveloped land, totaling some 26 acres, off Howland Road in Lakeville.

"The deadline for Mr. Howland to pay the restitution is past due and the Attorney General's Office intends to take whatever action is appropriate to obtain money for consumers entitled to restitution," said Butterworth.

Howland did not return phone calls and e-mail seeking comment Friday.

In March 2007, the Attorney General's Office filed a complaint in Bristol Superior Court and received an emergency court order to shut down WindTech-Co. and place a freeze on Howland's bank accounts.

Howland was accused of violating the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act by misleading consumers, making false and misleading representations in promoting the sale of wind turbines, failing to install turbines paid for by consumers and providing unsafe wind turbine installations. The Attorney General's Office identified more than 160 consumers, many in Southeastern Massachusetts, who were affected by the company's faulty wind turbines.

Under the consent agreement, Howland is prohibited from operating a business involved in the sale and installation of alternative energy systems, specifically wind turbine and hybrid wind turbine/photo-voltaic systems.

David Silvia of East Freetown said he purchased two defective wind turbines from Howland. He said he invested about $16,000 in the systems and has to date received about $1,200 in restitution from the Attorney General's Office.

Silvia said it was "kind of discouraging" to hear that Howland had failed to meet the deadline for the restitution payment.

"I was hoping the money would come through," he said. "I stretched myself pretty thin to do this. I thought it was the right thing for the environment."

After the defective turbines were removed from his property, Silvia purchased a larger turbine from another supplier. He said he has been mostly happy with that turbine and would like to install solar panels to further lessen his carbon footprint. To finance the project, however, he must wait until he receives full restitution.

Setbacks Doubled for Hartsville turbines

Tighter rules on Hartsville wind farm emerge
By Bob Clark
The Evening Tribune

Hartsville, N.Y. -The draft revised wind law for Hartsville is out, but those planning to spend millions developing wind power in the town want a line-by-line review before they know if the project can move forward.
Hartsville town Supervisor Steve Dombert said the new law, presented to the public in written form for the first time at Wednesday night’s meeting, is in response to flaws in the old law that was pushed through with little to no outside support.

Not enough copies of the law were made for distribution for all attending the meeting, Dombert said, so copies were only distributed to town board members, E.ON officials and candidates for town offices in November. None were offered in paper form to local media outlets, but Dombert said an emailed copy would be made available shortly.

The two biggest changes, Dombert said, cover setbacks from property lines and the sound level at non-participating landowners’ homes.

The current law states the sound cannot be higher than 50 decibels at the nearest non-participating property line, but Dombert said complaints in Cohocton and other locations made the town look at adopting different standards.

Dombert said new standards from the American National Standards Institute will be used to measure background and ambient noise at the site, in addition to noise from the turbines themselves. The readings also will be taken from the nearest non-participating home, rather than a property line, Dombert said.

The draft law also increases the turbine site setback from 1,200 feet to 2,460 feet — almost half a mile — and measures from the nearest non-participating property line, not the nearest home as the current law reads. More...



Posted by Solomon's words for the wise at 10/15/2009 09:03:00 PM



5 comments:
Anonymous said...
This took courage. Too bad our Potter County Commissioners caved in and did not stick to their guns on setbacks.
Maybe the township supervisors who passed ordinances that basically encourage these giant turbines will realize how out of step they are now.
Protect your citizens and do not sell out your townships just so a few people who are leasing property for these corporate government welfare machines can pile up the almighty dollars.

Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:03:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...
sounds like someone did not get any money

Friday, October 16, 2009 8:53:00 AM EDT
Anonymous said...
What is with all the bulls*%t about the windmills in potter county? I have yet to see where or even when there will be any here?Are there any concrete plans?

Friday, October 16, 2009 4:49:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...
8:53, you are sooooo right, Ha!

Friday, October 16, 2009 6:04:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...
The Commissioners did not cave in. They made the setbacks more reasonable.

Uranium Mining

Province plans to ban uranium mining

The NDP government announced Wednesday that it will make it illegal to mine uranium in the province -- but had trouble explaining why.
Natural Resources Minister John MacDonell said turning a long-standing ban into law was a response to public concerns. He said he heard some of those concerns while he was chairman of the legislature's resources committee, although he couldn't recall the details.

