U.S. Disaster Costs Doubled in 2020, Reflecting Costs of Climate Change

The $95 billion in damage came in a year marked by a record number of named Atlantic storms, as well as the largest wildfires recorded in California.

 

 Hurricanes, wildfires and other disasters across the United States caused $95 billion in damage last year, according to new data, almost double the amount in 2019 and the third-highest losses since 2010.

The new figures, reported Thursday morning by Munich Re, a company that provides insurance to other insurance companies, are the latest signal of the growing cost of climate change. They reflect a year marked by a record number of named Atlantic storms, as well as the largest wildfires ever recorded in California.

 Those losses occurred during a year that was one of the warmest on record, a trend that makes extreme rainfall, wildfires, droughts and other environmental catastrophes more frequent and intense.

 “Climate change plays a role in this upward trend of losses,” Ernst Rauch, the chief climate scientist at Munich Re, said in an interview. He said continued building in high-risk areas had also contributed to the growing losses.

Topping the list was Hurricane Laura, which caused $13 billion in damage when it struck Southwestern Louisiana in late August. Laura was one of the year’s record number of 30 named storms in 2020; 12 of those storms made landfall, another record. The storms caused $43 billion in losses, almost half the total for all U.S. disasters last year.

In addition to the number of storms, the 2020 hurricane season was unusually devastating because climate change is making storms more likely to stall once they hit land, pumping more rain and wind into coastal towns and cities for longer periods of time, Mr. Rauch said.

The next costliest category of natural disasters was convective storms, which includes thunderstorms, tornadoes, hailstorms and derechos, and caused $40 billion in losses last year. The derecho that struck Iowa and other Midwestern states in August caused almost $7 billion in damage, destroying huge amounts of corn and soybean crops.

Wildfires caused another $16 billion in losses. Last year’s wildfires stood out not just because of the numbers of acres burned or houses destroyed, Munich Re said, but also because so much of that damage was outside of California. Some 4,000 homes were damaged or destroyed in Oregon alone.

The new numbers come as the insurance industry struggles to adjust to the effects of climate change. In California, officials have tried a series of rule changes designed to stop insurers from pulling out of fire-prone areas, leaving homeowners with few options for insurance.

Homeowners and governments around the United States need to do a better job of making buildings and communities more resilient to natural disasters, said Donald L. Griffin, a vice president at the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, which represents insurance companies.

“We can’t, as an industry, continue to just collect more and more money, and rebuild and rebuild and rebuild in the same way,” Mr. Griffin said in an interview. “We’ve got to place an emphasis on preventing and reducing loss.”

The data also shows another worrying trend: The lack of insurance coverage in developing countries, which makes it harder for people there to recover after a disaster.

The single costliest disaster of 2020 was a series of floods that hit China last summer, which according to Munich Re caused $17 billion worth of damage. Only 2 percent of those losses were insured, the company said.

Similarly, Cyclone Amphan, which struck India and Bangladesh in May, caused $14 billion of damage, “very little of which was insured,” according to Munich Re. Of the $67 billion in losses from natural disasters across Asia last year, only $3 billion, or 4.5 percent, was covered by insurance.

Without insurance, Mr. Rauch said, “the opportunity to recover fast after such an event is simply not there.”

=====

Even better insurance is to be prepared. A small footprint Autonomous Mobile Energy System (AMES) can be delivered to any location in the world, rapidly deployed and start producing clean energy, without requiring any fuel supply or connecting to the grid, in an uninterrupted way.

 

 

It Is Time to Consider Transitioning to Autonomous Distributed Energy

Storm leaves more than 275,000 people without power in Southern Quebec

Hundreds of thousands of people are still without power in southern Quebec after the region was hit freezing rain and strong winds.

Quebec-Hydro says the storm Monday caused branches and trees to come in contact with their network, leaving 275,000 people without power by early Tuesday morning.

The Crown corporation says the hardest hit areas were Laval, Lanaudiere and the Laurentians.
Meanwhile, the city of Laval opened two community centres for the night to help people without electricity.
By Tuesday morning, more than 80,000 people in the city were without power, while more than 90,000 were still left in the dark in Lanaudiere.

