paper on future energy generation scenario

8/8/2019 Paper on Future Energy Generation Scenario

1/13

Page 1 of13

Future Energy Generation Scenario

Course: Management Information System

Instructor: Dr. Prithwis Mukerjee

Submitted by-

Manoj Kumar Singh 10BM60046

MBA, Class of 2012

VGSoM, IIT Kharagpur

Abstract- With climate change posing a threat to earth's survival Green energy production is theway forward. This paper will discuss future scenario of energy production. It will throw light on some ofgreen energy production methods that will be relevant in future such as orbiting solar arrays,enhanced geothermal systems, carbon capture and storage, energy from waste, offshore wind farmsetc. As the world is gearing to brace green energy generation technologies, this paper discussesthese technologies from their financial perspective and future scope.

1. Introduction

Rapidindustrialization in last century has come at the cost of deterioration of the environment. Since

mid 20th

century the average temperature of earth is constantly rising. As per a report by

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), earths temperature increased

0.74 0.18 C during the 20th century. This increase in average temperature of earth has been

caused by increasing concentration of greenhouse gases(GHG) such as Carbon dioxide, Methane,Ozone, CFCs etc., which result from human activity such as burning of fossil fuels and deforestation

etc., in the atmosphere. As per latest IPCC report, the global surface temperature is likely to rise a

further 1.1 to 6.4 C during the 21st century. This has resulted in serious climate change issues and

posed a big question mark on the survival of future generations.

To mitigate the challenges of global warming and other climate change issues, most countries

have agreed to reduce their GHG emissions by different levels. Under the Kyoto Protocol, 39

industrialized countries and the European Union(called "Annex I countries") committed to reduce four


2/13

Page 2

13

GHG

i

i

,

t

,

it

i

,

l

fl

i

t

f

fl

fl

t

,

ll

t

i

!

l

it

t

. A

I

t

i

t

t

i

i

i

i

5."

%

f

t

# $ $ #

l

!

l. A

%

l

I

tit

t

!

i

ti!iti

t

t

t

t GHGs i

" & & &

El

t

iit

ti

i

st

i

l

sti

'

"%,

(

st

st

ti

l

se

e

" )%,

0

sport

trai

s,ars, planes, ships)

# 1%,

2anufacturing, industrial processes, and

construction#

3

%, otheracti!

ities# #

%.

0

huselectricit

Production

industrial ordomestic)contri

utes'"

% of total GHGs

humanacti!it

.

0

hus to reduceGHS all countriesneed to reduce theGHS produced inenergyproduction.

But as the countries are developing the energy requirement isound to increase.

0

o meet the

growingdemandofenergyandat thesame time theneed toreduce toGHS emissionsrequires the

useofgreenenergy. Greenenergy is theenergy that doesnot requireor requireaminimal GHGs

emission during the production. Solar energy, wind energy, wind energy, hydro energy,

iomass,

iofuel, geothermal etc are some examples of green energy.

0

he production of these energies

requiresaminimal GHS emission. So the futureenergygenerationscenariowill revolvearound these

Greenenergies.%

ith therapiderosionofoil reservesandmoreandmorecountriessetting target for

GHGsemissionreduction, greenenergydevelopment is

ound to

e theway forward.

0

his paper will discuss some of the energy generation/(GHG emission reduction)technologies such as orbiting solar arrays, enhanced geothermal systems, carbon capture and

storage, energy fromwaste, offshorewind farms, nuclearenergyetc that will assumesignificance in

future.


3/13

Page 3 of13

2. Orbiting Solar Arrays

Researchers are currently investigating the feasibility of this source of renewable energy. In thistechnology theory an array of solar panels would be constructed outside of the Earth's atmosphere

and placed into orbit. These panels would then send the solar power back down to a receptor throughmicrowave or laser where it could be converted into electricity.

The main feature of this technology is its ability to tap into a very vast energy source several

orders of magnitude beyond all other known sources combined. In space, collection of the Sun'senergy is not affected by the various hurdles that reduce efficiency of the earth surface solar powercollection. Building the array and direct it to orbit of the earth means that there would be nointerruption of the flow of solar energy to the arrays due to any reason such as adverse weather

conditions or in night.

