Block’s Indicator of Sustainable Growth

by Ray Block

There are three energy and climate bill currently before the US Senate. These are:

• The American Power Act.

• The American Clean Energy Leadership Act.

• Lugar Practical Energy and Climate Plan.

The first of these-  the American Power Act proposed by Senators Kerry and Lieberman, which is the Senate version of the House’s Waxman- Markey Bill passed last year would mandate a cap and trade system and require a 17 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases from 2005 levels by 2020.

The second bill emerged from the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in June 2009, sponsored jointly by Democrat chairman Jeff Bingaman and Ranking Republican Lisa Markowski is a bipartisan measure designed to accelerate clean energy technologies in the US, including clean energy project financing, a renewable electricity standard, and a robust and secure national electricity transmission highway.

The bill which is yet to go to the floor of the Senate would also require increased energy efficiency in buildings.

The third measure, Lugar Practical Energy and Climate Plan S 3464 by Republicans Senators Richard Lugar and Lindsay Graham is a “possible bipartisan framework for making progress on energy driven national security, economic, and environmental concerns.”

The Plan would reduce by over 40 per cent the need for foreign oil; cut energy use by 11 per cent; cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than 20 per cent over “business as usual” by 2030. This climate savings trajectory meets nearly half of President Obama’s 2020 climate goal.

Barack Obama’s (June 15 2010) powerful speech from the Oval Office to the American people, at a time when the BP oil spill disaster in the Gulf is a blow to the American psyche deliberately made no mention of the Kerry-Lieberman bill.

The problem is that the Republicans won’t swallow the  carbon cap and trade  measure.. Democrats would like it,, but they can’t secure the support of 60 Senators for passing such a requirement. But in a design to secure wavering Republican support for some meaningful legislation, Obama mentioned the other two proposals before the Senate.

Obama said in part: “ Last year, the House of Representatives passed a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill- a bill that finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America’s businesses. Now, there are costs associated with this transition. And there are some who believe that we can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy- because the long term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater.”

“ So, I’m happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party – as long as they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels. Some have suggested raising efficiency standards in our buildings like we did in our cars and trucks. Some believe we should set standards to ensure that more of our electricity comes from wind and solar power. Others wonder why the energy industry only spends a fraction of what the high tech industry does on research and development- and want to rapidly boost our investments in such research and development.”

“All of these approaches have merit, and deserve a fair hearing in the months ahead. But the one approach I will not accept is inaction.”

The excellent  online newsletter on Congress, Politico.com (June 17 2010), said that the Senate Democrats held a special caucus meeting on the three bills. But there was no consensus, on which bill was likely to gather sufficient support for a bipartisan energy and climate bill could emerge on the floor of the Senate,  before the August recess. The November elections is expected to hand ccntrol of both Huses back to the Republicans, so time is short. Another caucus meeting is tentatively scheduled for next week.

The Democrat Majority would like to get through the floor of the Senate a climate and energy bill that puts a price on carbon, but they lack the numbers to execute such a plan.

What is likely to happen in a consensus measure, is one which  cobbles together pieces from all three bills. No cap and trade for the US economy as a whole,. But possibly some measure which includes  a mandated reuirement for power plants to use less hydrocarbons and more renewables. This would be accompanied by large tax benefits for the energy utilities to dramatically increase their renewable energy facilities in wind and solar power.Also a ban on new coal fired power plants. That would be a big advance to the bits and pieces the US has now.

After all, seven of the largest electric utilities- AES, Duke Energy, Exelon, NextEra Energy, NRG, PG&E, PNM Resources are members of the US Climate Action Partnership, which says “we are committed to a pathway that will slow, stop and reverse the growth in US emissions, while expanding the US economy.”

Other large greenhouse gas polluting companies in the Climat Action  group  include DuPont, Dow Chemical, Alcoa, Shell Oil, Rio Tinto, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, which share the same passion with some leading environmental organisations, who are also members of the partnership.

by Ray Block

In was not until 1982, before the first motor vehicle was assembled in China. And it took a further 10 years before one million vehicles were sold in any one year. But over the last 18 years, an astonishingly giant industry has been created to become in 2009 the largest auto market in the world.

And having come this far, it is inevitable that like the steel industry, where the Chinese produce about 50 per cent of global supply, the same trends are emerging in motor vehicles.