Hydro-Quebec spokesman Louis-Olivier Batty said Monday evening that teams from regions less affected by the power outages had been called in as reinforcements.
From The Canadian Press.

Few weeks ago it was a cyclone Idai which was of course much more catastrophic disaster in Africa. Now it is a storm, blackout, people without heat in Canada. Isn't it time to consider transitioning to distributed autonomous energy generation? Consider AMES module developed by Ascent Systems Technologies. Multiple modules can be deployed throughout the areas affected by the disaster. In the case of one or even several modules going out of service, it will not affect other modules, so the impact will be minimized and localized. Individual modules can be quickly brought back to service without disrupting large areas. Moreover, the modules can be deployed in the "at risk" areas in advance. They would "hibernate" in the transport configuration and can be automatically and remotely activated when needed. Imagine how many lives can be saved and large economic loss can be avoided?

Climate change, natural and other disasters are not going to go away - on the contrary they will become more frequent and more severe. We need strategic thinking. 

Energy Mini-Video Series

Today I am launching a series of mini video-lectures about energy - the role it plays in our life, the challenges we face accessing it, and about technologies which are going to change the way we generate, deliver and use energy.
This is the first - introductory - installment of the series. Enjoy!

Also available on YouTube: Energy - Introduction

Space Solar - the Future of Energy?

Today, there are many drivers for the development of renewable energy sources, with national defense, rampant over-population of the planet, quality of life for future generations, and concern for the environment all near the top of the list. Yet we seem content to burn the fuels we can gather from our surroundings, much like our ancestral cave-dwellers did for tens of thousands of years before “modern” man’s arrival.

There have been substantial efforts to introduce and make wider use of renewable energy, however, according to the International Energy Agency the world's share of renewable energy in 2012 was just 13.2% and according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the world's consumption of renewable energy in 2015 dropped to 12.5%. Taking into account that these figures include hydro power, which today makes majority of renewables (but has limited potential for growth) the share of solar energy is estimated at 3% or below.

Sun is the most abundant and unlimited source of energy. With the recent advances in technology and mass production solar approaches, and in some instances have reached parity with the traditional sources. Why don't we use it more widely and eliminate the need for fossil fuels completely? The reason is (and similarly for wind) is in its intermittent and unreliable nature, and their uneven availability across different geographical locations. Previously I have written about the Ascent Mobile Energy System (AMES). The module can be delivered to practically any destination, deployed and produce clean energy in autonomous mode. However, even such an advanced integrated system can be challenged to sustain uninterrupted energy production for extended period of time beyond Arctic Circle or in other locations with extreme environments.

There is a technology however which for a long time has been a subject of science fiction only. It is called Space Solar Power, or SSP. The idea of SSP in theory is simple: harvesting virtually unlimited solar energy with orbiting collectors and beaming it to Earth. Unlike terrestrial solar (or wind), the Space Solar is available any time of the day and year, is not subject to weather conditions or obstacles, and - the most important - has no geographical limitations. 

State of technology and humongous cost of its realization, combined with relatively low fuel prices, for a long time hindered its development. Now the technological gap is closing rapidly, and with the growing energy demand and all the challenges meeting it, the cost can be overcome. It became a subject of intense research in recent years and a number of countries have started testing technology in practice. 

The US, Japan, and Russia have all made investments in this area, and the space departments of Canada, Europe, and South Korea are also conducting related research.
However it is China who is expected to be the world's first country to build a practical solar power station in space according to Li Ming, a research fellow from China Academy of Space Technology.
China entered the top ranks in research of space solar power after decades of research which has significantly narrowed the gap with other leading countries.
China has undertaken the research of space solar power since 2008, with a number of major breakthroughs in wireless energy transmission achieved. According to Wang Li, another research fellow with the CAST, experts from both home and abroad agree about China's leading role in this field. Apart from the technology, the construction of the space solar-power station also needs huge investment, broad market and support from government, all three factors China can deliver, unlike other countries.
Space solar power will ease environmental and energy pressure on China, and also expected to spur the country's innovation and emerging industries.
(Source:  China Daily)