Image: Model for Orbiting Solar arrayi

2.1 Current developments

Solaren, a company in Manhattan Beach, California is working with the San Francisco-based

public utility Pacific Gas and Electric Company on plans to put a solar energy generator in

geosynchronous orbit. The aim is to finally direct the power collected on unfolded solar panels down

to the California energy grid via microwaves. Expected to be completed by 2016, the space solar

project would deliver up to 200 megawatts of power, with 84

0 gigawatt hours generated during the 1st

year of operation. The company believes that potential, significant benefits to the customers from a

successful space solar installation will outweigh the challenges associated with a new and unproved


4/13

Page 4 of13

technology. JAXA, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency have plans to have the orbiting space

solar system operational in the 2030. Japanese companies have announced this plan to build a solar-

power generator in space by using solar panels. The $21 billion project, which would not be running

till 2030 years, would have the capacity to supply the power needs of5

00,000 Tokyo homes. The

project, to be undertaken by a research group from 16 companies including Mitsubishi Heavy

Industries Ltd, aims to spend next four years for developing the technology required to beam

the electricity produced to earth. The planned solar station will produce around 1 Gigawatt ofelectricity from its 4 km2

array of solar panels, which is enough to power just under5

00,000 Tokyo

homes, at the present consumption levels. Since the array will be in a geostationary orbit 36,000 km

above the surface of earth, it will not be affected by the weather conditions and will be able to

generate power constantly.

Image: JAXAs model for beaming electricity to earthii

U.S. space agency NASA has also been investigating the possibilities of a space-based solar system

for several years and has spent around $80 million on the R&D. NASA and other government

agencies have estimated the cost of electricity supplied from this orbiting solar array around $1 billion

per megawatt, which is quite expensive to be commercially viable.

2.2 Pros and Cons of Solar Powered Energy Systems

As far as Pros are concerned the solar power from the sun is a renewable source of powerand a clean, natural fuel source. Once the solar panels are installed and operational there is not verysignificant cost. Solar power unlimited and its silent compared to other alternative energy sources,such as wind power. Utility bills can be reduced by as much as 80%.

For cons, solar heating systems are quite expensive. Solar energy production depends on theweather, which is unpredictable and also not feasible for all locations. Batteries for storage add a lotof cost and maintenance to the solar panel systems. Batteries have to be maintained and replacedafter a particular time. The electricity produced by solar system is DC (direct current), while the kindthat every appliance a household uses is AC (alternating current). So it requires an inverter. Solarpower requires lot of space to be set up for the best results.


5/13

Page 5 of13

2.3 Financial Aspects and future challenges

Besides meeting normal energy demands this technology can have some potential customerssuch as Commercial telecommunications and remote sensing spacecraft, space manufacturingfacilities, governmental research and defense satellites, as well as space travel and tourism industriescould draw energy from such a station. There is a potentially large market that might benefit from this.

Another advantage of a space-based power station is leaving heavy solar panels back onEarth. Less massive spacecraft will be cheaper to send to geostationary orbit. The ownership andfinancing of these power stations can be handled as a commercial venture, perhaps in partnershipwith government during starting phase and then becoming a commercial venture. Once such powerstation will be fully deployed, the private sector will then be a far more efficient operator of the powerplug in space. The profitability and viability of these projects, however, will depend on a number offactors such as the cost of launching such satellites into Earths orbit. The cost of launches may comedown with the advance of private launch vehicle builders but it is not sure whether the costs will comedown enough to make such ambitious projects profitable. Other factors include public fears thattechnology which beams energy from space can be transformed into a weapon or used for otherdestructive pursuits. There can be other benefits as well such as the idea of using space-based powerto alter weather elements, including hurricanes. Supporters say it offers more benefits 6 such as lessdependence on foreign oil from unstable nations, less pollution and greenhouse gases. If the costcomes down, which is expected with the ongoing R&D in the field, this technology will play a majorrole in future.

