Next Generation Energy

The Future Is What We Make It

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 10:52:25 -0500

Energy efficiency... good topic. How do we conserve what we have? Well there are several layers to this question, but let me begin with the most obvious. YOU.

Because the truth is that personal decisions matter. Really. And like all those bumper stickers read, 'Think Globally, Act Locally.'

Step 1: Consider riding a bicycle or walking when possible...You'll save money on gas and get some exercise. And when you buy your next car, think about hybrid and other emerging alternatives--which may be easier on your wallet during the current financial crisis. Keep an energy efficient home and make sure it's well insulated and features efficient utilities. And that also means being a good consumer. Look for smart power strips and yes, those often referenced light bulbs. Remember to unplug your phone charger during the day and turn off your television, lights, and stereos when you leave. Make sure to close the door, both to your home and refrigerator too. And if you can bear it, keep the thermostat below 68 in the winter... another tip which will save some benjamins.

Step 2: Share what you know with friends, family, students, teachers, and community. Encourage others to think about their actions too because the thing about living here on planet earth is that yes, we're all really in this together.

Step 3: Make sure you VOTE. Let your decisions this election cycle be your voice on energy. Both candidates have answered ScienceDebate2008 and laid out what our energy forecast would look like in their administration. Now it's up to us to determine who would best lead the way in policy.

Sure, all of these alone, seem small. But a lot of people, doing a lot of small things, adds up to real change. Remember Earth Hour? It was the biggest voluntary power down in history and inspired many individuals and businesses to change their energy habits--even influencing government policy in some countries. Fifty million people around the world switched off their lights for one hour in more than 35 countries across seven continents and over 18 time zones... and will again for Earth Hour 2009.

As Doc told Marty, our future hasn't been written yet. No one's has. Our future is whatever we make it. So let's make it a good one. Together. In my last post here at NexGen, I encourage readers to think about the possible energy alternatives explored here and keep your eyes and ears tuned into new and developing technologies beyond the blog. And remember one thing... Real change begins with YOU.

Read the comments on this post...

Conservation: The biggest challenge of all

Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:01:47 -0500

We all agree that conservation is the most common-sense, obvious, affordable and essential element of any energy-use strategy aimed at reducing fossil-fuel emissions in favor of clean power sources. But I fear that conservation also faces some of the biggest hurdles to aggressive implementation. The main problem, in the United States and to a lesser degree most other developed nations, is the inherent conflict between reducing consumption and supply-side economics.

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

On-farm energy conservation, production can't decline, but emissions must

Sun, 05 Oct 2008 10:20:00 -0500

As with any industry, energy use is a big part of the bottom line for farmers. Practices aimed at reducing on farm energy cost also provide the obvious benefit of reducing green house gas (GHG) emission as well. Another key contributor to global warming from farms is N₂O, a particularly noxious GHG with climate change effects many times greater than CO₂. According to the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, agriculture is responsible for the most GHGs second only to the power sector, see the Annex sections for data.

The USDA Natural Resource Energy Conservation Service has created the Energy Consumption Awareness Tools. The end point is meant to elucidate areas a farmer can focus to reduce energy consumption. In principal, several of these areas are not much different from those of non-farmers. Many of them boil down to driving less. Land management, planting, application of fertilizer and pesticides, and harvesting all requires driving farm machinery in the field. I am not aware of efforts to increase farm vehicle efficiency, so please share if you do. On the other hand, reducing driving is a very active area of research, outreach and practice. Other arenas are the simple practice of increasing efficiency of on farm facilities and their utilities.

As highlighted by the USDA, key conservation practices include:

Crop Residue Management--According to the Conservation Technology Information Center, a farmer can save at least 3.5 gallons of fuel per acre by going from conventional tillage methods to no-till, a conservation practice that leaves the soil undisturbed from harvest through planting except for narrow strips that cause minimal soil disturbance. At November 2005 diesel prices, this amounts to $7.70 per acre in production cost savings. On a farm with 1,000 acres of cropland, these savings add up to 3,500 gallons of diesel fuel per year valued at $7,700.

