The task force, chaired by Washington College’s own Briggs Cunningham, examined what they considered the four major sources of renewable energy for this area:  wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass.

Here are the results of the task force:

Biomass

- “The recommendations for biomass systems, in all zoning districts, are few.”

-“They should address any impact on surrounding properties, and there should be a waste management plan”

Geothermal

- “Recommendations, again, were brief, mainly that geothermal systems are for houses and buildings.”

- “Homeowners and the school district already have some geothermal systems around the county.”

Solar

- “for utility scale power generation, only solar makes sense in Kent County”

- “Solar farms as a permitted use can be on land zoned Industrial, up to a limit of 50 percent of available acreage.”

- “if solar utility systems are so popular they’ve used up 25 percent of the county’s Employment Center or Industrial zoned land, they would revisit the 25 percent limit.

- “A utility-scale solar power installation in Ag and Resource Conservation requires a special exception for no more than five acres of panels.

- “Small solar systems to help power a house or building are permitted accessory uses in the Industrial zone, with some restrictions, and in Ag, Resource Conservation, Residential Character, Rural Residential, Critical Area Residential, Community Residential, Village and Marine.”

Wind

- “Based on Government studies, the amount of wind here is “poor” to “marginal” for commercial operations.”

-  “The recommendations exclude large, utility-scale generators on towers hundreds of feet tall.”

-  “Small wind power, if the property is suitable, is a permitted accessory use in Commercial, Industrial, various residential …”

These restrictions seem to be the norm in my opinion for a rural location like Kent County.  For a place that beat Wal-Mart, and after reading the title of the article, I was expecting these new regulations to be the extreme.  Also the folks from Seven Seas mentioned that Kent County was about to ban high rising wind turbines, and I figured things like solar, and other forms of renewable energy would be banned too.  The exclusion of large scale wind turbines was by far the worst thing on this list, but since the resource is not available here, there is really no loss.  I was pleasantly surprised with the solar panel restrictions because they seem pretty relaxed.  Two things that seemed very progressive to me were the fact that the group is allowing residential solar (slight restrictions based by neighborhood) and that they would revisit certain situations if solar power was becoming a large business in the area.

“U.S. Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) joined U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development State Director Jack Tarburton and U.S. Congressmen Roscoe Barlett (MD-6) to announce that USDA Rural Development is providing grants for 13 renewable energy and energy efficiency  projects in Maryland under the Rural Energy for American Program (REAP).” (Chestertown Spy, 2010)

The project was announced on Sunnyside Farms, Inc in Carroll county, which is one of the sites planned to receive funding for a project.  This project is “the largest farm-based, grid-tied, ground-mounted solar system in Maryland,” reports the Chestertown Spy.  From the USDA the Sunnyside Farm will receive $220,500 to build a solar panel system to help with the energy needs of the farm.  The solar panel project at Sunnyside will consist of  936 solar panels, each producing 220 watts situated on 1 acre of land.  The grant only covers 25% of the cost of the solar project at Sunnyside, but this project is well worth the initial cost to the farm.  The project will provide 25% of the electric needs for the farm, which will in-turn qualify the farm for a grant form the Maryland Energy Administration for $50,000.  Plus the Federal Government provides a 30% Federal Investment Tax Credit and Renewable Energy Credits.  (Chestertown Spy)

Bright Helmstone Farms, Inc.

For the 13 recipients receiving grants there is an available $747,994.  The Bright Helmstone Farm in Massey is receiving $20,000 to upgrade its grain dryer.  The funds available from REAP can be used for “renewable energy systems, energy efficient improvements, feasibility studies, energy audits, and renewable energy development assistance.” (Chestertown Spy)

The following chart represents a project in Ohio that was funded by grands of the USDA in 2008.

(Midwest Combined Heat and power Application Center)

As you can see the energy efficiency of this farm’s grain drying was significantly increased with the installation of a new dryer.  In the electric dryer, the efficiency showed a 47% improvement, while the propane dryer saw a 37% improvement. (USDA Rural Development, 2010)

(Midwest Combined Heat and power Application Center)

This farm in Ohio not only received a cost reduction of $8,124, but they have the added benefit of using less electricity and less propane, reducing the amount of fossil fuels burned, which leads to pollution and global warming.  (USDA Rural Development) Senator Ben Cardin is quoted as saying these projects are a “model for how agricultural businesses can utilize renewable energy to save money and help our nation become less dependent on foreign oil.” (Chestertown Spy)

The power plant that is projected to be built at Piedmont will generate 2.4 megawatts of power, enough to power about 1,339 homes.  The level of methane is expected to remain constant for decades before a significant drop in methane production occurs.  The 300 acre landfill is part of Waste Management’s larger project of opening 60 renewable energy facilities within the next five years.  The article states that Waste Management “supplies landfill-gas to over 115 North American projects and provides enough electricity to power more than 400,000 homes, saving 2.2 million tons of coal annually.” (Northwest Observer, 2010)

As I read the article I thought, well this sounds like it could be done here, in Kent County, at out local landfill.  Then I read about how the landfill is 300 acres and packed to its limit with garbage.  Below is an image of Nicholson Landfill in Fairlee.  If you look closely you can see the white PVC pipes that dot the ground, releasing methane into the atmosphere. I’d like to find out how much methane is actually release from this site and if energy could be made to at least power the energy needs of the  dump.