Global Atlas for Renewable Resources

Global Atlas 2.0 
IRENA, CENER (Spain), DLR (Germany), Masdar Institute (UAE), NREL (USA) and MINES ParisTech (France) are very pleased to announce the release of Global Atlas 2.0. This new version features maps for solar, wind, geothermal, biofuel and marine energy, and includes new functions and tools such as:
- Map gallery: Search maps by keyword, location or source
- Infopicker: Access data, tools and country profiles from REsource – IRENA’s Knowledge Gateway
- Catalog search: Search for more data by name, location, keyword or data quality (beta)
- Universal data viewer: Solar and wind graphs and charts in one click. Data can be downloaded
- User feedback: report your user experience to IRENA
- Share: share maps and values with your network
The Global Atlas initiative is coordinated by IRENA with support from 67 countries and an international consortium of data and expertise providers.
All existing user profiles and maps in the current platform will remain active in the new application.

Array of IEM^© Integrated Energy Modules by Ascent Systems Technologies equipped with irradiation and other sensors collecting real-time environment data will provide pinpoint accurate solar, wind and other resource information complementing or directly contributing to the Global Atlas.    

Wake up Canada - part 2

Ban Ki-moon, in an exclusive interview with CBC News, says Canada needs to stop stalling on setting climate change goals, and instead become "ambitious and visionary."
The UN Secretary General, while acknowledging the Stephen Harper government pledged $300 million dollars to the UN's Green Climate Fund that helps developing countries fight climate change, said there's more to be done by Canada at home.

• Canada's climate inaction leaves it 'increasingly isolated' ahead of COP 20

"It's only natural that Canada as one of the G7 countries should take a leadership role," he said in an interview with CBC News chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge on The National.
Part of that change would involve moving away from a reliance on fossil fuels.
"There are ways to make a transformative change from a fossil fuel-based economy to a climate-resilient economy by investing wisely in renewable energy choices," he said.
According to the recent 2014 Climate Change Performance Index, a report from European groups Climate Action Network Europe and Germanwatch, only Australia rivals Canada in terms of its poor climate change record, among 34 countries analyzed.
Ban said there's additional pressure for Canada to act in the wake of the recent deal between the U.S. and China to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.

UN Climate Change Conference talks are ongoing in Lima.

Wake up Canada

Canada under pressure after U.D., China agree to curb greenhouse gases

I keep saying that nobody will need Canadian gas and oil by the time they build those pipelines...

There is a better alternative.

Wake up call for Canada

Dear Gerald,

I read with interest your article in the SPIN. May I offer my two cents of opinion on the subject?   

First I must admit I agree with many points you made. For example, there is no need in 21st century to fly over the world to demonstrate support for climate change action. I totally agree that televised video-conference would be not only more efficient but also more effective. A great example of this approach I witnessed at the Green Buildings Council Conference in Vancouver last year where Cisco technology (which was one of the sponsors of the Conference) allowed to connect live audiences from Portland Oregon, Germany (forgot the city) and Shanghai China with Vancouver over the gigantic wall screens. 
  

I would leave the discussion of the level of urgency on the climate change aside for time being – but I hope we agree that both so called “green” side and its opponents (should we call it “black” for oil?) have their agenda and political lobbies. Either side is supported and promoted by various sectors of industry and because of that they have more in common than different. They all want to build mega-gigantic projects – economy of scale of course – be it a wind farm, a solar power plant the kind you mention in your article, a hydroelectric dam nuclear power plant or any other. 
   

Any technology has its hurdles. And any large-scale projects create large-scale problems. Wind turbines kill birds and bats (by the way, encasing them in the “housing” will significantly reduce turbine's efficiency so this is not a good option). Solar plants expropriate large areas of land and contribute to the grid instability. Hydro dams flood huge areas and disturb regional ecosystems (Site C comes to mind). Fukushima disaster reminded again of potential dangers of nuclear meltdown. 
   