Nutrient Management--The proper collection, handling, storage and application of manure help to protect our nation's waters and provide a significant nutrient source for crop production. Currently, about 2.7 million tons of manure-based nitrogen are applied on agricultural land. It takes approximately 40,000 cubic feet of natural gas to produce a ton of commercial nitrogen fertilizer. Doubling the application of manure-based nitrogen could save agriculture approximately $1.2 billion worth of natural gas each year. Substituting manure for commercial fertilizer can reduce fertilizer costs as much as $85 per acre for a 1,000-acre farm.

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

The first fuel

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:28:15 -0500

I am glad that we saved the first fuel, energy efficiency, for last. Here are the central points:

Energy efficiency is the biggest low-carbon resource by far. Of the 12 to 14 stabilization wedges of clean energy technology we need to deploy globally by 2050 to avert climate catastrophe, about two are electricity efficiency, one is recycled Energyy (cogeneration), and one is vehicle fuel efficiency (cars globally averaging 60 mpg). The International Energy Agency comes to a similar conclusion in a recent report.

Efficiency is rhe limitless resource. It never gets exhausted because technology keeps improving and knowledge spreads to more and more people. Indeed, the few companies that have ever pursued efficiency in a truly systematic fashion, like the Louisiana division of Dow Chemical, found ever-rising savings with ever faster paybacks from efficiency and waste minimization.

Efficiency is the only cheap power left. In the best document case, California has cut annual peak demand by 12 GW -- and total demand by about 40,000 GWh -- over the past three decades. The cost of efficiency programs has averaged 2-3¢ per kW -- which is about one fifth the cost of electricity generated from new nuclear, coal and natural gas-fired plants. And, of course, energy efficiency does not require new power lines and does not generate greenhouse gas emissions or long-lived radioactive waste.

Efficiency can be done consistently and cost-effectively for decades with relatively simple government policies. Perhaps the most important policies are strong building standards and smarter utility regulations that decouple electric utility sales from profits.

Efficiency has the highest documented rate of return of any federal program. As the National Academy of Sciences verified in a major report on "Energy Research at DOE: Was It Worth It?" a handful of energy technologies developed through funding by DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy have returned about $30 billion on an R&D investment of about $400 million.

Efficiency efforts have largely been neglected and/or scaled-back by Bush and Cheney. In particular, they have cut most federal programs aimed at deploying energy efficiency and gutted the industrial energy efficiency program.

Efficiency has always been a low priority of John McCain, who seems to be angling for Cheney's third term. His energy and climate plans ignore efficiency almost entirely.

Efficiency is a central component of Barack Obama's energy plan. He has offered what I believe is the most detailed and comprehensive set of policies to tap the first fuel ever offered by a presidential candidate.

I don't think we have any realistic chance of solving the climate problem in a practical and affordable fashion if the federal government fails to take a leading role in promoting energy efficiency. This election remains among the most consequential United States has ever had.

Read the comments on this post...

Conserving what we have

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 13:45:07 -0500

One thing seems certain in every scenario of our energy future: our demand for energy is growing, and if we continue to fuel that demand with coal and oil, the effect on the planet will be disastrous and irreversible. Every day there is new evidence that greenhouse gases are wreaking havoc on our ecosystems, destroying the delicate balance of elements that has allowed Earth to sustain life for billions of years.

Clean and renewable energy could, as we've seen, eventually meet worldwide demand with minimal environmental impact, but as we've also seen, we're not there yet. Though some technologies have widespread political support, and some may even be far enough along in development to compete with fossil fuels in the energy market, it will take a massive rearrangement of our infrastructure to make a transition on even a national level.

In the meantime, we must fight the energy problem on its other front: by tackling our overwhelming consumption. Conservation of energy—and other resources—was one of the first movements put forward in the "green" revolution, but the message seems to be lost on most individuals, let alone businesses and other large organizations whose practices would have a greater impact.