The second thing I want to mention is an article I found in the Baltimore Sun.  It is entitled “Maryland coast opened to offshore wind development”.  Basically it states that the federal government opened up bidding to place offshore wind turbines off the coast of Maryland.  This could be the larges US offshore wind project to date.  The turbines would be placed about 10 mile offshore of Ocean City, being invisible to folks walking the boardwalk on hot summer days.  They would be 20 miles off the shore of Assateague Island. (Baltimore Sun, 2010)

The project could potentially provide one gigawatt of electricity, helping Maryland reach its 20 percent renewable goal by 2022.  The project is likely years away from erecting wind turbines due to years of necessary studies on shipping, wildlife, and undersea conditions and habitats.  Its interesting that all of this hype toward offshore wind in Maryland is occurring just a few weeks after Google announced its plans to help build a transmission line for offshore wind power along the eastern seaboard.  I think that transmission is the greatest concern that I have about offshore wind power in Maryland.  The article mentions that the Eastern Shore of Maryland does not have adequate power lines to transmit this power generated on the Maryland coast.  A lot of things have to come together to make this project work, and luckily I think there are some reliable organizations behind it, Google being one of them.

In the late 1880s the war over AC versus DC was at its peak.  DC power was seen as safer than high voltage AC and was simple.  Edison advocated for a 100volt DC system, with about 110 volts running through the power lines to allow for a slight drop in voltage.  One of the greatest drawbacks of using DC power was the quick voltage drop that resulted from the resistance in transfer.  Every few thousand feet during transfer generating plants were necessary to keep up the voltage.  On the other hand, AC current was able to be transmitted at a high voltage over power lines due to the ease of lowering voltage through a transformer.  Eventually Westinghouse and AC power won the war, so we thought.

Jeff Green writes in businesweek.com, about Paul Savage, CEO of Nextek, manufacturers of lightning protection and  high current DC filters.  The article sites that in the late 1800s and early 1900s many devices ran on AC power, but today there is a constantly growing number of devices that rely on stable DC power, such as the computer and LED lighting.  With homes in the US wired for AC power, each of these devices must contain its own AC to DC adapter.  Paul Savage sees this as a power loss because each conversion from AC to DC wastes a little bit of electricity.  Instead of every device converting AC to DC, Savage says:

“if the electricity coming into a building were converted to DC at a single point, it could reduce waste by as much as 40%.” (Green, 2010)

Savage and Nextek have joined with Armstrong Ceiling Systems (manufacturer of drop ceilings) and Johnson Controls to develop a system of distribution of DC throughout the home.  In a pilot program a few homes in the Detroit area will be retrofitted with DC electrified ceilings.  Savage says:

“They’re safe to touch, so lights, ceiling fans, speakers, and other power hungry items ca be simply clipped in place.”   (Green, 2010)

I can’t help but think about bumper cars that you see in theme parks, but I don’t think its too safe to touch the ceilings there.  The power delivered to the ceiling is converted in something that resembles a “super-sized power strip.”  (Green, 2010)

If DC power could be delivered to homes and all/most AC to DC converters avoided Savage states that the amount of energy used in the United States alone could be reduced by 8.3 percent.  I don’t have the full understanding of how, or how much energy is lost in conversion, but I expected it was a lot.  I think this is a great idea, especially for all of those devices that we use everyday that run on less than 110 volts.  Low voltage DC sounds like a great idea for household use and for reducing energy waste.

The tidal power station works by the difference in the height of the water on either side of the dam.  As the water level on one side lowers, the water is forced out through an opening, but before leaving the pressure spins a turbine, creating electricity.  The power generated is fundamentally gravitational.  The water moves with the tides due to the earth-moon-sun interactions.  Some turbines can work in either direction, that is they produce energy when the basin is filling, and when the basin is emptying.   The image below shows a system where the dam only produces power when water is leaving the basin.

One of the problems associated with tidal energy is the lack of constant power.  I can see how this becomes a problem, when tides occur every 12.5 hours.  Usually twice a day you have a high and low, but what do you do between now and then?  That is, how do you sustain power, when you only have power every 12.5 hours?  Consistency is definitely an issue with tidal energy and does not seem to be a full solution to move away from fossil fuels.

