Let’s Shed Some Light on Clean Energy Options

Although solar cells are technologically exciting, there’s another way to convert sunlight into energy. Stirling generators can convert heat energy into electricity without the use of toxic chemicals.

Essentially, all you need are large mirrors, a Stirling engine, a little bit of reusable hydrogen gas, some water to wash the mirrors, engine oil and a lot of land. There are several companies around the world that have worked hard to take advantage of this technology.

Stirling Energy Systems, headquartered in Phoenix, is building two large solar plants in California, for example. The above picture is what these solar generators look like.

Just one of these engines can produce enough energy – about 55,000 KWh of electricity – to power about a dozen homes each year. The efficiency of these machines is impressive, reaching a conversion rate of 31.25 percent, reports Popular Mechanics.

But as I wrote earlier this month, there always, always seems to be a downside to energy production. As you can see from this picture, it takes a LOT of solar engines to make enough electricity to feed our energy needs. While one looks cool, lots of them are kind of unattractive.

This solar farm is in a fairly desolate spot in the Mohave Desert where the general population is not likely to complain about aesthetics. But the solar project, which has been winning clean energy awards, has a new problem: a California judge “struck down plans to build a high power transmission line (through a national park,) effectively dooming the massive solar initiatives set to be built in the desert,” reports Daily Tech.

The problem? The 150-foot transmission lines needed to bring the electricity mostly to San Diego, would have cut through Anza-Borrego State Park, which contains many protected species. The environmental impact report is 11,000-pages long.

Not surprisingly, appeals are planned. My guess is a solution will be eventually found; huge power plants of any sort rarely stay idle for long, especially in a world where petroleum supplies are dwindling.

Other, even larger solar farms are in development. The world’s largest, which is being developed by Cleantech America Inc., is expected to open in Spring of 2009 in Mendota, California.

Personally, I’m enamored by Stirling generating technology. On paper, it is clean and efficient compared to toxic chemical-dependent solar cells.

The problem isn’t with the technology itself, but rather the American Way of doing things. For efficiency’s sake, everything in this country is done on a massive scale, which often damages the environment while putting all our eggs in one or two massive baskets.

I recall an article in Scientific American that mentions there is enough available, non-environmentally sensitive land in the Southwest to power much of the nation. But wherever these farms are built, transmission lines need to be built. Big, ugly ones right through sensitive habitats and beautiful landscapes.

There is an alternative: homegrown renewable power. Much like the idea of growing food locally, why not produce energy locally to minimize damage to our environment?

The benefits are pretty obvious: using rooftops and parking lots for wind and solar generation means less land is torn up for energy production and transmission. Less energy is wasted en route from power source to power tool. Money that would have been spent on transmission lines could be spent on improving rooftops and other urban areas where homegrown energy would be installed.

We can even use the necessary physical improvements to beautify our cities. Chicago is the leader in rooftop gardens. And a Japanese consortium has made solar cells that look like leaves, reports Engadget.

While I’ve long wondered if decentralized power generation was feasible, The New Rules Project recently released a report demonstrating the possibilities. The idea: windy cities can install windmills, sunny cities can install solar cells not only on rooftops, but also on parking lot canopies and even on building facades. (Even glass windows can be used to produce electricity.)

The potential is clear – most states can be energy independent by relying on their homegrown, renewable resources. At least twenty-one could satisfy 100 percent of their electricity needs from in-state renewable energy.

Don’t get me wrong, developing localized energy is anything but easy. It would require a massive investment in cities and homes. (Better to spend those trillions on energy than moronic, self-serving financial firms.)

Huge tax breaks would be needed to persuade homeowners and businesses to install solar cells or windmills on their roofs. Not to mention it’s a lot messier than just building big wind and solar facilities on empty land.

While solar cells might be more appropriate for our house, Stirling motors might work well on our school roof. If you live in Iowa, a few attractively designed wind generators might do the trick.

States with abundant empty land will still build large generating plants, of course. It’s good for those state’s economies and its wise to have multiple sources of energy, anyway.

All I’m saying is let’s just be sensible enough to not tear up all of America’s land for energy production.