In hybrids and fully electric cars, China with its still current 200 auto manufacturers will dominate this space, with the government goal for 2011 of 500,000 electric vehicles seen as a modest beginning.

All the major international auto companies, with hopes of marketing success in the hybrid and electric vehicle space, with affiliates in China are extremely busy right now.

Indeed, all of the majors, whether joint ventures with foreign auto companies, state owned, municipal owned, or private owned are currently working two and three shifts throughout the week, with an almost endless supply of customers.

Passenger car sales rose 63 per cent to 1.26 million vehicles in March 2010, and commercial vehicles rose even more strongly to 470,000 units over the same month, according to the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM).

In 2009, vehicle sales totalled 13.6 million units, a gain over the previous year of 45 per cent. CAAM expects the domestic auto market to grow 15 per cent this year suggesting a total market of 15-16 million. Another auto trade association, Shanghai based China Passenger Car Association is even more confident, suggesting that China’s vehicle sales will surpass 17 million units in 2010.

In 2008, the Ministry of Science and Technology mandated that 10 per cent of Chinese cars will run on alternative fuels by 2012 and called for research subsidies. The Ministry of Finance announced a new commitment to promote new energy vehicles in the country’s 13 largest cities- Beijing, Shanghai, Chongqing, Zhangchun, Dalian, Hangzhou, Jinan, Wuhan, Shenzhen, Hefei, Kunming and Nanchang.

The mandate called for public services to begin buying alternative fuel vehicles in these cities and provide subsidies for their production and purchasing. The subsidies included 50,000 yuan for hybrids and 60,000 yuan for pure electric cars.

A revised subsidy scheme is eagerly expected for new energy vehicles. China Daily (April 9 2010) reported that electric cars qualifying for subsidies are those that have received the government’s production license and are assembled in China, regardless whether they come from domestic or joint venture firms.

Zero emission pure electric cars is now the preferred technology path for new energy cars in China, which will be reflected in the new stimulus plan. Where hybrids and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles fit in is not clear, as they were targeted as the priority for new energy vehicle development in China’s 11th Five Year Plan (2005-2010).

Zhang Jinhua, vice secretary general of the Chinese Society of Automotive Engineers, who is also an official for the national 863 research program on energy saving and new energy vehicles says that China’s roadmap for new energy cars has shifted in “giving priority to pure electric cars and taking hybrid cars as complement.”

As part of China’s new12th Five Year Plan, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), China’s major planning body has highlighted nuclear energy, wind energy and new energy vehicles as priorities.

Frank Liao, chief engineer of Chery, now China’s fifth largest automaker, says that the first round of competition for the electric car market share would mainly be between medium and small sized domestic private automakers, and the large state owned domestic automakers ,which had acted “sluggishly” in electric car research and development.

There has since been an element of change, with even the highly profitable state and municipal owned SAIC, the No 1 auto company in China, too content in its cosy joint ventures, finally getting the message that the government wants the industry to accelerate change. SAIC is releasing a hybrid model this year, and a pure electric car in 2012.

A number of pure electric cars are about to enter the market. BYD, the 7.5 per cent affiliate of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway was first in with its own hybrid F3DM introduced in 2009. BYD for “Build Your Dreams” started in 1995 in auto batteries, and it is only in recent years that it entered the vehicle market.

For many years, a notorious reverse engineering outfit, which never paid for foreign technology,was openly exposed as such in a prominent online piece by Caexon Online. BYD sold 430,000 vehicles in 2009, and is building a new plant to double that output. It now wants to do its own research and development, and is prominent in the export market.

Chery started in 1997, and became the fifth Chinese automaker to reach a production goal of two million vehicles, the first one million was in 2007, and the second in 2009. At the beginning of 2010, Chery began a $350 million R&D program to develop traditional automotive technologies and new energy technologies at the same time.

The aim is to continue a strong program of technical improvements spending around 4.6 per cent of yearly sales on R&D. Chery, which launched its S18 electric car in March 2009, the first of its S series of fully electric cars, has been concentrating on “high efficiency, energy saving, easy operation, continuous variable transmission and quietness.”

The largest of the private auto companies Geely, which nreleased its EK-1 fully electric car, has just concluded a deal with Ford to buy Volvo, the Swedish motor firm for $1.8 billlion. Whether the Chinese company can meet the full purchase price at this stage is up in the air, but they retain first right of refusal advantage to purchase the prestige marque.