But keep being reliant on fossil fuels – be it oil or natural gas - is not an alternative. “Business as usual” is an equivalent of stagnation at best, and in a world moving forward with a fast pace it is a guarantee to be left behind. The statement that fossil fuels are “wonderfully efficient, abundant throughout the world’s crust and will not go away” is extremely misleading. If a definition of efficiency is simply "being cheap” in a short run, then I want to know a long-term cost. "Abundance" is a very relative notion. Distribution of fossil fuels around the planet is very uneven – this is why some parts of it have to bring them from the other side of the globe spending lots of the same fossil fuel on the way. “Will not go away” doesn’t even fit common sense. All natural resources are finite, and in the case of fossil fuels the rate of their extraction exceeds the rate of their natural generation by thousands times - this is the fact which will not go away. Don’t forget oil is used not only for fuel – all plastics, paints, a lot of cosmetics and number of other products are derived from oil. While we may change our estimates of when the so called “oil peak” occurs, new methods of the natural resources extraction can only accelerate the rate of their depletion. They are also becoming more costly, which eats into the so called “efficiency” of fossil fuels. Alternative technologies, particularly solar PV and solar thermal, at the same time are becoming less expensive and more efficient in terms of their performance. 
  

Cost of one alternative versus another deserves more discussion. Even if one would wave away an indirect cost of a long-term consequences of a greenhouse effect and global warming - which although would be not wise but it is in the human nature to think what would happen later - he or she can hardly do the same about the health affecting air, ground and water pollution. And what about after-cost of unavoidable equipment failures and human errors? Shall we recount events like oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, derailment in Lac-Megantic, an explosion at pump station in Saskatchewan and barely avoided another disaster with the Russian cargo ship which lost power near the British Columbia coast? 

Risking of falling victim of the overused (and may be over-politicized) term “sustainability” I need to say few words about it. Any system – technical, economical, biological or social – consists of a number of components. In very general terms, sustainability is a system’s ability to remain in balance over extended period of time without need for external resources or energy. In other word’s it is a measure of a system’s stability. It is a lesson of generations of engineers that the more complex system is – i.e. consisting of a larger number of components – the less stable it is.

One of the most familiar and relevant examples of a complex system is a power grid, consisting of a large number of energy producers (typically power plants), even a bigger number of all sorts and sizes energy consumers (from residential homes to institutions and industry) and an extremely tight and interconnected energy transmission and distribution network including under and above ground power lines, substations and many other. In a centralized grid all components are highly inter-dependent, which on numerous occasions was demonstrated by big blackouts, recently in Calgary. Residents of Sun Peaks are very well familiar with the consequences of a drunk driver hitting a power pole. Several hours in darkness, and often in cold during the winter is not fun to say the least!

Take another example, from a subject which became touchy recently – distribution of oil and natural gas over pipelines. Complex, expensive, subject of environmental concerns and political disagreements, their short-term benefits are unstable. As with any resources, demand for Canadian oil is highly dependent on an unpredictable international business and political environment. Pipeline like the Northern Gateway is an easy target for terrorists’ attacks and political manipulation. Take example of Russia using its natural gas supply as a tool for political pressure on Ukraine and not too subtly - on Western Europe. Bet on China is a very risky gamble. For one, Russia will easily and happily overflow it with much cheaper oil and gas than Canada can ever afford to offer. US is already resisting Canadian oil – not only they have enough of its own but they are steadily moving away from oil dependency. 
     

I hear you asking - what is the alternative? Glad to oblige. I am not a supporter of government mandated or subsidized technologies, but I strongly think we need a long-term sustainable national energy strategy based on the System Approach and Real Options methodology.

Decentralized energy system should be very seriously considered. Continuous progress in solar, particularly solar thermal technologies in combination with air and ground source active heat exchange, as well as in in energy storage technologies including fuel cells and phase-change thermal accumulators, makes a self-sufficient house or a building a real possibility. We are talking about more than “net-zero” building where more energy produced than consumed at some periods of time but it needs to draw energy from the grid at other times averaging to about zero over the year. We are talking about a building as a self-sufficient system. Passive design, energy conservation measures and new highly thermoresistant materials in combination with ultra-efficient lights, appliances and electronic equipment significantly lower energy demand. Equipped with on-site renewable energy generation, heat recovery, water recycling. No more blackouts or freezing while waiting for a power to be restored. Individual houses are connected in an “intelligent network”. A further evolution of a “smart grid”, it is a sort of an “energy cloud” in which all nodes are independent from each other but can combine the power when needed.  
     

