Block’s Indicator of Sustainable Growth

by Ray Block

It’s becoming readily accepted in the community that energy efficiency is important. But it isn’t really understood that the No1 priority on the road to a low carbon economy is achieving energy savings.

Investment in energy savings in buildings, industry and transportation ranks above investment in new energy sources including wind, solar, biomass and biofuels. The International Energy Agency (IEA), in its World Energy Outlook November 2009, says that end-use efficiency is the biggest contributor to the cutting back of CO2 emissions.

The agency also said that energy efficiency investment has a short payback period in fuel cost savings. Expressed as a fuel source in its own right, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), says in its report on the cost of saved energy September 2009, that energy efficiency would cost the equivalent of 1.6 cents/kilowatt hour (kWh) to 3.3 cents per kilowatt hour kWh, averaging 2.5 cents/kWh.

This compared with pulverised coal at 7 cents/kWh to 14 cents/kWh, combined cycle natural gas 7 cents/ kWh to 10 cents/kWh, and wind energy 4 cents/kWh to 9 cents/kWh.

This led the authors of the ACEEE report to say that “energy efficiency is by far the least cost resource option. They went on: “it appears to be a resource that continues to renew itself- the more energy efficiency opportunities we look for, the more we find.”

The biggest area for energy savings is in buildings, adding together industrial, commercial and residential, which collectively amounts to 38 per cent of energy use.

This is one and half times energy use in transportation. The figures are derived from a four year international survey by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD.

Energy codes and standards are largely ineffective, and safety standards are not much better. So how do you bring about change? A price on carbon, with appropriate tax incentives helps. There is a big role for research and development. But no matter how much is achieved in R & D, both with new technology and incremental change, the biggest problem remaining is the overwhelming tendency of inertia, clinging to traditional ways of doing things.

George David, chairman of the privately funded Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington (September 2009) said that “higher carbon costs and improved efficiency technologies will increase the attractiveness of investments and lessen the economic drag of otherwise lower returns. But we still need the stimulus of regulation to get us started”

Two ways of achieving energy savings provide a transformational way of approach.

The first example comes from George David. He quoted the example of newer elevators, which recapture and make available for re-use the energy on descent that was expended on ascent. Reducing energy consumption by 75 per cent for the same speed and load, compared to older models, with non-regenerative elevators.

The other example comes from Green Inc, the environmental blog of the New York Times. It involves the installation of a stationary fuel cell in a 69,000 sq ft supermarket in upstate New York, which has largely supplanted the electricity grid supply for the store’s lighting, heating and cooling requirements.

As the fuel cell supplier, UTC Power says fuel cells don’t have the energy waste of traditional power generation, where more than half of the energy goes up the stack as greenhouse gas. By contrast, fuel cell systems convert heat exhaust into cooling and heating, turning potential waste into usable energy, with an energy conversion efficiency exceeding 85 per cent.

 

 

 

 

 

by Ray Block

Posted under Carbon Abatement Scheme, Climate Change, Economies, Global Warming, Low Carbon Economy, Renewable Energies, World Inflation

by Ray Block

When Arthur J Goldman, the founder of Luz abandoned the parabolic trough for his new start up BrightSource Energy, the dominant feature is a 143-metre central power tower.

On top of the tower, 1600 double tracking heliostats (small mirrors) reflect sunlight on to a boiler to produce high temperature steam.

The company has contracts with the two largest utilities in California- PGE and SCE to deliver 2.6 GW of solar power from 2013 onward. It will start with a 100 MW unit at Ivanpah, with construction commencing in 2010. A new company Ivanpah Solar, bringing in the large specialist construction group Bechtel, as an equity partner will later be expanded to 440 MW, with the addition of three further solar plants.

BrightSource also intends to install 900 MW of solar power at Coyote Springs, Nevada, largely to fulfil contract agreements with the Californian utilities. Other expansion plans are for solar plants in Arizona and New Mexico.