3. Enhanced Geothermal Systems

Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) are an entirely new form of geothermal systems which do not

require natural convective hydrothermal resources. Till now, geothermal power systems have onlyutilised resources where naturally occurring water and rock porosity is sufficient to transfer heat to the

earths surface. However, the huge number of geothermal energy within drilling reach is in dry and

non-porous rock. EGS technologies enhance or create geothermal resources in this hot dry rock

(HDR) through hydraulic stimulation.

The overall objective of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) is to utilise the heat naturally

generated by the Earth to generate electricity. For doing this, wells are drilled into the high

temperature basement rocks that are naturally fractured. The fractured network is enhanced to create

a reservoir into which additional wells are drilled. Cold water is then pumped into the fracture network,

via the wells, absorbing the heat of the rock as soon as it goes through. As it reaches in the

connected wells, the heat is captured and converted into electricity using steam turbines and the

water is released back into the fracture network to be reheated and process is continued. HDR / EGS

are feasible throughout the world, depending on the economic limits of drilling depth. Good locations

are where the deep granite covered by a thick layer of insulating sediments which slow heat

loss. HDR well generally have a useful life of 20-30 years before the outflow temperature drops about

10 degrees Celsius and the well becomes unproductive. Then if the well is left for7

0 to 300 years the

temperature recovers. This source of electricity is almost entirely free of greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions. EGS can easily replace the carbon-intensive coal-fired power plants without very

significant emissions.


6/13

Page 68

9

13

I@ A B C

: ED E

F

D G

H

I

P

H

Q

R

E

H

Sm

F

lT

UT

R

H

m1:Reservoir V :Pumphouse W :Heat exchangerX

:Turbinehall

5:Productionwell Y :Injectionwell

:Hot watertodistrict heating a :Poroussediments

b :Observationwell 10:Crystallinebedrockiii

3. l m

Recent Successes in EGS projectssuchasCooperBasin in Australia, wherea third toahalf

flow capacitywasachievedafterdrilling intoV

50C rock four kilometresbelowground, havebeen

encouraging. EGS isabase-loadresource, that gives it theability toproducepowerfor VX

hours ina

day. It isalsoeconomicallycheaperas it costsmuch less toset upan EGS operation than toset upa

newcleancoal burningpowerplant.c

ithalmostd

erocarbonemissions, this technologywill certainly

help in theoverall CO2emissionsreduction. After identifying thepotential ofenhancedgeothermal

systemsmore intensiveresearchhasbeenstarted incountriesaround theworldsuchasGermany,

e

rance, Switd

erland and thef

S. According to the IEA, geothermal power plantshave grown

worldwideat abroadlyconstant rateofabout 200g c

/year from theyear1980 to2005. In2007 thetotal capacityreachedalmost 10GW, generating 5

YTWh/yearofelectricity. According toexpertsat

g

IT, EGS will reachan installedcapacityofaround100,000g

Wby2050almost a thirdof todays

installedcoal capacity.

3. i i l ll

Asper initial estimates, withcurrent technology thecapital costsofan EGS plant wouldbealmost twice that ofa traditional geothermal plant.

f

nlikea traditional coal ornatural gasplant, EGSfacilities do not require purchasing fuel to generate electricity. This help in generating low costelectricity in long termandquite financiallyviable. EGS receivedaboost fromboth the

eY 2009

f

Sbudget and the2009stimulusbill (AmericanRecoveryandReinvestment Act). Thestimuluspackagepassedby

eederal government in

f

.S. in2008 includedh

80million fortheresearchanddevelopmentof EGS technologies. Thiswill help expand the

f

.S.iepartment of Energys existing EGS grant

program that hopes toachieve technological readiness for EGS power plantsby2015.iespiteall

this, commerciallyviable EGS powerplantsstill remaina long-termgoal.