There are also many environmental impacts, as well as navigational and shipping issues.  Recently an article was published on businessweek.com reporting that the U.K. had shelved an idea to build a tidal power plant that would supply 5% of its power needs.  The U.K. government concluded that wind and nuclear have been selected as better choices.  The tidal project was reported as costing about $48 billion, and was considered too expensive.  Along with high costs, the government reported issues of wildlife and habitat loss.  As many as 30 bird species, and many fish species could become locally extinct.  The mudflats and marshes used by migrating waterfowl would be affected and flooding would become more sever for residents who live nearby the reservoir.

While there are many advantages to tidal power, there are also many disadvantages.  There are certainly reason’s why we have not seen many dams built in the United States for the last 50 years.  The U.K tidal project would be the equivalent of building 4 nuclear power sites, “but instead of the plant lasting 40 years, it would last 120 years.”

Voting day is almost here, so I thought I would do some research on how Governor O’Malley and Ehrlich feel about renewable energy.  I had a feeling before I started delving into articles that Ehrlich may be a little more opposed to President Obama’s mandate to have 20% of energy from renewables by 2022.  After all Ehrlich doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to the environment.  In fact, in an effort to win the votes of the 7% of Marylanders on the east side of the bay he says that he will re-examine some of the new oyster restrictions.  The Baltimore Sun reports “But Ehrlich sides with the watermen, calling the cutbacks in public harvest areas “unfair” and suggesting that those who have spent their lives fishing on the bay know things scientists don’t about how to bring oysters back.”  O’Malley is credited with bringing the blue crab population back from the brink of extinction by imposing harvest restrictions two years ago.  The crab population has rebounded so much that some of the restrictions were able to be reduced.

So how does Ehrlich feel about renewable energy?   The Sun reports that he likes renewable energy and the fact that it gets us closer to being completely independent of foreign oil, but that’s not the usual answer for someone who cares about the environment.  Oh, that’s right, Governor Ehrlich is “skeptical of scientific evidence that emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other gases from human activity are changing the Earth’s climate.”  (Baltimore Sun, 2010) He cites examples of the news last year when scientists may have overshot the  data showing climate change.  Regardless of this data, one cannot deny the fact that the amount of pollutants, whether they be excess green house gas emissions, sulfur dioxide or mercury have increased.  Ehrlich says if elected governor again he will review the Maryland law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25%  by 2020.  He will also bucks the idea that Maryland will get 20% of its electric from renewables in 2022.

On the other hand, Governor O’Malley is all for clean, renewable sources of energy.  He backs the 2009 law requiring 20% renewable energy.  He also supports the 25% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020.  O’Malley plans to encourage offshore wind farms to cover this 25% reduction in pollutants and almost 20% increase in renewable energy production.  O’Malley is quoted as saying “the science and the imperative to act before this planet burns up is very real”.  (Baltimore Sun, 2010)

One day after the article outlining O’Malley’s and Ehrlich’s differences on renewable energy was release an article entitled “Maryland-based company leads Google-backed wind project” was released.  Essentially the article explained that a $5 billion power strip is to be installed in the mid-Atlantic Seaboard.  This power strip, or in other words a transmission network, will provide the resources for other companies to develop wind farms off the coast of Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey.  Trans-Elect Development Co, based in Chevy Chase Maryland is behind the project with Google Inc. having a 37.5% stake.  There would be 350 miles of network on the Atlantic Seaboard that would transmit power at four different sites along its journey.  Potentially 6,000 megawatts could be generated powering 13 nearby states and Washington D.C.. (Baltimore Sun, 2010)

California has established a goal of providing 33 % of their power from renewable energy resources by the year 2020.  Naturally the two approved solar power plants are in California.  The first plant will generate 709 megawatts and the second with generate 45 megawatts, both in the California desert.  The larger plant will use “Sun-catchers” to direct the sunlight and intensify the beam by using radar type dishes.  The smaller plant will use standard solar panels, as many as 40,500 panels infact.  The New York Times claims that as many as 566,000 homes could possible be powered by these two solar plants. (NY Times, 2010)

As you can see in the map above, the California desert is planned to be dotted with solar energy plants.  It is expected that Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, will approve as many as five more solar projects before the end of the year. (NY Times, 2010)  Mr. Salazar wants solar panels installed everywhere on public lands.  Even the White House has plans to update their solar panels, which were last used by President Jimmy Carter.  A combined 2,470 megawatts could be generated if the pending approval solar plants are granted by the end of this year.  Mr. Salazar was not very optimistic about the approval of the remaining plants, stating that the approval “is something that is not months away.” (NY Times, 2010)

The force behind this growth of solar energy are federal stimulus grants or federal loan guarantees.  They could provide over $2,100,000,000 for the larger power plant, producing 709 megawatts. (NY Times, 2010)

One problem of generating power in the desert remains.  How do we transport the power to the people who will utilize it.  Only 345 megawatts are available to be transferred on the currnet grid out of the 754 megawatts that would be generated by the new solar plants.  A new link from the California desert would be necessary to transmit the power.