To make the 500,000 electric car target by 2011, there are generous production subsidies, and there is a scramble among large state owned enterprises to set up charging stations to enable the new car revolution to take place.

by Ray Block

I have written on algae three times before. It is back in the news.

This time, the emphasis is not on Sapphire Energy, but on Solzayme, the South San Francisco start up. With an additional $ 22 million from the US Department of Energy for financing demonstration scale facilities preparatory to scaling up to a commercial plant. The company now has a capital base of $100 million. This should be sufficient for it make a faster breakout than its peers to become a real supplier of diesel and aviation fuel. And not just in token amounts.

The problem so far has been the great  difficulties biofuel companies, outside the highly subsidised corn ethanol producers, are having in getting costs down to a point, where they can ever compete with conventional hydrocarbons.

I must confess that there is something appealing to me in algae, the humble pond scum, turning into a highly valuable commodity. And for good measure, you can make very tasty goodies out of it as well. Solazyme is gaining valuable cash flow in a sideline, which is quickly taking off.

Bryan Walsh writing in Time magazine (March 17 2010) says “the vanilla drink is the colour of butter and tastes almost as good- creamy and sweet, like a liquid pudding. Next I try a pair of golden cookies, lightly touched with sugar- they’re soft, chewy and filling. Last is a mustard dipping sauce, tangy, that coats a handful of pretzels with a pleasant honeyed zing.”

And to top it off for the health conscious, “the vanilla drink has 20 per cent fewer calories and 75 per cent less saturated fat than regular milk, while the dipping sauce has 74 per cent less calories and 85 less overall fat than average honey mustard dip.”

Unlike, Sapphire Energy, which grows algae by feeding it on carbon dioxide in sunlight in ponds, this is the process of photosynthesis to make the fuel, Solazyme feeds algae sugar fermenting it in a dark kind of beer brewing kettle.

The economics of production in the two systems are very different.

The open ponds and photo-bioreactor (PBR) techniques are infinitely more expensive. Says Joshua Kagan, who has researched algae in detail, Greentech Media(April 3 2010 “an algae strain must be identified and optimised for maximum growth. The correct location must be found, and as the algae grows, they need a constant supply of nutrients, C02, heat and light, which requires the consistent movement of water.

“Once the algae grows to a sufficient mass, it must be harvested, dewatered and dried before extracts of the oil can commence. These steps are energy and capital intensive. Once the oil is extracted, it is relatively simple to upgrade the fuel into jet fuel or diesel using traditional refinery techniques, but still costs an additional $0.25-0.40/gal. Taken together, algae grown in open ponds or PBRs are estimated to cost $8-$30/gal.”

The comparison to Solazyme’s methods of production could not be any greater, and it is also far more cost effective. By growing the algae in the dark, the energy costs of artificial light is avoided, and the fermentation process requires a fraction of the water usage. Another positive is that the strains of algae don’t require CO2, which depending on the location can be a big cost. Finally, removing the water isn’t an issue when grown in dark vessels.

Although Solazyme uses a lot of sugar to feed the algae, the company has a supply agreement with second generation sugar producer, BlueFire Energy to obtain sugars derived from non food sources.

The big advantage algae has is that it can double in size daily and account for approximately 60 per cent of the oxygen production on earth. By comparison with corn ethanol, harvesting yields the equivalence of 270 gallons per acre per year, compared with algae’s 1500-1800 gallons per acre per year.

Let’s hope that Solazyme’s dark vessel production method is as cost effective as they say, and commercial production is only around the corner.

an

by Ray Block

I have never been as excited in alternative energy technologies, such as wind and solar, as I am about fuel cells, now powering hydrogen fuelled vehicles. My interest here is in small stationary fuel cells, a segment of the market, which is starting to take off in a big way, although total revenue numbers are still small (under US$ 1 billion).

 As a reference source puts it modestly: “fuel cells are the perfect melding of benefits from energy sources.” They combine the benefits of easy refuelling and continuous operation potential of internal combustion engines, and the efficient and quiet operation of batteries. So they are the ideal energy alternative.

 They don’t require recharging as batteries do, and they are pollution free, unlike batteries and combustion engines. However, they do require refuelling, although this can be as simple as using low cost biogas.