Obstacles to furtherdevelopment aremany. The lackofRD&Dconstrains thedeployment ofEGS powerplants.

g

ost technologies that areused in EGS, suchasdrillingandgeologic imagerytechniques, arenot yet adapted fortheirspecificuse in EGS development. Thecombinationofhighriskandhighcapital costscanmake financinggeothermal projectsdifficult andexpensive.ResearchandDevelopment in the geological characteristics of natural geothermal resources is essentialfor


7/13

Page 7 of13

adapting stimulation and drilling techniques in a way that will drive down the costs of EGSdevelopment. The most promising EGS sites often occur at long distances from centres of largeelectricity consumption, or the load centres. This need to install adequate transmission capacity canhamper the investment in geothermal projects.

To overcome these challenges a policy overhaul is needed. A price on carbon would increaseboth the use of mature low-carbon technologies and the R&D investments in less mature

technologies, funding of further research and development in the form of pilot plants and basicresearch in geology, drilling techniques and other associated EGS technologies. Improving the speedof siting, leasing and permitting decisions will certainly help make already risky EGS projects moreattractive to investors. Lastly improving transmission corridors to areas with geothermal reservoirswould facilitate investment in geothermal energy.

4. Carbon capture and storage

Carbon capture and storage (CCS), alternatively called as Carbon capture and sequestration, is a

method of reducing the contribution of fossil fuel emissions to global warming, by capturing carbon

dioxide (CO2) from big sources such as fossil fuel power plants, and storing it deep in such a way that

it does not enter the earths atmosphere. It can also be described as the scrubbing of CO2 from

ambient air as a geoengineering technique. According to the International Energy Authority, CCS

could account for around a third of the total CO2 reductions needed by 20p

0. All the Coal burning

plants which utilise this technology separate carbon dioxide during the electricity generation process

and then bury it deep underground. The long term storage of CO2 is a relatively quite new concept

and can be exploited by countries to meet their GHGs emission reduction targets. The first

commercial example is Weyburn, an integrated pilot-scale CCS power plant that has started

operations in September 2008 in the eastern German power plant Schwarze Pumpe in order to

answer the questions about technological feasibility and economic efficiency of CCS.

Image: Conceptual plan for CCS iv


8/13

Page 8 of13

4.1 Current Scenario

Till 2007, four industrial storage projects are in operational. Sleipner is the oldest project, started in

1996, and located in Norway. Since 1996, Sleipner has stored about one million tonnes of CO2 a

year. Second project in the Snohvit gas field in the Barents Sea stores 700,000 tonnes per year. Third

project, Weyburn-Midale, is worlds largest carbon capture and storage project. It was started in 2000

and is located in Canada. At Weyburn, the CO2 is used for enhanced oil recovery with an injectionrate of almost 1.q

million tonnes per year. The first phase was finished in 2004, and demonstrated

that CO2 can be stored underground at the site safely and indefinitely. The second phase, lasted till

2009, investigated how the technology can be expanded on a larger scale. The fourth site is in Salah,

which is a natural gas reservoir like Sleipner and Snohvit and is located in Salah, Algeria. Countries

such as Canada, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, United States, UK, China, Germany and

Australia are heavily investing in such projects.

4.2 Financial perspective and future prospect

CCS applied to a modern conventional power plant can reduce CO2 emissions to the

atmosphere by almost 80 to 90% in comparison to a plant without CCS. The IPCC estimates that theeconomic potential of this technology can be between 10% and

q q

% of the total carbon mitigation

effort until year 2100 (Section 8.3.3 of IPCC report). Capturing and compressing CO2 requires much

more energy and this would eventually increase the fuel needs of a coal-powered plant with CCS by

some 2q

to 40%. This extra cost is estimated to increase the cost of energy from a new coal-fired

power plant with CCS by almost 21 to 91%. These estimates apply to the plants near a storage

location while applying this technology to preexisting plants or plants far from a storage location will

be much more expensive. However, on a positive side, recent industry reports suggest that with

successful research, development and deployment (RD&D), sequestered coal-based electricity

generation in 202q

will cost less than unsequestered coal-based electricity generation today.

