This Little Light of Mine…Lasts 25 Years!
Remember earlier this year when you had to climb up a ladder, and screw in all those light bulbs one by one? It’s kind of tedious and a bit annoying knowing that you will need to do this again as each light bulb, inevitably, burns out. Now, imagine if you never had to go up there and do that again. No more changing the light bulbs every 3 months or having part of your hallway lit for a week because you just do not feel like going to the store and buying one light bulb that you know will need to be replaced again before the year is over. With the Light-emitting diodes (LED) bulbs, not only do you save massive amounts of energy, but it is also the “set it and forget it” of household lighting. An LED bulb can replace any of your typical light bulbs in your home or office. For example, your typical 60 watt light bulb would be replaced with an LED bulb that uses only 6 watts of energy. It will fit in all of your standard household lighting fixtures and is constructed out of recycled materials. If you feel like setting the mood, many LED lights are also dimmable. Compact Fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) are on the market as an energy efficient alternative and were the most common method of replacement. However, CFLs do have their downside. The type of light produced from a CFL bulb can cause some individuals to feel queasy if around them for an extended period of time and they have low durability. Also, CFLs have enough mercury in them to contaminate 6000 gallons of fresh water if they are broken. On the other hand, LED light bulbs are free from ultraviolet, mercury, and lead contaminants. With typical household usage, an LED bulb lasts 25 years! Which means once you put one of these lights in, the bulb will most likely never have to be changed again. Quick LED Fact – If every American household switched just one 60W light bulb to a 6W LED light, $1.4 Billion in electricity costs would be saved annually.
This Blog was contributed by one of our users at GenGreenLife.com

In the ongoing battle to improve the way we manage CO2 emissions, some scientists at MIT proposed a unique system that uses solid oxide fuels to produce power from fuel without burning it. Using existing technology, they would be able to provide electricity with zero carbon emissions, at a cost comparable or less than current natural gas plants.

Post-doctoral associate Thomas Adams and Paul I. Barton, the Lammont du Pont Professor of Chemical Engineering joined forces and found a way to combine existing components with under developed technology and shape it into a novel configuration that illicits electricity with zero carbon emissions. It runs on natural gas, which is more environmentally friendly than coal or oil. This system would emit a stream of pure carbon dioxide that could be stored underground using carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).

Adams also said that their fuel-cell based system produces clean water that could easily be treated to provide potable water as a side benefit.

Some Clear Obstacles to Success

One challenge is that the duo is not sure if the technology can compete with conventional power plants. The second challenge is their price point is only truly competitive if the government sets a price on the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The current pending legislation on carbon pricing is the Waxman-Markey “American Clean Energy and Security Act” passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in July of this year, through its “cap and trade” provisions. (A corresponding bill has not yet reached the floor of the U.S. Senate.) If this program becomes law, the actual price per ton of carbon emission would vary, determined through the free market.

According to the MITnews, “Natural gas accounts for 22 percent of all U.S. electricity production, and is likely to rise if carbon prices are put into effect.” Carbon legislation makes  the zero emissions technology a more competitive option, as its able to produce electricity from natural gas at a similar price to coal without the side effects.

With some form of carbon pricing (which takes into account the true price exacted on the environment by greenhouse gas emissions), Adams says, their technology can be “competitive at a price point of $15 per metric ton of emitted carbon dioxide.”

And a few more…

Some additional obstacles I see right off are consumption.  If natural gas consumption continues at current rates, there are only 60 years worth of fuel left. That does not seem like an extraordinary amount to work with, and if this technology takes off, won’t we be consuming even more of it at a faster rate?

I am also unsure sure how safe it is to be storing all this carbon underground. What does that do the land and surrounding ecosystems? What are the true ramifications of technology like this?

What are the Predictions?

According to Adams, this new system’s predicted efficiency is so high it beats the life cycle cost of a combined-cycle natural gas plant, even without carbon pricing. The study recently done by Adams and Barton also shows that a very low level of carbon tax ($5 to $10 per ton) would make their technology cheaper than coal plants, which are currently the lowest cost option for electricity generation.

All this is well and good, but there are a lot of “what ifs” that need to come together for this to even be considered viable, or better yet, a good option.

I am still pretty skeptical about this approach to working with natural gas, and I think there are others who may feel the same. This technology may be appropriate if used on a small scale in some specific situations, but as a larger market power producing option for the masses, it doesn’t seem like the best alternative.