The Lib-Tory coalition government plans to fix prices for electricity in an effort to persuade the private sector to invest in new, alternative, and low-carbon forms of energy generation.  The aim of this price guarantee is to ensure the UK has the electricity generating capacity it needs while still meeting climate change targets.   About a quarter of the ageing coal fired and nuclear power stations will reach the end of their operational life in the next ten years.  Roughly half will have to go due tightening environmental regulations and many of Britain’s ageing nuclear plants have simply got to be decommissioned and shut down.

The government wants industry to build a new generation of power plants using low-carbon alternative technologies including renewable sources like wind, hydro or tidal, nuclear and clean coal and gas.  Those private investors will expect some form of return on this investment, so a range of incentives will give those same investors the certainty they say they need.    All forms of low carbon generation (including nuclear) will benefit from a feed-in tariff with long contracts and a guaranteed price for the electricity produced.  There would be extra support for what are described as younger technologies like offshore wind and wave power but the government maintains that there will be no specific subsidy for the nuclear industry.   Dis-incentives are also in place, such as support for the carbon price which will make it expensive to generate power using coal.  An emissions performance target should also put the brakes on any new coal-fired electricity generation schemes.    This new framework has been described as a once-in-a-generation chance to set energy policy for the next 20 years, promoting renewable power generation rather than the high-carbon alternatives.  For once, both the politicians and the regulator (Ofgem) admit that there will be a cost involved in doing all this and guess who will pay for it?

Ofgem has estimated that bills could rise by as much as 25% over the coming decade while the price comparison website uSwitch reckons that domestic energy bills will rise by £500 a year.  Even the Secretary of State, Chris  Huhne, has come clean by admitting that the average electricity bill of £500 a year would rise by £160 a year over the next two decades (although he claims that the increase  would be £190 a year if nothing is done).  There is no alternative?   Probably not in the short to medium term, but within 20 years ITER should come on line.  This is an experimental Tokomak fusion reactor which uses magnetic confinement to control the hot plasma and is scheduled to be built in 2018.  It’s hoped ITER will be the first such device to break even by getting more energy out than is put in.   Nuclear fusion has many theoretical advantages over nuclear fission.    It’s most definitely low carbon and has the potential to produce more energy.  We would have a virtually inexhaustible supply of fuel from deuterium in seawater and unlike present day atomic fission plants, fusion produces no nuclear waste products.

ITER is experimental and it will take several years of testing using hydrogen before slowly moving to a deuterium and tritium mix that should achieve full power.    If successful, the next step would be prototype fusion power plant maybe around 2030. Proving that fusion is entirely safe and economically viable would be the final and perhaps most difficult step.

Another potential route to nuclear fusion is Inertial Confinement which uses multiple lasers fired on a pellet of deuterium and tritium to heat the fuel to the necessary high temperature for fusion chain reactions to take place.    Two facilities pursuing this method of achieving fusion are the National Ignition Facility operating now in California and Laser Mégajoule (LMJ) which is planned for France in 2012.  Inertial confinement is much less efficient than Tokomak magnetic confinement, but a “fast ignition” device called  HiPER  is in the planning phase and should be ready around 2020.

Alternative energy sources like biomass, sunlight, wind or water now represent the earth-friendly solution that could replace the consume of harmful fossil fuels little by little. Nevertheless, there are lots of controversies related to the use of palm oil or food remains as bio fuel. Comparative studies indicate that without proper care such alternative energy sources could lead to a competition with food markets and would cause too low an improvement of the global warming issue.

Floating wind farms make superior alternative energy sources because they are planted in the middle of the ocean. They go as deep as 700 meters in water, and they bring the huge advantage of harnessing the strong ocean winds. In comparison with coastal areas where there are wind obstructions like hills, buildings or trees, ocean winds can reach much higher speeds with a direct increase of the energy production potential.

Among other alternative energy sources we should mention biogas digestion resulting in the generation of methane. Garbage and sewage systems are a huge reservoir of energy given the fact that anaerobe bacteria break down the biomass and produce methane. If ‘digesters’ were used, the resulting methane could be collected and put to very good use.

Hydrogen, as a water byproduct can also produce high amounts of energy on the one condition that it be used correctly and in optimal conditions. So far, the commercial use of hydrogen as one of the alternative energy sources has proved inefficient. It is for large-scale implementation that hydrogen production systems are hard to use. Yet, this should become a reality in the coming years, due to the increasing pressure to come up with a viable energy source.

Although influenced by climate in terms of efficiency, solar energy remains the most popular and efficient of all alternative energy sources. It is highly efficient for home heating and the production of electricity necessary to cover lighting needs. Moreover, there are serious tax reductions and rebates offered by the federal government for the purchase and installation of solar systems. There are some IRS forms to be filled before you can benefit from such programs.

Always appreciate the efficiency of alternative energy sources in your particular case. Maybe, you can use two sources of renewable energy, to increase the efficiency of the grid. Combined systems are more efficient and provide superior energy levels!

In a recent article in the Financial Post the authors make the case that while the Ontario government and its feed-in tariff(FIT) program quickly make the province a leader in renewable energy, other, traditionally “greener” economies are shifting away from subsidizing the industry. “Across the world,” says the sub-heading, “unsustainable subsidies for wind and solar are being cut back. Ontario is next.”