With a much smaller area of land and less water usage, the power tower has cost advantages over the solar trough, and the energy efficiency can be as high as 34 per cent. But there is one major difficulty still to be overcome. The Andasol plants in Spain are fitted with thermal storage capability of 7.5 hours, which allows the operators of the power grid to rely on the solar plant to deliver power for at least two hours, irrespective of the cloud cover. BrightSource doesn’t have thermal storage capability at this stage.

Another company using the power tower concept is eSolar. Little more than two years old, founder Bill Gross, an entrepreneur in computer software has moved very quickly into CSP, with a power tower concept and thousands of small flat mirrors similar to BrightSource. A man in a hurry, Gross’ company already opened a demonstration plant in August 2009 with capacity of 5 MW in Lancaster, CA to prove that the technology produces cost effective electricity, and can be replicated.

The main cost of the plant is the steel and the actuator for controlling the small flat modular mirrors. The steel holds the mirror in shape without distorting, to stay in a perfect parabola. “Because we use a one square meter mirror, we use half the steel of a solar trough,” says Gross.

The eSolar system has computer controlled 24,000 individual mirrors, all pointing in slightly different directions to project on one spot, with each mirror having its own microprocessor to control movement. Software is made up of 50 people in a company of 135 staff. Bill Gross estimates that the build and install cost of a modular 46 MW plant will be between $2.50 and $3 per watt.

eSollar has inked in contracts for 245 MW with SCE in Southern California and one of 92 MW with El Paso Electric in New Mexico. This is quite modest compared to the latest step announced in January 20l0.

A deal with China Shandong Penglai Electric, brings eSolar into the big time. Involved is an almost certain technology transfer involving 2 GW of solar power in a $5 billion deal. The project will start off with 92 MW, with development starting in 2010.The magnitude of the whole contract is exceptional, given that the eSolar basic plant design is for 46 MW of generating capacity.

The Irish renewable energy investment company, NTR, which bought control of SES Systems and its sister company Tessera Solar in 2008 for $100 million has moved forward quickly, with an initial 1.5 MW plant in Peoria Arizona, and a 27 MW plant in San Antonio Texas, involving a 20 year power purchase agreement with CPS Energy.

SES, formerly Stirling Energy Systems, with a then struggling capital base had saddled itself in 2005 with big Californian contracts. These comprise the 900 MW Imperial Valley 1 and 2, and the 850 MW Calico 1 and 2 purchase power agreement in Southern California, with San Diego Gas & Electric and SCE. There have been difficulties with environmental lobby groups holding up regulatory approvals.

It is ironic that the SES technology is the most economic of all CSP systems in the amount of land utilised and in water usage. Yet the Calico project in the Mojave Desert, if it were to gain regulatory approval would still require 34,000 solar dishes, each 40ft high and 38ft wide on 8,230 acres.

The SES CSP system doesn’t have a parabolic trough, or a power tower. But the SunCatcher solar power collection dishes, which has been re-designed with the research of Sandia National Labs’ National Solar Test Facility is now ready for commercial production. Although, there is no capability for thermal storage, it may become a winner in some markets.

The modular SunCatcher uses precision mirrors attached to a parabolic dish to focus the sun’s rays onto a receiver, which transmits the heat to a Stirling engine. The engine is a sealed system filled with hydrogen. As the gas heats and cools, its pressure rises and falls. The change in pressure drives the piston inside the engine, producing mechanical power, which in turn drives a generator to make electricity.

The new SunCatcher is much lighter than the original model, it is round instead of rectangular to allow for more efficient use of steel, has improved optics, there are 60 per cent fewer engine parts, and fewer mirrors- 40 instead of 80. Automobile manufacturing techniques have been used. To reduce costs, the reflective mirrors are formed into a parabolic shape using stamped sheet metal.

Sandia National Labs test measurement of solar to grid conversion efficiency of the SES system made in February 2008 was 31.25 per cent.

Posted under Carbon Abatement Scheme, Climate Change, Economies, Global Warming, Low Carbon Economy, Renewable Energies

 by Ray Block

The accepted view is that wind energy electricity per kWh is almost competitive with natural gas and coal, but solar energy is much more expensive. In turn, concentrating solar (CSP) in utility scale plants, is cheaper than solar PV

However, there is a concerted effort among CSP producers to bring down costs to more competitive levels. The then largest CSP developer in the world, the Israeli company Luz International, founded in 1980 designed and constructed for Southern California Edison (SCE), nine parabolic trough solar systems in the Mojave Desert.  The technology  consists of rows of curved mirrors focussing heat onto a tube filled with oil, which boils water to make steam for the turbine.