Read the full story at http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/1147691.html

The Climate Change Accountability Act

The Climate Change Accountability Act was originally tabled in October 2006 in the Canadian House of Commons as Bill C-377 by Jack Layton, Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada. It passed 3rd reading in that House with the support of caucuses of the Liberal Party of Canada, the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP (the Conservative Party of Canada, led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, voted against it). However, due the 2008 Canadian federal election ending the parliamentary session prematurely, the bill did not achieve royal assent despite reaching the Senate. On February 10, 2009 Bruce Hyer, NDP MP for Thunder Bay-Superior North, seconded by Layton, reintroduced it as a Private Member's Bill, renamed as Bill C-311. The Bill requires the Canadian federal government to set regulations to attain a medium-term target to bring emissions 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, and a long-term target to bring emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. According to the summary, the purpose of this bill is:

"to ensure that Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change by committing to a long-term target to reduce Canadian greenhouse gas emissions to a level that is 80% below the 1990 level by the year 2050, and by establishing interim targets for the period 2015 to 2045. It creates an obligation on the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to review proposed measures to meet the targets and submit a report to Parliament. It also sets out the duties of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy."[1]



The Climate Change Accountability Act is based on the Case for Deep Reductions report by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and on guidelines set by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. These are the same emissions targets adopted by the European Union and announced as objectives of U.S. President Obama's New Energy For America strategy. The Bill is noteworthy in that it was the first legislation in the world to pass a democratically-elected parliament which mandated hard emissions reductions for the post-Kyoto Protocol period (after 2012)."


Subject: Climate Action Needed: Pls support Bill C-311

Note: The vote is on Oct. 21 so please write asap!

Notes below from Jan Slakov
"Dear friends,

We know that the world is headed on a course that almost inevitably means we hit "the great unraveling" rather than the "great turning" for the news about climate change is very dire.

It is hard to know how best to act in the face of this knowledge. I would say that, right now, one of the best things we can do is send messages, especially to Liberal MPs, to urge them to support Bill C-311, as many of them did last year. Now some of them are claiming that the economic situation means they need more time... but we all know that if we stall forever, ... well, things will be even worse. (The other really important thing to do is to cut emissions- at home, in our workplaces, our communities- right now, not waiting for any targets to be passed.)

One of my friends has been working very hard on the Bill C-311 effort. She is in regular contact with Bruce Hyer's office, Bruce being the NDP MP who is putting forward Bill C-311 as a private member's bill.

An excerpt from a letter she wrote shows why she cares so much:

"My daughter sometimes cries at night, just before she goes to bed, when the shield of pretending that the world is okay drops away. She knows, as so many don’t, the facts, the truth. She carries the heavy burden of facing a world that is likely doomed to environmental catastrophe, the burden of trying so hard to change this fate and failing. She knows that our politicians are doing virtually nothing to provide for her future or for the future of the rest of the world’s children and unborn. As a youth it is understandably so hard for her to accept this fate or to accept the attitude of the number of people that don’t understand or care.

Do you have any idea of how it feels to have your 17-year-old daughter go to bed crying over such worldly concerns? Yet my pain may well be easier than the pain that many of you on our federal Environment Committee may face in the future – those of you that have young children now or plan to have children."

You can read the entire letter at:


http://westcoastclimateequity.org/?p=3363

******************************************************************************************************
Now, here is the list of some Liberals who would likely help pressure their colleagues on the Environment Committee to stop holding this bill up:

Glen Pearson, Kirsty Duncan, Ken Dryden, Matha Hall Findlay , Carolyn Bennett, Hedy Fry. YOUR MP?

(To get their phone #, just call the Reference Canada # in the blue pages: 1-800-667-3355. In general, you can send e-mails by using this formula: first 5 letters of the last name and the first letter of the first name @parl.gc.ca. So, Glen Pearson would be: .)

