The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) this week said it has committed $4.1 million in funding for Sydney-based company Ecoult to commercialize its battery technology.
ARENA CEO Ivor Frischknecht said providing support for battery storage technologies, such as Ecoult’s UltraBattery, is at the core of ensuring a smooth transition to a renewable energy future.
“ARENA is working hard to accelerate the energy storage revolution as part of its efforts to bring down costs and increase the reliability and security of renewable energy,” Frischknecht said in a Feb. 14 statement. “Storage is critical for increasing the reliability of our on-grid and off-grid power systems. It can give customers more control over their energy by storing solar through the day to use during the evening peak.
This latest funding, he added, supports a $10.6-million effort by Ecoult to pursue large-scale commercialization.
“It will enhance the battery’s performance and improve its ability to support both grid and off-grid applications,” he said.
In 2013, ARENA provided Ecoult $583,780 for the early development of its technology, including optimizing it for off-grid applications. This led to the creation of the small, kilowatt-scale battery storage device known as the UltraFlex.
According to ARENA, Ecoult has signed a deal with Exide Industries, India’s largest battery manufacturer, which will see the UltraBattery manufactured and distributed in India and South Asia.
Ecoult CEO John Wood said ARENA’s new funding would support the expansion of the company’s engineering team in Sydney.
Have you ever experienced power outages where you live? If you have you must know what a terrible experience that is. If you working on your computer and you haven’t saved your hard work you feel like the world is against you when the power dies. You will have no choice but to start over again if you can remember all the hard work you put in. If the power outages last longer that can be a disaster for the food in your fridge. If the power doesn’t come up soon you can start throwing food away. All and all the power outages can cause painful problems.
There is a simple solution for power outages and it can be found in renewable energy system. These renewable energy systems are suitable for home owners just like you and me not only for businesses. So, what are the advantages of using renewable energy as the primary source in our energy needs as an individual homeowner? There are several ways to profit from renewable energy.
Flexibility for specific needs
When you decide to purchase a total system solution you should consult a trustworthy business that specializes in renewable energy. When consulting these businesses they can design a total system that is suitable for your specific needs. If you have a home based business you probable have different energy needs then if you have regular job outside your home.
There are different systems to choose from. Be sure to consult a trustworthy business that can really offer you a good service and has been on business for several years. Almost every country or state in the US has specific tax reduction to profit from. These rules differ from country to country and state to state. You will to do a proper research or consult a professional to really profit from a renewable energy system.
With the use of renewable energy you can cut your cost dramatically. Of course you need to make sure that you use a system that is suitable for your needs. If you live in a sunny state than go solar, if you live in a windy state go with wind energy. If possible combine the different energy sources for an optimal solution.
You have to realize that the electricity charges are based on the prices of imported crude oil which are the primary fuel of our power plants. Once its prices soar high, expect that generation charges in your electric bill will increase. It is an advantage that you will just spend for an independent renewable energy system and its low monthly maintenance cost and the rest is history.
Availability and Abundance
A major advantage of renewable energy is that it is abundant and available in our environment. The state of Colorado in the US has a climate that is perfect in utilizing solar power by the use of photovoltaic panels complemented with wind generators. If your residence is situated in an area where there is good running water, you can install your own micro-hydro power system which can provide you reliable source of energy around the clock. As you can see there are enough possibilities to choose from.
In addition, these renewable energies are abundant in nature. As long as the sun is shining, the wind is blowing and the water in the river is flowing, expect that you can have unlimited supply of energy.
Above are just a few advantages listed for renewable energy listed. Of course renewable energy is also very environmental friendly. Investing in renewable energy is not only about saving money it is more about making this world a better place to live in for years to come.
It’s technically possible for each state to replace fossil fuel energy with entirely clean, renewable energy, experts say. A new report is the first to outline how each of the 50 states can achieve such a transition by 2050. The 50 individual state plans call for aggressive changes to both infrastructure and the ways we currently consume energy, but indicate that the conversion is technically and economically possible through the wide-scale implementation of existing technologies.