 Known as SEGS 1-9, California for the first time had concentrating solar generating capacity of 349 MW, the two final units each of 80 MW being installed in 1990. Although Luz planned more CSP plants, the company was bankrupted mainly because of dwindling levels of subsidies for this pioneering company.

 Considerable improvements in design enabled Luz to bring down electricity costs per kilowatt hour (kWh). The first two plants produced electricity at an uneconomic 24cents per kWh. The next five installed plants had reduced electricity costs to 12c per kWh, and the final two plants achieved an electricity cost down to 8c per kWh.

 The company aimed to enable new plants to generate electricity at 6c per kWh, which based on the first two plants would have allowed for a 75 per cent cost reduction. Each of the SEGS plants were configured as hybrids to use natural gas on cloudy days, or after dark.

 A great deal of ground has been made up in the last two years. At December 2009, there were 25 CSP projects under development in the US. These involved contracts for 6.2 GW, made up of 21 in California, two in Nevada, and one each in Arizona, Florida, New Mexico, and Hawaii.                           

 Today, parabolic trough systems are the most numerous in the CSP market, with the dominant suppliers Solar Millennium of Germany and Abengoa and Acciona of Spain. Solar Millennium’s three 50 MW plants in Andalusia, Spain (the third plant to be completed in 2011) is to be followed by a fourth 50 MW plant in the Spanish Extremadura region.

According to the suppliers, energy efficiency for each of the identical plants peaks at 28 per cent, with an average efficiency of 15 per cent. Each of the plants requires a ground area, equal to 70 soccer playing fields (195 hectares), and uses an immense amount of ground water. Given that CSP is most suitable in arid and desert conditions with large sun cover, the excessive water usage often leads to hostility among local landowners.

 Each of the Andasol plants has 209,664 large curved mirrors, each mirror being anchored at four points to a steel structure, with a laser scan checking each mirror’s curve at 1,000 measuring point per mirror. The parabolic trough system is about twice as expensive as other technology platforms on the market.

 Solar Millennium’s latest development is a contract of up to 726 MW with SCE in Southern California, with at least two solar trough plants each of 242 MW beginning construction in 2010. A third plant is also contemplated in the future.

 A likely solution to the cost of the traditional parabolic trough design comes from SkyFuel of New Mexico. With the collaboration of the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL),. Skyfuel is demonstrating its SkyTrough, where the traditional glass mirrors are replaced with lightweight glass-free highly reflective polymer mirror film reflectors. This is to be tested out at the site of Luz’s original SEGS 1 and 11 near Daggett, Southern California. Sunray Energy, a division of Cogentrix Energy  operates the SEGS plants supplying 43 MW of solar power to SCE. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Posted under Economies, Global Warming, Low Carbon Economy, Renewable Energies

by Ray Block

By all accounts, geothermal resources in the world are immense. The Union of Concerned Scientists says that within 10 km (about 33,000 feet) of the Earth’s surface, the amount of heat contains 50,000 times more energy than all the known oil and natural gas reserves in the world.

Greater effort is now being made to exploit these resources, as the need to create low carbon economies becomes more urgent. Although there is a small volume of greenhouse gases involved, geothermal energy is available 24 hours a day, providing base load power at a price almost competitive with coal.

At September 2009, United States with the largest known geothermal resources in the world, is generating geothermal electric power in eight western states. California is the long time leader, with more than 40 geothermal plants providing nearly 5 per cent of the state’s electricity.

The state’s renewable energy requirement of 33 per cent by 2020 will spur more development. Nevada, the second largest geothermal producer has a 25 per cent renewable energy target by 2020, and this will also facilitate increased production. Soon another five states will also be generating electricity.

