Beyond Carbon: Coal Waste

Scientific American reports on toxic fly ash from coal-fired power plants. 'Clean coal' technologies remove pollutants from our atmosphere, but this may only shift the threat to our drinking water. Each year, the US produces more than 100 million tons of coal waste, laced with cadmium, arsenic, uranium, and other toxic elements. In December 2008, 1.1 billion gallons of coal ash spilled from a containment area in Kingston Tennessee. The cleanup cost nearly $1/gallon, but the area remains uninhabitable. Scientific American Video...

Read More >> << Read Less

Charm City Chills

Find out what Baltimore is doing to squeeze more efficiency out of the grid; essentially load-leveling by storing energy in the latent heat of fusion of ice. Neat stuff!

Read More >> << Read Less

Cape Wind, first U.S. offshore wind farm, approved

Yesterday the Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, announced that after years of review, the U.S. has approved the construction of Cape Wind, which would be America’s first offshore wind farm. The project will consist of 130 Siemens turbines producing (at peak capacity) 420 MW of electricity- roughly half the production capacity of a modern nuclear power plant. It’s a serious project, in terms of scale, precedent, and politics. The Cape Wind project has been a divisive one drawing the support of many organizations, but also harsh criticism from some environmental groups, powerful families (e.g. the Kennedeys) with views of Nantucket Sound, and Native American tribes with ancestral claims to the region. The project is considered something of a bellwether for American off-shore wind projects, which Salazar cited as one of the reasons for its final approval.

The Cape Wind project would be the first of a number of proposed off-shore wind projects in the U.S. Not shown on this map is Evanston’s own proposed off-shore wind farm, since it is far from being a mature project. At Evanston’s city council meeting on April 13, Evanston’s Sustainable Programs Coordinator Carolyn Collopy gave a report on the proposed project, and the Council voted unanimously in approval of a request for information, which is essentially a feasibility study.

For some background information on wind power, please visit NETG's resources page on wind.

Read More >> << Read Less

Hybrid Power Plant

A Florida utility is adding significant solar generating capacity to its natural gas-fired power plant. This coupling of technologies simultaneously addresses solar intermittency and peak-load issues (inefficiently firing up additional turbines when we all have our air conditioners on full blast). All this while reducing the carbon footprint of the facility. The solar technology is not photovoltaic, but instead is a central-receiver system, in which an array of reflectors concentrate solar energy onto an oil-filled thermal mass, whose heat is then transferred to water in a steam generator.

Read More >> << Read Less

Google Gets Federal Approval to Buy and Sell Energy

Is Google becoming a utility as well? Interesting post from AAAS (publishers of Science journal)...

"Google Gets Federal Approval to Buy and Sell Energy. On February 18 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved Google Energy's application to buy and sell energy on the wholesale market. Data centers, such as those maintained by Google, have become significant consumers of energy, and the ability of Google to buy energy on the wholesale market could have a large impact on its future energy costs. This approval will also improve Google's ability to move toward renewable energy sources through direct negotiations with renewable energy providers and to achieve its goal of carbon neutrality. "

More at: http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/clean-fleet-articles/google-energy-v2g/

Read More >> << Read Less

Candidate Forum 2010

Citizens for a Greener Evanston asked candidates for the 18th legislative district of the Illinois House of Representatives (election to be held next Tuesday, February 2nd) to respond to the following three energy- and sustainability-related questions:


1. What bills are currently pending in the state legislature that would support significant improvements in energy efficiency in residential and commercial buildings and would increase the production of renewable energy in Illinois in a major way?

2. How would you as state representative work to provide assistance to Evanston in its efforts to make significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in our community?

3. Indicate how your past work as advocates for various programs bears on the goal of achieving sustainability in Evanston.

Follow the title link of this post to read their responses.

Read More >> << Read Less

NREL's State of the State report

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has released a detailed report looking into the status of each US state's renewable energies portfolio. Illinois tends to place low when looking at total renewables capacity, but fares much better when considering growth.

