Author: dstoner

With federal funding starting to come in, utilities are now pressed to decide what their primary power source will be. Biomass, Wind, Solar and Water are all great sources of energy, but without a solid analysis of your region, you could pick the wrong source. Consistent power production is critical, especially for producing enough power for peak capacity on any specific grid. What other factors are affecting the build of alternative power facilities? Funding, lobbyists, public relations and the grid are a few factors, but what’s going on in your region? What sources do you feel will be the most optimal for power production?

The power production market is showing a dramatic decline based on a reduction in demand. Most news today looks at the decline in industrial use as directly related to the decline in consumption. What about other factors having a long-term effect?

Consumer awareness about energy reduction is growing in popularity — pushing the public toward conservation and reducing power usage. Even the energy efficient appliance market is rapidly maturing and reducing strain on the grid. Oddly, amidst the current push for alternative power sources, there is a decline in demand. This reduction ultimately weakens the ability for utilities to invest in upgrading their facilities, as well as limits funding for new facilities that utilize alternative sources.

Today’s demand reduction is real. What other market influencers are out there? Will the market rebound or is this a paradigm for consumers, industries and the world?

The more we talk about this the logical answer is…"the government." The smart grid is a great idea to help promote alternative power sources and manage the power input coming from utility sources down to distribution sources (home power alternatives). It helps to manage power fluctuations and the concept is helping manufacturers develop and design smart appliances, such as dishwashers that run overnight and refrigerators that make ice during non-peak times. The smart grid will help people better manage their power use, or else.

The growth of the alternative power market is showing signs of affecting surrounding ecosystems. First, wind turbines were disrupting bird migration (a problem that has been addressed), then atmospheric conditions changed, affecting bat sonar. Traditional hydro applications are being turned down based on the negative affect on the ecosystems downstream. And now, we are seeing a perceived negative impact on the human population (see the link in this week’s newsletter). As alternative power sources become more regionalized, the impact on the local/regional existing ecosystem becomes more apparent to the residents, thus creating a challenging PR campaign for the utilization of the power sources. It takes time, planning and extensive studies to establish a good site location for your power generation facilities and identifying your region’s optimal source, but what if it disrupts the local frog population? Do we keep burning coal?

Is anything truly green in today's market? We see GREEN everywhere: green solutions, green technology, green collar jobs, green this and green that marked on everything from buildings to toilet paper. We cannot help but wonder if “green” marketing refers more accurately to the other green – the greedy green: money. As encouraging as the alternative/renewable energy movement is financially, has the “green” card been overplayed? Is color-identifying marketing always a good thing or does it begin to carry with it negative connotations?

If “green” toilet paper, for example, does begin to connote greed more than environmental awareness, will that have a negative impact on the energy side?

[Attribute to Robert D. Krzys, associate publisher]