 “Fuel cells work via an electrochemical reaction that converts the chemical energy stored in a fuel directly into electricity. There are five types of fuel cells, which utilise different electrochemical reactions, but the general process is always the same. Fuel is oxidised at the anode, electrons flow through an external circuit to do electrical work, and then fuel is reduced at the cathode.”

 The different fuel cell technologies are PEM (polymer electrolyte membrane); PA (phosphoric acid); SO (solid oxide); AFC (alkaline); (MC) molten carbonate; DM (direct methanol)

 Fuel cells first came to light back in 1838, when “William Robert Grove arranged two platinum electrodes with one end of each immersed in a container of sulphuric acid and the other ends separately sealed in containers of oxygen and hydrogen, a constant current would flow between the electrodes.”

 Fast forward to the late 1930s, when Frederick Thomas Bacon began researching alkali electrolyte fuel cells. During the second world war, Bacon worked on developing a fuel cell that could be used in Royal Navy submarines. In 1958, he demonstrated an alkali cell using a stack of 10 inch diameter electrodes for UK’s National Research Development Corp. Bacon’s fuel cells proved reliable and attracted the interest of Pratt & Whitney. The US company licensed Bacon’s research work for the Apollo spacecraft fuel cells.

 United Technologies Corp is the parent company of  Pratt & Whitney, and today UTC Power is a world leader in fuel cells using  the phosphoric acid technology.

 UTC Power’s latest 400kW fuel cell system is to be installed in Whole Foods Market 50,000 sq ft store, currently under construction in South San Jose CA). This will be the third Whole Foods fuel cell supermarket installation. “The UTC Power fuel cell system will generate 90 per cent of the store’s electricity needs and its thermal energy waste heat will be used for store heating, cooling and refrigeration for an overall efficiency of approximately 60 per cent, nearly twice the efficiency of the US electricity grid.”

The market research firm Fuel Cells Today says that to date more than 80 per cent of the small stationary market is held by companies producing polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells (PEMFC).

As to the new sensation of Bloom Energy, with the technology of solid oxide fuel cells, which Science Daily (May 29, 2009) says has great potential for stationary and mobile applications. Stationary uses ranges from residential applications to power plants. Mobile applications include power for ships at sea and in space, as well as for autos. In addition to electricity, when SOFCs are operated in reverse mode as solid oxide electrolyzer cells, pure hydrogen can be generated by splitting water.

“The flaw in solid oxide fuel cells, which has delayed commercial production is in the integrity of the seals within and between power producing units. Composed of ceramic materials that can operate at temperatures as high as 1,000C (1,800 degrees F). SOFCs use high temperatures to separate oxygen ions from air. The ions pass through a crystal lattice and oxidize a fuel. The chemical reaction produces electrons, which flow through an external circuit creating electricity.”

“To produce enough energy for a particular application, SOFC modules are stacked together.  Each module’s compartments must be sealed, and there must be seals between the modules in a stack, so that air and fuel do not leak or mix.”

Bloom Energy, unlike other fuel cell systems makes a distributed energy system replacing the electricity grid, with its solid oxide fuel cells. The unveiling of Bloom attracted  around 900 articles in February 2009 in “unprecedented publicity” across major TV, newspaper and internet blogs. According to Google News, Bloom attracted one of the highest ever hit rates for a single product launch.

Commenced in 2002,   with sales of Bloom 100kW systems from 2009, the company will have its initial public offer in 2010, with John Doerr the doyen of venture capitalists of Kleiner Perkins Caulfield Byers, who floated Google so brilliantly, as the pivotal force behind the public float. Judging by the recent overwhelming successful IPO of Telsa Motors, Bloom Energy will be the big US float this year.

KR Sirdah, Bloom’s chief executive headed NASA’s fuel cells systems for use in the Apollo Mars probe, and when that mission was axed on the grounds of high costs, he took his scientific team with him. Bloom Energy located at Sunnyvale, Calif. first started raising venture capital in 2001, and was the first alternative energy company to be funded by Kleiner Perkins.

Four Bloom 100kV SOFCs have already been installed at Google’s Mountain View Californian headquarters. The 100-kilowatt modules are made of small flat 25-watt fuel cell wafers made of zirconium oxide that are stacked together.