The projects like Northern Gateway and alike take an enormous amount of financial and intellectual resources which could not be used elsewhere. The more we invested in these the more difficult it will be to change the course later. It is more than likely that much higher return on investment in 30 to 50 years of projected lifetime would be achieved if invested in the research of new technologies. This would have more than economical and environmental benefits but also decide on which way Canada would be moving in the future – slide to a backward resource dependent state or move toward the advanced technological society. And if the government still wants to build something large across the country I have a proposal - high-speed train connecting Canadian West and East Coast. It works for Japan, Taiwan and Korea - why it shouldn't in Canada? 
  

Underwater Energy Storage

Browsing recently through the latest issue of IEEE Spectrum - my favorite nighttime reading  - I came across of one interesting idea - underwater energy storage, developed and currently being deployed in a pilot project by a Canadian company Hydrostor. Having recently considered a pump back hydro storage for one of our clients, we came to a conclusion that the potential and difficult to accurately estimate  environmental impact of a large scale project (it would not be economically viable on a small scale), its high cost and other limitations make such a project hard to justify.
An underwater energy storage on another hand largely mitigates these problems. One version is a flexible underwater balloon, looking not unlike high-flying air balloon, is convenient for small-to-medium size applications, can be deployed temporary and re-deployed with little disturbance to the fauna and environment at large.

An underwater energy storage implemented as permanent installation is more suited for medium-to-large size applications and can actually benefit underwater fauna by providing with the structure to build an ecosystem not unlike the coral reefs.          
 

Is there a future for Biofuels? Part 2

It appears there is after all ... and for the power generated with biofuel.

Green Energy Project in Merritt, British Columbia
- State of the art biomass facility to generate 40 MW of clean electricity
- Will help support local forest industry and mills and create new jobs
- Merritt is the second BC biomass plant project by Dalkia and Fengate, bringing their investment in the province to $470 million.

While not the "greenest" of all still a much better alternative to fracking and mega-pipelines...

Choices We Make - Part 3

In one of my recent posts I mentioned an idea of the common energy policy for North America and promised to continue on it. I want to make clear - my view is quite different, if not opposite - to what is often promoted as the  North American Energy Strategy.

Here is my two cents on it:

1. You cannot reduce greenhouse gas emissions while increasing oil and gas production - it is like eating a cake and having it too.

You cannot reduce greenhouse gas emissions while increasing oil and gas production – it is like eating a cake and having it too. - See more at: http://common-resources.org/2014/resources-magazine-toward-a-north-american-energy-strategy/#sthash.R5EzSLUo.dpuf

You cannot reduce greenhouse gas emissions while increasing oil and gas production – it is like eating a cake and having it too. - See more at: http://common-resources.org/2014/resources-magazine-toward-a-north-american-energy-strategy/#sthash.R5EzSLUo.dpuf

2. While coordinated policy is desirable and important, it should be directed not to tying all North America energy resources in one gigantic web with a monster "spider" in the middle pulling the strings, but to creating a distributed array of loosely connected intelligent mini- and micro-systems allowing more flexibility, reliability (preventing massive blackouts and large-scale consequences of natural or human-induced disasters), extensibility and ability of non-disruptive evolution to new technologies.

While coordinated policy is important and desirable, - See more at: http://common-resources.org/2014/resources-magazine-toward-a-north-american-energy-strategy/#sthash.R5EzSLUo.dpuf

Choices We Make, Part 2

Another Mega-project has been approved by the Government of Canada. The Northern Gateway is a proposed 1,200 kilometer twin pipeline that would carry bitumen from the oil sands in Alberta to the coast of British Columbia. From there, the crude would be shipped to Asian markets.

The $7-billion pipeline would be developed by Enbridge, a major Canadian energy delivery company based in Calgary. The application to the National Energy Board was submitted in 2010. Since then, a review panel hosted consultations and heard from residents of the affected communities. The panel eventually approved the project, but with 209 conditions to be met. It is not a surprise that many still disagree to say the least.

Former Conservative MP Stockwell Day says: There are already thousands of pipelines running across North America, and the Northern Gateway pipeline, if approved, will be one of the "safest and most sophisticated." 