So, how do we encourage widespread energy conservation? What are the most effective ways to save energy, and are they easy to implement? What technologies should we adopt, and which should we give up? Is reducing our demand for energy more critical, at this point, than trying to fill it with alternative sources?

Read the comments on this post...

Carbon capture and storage is an end-of-pipe dream

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:35:28 -0500

Over in the United Kingdom, the Government's business and technology department (BERR) has a new enthusiasm for new coal-burning power stations which is based on the notion of retrofitting CCS (carbon capture and storage) in the future once the technology is developed. But all the independent advice is going against this policy.

Another thumbs down

Three new reports cast doubt on this. The first is a response to the Government's consultations on the topic published yesterday by the Environment Agency.

It says "The concept of carbon capture readiness (CCR) is insufficient for the climate change challenge that we face." This is categorial and agrees with most other independent studies.

A second report is an in-depth integrated assessment of CCS that analyses the overall effects of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in electricity and hydrogen generation and compares them to renewable energies. It casts many great doubts upon the possibility of CCS ever being viable.

It looks at the life-cycle assessment of CCS power plants for the first time. The study was jointly conducted by the Wuppertal Institute, the German Aerospace Center (DLR), Zentrum fur Sonnenenergie- und Wasserstoff-Forschung Baden-Wrttemberg (ZSW) and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).

Even more damning is one last July from the UK Government itself, saying that it is not feasible.

"Even the most optimistic proponent of CCS would not envisage any demonstration plant to be operational much before 2015, which would put wide-scale deployment as far away as 2020 or later after lessons from the pilot have been learned and digested," says a submission from The Royal Academy of Engineering to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (EAC). This is a cross-party committee headed by a Conservative.

It estimates that the cost of building the first CCS plant could be anything up to £500m, on top of the £1bn cost of a new coal-fired power station. Retrofitting CCS at a station like the new one being planned at Kingsnorth in Kent, scene of recent protests, is likely to cost over £1.1bn. This is a huge figure by any standard, and would have a massive impact on energy prices.

The EAC urges: "We cannot emphasise strongly enough that the possibility of CCS should not be used as a fig leaf to give unabated coal-fired power stations an appearance of environmental acceptability." Furthermore, "Replacing old coal-fired power stations with new ones, rather than using alternative energy sources, locks Britain in to a high level of emissions for many years to come."

The Business Minster, Hutton, has said that a high carbon price under the EU-ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) will mean that CCS-retrofitting so-called 'CCS-ready' new power stations becomes economical. The EAC slams this notion on three counts:

1. Lack of knowledge of the technology: since the eventual nature of CCS technology is currently unknown, how can a plant built now be designed to have the technology retro-fitted on?

2. Carbon emissions: "The EU ETS is a mechanism designed to reduce emissions; using it as a cover for choosing high emissions technology goes against the purpose of the scheme."

3. The price per tonne of CO2 for retrofitting CCS required to make it commercially viable is unfeasibly high: estimates of this vary from the rather optimistic €40 (E.ON UK) to Euros 90-155 per tonne (Climate Change Capital) and €70-100 per tonne (UK Energy Research Centre). How much it will really be is anybody's guess, but the Government cites an EU estimate of a forward price of carbon of €39 for 2013-2020 (EU-ETS Phase 3). The UK Energy Research Centre predicts around €30. The EAC concludes from this: "the gap between the carbon price and the cost of CCS is enormous".

The EAC concludes: "Coal should be seen as the last resort, even with the promise of CCS."

The UK still has faith

But here in the UK coal is not being seen as a last resort. Governments are concerned that the lights shouldn't go out, and for them the easiest option is to accede to pressure from high-powered lobbyists from the existing large energy companies.

These companies already have access to the very centre of government, and in fact there is evidence that they have had a hand in writing the very contracts which government gives them for new coal burning power stations in order to reduce the level of commitments to installing carbon capture and storage capability. (See this item by George Monbiot.)

This is in direct contradiction to the Environment Agency's advice. But the government is more interested in repaying the attentions of powerful lobbyists than our long-term future.