Though the processes involved in CCS have been demonstrated in various other industrial

applications, but no commercial scale projects which can integrate these processes exist till now,

therefore the costs are somewhat uncertain. However, some recent estimates indicate that a carbonprice of US$60/US-ton is required to make capture and storage competitive, corresponding to an

increase in electricity prices of about US 6c/kWh. This would double the typical US industrial

electricity price (which now hovers at around 6c/kWh) and increase the typical retail residential

electricity price by aboutq

0% (assuming that 100% of power is from coal, which is not the case, as

this varies from state to state). However, similar price increases would likely be expected in heavily

coal dependent countries such as Australia, because the capture technology and chemistry, transport

and injection costs from such type of power plants would not, in a broad sense, vary significantly from

country to country.

The reasons that CCS will cause such power price increases are many. Firstly, the enhanced

energy requirements of capturing and compressing CO2 significantly raise the total operating costs of

CCS-equipped power plants. In addition there is some added investment and capital costs. Thisprocess will increase the fuel requirements of a plant with CCS by about 2

q

% for a coal-fired plant

and about 1q

% for a gas-fired plant. The cost of this extra fuel, as well as storage and other system

costs are estimated to enhance the costs of energy from a power plant with CCS by 30-60%,

depending on the specific circumstances. Pre-commercial CCS demonstration projects are expected

to be more expensive than mature CCS technology, the total additional costs of an initial large scale

CCS demonstration project are estimated to be $0.7 to $1.6 billion/project over the project lifetime.

The cost of CCS depends on the cost of capture and storage which may vary according to the method

considered. Geological storage in the saline formations or the depleted oil or gas fields generally cost


9/13

Page 9 of13

US$0.r

0 to $8.00/tonne of CO2 injected, and additional US$0.10 to $0.30 for monitoring costs.

However, when storage is combined with enhanced oil recovery to extract extra oil from an oil field,

the storage may yield net benefits of US$10 to $16 per tonne of CO2 injected. This would likely

negate the effects of the carbon capture when the oil was used as fuel.

Storage of the CO2 is ideated either in deep geological formations, in deep ocean masses, or

in the form of mineral carbonates. In the first case of deep ocean storage, there is always a risk of

greatly enhancing the problem of ocean acidification, a problem that also arises from the excess of

carbon dioxide already present in the atmosphere and oceans. Geological formations are currently

thought of as the most promising sequestration sites. The National Energy Technology Laboratory

reported that America has enough storage capacity at its current rate of production for more than 900

years worth of carbon dioxide. A more general problem is the long term predictions about submarine

or underground storage security are very tough and uncertain and CO2 may leak from the storage

into the atmosphere.

5. Energy from wasteWhether energy from the waste is a good alternative source of energy or not is a debate which hasbeen ongoing for many years now. The main arguments against this technology are the potential riskto health from the fumes produced during the conversion process and that the production of wasteundermines the recycling initiatives. But its a fact that the waste will always be produced, even whenrecycling meets all the government targets. So the question arises Is it not a better idea to use thewaste for energy production than let it lie in landfills? As far as the risks to the health are concerned,there is no scientific evidence yet to prove that burning rubbish leads to health problems. So in future

we should also use this mean to generate energy to meet out energy requirements. Waste-to-energy(WtE) is a process of producing the energy in the form of electricity or heat from the incineration ofwaste source. WtE is a kind of energy recovery. Most of WtE processes generate electricity directlythrough combustion, or produce a combustible fuel commodity, such as methane, synthetic fuel

methanol, ethanol etc.

Image:Waste-to-Energy Modelv


10/13

Page 10 of13

5.1 Current developments

The evidence of how green and cost efficient this energy source can be has beendemonstrated by the UK's first waste gasification plant built on the Isle of Wight. This small,community sized plant is expected to be able to generate 2.3MW of energy from almost 30,000tonnes of residual waste which is not recycled. This is believed be sufficient to provide around 3,000homes with electricity. Energos, the Norwegian company building this plant, has used a technologydesigned to minimise the emissions while converting the waste residue into steam, making itenvironmentally friendly while also addressing the costly landfill problem. Clearly this demonstrates

that we should still be reducing, reusing and recycling, but where there is waste there is also anopportunity to produce clean energy and minimise the landfill. During 2001to 2007 period, the WtEcapacity world over has increased by about four million metric tons/annum. Japan and China has builtseveral plants that are based on direct smelting or on fluid bed combustion of solid waste.