And, the members of the Environment Committee are:

Environment Committee Members – for Bill C-311


David J. McGuinty (Liberal)

McGuiDa@parl.gc.ca or mcguida0@parl.gc.ca

(613) 992-3269


Francis Scarpaleggia (Liberal)



(613) 995-8281


Mark Warawa (Conservative)



(613) 992-1157

James Bezan (Conservative)



(613) 992-2032


Peter Braid (Conservative)



(613) 996-5928



Blaine Calkins (Conservative)



(613) 995-8886



Jeff Watson (Conservative)



(613) 992-1812



Stephen Woodworth (Conservative)



(613) 995-8913



Bernard Bigras (BQ)



(613) 992-0423



Christian Ouellet (BQ)



(613) 947-8185



Linda Duncan (NDP)

Duncan.L@parl.gc.ca

(613) 995-7325

** Bruce Hyer's office would appreciate copies of your e-mails. This is one way we can thank them for all the work they are doing! Send messages of support and/or copies to . (Their phone # is (613) 996-4792.)
*********************************************************************************************
It is interesting to see what members of the committee have been saying. I am really impressed with Bruce Hyer. He speaks of personal changes he made, such as putting his car aside and using a bike ("at my age" ... I think in his early 60s) and I believe he is very happy to work in a non-partisan way for our future. (I find it very hard to accept when many politicians use the climate issue mainly to score points off each other, rather than to connect to their caring and DO SOMETHING.)

You can see what they are saying at:


http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4005941&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=2








The Bloc québecois has been consistent in its willingness to help all of Canada do something serious on climate change; if you write to them please acknowledge that. (I can send you a copy of a recent exchange I had with their env. critic, Bernard Bigras, if you would like.)

And here is an example of one letter I wrote, this one to the Liberal Env. critic, MP Dalton McGuinty:

subject: If not C-311, what do you propose?

Dear David McGuinty,

I just read over the proceedings from the Environment Committee's
meeting on June 18, when Mr. Hyer was a witness regarding his Private
Member's Bill, Bill C-311.

Like Mr. Hyer, I thank you for voting for the same bill, when it was
brought to a vote in the previous parliament.

I was saddened to see that now you seem to want to hold this bill up,
citing changed circumstances as the reason for that. Certainly, there
are lots of questions that it would be good to find answers for
regarding how we should restructure our economy, so that we do not
destroy the earth's ability to sustain future generations.

But that is no excuse to delay action! One thing that has changed is
that with each day that passes, it becomes more difficult to prevent
runaway climate change and the signs that our predicament is extremely
serious become increasingly more obvious. We do not need more hearings
to understand that we have no time to waste.

I hope you will do everything you can to work collaboratively with other
MPs to ensure that Canada goes to the Copenhagen summit with at least a
commitment to work towards minimal science-based goals, as set out in
Bill C-311.

What other option would you propose?

Can Canadians count on you to work with Mr. Hyer to ensure that this
bill does indeed get passed as soon as possible?

Sincerely,

Jan Slakov
******************************************************

Moratorium on Wind Turbines?

filed: October 13, 2009 • Ontario
Public wants moratorium on wind turbines
[ Alternate short URL for linking • HOME ]
» Original source is provided at end of article «

The answer is blowing in the wind, at least for the provincial government.

Local residents aren’t so sure, if a meeting held last week in Walkerton is any indication. And now they’re getting backing from MPP Bill Murdoch, who announced he plans to ask for a moratorium on wind turbines until health impacts are looked at.

The province’s Green Energy Act, passed on May 14 of this year, streamlines the approval process for wind turbine projects. The provincial government is committed to eliminating its coal operated electrical generating plants, and promoting green energy projects is a key part of the plan to make that happen.

There are already two large-scale wind turbine projects in Bruce County, one near Underwood and the other near Ripley. Other projects are planned for both Bruce and Grey.

A substantial number of people living in close proximity to the new wind farms popping up across the province are expressing health concerns, prompting the Grey Bruce Health Unit to hold two public meetings on the wind farm issue. One meeting was in Owen Sound and the other in Walkerton.

The Walkerton meeting at the Victoria Jubilee Hall on Tuesday, Oct. 6 was considerably more subdued than the first meeting in Owen Sound, but the frustration level of the people present for the meeting was apparent.