These comments come amid a flurry of interest in alternative energy in Ontario. New solar installations, manufacturing plants, and green careers are popping up all over the region, which now has the most community-owned power generation of any state or province in North America.

Ontario also boasts Ontario Solar Academy, the country’s only ISPQ-certified solar training institution where workers can benefit from PV installation courses taught according to standards widely recognized across the continent.

The FIT has made all of this possible, or at least aided greatly in the success, by offering high prices to producers of renewable energy who tie their projects into the grid. The wary author says that recent announcements that Ontario has the fastest-growing green energy market in the world ignore the fact that other countries, like Germany, are scaling back their feed-in tariffs. However, he carefully sidesteps some key points; namely, that Germany’s price reductions do not reflect a lack of desire for green energy by the country’s public or its institutions. Neither do they imply, on their own, a lack of profitability.

Alternative Energy Jobs – the Careers of the Future In fact, as recently as September, the German government set a goal to supply 60% of the country’s electricity using renewables by 2050. A goal like this could create many opportunities for graduates of Ontario’s PV installation courses and green engineering programs. It could also help establish a proud legacy for daring politicians like those behind the FIT. According to Germany’s Chancellor, Angela Merkel, “If we don’t lead the way, we won’t be able to convince other countries to take responsibility as well.” If anything, the problem with solar energy in Germany is that the country produces too much, a dilemma that supporters of emerging green energy industries in any country would envy. During peak periods, the grid has a hard time handling the load. So, while as with anything, solar power does not come without difficulties, articles like the one in FP are misleading. They imply a lack of support for green energy when, in fact, the opposite is shown to be true. PV and other renewable energy installations are par for the course in many countries across the globe. In reality, whether because of a lack of domestic oil reserves or out of the goodness of their hearts, many Europeans embrace green energy and recognize that it must and it will become an increasingly important part of the global power matrix. Critics of the FIT program and renewable energy in general should ask themselves where they want to be when oil and coal become things of the past – exporting home-grown advancements and technologies at a profit or buying someone else’s at a loss.

There are many aspects to different kinds of alternative energy sources. This is also to say that there are both advantages and disadvantages and it is vital to know all the negative benefits of alternative energy. First, thought, the following is an example of some of the best alternatives that are being used world over, to bring a positive change to societies. There is wind, water, solar and even biofuels. All the above come with merits that are undeniable but there are also negative benefits of alternative energy to speak about. This article will highlight some of these negatives.

Demerits Of Alternative Energy Sources

Let us look at the negative benefits of alternative energy starting with use of biofuels. There has been a great controversy and debate is ensuing over this source. There are so many negative benefits of alternative energy like this one. First, biofuels are derived from organic plant sources like maize and other edible foodstuff. It takes a lot of this organic material to produce a substantial amount of energy and waste products may not be used by humans. This raises a moral dilemma in the face of a starving world. Many people are dying of hunger while others are thinking of using tonnes of food to produce energy alternatives.

The above concern has been greatly considered in many a forum and a clear stand is never forthcoming. When is comes to wind, there are negative benefits of alternative energy as well. The negative benefits of alternative energy come in this way. It is the strong winds that mainly wreck havoc that are best suited to generate wind energy. This is the reason why many wind mills and turbines will be located at windy areas and often coat lines. Without a sustaining level of wind energy, a sustained energy production cannot come forth. In many ways, this is also limiting and some areas cannot benefit from it

The same case goes for solar energy. The negative benefits of alternative energy are seen when places that do not receive enough sunshine are left out. The right panels need to be installed in high potential areas and if this is not the case, the quality of energy will be compromised. The negative benefits of alternative energy are many and can be seen all over. However, when in need of an alternative, you can simply look for one that will be best suited to your area. Consider all the pros and cons and you can be sure to install or harness the ideal energy.

Anyone with even half a brain can see that alternative, “green” energy is currently expensive, inefficient and unreliable. It is delusional to believe that wind and solar power could possibly replace baseload fossil fuel electricity generation in the near future. But their failures can be quite spectacular, however (see pic), like the wave power generator in Port Kembla which now lies wrecked at the bottom of the sea, a sad playground for sea-life. It was visited in 2007 by Peter Garrett, who declared it “a terrific example of clean energy” and pledged the Rudd government to drive a “clean energy revolution”…

The landmark Oceanlinx wave energy system, the Mk3PC, sits underwater at the bottom of Port Kembla’s eastern break wall after heavy seas ripped the unit from its moorings.

The 170-tonne structure, which was located 150m offshore, broke free of its pylons on Friday afternoon.

Representatives from the Sydney-based company Oceanlinx immediately rushed to Port Kembla, but attempts to tow the structure to safety were hampered by heavy seas.

The barge-like structure was lodged tight against the eastern breakwater on Friday night with crews expected to make a second effort on Saturday, but by Saturday morning the structure had sunk.

Port Kembla Port Corporation CEO Dom Figliomeni said meetings with Oceanlinx representatives would be held today to discuss salvaging the unit.

“What we have been doing over the weekend is monitoring the unit to make sure it doesn’t enter shipping channels,” Mr Figliomeni said. “At the moment it is no danger to anyone.”

Certainly no danger to coal fired electricity production, anyway. Unfortunately, there isn’t such a thing as a clean energy revolution. Clean energy requires massive government subsidies to make it competitive, destroying jobs rather than creating them.