This eliminates the problem of leaks, which as stated above, has slowed the development of this technology. The stacks are made of ceramics and metal. The Bloom box sells for US$700,000 to $800,000. Larger Bloom Boxes of 400 kW systems provides electricity to a Google building housing an experimental data centre, and similar systems are installed in Walmart’s stores.

 The company is also partnering with other blue chip companies,such as Bank of America; Coca Cola; Cox Enterprises (diversified media and communications group); eBay is said to have five Bloom Boxes; FedEx; Staples Center, (the Los  Angeles sports and entertainment landmark)  The Bloom box operates at high temperatures (over 600 C).

 by Ray Block

 It’s great to see the substantial growth in wind energy installations in 2009, as the international economy struggles to get out of recession. But what is disturbing is that if the rate of growth in new wind energy capacity continues to grow at its existing pace, China the spoiler and wrecker of the Copenhagen climate change meetings in December will end up as No 1.

 For the fifth year in a row, Chinese wind energy capacity continues to double. The global wind energy association (GWEA) reported (February 3 2010) that China was the world’s biggest market in 2009, increasing capacity from 12.1 GW (that is 12,100 MW) in 2008 to 25.1 GW at the end of last year.

 Along with newly added capacity of 1.27 GW in India, and smaller additions in Japan, Korea and Taiwan, more than 14 GW of new wind energy capacity was added in Asia in 2009.

 Last year also saw a significant increase in Australia’s wind energy installed capacity by 406 MW in 2008 to 1.712 GW at the end of last year. Australia has now legislated for a mandatory 20 per cent renewable energy level by 2020.

 United States continues to shine in new wind energy capacity of 9.922 GW in 2009 to reach a cumulative total of 35.159 GW, with Texas and California still well in the lead. Canada also did well in new wind energy additions of 950 MW to a new total of 3.319 GW installed capacity, while in Latin America total installed capacity doubled over 2009 to a new level of 1.274 GW.

 Europe, the original home of windmills, and where the modern wind energy market commenced in 1976 had a good year in 2009, with new wind energy installations of 10.526 GW, of which more than 95 per cent is in the 27 countries making up the European Union.

 Spain continued to lead over Germany in new wind energy capacity, followed closely by Germany. Then came in close order Italy, France and UK. Total installed wind energy capacity at the end of 2009 rose to 76.152 GW.

 As in wind energy, wind turbine manufacturing has become a very competitive battleground, with intense price competition from Chinese producers, upsetting the old leadership in which traditional world leader Vestas of Denmark was No 1 and Gamesa of Spain No2.

 With the US catching up and then outdistancing Germany, GE Energy came into the industry by acquisition, and then recently consolidated this with the takeover of Norwegian based Scan Wind, a novel producer of gearless turbines for use in the offshore wind market.

 Calendar year 2008 saw GE nearly catching up to the traditional world leader Vestas of Denmark. Gamesa of Spain was far behind in third place. Then followed in close order Enercon (Germany), Suzlon (India) and Siemens(Germany).

 The three largest Chinese producers Sinovel, Dongfang and Goldwind were a little behind, but growing very rapidly, to take advantage both of China’s leap ahead in wind energy, and a preferential tariff favouring local producers. This has enabled Chinese producers to gain a 70 per cent share of the Chinese wind turbine market.

 Even in 2008, one of every eight wind turbines produced were Chinese. But 2009 is another story again, with Vestas facing eroding market share, its share price in February 2010 falling 60 per cent from its peak 2008 value. Gamesa went backward in 2009, losing market share and falling into losses.

 The ever expanding domestic Chinese wind turbine market has enabled the domestic wind turbine producers to both expand aggressively offshore with substantial price competition, and to produce larger capacity wind turbines.

 The average Chinese wind turbine  was  until recently a 1.5 megawatt unit, with Sinovel Wind Group, the largest Chinese producer in 2009 accounting for an output of  2,400 1.5 MW wind turbines and 100 300 MW turbines.

 Sinovel commenced a production line for its 5 MW wind turbine in January, and this is expected to come on line at the end of 2010. The 300 MW and 500 MW turbines are destined for the offshore and near offshore wind power markets.

 Dongfang Turbine Co., a subsidiary of China’s largest provider of power generating equipment has a contract with American Superconductor Corporation (AMSC) to develop a 5 MW wind turbine for the offshore wind market, having already supplied a 2.5 MW prototype to the Chinese.