Read More >> << Read Less

National clean energy proposals: Part II

In my previous blog I outlined Google’s Clean Energy 2030 proposal for reducing carbon emissions and increasing renewable energy production in the US. As promised, I have gone through the proposal in detail and now offer my thoughts on what I like and dislike about it. As always, these issues are open to debate, and I encourage everyone to get involved, or at least to educate themselves on the subject. I will try to provide links for external sources of information where applicable. My comments are as follows, in no particular order:

• I like that the renewable energy goals are being achieved through three main areas: wind, solar, and geothermal. Nathan Lewis at the California Institute of Technology outlines the total energy that can be potentially captured from natural resources in a series of talks and papers. Of these, wind, solar, and geothermal comprise the three largest, although solar by far is greater than the other two. With that in mind, I think the goal with respect to wind is reasonable in that the technology is currently close to maturity and is cost effective. In my opinion however, the geothermal goals seem a bit inflated considering the level of investment that will be needed for widespread implementation of enhanced geothermal systems. Globally speaking, I think solar (thermal and photovoltaic) will be the best solution, but utilizing all of our mix of resources for a near-term national solution is advisable.


• Transmission capacity will certainly need to be expanded in order to support the increased production from remote and distributed sources, as noted in the proposal. However, the proposal should also take into account transmission efficiency. This is a major area for improvement, as transmission losses make up a large part of the 68% of electricity produced that is wasted, according to 2008 numbers. So while end-use electrical efficiency can be improved through technologies such as Google’s PowerMeter, we should also focus on smart-grid technologies and advancements in superconductors for increased supply efficiency. Perhaps this area is included in the efficiency measures taken to produce flat electricity demand?
  


• I agree that the personal vehicle sector will be the easiest upon which to impart change, but we shouldn’t forget the other 40% of the transportation sector where efficiency improvements can, and are being made. GE has made strides in locomotive efficiency, while large-scale implementation of hybrid trucks, fuel cell buses, and efficient passenger planes are all feasible within the next 20 years.


• I agree that the private sector will/should provide much of the funding for these initiatives, in addition to that which the government contributes. More than anything, the role of the government is most valuable in instilling an attitude with the public that these changes are necessary, and with that said, I think so far the Obama administration has done a good job showing that energy policy is a priority. This includes funding in all levels of R&D, including basic sciences.


• The proposal does not take into account the natural behavioral phenomenon I like to call “guilt-free purchasing” – the idea that if something is environmentally cleaner and/or more energy efficient, people may naturally buy more of it compared to their normal purchases. For example, if a futuristic newly established business knows that LED lights are more efficient, and that the electricity they are using comes from mostly renewable energy, they may install twice as many lights as are necessary to illuminate their showroom. In this sense, publicly speaking, if there is an idea that the electricity we use is clean, people will tend to use more of it, and care less about efficiency. The point I am making is that it is easy to push better efficiency when there are multiple drivers in addition to just cost, i.e. CO2 emissions from electricity generation. As a result, the efficiency measures in the proposal that keep demand constant over the next 20 years are based on today’s urgency. If and when the nation’s electricity is mostly from renewable energy, these efficiency standards will be hard to maintain, especially in a world where economic prosperity and energy consumption are so closely tied. The trouble with this notion is that it is very difficult to quantify. My comment then is that one must be cognizant of this phenomenon and perhaps include a time-dependent variable in the electricity demand calculations that account for this.


• I like the fuel efficiency standard of 45mpg by 2030, although from a technology standpoint I think it can go a bit higher, considering that Europe has set the same standards for 3 years from now. Obviously this is a behavior issue though, as Americans like large inefficient cars. Perhaps that will change in the next 20 years though, where we will find we can eclipse this mark.


• In relation to the above comment, it is important to recognize that when discussing gasoline versus electric cars, fuel savings is not equivalent to CO2 savings. While the proposal takes into account the increased electricity demand, the opportunity cost of gasoline cars compared to electric vehicles must include the CO2 released in the production of the electricity used in the vehicle. Using current figures, I recently wrote a blog in which I calculated that electric vehicles emit 2/3 less CO2 when traveling the same distance as the average internal combustion car. While this would certainly be reduced even more as coal and gas electricity generation is replaced by renewable resources, this CO2 contribution needs to be included in the personal vehicle numbers that the proposal quotes.