One person in the crowd of over 100 people seemed to echo the general feeling of those present when she told Dr. Hazel Lynn, medical officer of health, “You are the first government-connected person who’s listened to us.” The comment was greeted with applause from the crowd, a number of whom were from well outside the area.

Dr. Lynn told the audience that while health units do not have the power to take action against the wind turbines, the local health unit is prepared to take the issue to the government. “Rural communities are resilient and inventive,” she said. “We need to work together on this problem.”

The purpose of the Walkerton meeting was to provide information about wind turbines to those who wanted it, and to gather information to take to the government. It also gave people an opportunity to vent their frustration. As with the earlier meeting, there was certainly plenty of it.

The first part of the forum consisted of presentations by keynote speaker Dr. Ray Copes, Dr. Lynn, and Ministry of the Environment representative Rick Chappell. Also on hand was Andrew Barton of the MOE.

During the second part of the meeting, people from the audience were given the opportunity to ask questions to the speakers, and to state their concerns. People were asked to state their views on “what they would change with wind industry regulations” under three headings – community, industry and government. Comments were written on flip charts.

Lynn opened by describing the health unit’s involvement in the wind turbine issue. “Legislation obliges the health unit to investigate complaints and take those complaints to the appropriate government office,” she said.

Next to speak was Chappell, district manager for the MOE’s Grey, Bruce and Huron office. He gave a brief overview of the investigation process.

Copes then gave a scaled-down version of the talk he gave in Owen Sound, this time without the slide presentation.
Copes has been with the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion for three months. Prior to that, he served at the federal level.

The wind turbine issue is new, he said. In 2005-2006, public health units identified water as the key concern, along with food. “There was no mention of wind turbines,” he said. Health units were resurveyed in 2008-2009, and while water and food were still concerns, so were wind turbines.

He noted that the concerns are “10 times higher in Ontario” than elsewhere and suggested the reason was Ontario’s “aggressive” wind turbine program, and the fact that “local processes are not part of the decision making.”

Items looked at in relation to wind turbines were noise (and vibration), electromagnetic fields, shadow flicker as a possible cause of epileptic seizures, mechanical failure and icing, and health and safety.

He noted the most common health complaints are headaches and sleep disturbances. “It’s a well established phenomenon,” Copes said, adding it isn’t just a matter of how loud the noise is, but the quality and nature of the sound, described by one woman in the crowd as a “whump-whump-whump – that’s not a normal sound.”

Among the issues identified as of greatest concern by the speakers and the audience members included:

Is a setback of 550 metres enough? Some areas are looking at setbacks of a kilometre-and-a-half, or two kms. In a rural area, the house may be outside the 550-metre setback, but outbuildings and fields where farmers work all day could be much closer.

Harvey Wrightman, of Kerwood, said people in his area are angry – wind turbines are going to be put up near a school.

Most of those at the meeting seemed to agree that a moratorium on wind turbines is needed until research can be done on the health issues. Carmen Krogh, a retired pharmacist, is part of a group called WindVOICE, a victim support group. There are almost 100 people sick, she said, and some are children.

“They are the canaries in the coal mine,” Krogh said.

Formosa resident Melissa Nichols said she’s in favour of green energy. “But we need to the research first,” she said.
Many of those at the meeting – including the speakers – said they would like to see some sort of third-party investigation done.

The number of wind turbines in an area is one issue that interests Dr. Lynn. Many of the European projects have only two or three in the array, while the wind farms in Ontario have a dozen or more. Also of interest is the size of the turbines.
Gag orders were contentious for a number of people – many complained that those who have wind turbines on their land are not allowed to speak out about any health problems they’re having.

Dr. Lynn said the cost of the turbines compared to the electricity produced and the health risks associated with them, make this a “very expensive way to generate energy. I’d like a review of the cost effectiveness of wind turbines.”

Lack of local input was a common complaint.

“It’s nice of you to hold this meeting, but Dalton McGuinty isn’t listening. People don’t want the darned things,” said Arran-Elderslie Coun. Mark Davis.

Lack of government and wind turbine industry response seemed to be a common complaint. Most of those in the room want answers, and they aren’t getting them they said.

The Walkerton Herald-Times

www.walkerton.com

13 October 2009