Coal is the new battleground

In fact in the UK, 24 years after the miners strike, coal is at the centre of a new battle. On August 9 activists attempted to close down Kingsnorth powerstation, protesting against government plans to build a new coal-fired power station at the site in Kent. This is just one of many anti-coal protests around the country, as public feeling against coalmining and coal burning is mounting. Simultaneously, the industry has plans to open many new mines, and the government is deciding whether to give the go ahead to seven new coal-fired power stations, the first for 30 years.

Yet concerned climate scientists argue that leaving coal in the ground is the best form of carbon capture and storage - the planet just cannot survive that much more CO2 put into the atmosphere. The burning of coal, the logic goes, is far easier to halt and to replace as a source of electricity and heating, than is oil used for transportation.

Coal is primarily used for electricity generation, which is the largest source of UK greenhouse gas emissions. Of all power stations, coal-fired ones are most CO2 intensive.

Today, globally, burning coal is responsible for around one quarter of our global CO2 emissions. But around half of all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now due to human activity is from burning coal. The majority of this came from Western developed nations who industrialised before China and other emerging indistrialised powers.

This is why developing economies like China and India argue, in the current round of climate control talks, that as today's climate change is due to our historical emissions, developed countries should curb their emissions before they do. Climate campaigners argue that if we want these countries to stop building new coal-fired power stations (China is opening two a week), we must set a good example.

After all, in the UK the coal industry estimates there are 45 billion tonnes of recoverable UK coal reserves, which at current rates would last us 300 years. This represents around 150 billion tonnes of CO2. There is no way that the planet can survive as we know it with this level of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. There are 17 opencast mines in the UK now, with at least a staggering 25 in planning or proposed.

James Hansen

James Hansen is described by many as the world's leading climate scientist. He first alerted Washington politicians to the dangers of climate change in June 1988 and has been an outspoken advocate of action to stop it ever since. He is the director of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at NASA and adjunct professor at earth and environmental sciences at Columbia University. He has called for a moratorium on building coal-fired power plants and for a 350ppm target for the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. (Currently it is 385ppm.)

Please note, that this is 350ppm, not 450ppm which has previously been the level adopted by the international climate community and quoted elsewhere on this website.

"It's very difficult to see how we can prevent the oil from being used and the carbon getting in to the atmosphere because it comes from vehicles, but in the case of coal if we're going to use that, we could restrict it to power-plants and we should say it can only be used there if you capture the CO2," he says. He argues that it's easier to make electricity and heat buildings with other sources of energy than coal, than it is to find alternatives to the fossil fuels which power our vehicles. Therefore we should do this first. "I think it's a better way than saying let's reduce CO2 80% or 90% or 60% or any particular number because we really can't let 40% or 20% of the coal to continue to be used; that's the one source that we really need to cut off."

Hansen has written to Gordon Brown requesting that the Government doesn't build any new coal fired power plants without carbon capture and storage. "Coal is the largest contributor to the human-made increase of CO2 in the air," he wrote. "Saving the planet and creation surely requires phase-out of coal use." See here. We don't know if Brown replied.

In June Hansen told listeners on Capitol Hill, Washington, that the heads of oil and coal companies who knowingly delayed action on curbing greenhouse gas emissions were committing a crime. "These CEO's, these captains of industry," he said in the briefing, "if they don't change their tactics they're guilty of crimes against humanity and nature." He compared cordons of coal cars heading to power plants to the death trains of the Holocaust (because of the mass extinctions foreseen by many biologists should warming go unabated).

Hansen said in an interview in March "I would say within a decade or so, that these coal plants are simply not compatible with keeping a planet resembling the one in which civilisation developed. And I think there is going to be eventually pressure to in effect bulldoze those plants, so economically they just don't make sense. You are not going to be able to leave them there 50 years."

Hanen argues that we will have to "restore the point of energy balance because as it stands now we will lose the Arctic sea ice without any more greenhouse gases, as there is additional warming in the pipeline. That means we would have to reduce the amount of CO2 at least to the 350ppm level, and we are already at 385. So, we've actually got to go backwards and it's really too bad that we didn't realise this earlier."