In China there are abouts

0 WtE plants. Japan is the largest user of thermal treatment of MunicipalSolid Waste in the world with 40 million tons. Countries such as Austria, Sweden, Canada, England,India etc are coming up with such projects.


In developed countries, almost half of the investment is put in control systems to reduce toxicemissions such as mercury, cadmium, lead, dioxins, furans, volatile organic compounds etc. For

example a 2000 MT per day incinerator can cost some $s

00 million in Europe, half of the total cost

being put into emission control. Another problem arises in case of the developing countries because

the average calorific value of garbage in such countries is about 800cal / kg. For combustion

technologies to be successful they require about 2000 to 3000 cal / kg, otherwise additional fuel has

to be added. This makes the process more costly and polluting than it currently is. In thermal WtE

technologies, almost all of the carbon content in the waste is emitted as carbon dioxide(CO2) to the

atmosphere.

Municipal solid waste (MSW) contain around the same mass fraction of carbon as CO2 itself

(27%), so treatment of 1 metric ton of MSW produce approximately 1 metric ton of CO2. In the event

that the waste was landfilled, 1 metric ton of MSW would produce approximately 62 cubic metres

methane via the anaerobic decomposition of the biodegradable part of the waste. This amount of

methane has more than twice the global warming potential than the 1 metric ton of CO2, which would

have been produced by combustion. In some countries, large amounts of landfill gas are collected,

but still the global warming potential of the landfill gas emitted to atmosphere for example in U.S. in

1999 it was approximately 32 % higher than the amount of CO2 that would have been emitted by

combustion. In addition to that, nearly all biodegradable waste is biomass. It means it has biological

origin. This material has been formed by plants using atmospheric CO2 generally within the latest

growing season. If these plants are regrown, the CO2 emitted from their combustion will be taken out

from the atmosphere once more. Such considerations are main reason why several countries

administrate WtE of the biomass part of waste as renewable energy. It should be further increased by

policy formation to include private sector.

6. Offshore wind farms

A wind farm is generally a group of wind turbines in the same location used for generation of

electricity. Individual turbines are interconnected with medium voltage power collection system and a

supporting communications network. At the substation, the voltage of this medium-voltage electrical


11/13

Page 11 of13

current is increased by a transformer for connection to the high voltage transmission system. A large

wind farm generally consist of a few dozen to several hundred individual wind turbines, and cover an

extended area of hundreds of square miles, and at the same time the land between the turbines can

be used for agricultural and other purposes. A wind farm can be located off-shore to take the

advantage of strong winds blowing over the surface of an ocean or a lake. Traditionally same design

and technology used on land has been used in offshore wind turbines, however, these designs were

not sufficiently durable for the harsh conditions and atmosphere of the sea. This used to result in highmaintenance costs and an expensive alternative energy source.But recently Areva, a French energy

company, announced that they were about to launch what is perceived to be the toughest wind

turbine ever built. Designed specially to be deployed in remote offshore wind farms where harsh

climatic conditions are prevalent, Areva claim that the operational costs will be significantly reduced

as the simplified design of the turbine means that they are easier to install and require much less

maintenance cost. These large wind turbines will stand some 90 metres above the water and will

have blade diameter of approximately 120 metres. They should prove to be highly efficient. Each of

the t MW turbines is supposed to be able to generate enough electricity to supply for t ,000 homes.