Total US installed geothermal capacity is currently 3.1 GW. Although representing less than 1 per cent of total US electricity capacity today, the aim is to reach at least 5 per cent of US power needs by 2020, and 10 per cent by 2030. The US Geothermal Energy Association says that 144 projects are now under development in 24 states, which could provide additional electricity capacity of 7 GW.

Up to $338 million in Recovery Act funding was allotted by the Obama Administration in 2009 for the exploration and development of new geothermal fields and research into advanced geothermal technologies. These grants matched on a one-for-one basis with private and non-federal cost share funds will support 123 projects in 39 states.

Conventional US geothermal resources on private and accessible public lands has a mean estimate of 33 GW, while the latest study by the US Geological Survey of geothermal resources in hot rock technology suggest an additional mean estimate of 518 GW available.

While the capacity factor in conventional geothermal production, (the amount of electricity produced) is at least 73 per cent, and may be only 30 per cent in hot rock technology, the overall resources are so large, that one day they may be able to supply much of the country’s electricity needs.

European geothermal resources are mainly in heating and cooling, directly exploiting the aquifers (Paris leads in low and medium energy resources), where the temperature ranges between 30 degrees C. and 150 degrees C. The second way is to produce heat using geothermal ground source heat pumps. The major European producers are Sweden, Italy, France, Hungary, Germany, Denmark.

The EU-27 country geothermal electricity target for 2020 is 6 GW, and for geothermal heating installed 39 GW. Outside the EU, Iceland with about 300,000 people is the geothermal standout,with 17 per cent of its electricity and 87 per cent of its direct heating from geothermal energy.

Everywhere on Earth, the deeper you go, the hotter it gets. Some of the regions are within the “Ring of Fire,” characterised by volcanoes, hot springs and fumaroles, (vents emitting hot gases), where the heat is close to the surface. These areas are around the rim of the Pacific Coast on the US and Canadian west coast – California, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii, and down the Asian coast to include Japan, China, Philippines and Indonesia.

There is also the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, an underwater mountain stretching from Iceland and the Azores to Antarctica, the East African Rift Valley mainly around Kenya, the East Pacific Rise paralleling the west coast of South America, the Rio Grande Rift running up through New Mexico and Colorado and the Juan de Fuca Ridge (tectonic spreading centre off the coast of Washington state and the adjoining province of British Columbia.)

There are two additional levels of geothermal resources. One of these is a steady supply of milder heat available for direct space heating, at depths down to 200 metres or so, which is available in parts of Europe and North America.

There is also the very large resource at depths of 3 km to 10 km (about 2 to 10 miles), where enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), also known as hot rock technology, has opened up a virtual Pandora box of energy treasures. In addition to the US, Australia, France, Germany and Japan have R&D programs to make EGS commercially viable.

In the EGS process, a fractured reservoir is created at a depth where the rock is hot. Water is continuously injected down a well into the engineered fractures, where the water heats as it flows through. The water is then brought to the surface via production wells, and its heat is extracted to generate electricity in power plants. Finally, the water depleted of its heat, is re-injected to be heated again.

Susan Petty, President of AltaRock Energy, whose company is exploiting an EGS project in Oregon gave evidence to the US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in 2007.She discussed the economics of the cost of geothermal electricity at depths of 3 km, and temperature of 300 degree C.

Her experience is that EGS at current technology could be generated for a cost of about US$74 MWh. This price includes financing costs and amortising the capital investment of the well field, but before profit. With incremental technology improvement, the cost of power could be cut in half

Posted under Carbon Abatement Scheme, Climate Change, Economies, Global Warming, Low Carbon Economy, Renewable Energies, World Inflation, energy efficiency

by Ray Block

 Although the Chinese were downright difficult and even hostile in the Copenhagen Accord fizzer, showing off their defiance to impress the allies in the E7 (India, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, Mexico and Turkey), there is a serious race going on between United States and China over leadership.

 The fact that China would not commit to emissions reductions and to international inspectors doesn’t mean that much. What China has been doing in a flat out campaign extending back to 1978 is to keep on increasing energy efficiency. As Julian Wong said in his blog, GreenLeapForward by 2000, Chinese GDP output required two thirds less energy than it did in 1978.