Does Hansen believe it's possible to reverse the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere? "Yes, yes, it's still possible. If we get on the stick very promptly, it's still practical to do that in ways that are quite natural. The most important thing is to have a moratorium on new coal fired power plants that don't capture CO2 and then to phase out the dirty coal use over the next 2-3 decades.

"If we do that, you know that the system does still take up CO2, the ocean and the soils and things, so that other things being equal, CO2 would only go up to a bit more than 400 if we phase out coal use. But then we have got to take at least 50ppm out of the atmosphere, and that is possible with improved agricultural and forestry practices, things that we have not being paying much attention to."

Read the comments on this post...

Lipstick on an energy pig

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:01:03 -0500

Most everyone, even those who don't want us to waste precious research dollars that are needed on more promising clean-energy alternatives, agrees that carbon capture and sequestration is, in theory at least, worth considering. But few have actually taken a close look at the concept and asked how well it will work, even if we could get enough CCS plants operational in time to make a difference (which, as Joe Romm points out, we almost certainly can't). First though, the optimistic side.

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

Plants as carbon offsets

Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:30:00 -0500

In a previous post I discussed real carbon negative energy, biofuels produced from plant biomass. Under certain practices, the very roots of the plants are the below ground carbon sink, while the above ground biomass is a potential fuel feedstock. This approach is also restorative as degraded farmlands can be 'recovered' or habitat for native species reestablished. Like all other forms of next generation energy it will not satisfy all of our energy needs, but it can provide a substantial amount of transportation fuel. At the moment, several companies are scaling up facilities to process plant waste products, which will likely be followed by the use of dedicated energy crops.

Plant cultivation also serves solely as a carbon offset. Trees have excellent capacity for this for obvious reasons. A tree trunk, relative to more herbaceous plants, is a long lasting reservoir of carbon. The Conservation Fund provides a tool to calculate your carbon footprint and then offers to plant trees for a fee to offset your emmissions. This from the calculation of a roundtrip flight from NYC to LA,

"The average American's annual carbon footprint is just over 20 tons. Make a donation to The Conservation Fund and we'll plant 1 tree in protected parks and wildlife refuges across the United States. Over the next century, these trees will sequester approximately 1.19 tons of carbon dioxide -- a potent greenhouse gas."

To offset the average annual carbon footprint (20 tons) requires about 16 trees annually, which will be planted by the Fund for about $175. Portals to purchase offsets are also readily available when purchasing airline tickets. A word of caution, do take the time to evaluate the outlet. TerraPass, Carbon Neutral, and Clean Are Pass are for-profit entities that can direct less than half of the funds to clean projects while non-profits Carbon Fund and the Conservation Fund direct over 90%. Funds are also directed towards various green projects that ultimately may have questionable impact on footprint mitigation. As far as I can tell, these industries are in need of regulation that would inform and guarantee to a point the actual benefit of an offset purchase.

So, does it work? What is the potential of these offsets if the money actually goes towards planting trees, for example. Americans consume at least 150 billion gallons of gasoline annually. Each gallon amounts to 20 lbs of CO₂; thus 3 trillion lbs per year. The average estimate for a 100-year-old tree is 2000 lbs of sequestered carbon. Can we plant 1.5 billion trees annually to offset American transportation impact alone? I'm guessing here, but I say no way. Is there enough land to do so and if yes, what would be the impact of food production? Finally, what sort of guarantees are there to maintain the carbon sink? Plant roots and tree trunk are after all not permanent. Nonetheless, it is safe to assume that all footprints are not offset. Ten or twenty millions trees have been planted, not one billion. If we can't plant that many trees, the funds can be directed towards other projects capable of mitigation. Are we selling indulgences to offset sins? I think it best not to be too cynical. There are countless lifestyle choices that impact ones footprint. Sometimes you need to fly and the thoughtful thing to do is offset and continue to work towards sustainable solutions.

Read the comments on this post...