Whether you agree or disagree with the federal government getting into the electricity business, you cannot deny that this would not affect the economy in a good way.  The Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council approve the projects and have helped in their design process to minimize their environmental impact.  The project is good no matter which way you look at it.  One of the greatest smog ridden states is moving away from the burning of fossil fuels and there will soon be many jobs created to build these solar energy plants.  Steven Chu, Energy Secretary for the United States when questioned about these new projects said “Deploying solar energy technologies across the country will help America lead the global economy for years to come.”

It starts off by telling us why the use of solar panels has recently increased.  Solar power (photovoltaics) has been around for decades, but has often been see as big, bulky and unsightly on the roof of your home.  I know when I moved with my family in 2007 the neighborhood ordinances were read at settlement.  One rule was no unsightly solar panels in the section of the rules that included no large satellites, tv antennas or clothes lines.  Over the past few years builders have started creating housing developments based on living sustainably, primarily by using less energy.  These developments are gaining popularity, especially in California.  Their popularity is due to the constant up and down of fuel and energy costs. Each home includes solar systems, but not the solar panels that we are familiar with.  Newer solar panels are incorporated directly into the roof, or the roof shingles.  A Georgia company, United Solar Ovonic, makes asphalt shingles that mimic the look of regular asphalt shingles.  Other companies make roof tiles that affix directly to your current roofing shingles.  The article goes on to explain how the asphalt solar shingles can be individual shingles or seamless, that is they run the length of your roof.  These innovations are great in convincing homeowners to purchase solar panels, but the article does mention that these methods are less effective at generating electric energy.  Shell Solar claims that their standard solar panel module is 10% more powerful than any other panel on the market. (Solar Systems)

The simplicity and efficiency of standard solar panels would probably convince me to purchase this type, if I were in the market for generating solar power.  Solar panels are very expensive and this article doesn’t go into price, but if I had to guess I would think that these new shingles are even more so.  Solar panels can be a do-it-yourself project, but solar shingles sound like a job for a contractor.  I can’t imagine the wiring system that must be involved in installing solar shingles.  It seems like there are drawbacks with each type of solar power generators, unsightly or expensive.

As I continue to research the modifications necessary to convert your house to use solar power hopefully I’ll find other methods for production that are easy on the eyes and the wallet.

This article really makes you wonder why, if so many local governments what to be more energy efficient, why haven’t they taken the steps to do so?  After reading the article, I would say that it tends to put the blame on the communities for not stepping up and putting more environmentally friendly techniques in place.  Not all of the blame should be given to the communities.  It seems that everything available for a small scale government to do without bursting their budget has been done.  Many governments have purchased transportation that either burns cleaner, or uses less (or alternative) fuel.  The have also switched to fluorescent lighting with can greatly reduce energy bills.  Other steps to reduce energy use, such as reducing green house gases from government buildings, vehicles, and public works have not been issued by over 75% of communities surveyed.  There is no way that every small town government could possibly meet what would be considered as good, or greatly reduced greenhouse gas emissions when there is no cost effective way to reduce these pollutants.  While energy consumption and the burning of fossil fuels is still cheap, change is not going to voluntarily take place.  Only when we can no longer pull enough oil out of the ground to meet the current demand will the realization occur that we need to find and use renewable energy resources.

There are many positives points that this article mentions.  The first thing that caught my eye was that Kent County is viewed as a “progressive county with an eye on green energy.”  That’s great and hopefully this new solar plant will promote other green businesses to expand to this area.    This solar power plant will hopefully ease more Kent Countians into this green mindset that should encourage more plants like this to be built else ware in the county.  I hope that this plant is successful, but I don’t know how successful you can be in unorganized town with a handful of commercial businesses.  Worton is the place to be in Kent County if you are looking for industry, after all it’s the only place in the county where the train still delivers material for businesses every week.  I can’t see that the plant in Worton would need to expand because of the lack of subscribers to its power.  I have some unanswered questions that will hopefully be addressed as the project moves further along.  How much power would the plant produce?  Could a company in Chestertown use power that was generated at the Worton solar plant, or only businesses in Worton?  If not, how can we supply Chestertown business owners with the option to use solar power?  How do the electric rates compare with the two other energy sources (Delmarva and Choptank)?