 From the beginning of 2006 to the end of  2010, the headline target has been to reduce energy intensity, that is the amount of primary energy per unit of GDP by 20 per cent. Now the big goal is to further reduce energy intensity per unit of GDP by 40 to 45 per cent by 2030.

 The Chinese have caught up to the Americans in modernization of plant and equipment, and at this rate of growth will leave them behind in the time range 2020-2030.

 A report in China Daily, and further circulated by Reuters dated August 18 2009, says that a panel from the chief planning body, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and the Development Research Center of the State Council, are saying that with the right policies, emissions could slow after 2020, with a peak around 2030.

 The emphasis is to invest significantly in low carbon technology R&D, and this is what the Chinese are doing.

 I believe that once China’s emissions peaks, the next step is that they will move quickly to be carbon neutral at least by 2050, if not before. Carbon neutral is to achieve net zero carbon emissions by balancing the carbon generated with an equivalent amount sequestered (that is stored underground), or offset.

 Norway is expecting to be carbon neutral by 2030, which given the export commodity base of oil resources, and 80 per cent of its energy usage coming from hydro power makes it understandable, that they can move relatively quickly.

 Industrialised Sweden is aiming to be carbon neutral by 2050, with renewable energy levels at 50 per cent by 2020. Sweden made a u-turn in 2009, having voted decisively in 1980 to ban expansion of its 10 nuclear power stations, and pledged to close them all down by 2010. Now Sweden is embracing nuclear technology with a new excitement, and so too are a number of other European countries.

 If China as probably the largest superpower by the mid century can reach carbon neutrality by 2050, that will be a giant step forward.

 

 

 

   

 by Ray Block

Zero emissions by 2050?

By Ray Block December 23 2009

 

Although the Chinese were downright difficult and even hostile in the Copenhagen Accord fizzer, showing off their defiance to impress the allies in the E7 (India, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, Mexico and Turkey), there is a serious race going on between United States and China over leadership.

 

The fact that China would not commit to emissions reduction and to international inspectors doesn’t mean that much. What China has been doing in a flat out campaign extending back to 1978 is to keep on increasing energy efficiency. As Julian Wong said in his blog, GreenLeapForward by 2000, Chinese GDP output required two thirds less energy than it did in 1978.

 

From the beginning of 2006 to the end of  2010, the headline target has been to reduce energy intensity, that is the amount of primary energy per unit of GDP by 20 per cent. Now the big goal is to further reduce energy intensity per unit of GDP by 40 to 45 per cent by 2030.

 

The Chinese have caught up to the Americans in modernization of plant and equipment, and at this rate of growth will leave them behind in the time range 2020-2030.

 

A report in China Daily, and further circulated by Reuters dated August 18 2009, says that a panel from the chief planning body, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and the Development Research Center of the State Council, are saying that with the right policies, emissions could slow after 2020, with a peak around 2030.

 

The emphasis is to invest significantly in low carbon technology R&D, and this is what the Chinese are doing.

 

I believe that once China’s emissions peaks, the next step is that they will move quickly to be carbon neutral at least by 2050, if not before. Carbon neutral is to achieve net zero carbon emissions by balancing the carbon generated with an equivalent amount sequestered (that is stored underground), or offset.

 

Norway is expecting to be carbon neutral by 2030, which given the export commodity base of oil resources, and 80 per cent of its energy usage coming from hydro power makes it more meaningful, that they can move relatively quickly.

 

Industrialised Sweden is aiming to be carbon neutral by 2050, with renewable energy levels at 50 per cent by 2020. Sweden made a u-turn in 2009, having voted decisively in 1980 to ban expansion of its 10 nuclear power stations, and pledged to close them all down by 2010. Now Sweden is embracing nuclear technology with a new excitement, and so too are a number of other European countries.

 

If China as probably the largest superpower by the mid century can reach carbon neutrality by 2050, that will be a giant step forward.

Posted under Carbon Abatement Scheme, Climate Change, Economies, Global Warming, Low Carbon Economy, Renewable Energies, World Inflation