Dear Mr. Day. Perhaps you remember we met with you some time ago and I told you about my aerospace background. As someone who spent more than 30 years building complex systems in various areas I know not only in theory but in practice as well, that any technical system, as "safe" as it might seem, will fail sooner or later. And in most cases the reason for it would be not a natural disaster or even a terrorist attack, which are always a possibility, but a basic human error. (Just remember Lac-Megantic derailment, or the South Korean ferry accident). When failure happens, we would look back and ask ourselves: "Why?"  
Why all the discussion is around how to move oil - one way or another? Why do we need to move it at all? Why not consider refining it on-site (or as close as possible)? Selling oil to the Asian market has very  questionable economic prospects - Russia will easily undercut Canadian prices. And because Europe is transitioning to alternative sources, in 20 years (this is probably an optimistic time frame for the Northern Gateway to start its operation) Russia will flood all the oversupply to China pushing Canadian oil out.
There are different alternatives completely. If the government's argument is exclusively about money, why not compare the pipeline with other possible ways of investing $7 billion and see what return can be obtained from investing in technical innovation, energy conservation, renewable energy, distributed systems etc. On the scale 20 years many alternatives will show at least the same, but likely a bigger economic potential than pipeline ,with much less environmental risks and they would have much more public support. On a global scale, it would show our commitment to contributing into resolving global pollution problem rather than contributing into the problem. Most importantly, instead of remaining a backward resource-based economy, it would create a path for Canada to become a nation with a modern future-oriented economy, which we all would be proud of and our children and grand-grandchildren would be grateful for.   

There are choices we make, but there is at least one choice - between Future and No Future - we should not be making...

Choices We Make: Part 1

More than a year ago I wrote about system approach which is a must for Sustainable Development.

A lot has happened in the world since then. Syria conflict, Iraq insurgency, Putin's invasion into Ukraine, Obama's announcement of the new GHG targets.
World can go upside down, but nothing seems to shift Canadian national "energy policy", still counting on oil, gas and pipelines to deliver them.

Not being a particular fan of Hillary Clinton, must say I very much agree with what she said in the interview with CBC Peter Mansbridge about climate and energy policy: "Why not to create a common energy policy for North America, including Canada, USA and Mexico based on the plan of transition from fossil fuels to renewables?".  Indeed - why not? In global issues such as climate and energy going beyond national orders is much more effective than trying to do something in isolation. After all, there is NORAD, there is NAFTA, why can't there be NAES (North American Energy and Sustainability) ?

To be continued...

Energy: Choices we make

“All serious mistakes are made on the day One. Worse yet, you may have to live with them for decades”. This was said about project development, but can also be applied to political decisions and national strategy.

The case in point: Australian National Broadband Network.

Canada (as the rest of the world) is currently at a crossroad in respect to its long-term national energy strategy. What choice will we make? Here are some of the possible options:

--------
Coal

Coal is one of the traditional and still the "cheapest" sources of energy. It is however recognized even by its proponents that its impact on the environment, mostly  CO2 emissions, is not something which can be ignored. The so called "clean coal" is only a temporary solution - as its business case based on the purchasing of the recycled CO2 by the oil industry (see Clean Coal - Is It for Real?)  - until other alternatives will make it unnecessary and obsolete.   

--------
Gas

It seems the world turned 180 degrees since just few years ago since the new reserves and new technologies of extracting oil and natural gas came to light. We seem to forget the concept of the "oil peak" popular a decade ago and tend to ignore now that even with comparatively lower direct CO2 emissions from natural gas there are many other negative factors associated with the oil and natural gas, particularly methane (which has 23 times more greenhouse potential than natural gas itself) and other harmful bi-products. What especially bothers me is that choosing this way will only prolong our addiction to fossil fuels and divert resources and capital from developing real clean alternatives - thus making inevitable migration away from fossil fuels in the future more painful      
Safety is an additional - and ever increasing concern. The oil and gas extracted from Northern Alberta or other places has to be delivered to the processing plants and eventually to their end-users. Pipelines are susceptible to leaks and to terrorism. Delivery by train carries an inherent danger which was tragically demonstrated by the derailment and explosion in Lac-Megantic. Also, the risk of spill from tankers, however small it can be, may as it already had in the recent past, have very serious consequences.      