• Clean Energy 2030 deserves a lot of credit for recognizing the potential of a program like cash for clunkers (they reference this article in their proposal) well before it was readily accepted and implemented. Accelerated replacement of inefficient vehicles provides immediate carbon emission savings, and establishes a standard for future car generations. The total fuel and carbon savings from this program will perhaps be the subject of another blog…
  


• I agree with the limited role that biofuels are given. I know I am probably angering a whole community of scientists with that statement, but I am open to debate on the subject. In my opinion there are three main reasons I do not support biofuels, at the moment. Firstly, I don’t believe that biofuels are truly renewable. While they in theory have a zero net carbon cycle, this is only true if the biomass is replanted, re-grown, or re-produced in an equal manner. But it is not a closed cycle. The process requires land (for the scale of production required), and land is a limited resource that is used for other products and other means that are just as, if not more important, as outlined in this Science article, which was also covered in The New York Times. The process also requires extreme amounts of water, which may be a concern in coming ages. Secondly, the complete energy efficiency of the cycle, depending on the type of biomass, remains relatively low. Thirdly, there just isn’t enough biomass in the quantities needed in order to significantly impact the energy demand of the world. Despite that, there will be, and are niche areas where biomass serves as a great solution, especially where the added advantages of having a liquid fuel can be utilized. Plenty of information on the basics of biofuels can be found here.


• I am guessing that the intermittency cost of 20$/MWh is not arbitrary, so I would be curious to find out from what source it is taken. Intermittency is and will be a key issue as more solar and wind generation is added to the grid. However, there is a possible solution. While I may be accused of being biased because my background is in solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs), SOFCs offer a unique solution in that they can be run in reverse as electrolysis cells (SOECs). This dual nature allows for generation of electricity from hydrogen and hydrocarbon fuels, but also storage of electricity in the form of these same fuels. Hence, they can be used for power leveling where excess electricity is converted to fuel to be used later when demand exceeds production. SOFCs are also a distributed energy solution, where residential houses, commercial buildings, and utility companies can each have their own fuel storage and electricity generation systems. The full cycle efficiency of electricity-fuel-electricity of an SOFC/EC is upwards of 70%, which approaches the cycle efficiency of a battery, with the added benefit of having unlimited energy storage. While SOFCs are currently not cost effective, ongoing research can certainly meet efficiency and cost goals by 2030, which should greatly reduce the 20$/MWh intermittency value.


• I agree with the doubts regarding the viability of carbon capture as a solution to CO2 emissions. This is a very expensive technology in today’s form, and has not been proven effective in large scale. Additionally, the problem remains as to where and how one would be able to store all this carbon and CO2. I reference again Nathan Lewis’ talk as a great outline for the concerns regarding this technology.
  


• It should not go unmentioned that there are other cost savings to creating a renewable energy economy that are less tangible, yet just as important. Among these are reduced defense spending to fund wars as a result of needed oil imports (“petrodictatorships”, as coined by Thomas Friedman in “Hot, Flat, and Crowded”), cleaner environments, healthier air, and hopefully, less costs resulting from reduced climate change.


• I am a strong believer that any and all technologies that offer viable solutions to our current carbon emissions problems should be implemented in one form or another. While it is my opinion that solar power will be the sole solution to the world’s energy problems in the distant future, a suite of near-term solutions is the most practical and cost-effective means for achieving this goal. With that said, it is important to recognize that efficiency is not a solution in and of itself to our energy problems. While efficiency measures can produce incredible cost and carbon savings, as recently outlined by a team at McKinsey, maintaining electricity demand at current levels over the next 20 years, the goal of Clean Energy 2030, would be just as detrimental without significant development of renewable energy sources. Efficiency measures with today’s energy portfolio only delay the problem. But efficiency measures enhance the solution when renewable sources are implemented.


• Lastly, the financial model is very sensitive to the price of gasoline, as witnessed by the change that occurred when the value was reduced from $4 to $3. It would be nice to see how sensitive the model is to gasoline prices in general, as well as any other variables that are subject to change. With that in mind, I think the best way to present the data is in a “best case - worst case” scenario, where a range of possible outcomes is given. Or at least it could be determined at what price of gasoline the plan breaks even. This would give the reader some insight into how robust the proposal is with respect to natural variables.