Energy Race 2008

Sun, 28 Sep 2008 11:00:34 -0500

Thursday, my coblogger Joe Romm did a fantastic job highlighting the problems of carbon capture and storage:

The bottom line is that we should continue to pursue CCS research, development, and demonstration in a serious effort to turn this long-term strategy into a medium-term one. But efficiency, wind, solar PV, and baseload solar are where we should be placing the big deployment dollars right now (see "Is 450 ppm possible? Part 5: Old coal's out, can't wait for new nukes, so what do we do NOW?")

See? I told you. Comments that follow are interesting as well. So instead of going on at tedium with a repetitious perspective, why not shake things up given it's election season and there's related energy news...

On September 25th, Nature magazine published 'Choosing A Future,' telling us more about where each presidential candidate stands on science related topics. And despite the humorous and uncanny similarities of the front and back covers, this is a very serious issue because it outlines some differences in the candidates' strategies. Not surprisingly, of particular interest to me are their positions on oil drilling*:

Does your stance on tapping domestic oil reserves stand at odds with your goals for reducing national emissions and combating climate change? How will you balance the two?
Obama: With 3% of the world's oil reserves, the United States cannot drill its way to energy security. But US oil and gas production plays an important role in our domestic economy and remains critical to prevent global energy prices from climbing even higher. There are several key opportunities to support increased US production of oil and gas that do not require opening up currently protected areas.

Increasing domestic oil and gas production in the ways I propose in no way lessens my commitment to combating climate change, one of the great challenges of our time. I am committed to implementing a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, and I will start reducing emissions immediately by establishing strong annual reduction targets with an intermediate goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

McCain currently favours a more aggressive offshore-drilling policy than Obama; both candidates, like the Democratic-led Congress, have changed their earlier stances opposing such drilling in the face of rising oil prices and public pressure to do something about it. However, McCain sees climate change as a national security issue, and maintains that it is a major priority for him. He emphasizes developing new emissions-reducing technologies with minimum costs in order to soften any blow to the national economy. McCain's intermediate goal for emission reductions is also 1990 levels by 2020.

* John McCain declined to participate in Nature's questions so they summarized his positions.

The gist:
Obama: Don't expand domestic drilling and reduce dependence on oil altogether.
McCain: Drill Baby Drill! and expand offshore-drilling.

The full rundown from both candidates on America's energy future is available here from the team at ScienceDebate2008.

Read the comments on this post...

The four flaws of coal with CCS

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:24:56 -0500

The goal of carbon capture and storage (CCS), also called carbon sequestration, is to take carbon dioxide that would have been emitted into the atmosphere from new or existing power plants (usually coal) and instead store it someplace, hopefully forever. It is an attractive idea across the political spectrum because it might allow us to continue using a major fossil fuel, but in a way that does not destroy the climate.

Unfortunately, CCS has four fundamental problems that have reduced enthusiasm for it recently and limited its likely role:

Cost: Coal plants with CCS are very expensive today. The total extra cost for this process, including geological storage in sealed underground sites, is currently quite high, $30 to $80 a ton of carbon dioxide, according to the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy, "Carbon Sequestration R&D Overview." In the future, it seems rather unlikely that CCS would be a low-cost solution. The modeling work done for the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) on how to comply with the AB32 law (California's Global Warming Solutions Act), online here puts the cost of coal gasification with carbon capture and storage at 16.9 cents per kWh. Energy efficiency along with lots of low-carbon generation sources beat that easily now or will very soon.

Timing: The world does not even have a single large-scale (300+ MW) coal plant with CCS anywhere in the world. The first moderate-sized (30 MW) pilot plant with CCS just started up this month in Germany. Earlier this year, President Bush dropped the mismanaged 'NeverGen' clean coal project. In the past year, most governments and most U.S. utilities have scaled back, delayed, or cancel their planned CCS projects. As Howard Herzog of MIT's Laboratory for Energy and the Environment said in Feburary "How can we expect to build hundreds of these plants when we're having so much trouble building the first one?"