----------
Hydro

Electricity produced by hydro plants is generally considered "clean". One of the best examples of it is British Columbia where 90% of electricity is produced by hydro plants. At the same time construction of new large hydroelectric dams, like the one is planned in the Peace River region of British Columbia (Site C dam C dam), is met with increasing and well justified resistance due to the large areas of agricultural and lands with valuable habitat would be lost.  An ambitious plan to build a large number of hydro dams in China which is in desperate need of energy while reducing air pollution causes the same concern.   

---------------
Nuclear

It is impossible to discuss nuclear energy within few paragraphs without addressing both its high output, nuclear industry reliability track record, but also potential dangers of catastrophic failure and enormous complications related to storing of nuclear waste. I will limit the discussion by one comment only - assuming all hurdles of such endeavor as new nuclear project are overcome, it will take many years and billions of dollars of capital investment  to implement such a project.


----------
Wind 

Wind turbines are a source of clean energy and become increasingly popular and wide-spread, especially in Europe. The capacity factors and useful service life of industrial wind turbines (IWT) are important determinants of levelized wind energy costs. However, some recent studies have brought to light the capacity factors are less and useful service life is shorter than typically assumed. Based on analyses of actual production results, it appears the capacity factors of wind energy projects in many areas of the world are much less than previously estimated. As a result, the capital costs and environmental impacts of implementation would be much greater. It is typically assumed that the life span of the wind turbine is 25 years. But even 20 years may be too optimistic.

The analysis of almost 3000 onshore wind turbines in the UK - the biggest study of its kind - warns that they will continue to generate electricity effectively for just 12 to 15 years.

The “load factor” - the efficiency rating of a turbine based on the percentage of electricity it actually produces compared with its theoretical maximum - is reduced from 24 per cent in the first 12 months of operation to just 11 per cent after 15 years.
Icing in the Northern and mountainous regions is a factor significantly affecting the turbine's efficiency and is often underestimated. 
Because of the moving parts and exposure to the external environment, wearing of equipment require regular maintenance, and more so the longer it is in operation.

Transmitting energy from the wind turbines incurs energy losses, which is a serious addition to other losses when located in remote areas which typically is the case.

Finally, the impact on habitat. In the US alone wind turbines kill more than 14 million birds and 42 million bats a year!   

  
---------------------
Geothermal

Geothermal electrical plants is another source of clean energy because it does not require fossil fuels to be burned . A big advantage of the geothermal energy is its reliability and consistency comparing to wind or solar. It has its challenges however.

Open geothermal systems emit air pollutants. This include hydrogen sulfide, arsenic, and some toxic minerals. Mineral build-ups are frequently deposited in landfills. Closed loops avoid this problem.
The equipment and installation are both very expensive. Despite their long-term cost savings, geothermal plants have very high up-front costs. Installation can also be very destructive. It requires significant amount of drilling and digging around. Also, the under surface footprint of a geothermal plant is much larger than its above surface footprint.

----------
Solar

Sun gives energy for life on Earth and is one of the best sources of energy we could think of. It is clean, safe and because we know pattern of its movement across the sky, is also predictable. There are several ways of utilizing solar energy.

    Solar Photovoltaic

More familiar for most people than other solar technologies, photovoltaic (PV) technology originated first in space applications, found ts place in commercial and residential market and are even entering transport - from airplanes to ships (e.g. see Electric Aircraft  and  Solar Ship).

While their efficiency is still low to compete with any conventional or other alternative sources on a cost basis, solar PV modules have one extremely important advantage - they involve no moving parts, meaning practically no maintenance, and also zero noise.  

Despite recent dramatic improvements in efficiency and reduction in costs, solar PV systems  have a very long payback period, which holds their large scale implementation.

   Solar Concentrated Plant
 

These exotic looking installations with thousands of mirrors are popular in Europe, particularly in Spain, and are most efficient in regions with high solar irradiation like in in Africa, or California deserts. They require large secured unpopulated areas which limits where they can be deployed. Their efficiency can also be seriously reduced when the reflecting surface of the mirrors is damaged by sand storms and other factors.  

   Solar Updraft Tower 

This a concept which utilizes energy of the heated air rising in a very tall pipe with a fans inserted in it, connected to a generator - a sort of vertical wind turbine. Due to its relatively low efficiency and the lack of expertise these kind of systems did not receive wide acceptance in North America.

[to be continued]