In conclusion, I think that Clean Energy 2030 is a great source for understanding the possible solutions for reducing our carbon emissions and establishing a renewable energy portfolio. Whether you agree with the ideas and the financials or not, I hope that we can all agree that a solution in general is needed to curb our nation’s dependence on fossil fuels.

Read More >> << Read Less

National clean energy proposals: the private sector is lending a hand

Those interested in the science, economics, and policy of clean energy initiatives do not have far to look these days. Besides the government’s Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, which maps out a plan for investment in clean energy technologies, many private sector institutions are getting their feet wet as well. And I don’t mean with investments alone. Many institutions are taking the time to make internal company policies as well as external proposals for the United States as a whole with regards to reducing our carbon footprint.

One notable participant, and leader in my opinion, is Google, whose “Clean Energy 2030” proposal for reducing US dependence on fossil fuel was first presented in October of 2008. The proposal is organized to address three main areas of action: energy efficiency, renewable (carbon-free) electricity, and personal vehicles. By addressing these areas in combination, their analysis concludes that by the year 2030 the following reductions can be made from the predicted EIA baseline numbers: fossil fuel-based electricity down 88%, vehicle oil consumption down 44%, and overall US CO2 emissions down 49%.

Google is unique in that they have used their resources to not only hire staff to take the time to develop such proposals, but they also have started to implement these solutions within Google and throughout the community. Through the creation of google.org, they have committed to “address some of the world’s most urgent problems.” Under this umbrella falls such clean energy initiatives as RE<C (renewable energy costs less than coal), RechargeIT (plug-in hybrid vehicle expansion, including solar-powered recharging stations), and Google PowerMeter (smart energy monitoring). Each of these initiatives represents part of the solutions that were mapped out in Clean Energy 2030.

One of Google’s plug-in hybrid vehicles getting recharged as part of their RechargeIT initiative.

I write about these things not as a commercial for Google, but to use them as an example of what I think is an important responsibility of the private sector: the involvement of companies beyond their own internal interests. Additionally, I think it is important for people to think about these solutions, whether you agree with them or not. Certainly no proposal will be 100% accurate, nor will everyone agree with it. But debate about these issues and getting the public involved are keys to moving forward and finding the right solutions. Besides the policy, however, it is the science, technology, and innovation that I hope people find most fascinating. It has been a long time since such a universal and interdisciplinary problem has been presented to the scientific community.

So it is my proposal to you, the reader, that you read Clean Energy 2030, and/or other proposals like it, and comment on what you liked, and what you disagreed with. I too will be following up with another blog on my specific thoughts as well. Beyond that, if you’re just looking for some background on the subject, the proposal outlines well the major areas of scientific research that will be so important to our society in helping us solve our energy problems.

Read More >> << Read Less

Sears Tower to Be Revamped to Produce Most of Its Own Power

Plans are in place to make energy-reducing improvements to Chicago's Sears Tower. The $350 million project is to begin immediately, and could include placement of wind turbines and photovoltaic panels on its recessed rooftops, as well as upgrading the glass exterior by replacing the 16,000 windows with panes having a reflective coating. Other improvements under consideration relate to internal lighting, heating, cooling and elevator systems. Once the 5-year project is complete, the Tower's electricity consumption is expected to decline by 80 percent from current levels. Additionally, a hotel to be constructed adjacent to the Tower will draw "net zero energy from the power grid."

Interesting note for the local energy enthusiasts: "the Sears Tower plans to open a first-floor center to educate the public about the redesign."

Read More >> << Read Less

Pumped Heat Electricity Storage

Energy storage is likely to become increasingly important as intermittent production technologies like wind and solar are added to the grid. Isentropic energy, a British company, proposes an innovative solution to energy storage, using insulated tanks filled with gravel as heat reservoirs and compressed air as the energy-transference medium in a large-scale Carnot heat engine. For those not familiar, the Carnot heat engine is a thermodynamic system through which a thermal energy gradient between hot and cold reservoirs can be exploited to do (mechanical) work, as an energy-carrying medium is allowed to flow from the hot side to the cold side of the system. The maximum efficiency of such a system is dictated by the difference in temperatures of the two reservoirs: the greater the difference, the greater the potential efficiency. In the Isentropic engine, the cold reservoir is maintained at -150 C, boosting efficiency over a more typical ambient-temperature reservoir. Also notable is their claim that one of their storage systems occupies a physical footprint 1/300 the size of a pumped-hydro plant of similar capacity (see figure in linked site).