6.1 Current scenario

Countries such as Denmark have many such offshore wind farms. The United Kingdom has target to

use offshore wind turbines to generate enough electricity to light every home in the U.K. by 2020. Theprovince of Ontario in Canada is pursuing several proposed projects near shore locations in the Great

Lakes, including Trillium Power Wind which is approximately 20 km from shore and more than 400

MW in size. Other Canadian projects include one at the Pacific west coast. As of 2008, Europe has

the largest development of fixed-bottom offshore wind power, because of strong wind resources and

shallow water in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, and limitations on favourable locations on land due

to dense populations and existing developments. Denmark installed the first offshore wind farms, and

was the world for years leader in offshore wind power until the United Kingdom gained the lead in

October, 2008, with t 90 MW of nameplate capacity installed. The United Kingdom has plans to build

much more costly offshore wind farms by 2020.

Image: Wind Facility, Sweden. GE Energyvi


12/13

Page 12 of13


Construction and accessibility are the major cost drivers for any wind facility, and these costs

are much higher at offshore wind farm. Major costs in an offshore wind farm are incurred in the

facility components, which includes the foundation and support structure, equipment installation, and

transmission and very high maintenance (due to frequent replacement). Economic feasibility of

offshore wind farms depend on whether the costs can be offset by high-quality wind resources andhigh efficiency. In last two decades, the costs of creating energy from wind have come down

significantly. Offshore wind farms energy costs today are generally between $0.08 and $0.1u

/kWh

almost double of that of an onshore facility. Till now, most of offshore wind farms have been

developed with governmental support. But U.S. Department of Energy estimates that by 2012 and

beyond,v-MW and larger offshore machines will generate power for $0.0

v/kWh. Also, developments

are ongoing forv

MW-offshore turbines that are expected to generate electricity for costs of about

$0.0v/kWh. Prices are expected to reduce with technological improvements and experience.

Major advantages of wind energy are that there is no fuel cost, no GHG emissions and asignificant amount of renewable energy is produced. Wind energy has the potential to provide900,000 MW, which is close to the total currently installed U.S. electrical capacity. To use the greaterwind resource potentials that exist in the far offshore areas, technological advances will be needed toreduce the weight of turbines and to develop safe and cost-effective platforms to harness the windthat is available over deeper waters. Toughest turbines developed by Areva are the way forward. Itwill significantly reduce the maintenance cost due to turbine replacements. But further research anddevelopments are need to reduce the weight of the turbines. For offshore applications to becommercially competitive there is a need to overcome current depth limits, improve accessibility andreliability, develop design methods, establish safety standards, and demonstrate the technology at acommercial scale.

7. Summary

As stricter environmental norms will come into force, all countries will have to reduce their GHG

emissions. In that scenario more economical option to produce energy will be to produce by non GHGemitting methods. Also with the reduction in the output of oil reserves and other fossil fuels over nextdecades, the focus will be to produce energy by renewable and sustainable sources. Oil and coalbased power plants will be out of production few decades down the line. And environmental friendlytechnologies will only be used in power generation.


13/13

Page 13 of13

References-

http://www.ipcc.ch/

http://www.physorg.com/news1722243 w 6.html

http://www.usef.or.jp/english/f3_project/ssps/f3_ssps.html

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/solar_power_sats_011017-2.html

http://pinktentacle.com/2008/02/jaxa-testing-space-solar-power-system/

http://www.suite101.com/content/solar-power-from-space-a1w 4044

www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/pdfs/future_geo_energy.pdf

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/EGeotherm%2010%2009(2).pdf

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/10/enhanced-geothermal-systems-awared-431-million-dollars-

by-department-of-energy.php

http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/eu/research/geothermal/index_en.htm

http://infochangeindia.org/2006060w w

6w

4/Agenda/Energy-vs-Environment/Waste-to-energy-or-waste-

to-pollution.html

http://ocsenergy.anl.gov/documents/docs/OCS_EIS_WhitePaper_Wind.pdf

iNational Space SocietyiiJAXAs $21b model to beam electricity to earth

iiihttp://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/EGeotherm%2010%2009(2).pdf

ivhttp://www.co2storage.org.uk/

vhttp://www.alternative-energy-news.info/technology/garbage-energy/

vihttp://ocsenergy.anl.gov/guide/wind/index.cfm

paper on future energy generation scenario

Documents