One potential way to combat ongoing climate change, eliminate air pollution mortality, create jobs and stabilize energy prices involves converting the world’s entire energy infrastructure to run on clean, renewable energy.
This is a daunting challenge. But now, in a new study, Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford, and colleagues, including U.C. Berkeley researcher Mark Delucchi, are the first to outline how each of the 50 states can achieve such a transition by 2050. The 50 individual state plans call for aggressive changes to both infrastructure and the ways we currently consume energy, but indicate that the conversion is technically and economically possible through the wide-scale implementation of existing technologies.
“The main barriers are social, political and getting industries to change. One way to overcome the barriers is to inform people about what is possible,” said Jacobson, who is also a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and at the Precourt Institute for Energy. “By showing that it’s technologically and economically possible, this study could reduce the barriers to a large scale transformation.”
The study is published in the online edition of Energy and Environmental Sciences.
Jacobson and his colleagues started by taking a close look at the current energy demands of each state, and how those demands would change under business-as-usual conditions by the year 2050. To create a full picture of energy use in each state, they examined energy usage in four sectors: residential, commercial, industrial and transportation.
For each sector, they then analyzed the current amount and source of the fuel consumed — coal, oil, gas, nuclear, renewables — and calculated the fuel demands if all fuel usage were replaced with electricity. This is a significantly challenging step — it assumes that all the cars on the road become electric, and that homes and industry convert to fully electrified heating and cooling systems. But Jacobson said that their calculations were based on integrating existing technology, and the energy savings would be significant.
“When we did this across all 50 states, we saw a 39 percent reduction in total end-use power demand by the year 2050,” Jacobson said. “About 6 percentage points of that is gained through efficiency improvements to infrastructure, but the bulk is the result of replacing current sources and uses of combustion energy with electricity.”
The next step involved figuring out how to power the new electric grid. The researchers focused on meeting each state’s new power demands using only the renewable energies — wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, and tiny amounts of tidal and wave — available to each state.
They analyzed each state’s sun exposure, and how many south-facing, non-shaded rooftops could accommodate solar panels. They developed and consulted wind maps and determined whether local offshore wind turbines were an option. Geothermal energy was available at a reasonable cost for only 13 states. The plan calls for virtually no new hydroelectric dams, but does account for energy gains from improving the efficiency of existing dams.
The report lays out individual roadmaps for each state to achieve an 80 percent transition by 2030, and a full conversion by 2050. Jacobson said that several states are already on their way. Washington state, for instance, could make the switch to full renewables relatively quickly, thanks to the fact that more than 70 percent of its current electricity comes from existing hydroelectric sources. That translates to about 35 percent of the state’s all-purpose power if Washington were 100-percent electrified; wind and solar could fill most of the remainder.
Iowa and South Dakota are also well-positioned, as they already generate nearly 30 percent of their electricity from wind power. California, which was the focus of Jacobson’s second single-state roadmap to renewables after New York, has already adopted some of his group’s suggestions and has a plan to be 60 percent electrified by renewables by 2030.
The plan calls for no more than 0.5 percent of any state’s land to be covered in solar panels or wind turbines. The upfront cost of the changes would be significant, but wind and sunlight are free. So the overall cost spread over time would be roughly equal to the price of the fossil fuel infrastructure, maintenance and production.
“When you account for the health and climate costs — as well as the rising price of fossil fuels — wind, water and solar are half the cost of conventional systems,” Jacobson said. “A conversion of this scale would also create jobs, stabilize fuel prices, reduce pollution-related health problems and eliminate emissions from the United States. There is very little downside to a conversion, at least based on this science.”
Jacobson said that if the conversion is followed exactly as his plan outlines, the reduction of air pollution in the U.S. could prevent the deaths of approximately 63,000 Americans who die from air pollution-related causes each year. It would also eliminate U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases produced from fossil fuel, which would otherwise cost the world $3.3 trillion a year by 2050.
An interactive map summarizing the plans for each state is available at http://www.thesolutionsproject.org.