Read More >> << Read Less

Is email spam as bad for the environment as they say?

A news story broke a few weeks ago (courtesy of a study by McAfee, the virus protection software company) pertaining to the global energy costs of email spam. The study outlined a very thorough breakdown of the life-cycle of spam, from creation and dissemination to filtering and viewing. The energy usage per year for each step was analyzed for each major country and also generalized over the global scale. The conclusion: over 33 billion kilowatt-hours (KWh) of electricity are used globally each year as a result of spam. According to McAfee’s numbers, this is equivalent to the electricity usage of 2.4 million homes in the U.S., and equals the GHG emissions of 3.1 million passenger cars. Not a small amount.

This story reflects a burgeoning trend by companies to spin their products in a way that shines favorably on the environment. We probably never thought about the impact of spam on CO2 emissions, but thanks to McAfee, we can now feel good about buying their product. This is all well and good, and simply reflects the very positive cultural and societal movement towards cleaner and more efficient energy production and usage in order to reduce our environmental imprint. However, as with all science, it is necessary to analyze studies like this in detail, and to be cognizant of any conflicts of interest that may exist. In the case of corporate advertising, the vested interest of the company in producing data which leads to more sales is glaring.

The most interesting part of the McAfee study is that about 80% of the energy associated with spam comes from the user end: viewing and deleting spam, manually filtering, and searching for false positives (scanning the spam folder for valuable emails accidentally filtered from the inbox). The energy associated with each of these categories is defined as “user hours,” calculated by multiplying the time spent for these acts by the average power required by the computer.

It is in the application of these “user hours” that McAfee confuses and distorts the issue, and inflates the environmentally deleterious impact of spam presumably for its own economic benefit. The energy associated with user hours is only a factor if, in lieu of viewing and filtering spam, the computer would have been off. It is the difference in energy between normal non-spam behavior and behavior with spam, the opportunity cost (to use a business term), that should be used in the analysis. The only scenario where the McAfee analysis is correct would be where the computer is on an extra amount of time due to the user time spent dealing with spam. If you spend 15 minutes a day dealing with spam, do you stay an extra 15 minutes at work, or at home on the computer, AND do you turn your computer on and off each time you use it? It is safe to say that most people’s computing behavior does not follow this pattern.

Here is another way to look at the issue. Most people take time during the work day to go to the bathroom or to take a coffee break. This on average would be about 15 minutes away from your computer. Do you turn your computer off when you go to the bathroom? I know I don’t. Using the same analysis and logic as McAfee, the global energy and CO2 footprint of people simply going to the bathroom would be just as large (maybe I just inadvertently proposed the new advertising campaign for the antidiarrheal industry). The point is, by treating user time as added energy, McAfee has greatly inflated their numbers to their benefit.

I commend McAfee for its efforts to analyze the energy associated with an industry. These types of studies are very useful and often shed light on existing inefficiencies. The references it used and the data it collected were both excellent. However, its representation of the final data fell short. Despite this, they were successful in highlighting a much broader and more important related issue: how much energy is wasted by computers that are on and not being used. I’m turning mine off after I write this.

Read More >> << Read Less

NPR Electric Grid Series

NPR morning edition looks at our nations electricity grid in this ten-part series (audio and text).

"The nation's electricity grid is outdated and unprepared for increasing demand and new technology."

Read More >> << Read Less

Miami Poised to Get Smart Grid

Earlier today it was announced that GE and Cisco have teamed up for a proposed $200 million smart grid to be installed in Miami-Dade County. The upgrade, expected to be completed in 2011, is hoping to take advantage of federal economic-stimulus dollars. It looks like Cisco is even planning to add some real-time tracking for homeowners.

Read the full article here.

Read More >> << Read Less