Scale: We need to put in place a dozen or so clean energy "stabilization wedges" by mid-century to avoid catastrophic climate outcomes, see "Is 450 ppm (or less) politically possible? Part 1." For CCS to be even one of those would require a flow of CO2 into the ground equal to the current flow of oil out of the ground. That would require, by itself, re-creating the equivalent of the planet's entire oil delivery infrastructure, no mean feat.

Permanence and transparency: If Putin's Russia said it was sequestering 100 million tons of CO2 in the ground permanently, and wanted other countries to pay it billions of dollars to do so, would anyone trust them? No. The potential for fraud and bribery are simply too enormous. But would anyone trust China? Would anyone trust a U.S. utility, for that matter? We need to set up some sort of international regime for certifying, monitoring, verifying, and inspecting geologic repositories of carbon -- like the U.N. weapons inspections systems. The problem is, this country hasn't been able to certify a single storage facility for a high-level radioactive waste after two decades of trying and nobody knows how to monitor and verify underground CO2 storage. It could take a decade just to set up this system.

The bottom line is that we should continue to pursue CCS research, development, and demonstration in a serious effort to turn this long-term strategy into a medium-term one. But efficiency, wind, solar PV, and baseload solar are where we should be placing the big deployment dollars right now (see "Is 450 ppm possible? Part 5: Old coal's out, can't wait for new nukes, so what do we do NOW?")

Read the comments on this post...

Are we just burying our problems?

Tue, 23 Sep 2008 22:23:28 -0500

All of the energy sources we've discussed on this blog—from nuclear power to tidal power to cellulosic ethanol—have been developed with the ultimate goal of replacing coal and oil. However, the problem remains that even with the right technology, political and economic support, the transition is going to take time that we do not really have; carbon emissions must be cut dramatically and immediately to prevent catastrophic climate change. And at least one method is being tested to control carbon output while we are still dependent on fossil fuels: carbon capture and storage (or sequestration if you prefer).

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has the potential to cut a modern power plant's emissions by 80-90%. In such plants, carbon gas is trapped as it exits through exhaust pipes into the atmosphere; it is then usually piped to storage sites in oil and gas fields or other suitable underground locations. Some experts are concerned that the gases might leak out of the ground and reenter the atmosphere, although the IPCC believes 99% will remain sequestered over the next thousand years.

Are there other risks involved with CCS? Could it be applied to all current power stations, and how would that affect our power supply? Is CCS an integral part of a short term energy plan or just a bandaid on a festering wound?

Read the comments on this post...

Sometimes, It's NOT The Motion Of The Ocean That Matters Most...

Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:58:34 -0500

The week's question asks about the likelihood of embracing tidal power, a form of hydropower that converts the energy of tides into electricity. Basically, we're talking wind turbines located where there's strong tidal flow. Sounds clean, and heck, I sure do like the ocean... but uh, I just don't see this becoming a major contender in our alternative energy future.

Okay, so yeah, tides are more predictable than wind and solar sources. They're pretty much inexhaustible, meaning tidal power is completely renewable, and the conversion of potential energy into electricity is also more efficient than with solar or fossil fuel plants. There are two commercial sized operations in La Rance, France and Nova Scotia, Canada, but here at home, we've got none. Thing is, only about 20 locations have good inlets and a large enough tidal range to produce energy economically.

There are plenty of reasons I don't buy tidal power hook, line, and sinker starting with density. Water is about 800 times denser than air, so tidal turbines have to be much sturdier than wind--meaning they're heavy and more expensive to build. Those that are directional also don't capture flow efficiently and they're complicated to maintain because they must be below the mean low water level and require a robust mounting system to prevent turbulence and high-pressure waves nearby. And there's the added trouble that
tidal barrages can change the tidal level in the basin, increase turbidity in the water, and affect navigation and recreation.

And here's my principle concern... See as it happens, I'm a fan of marine life--from the majestic sea cucumber to the northern right whale. And turbines may be hazardous to all sorts of ocean dwelling critters. According to the Gulf of Maine Times:

Fish passage studies using tagged fish have shown a mortality rate of 40 percent, plus or minus 30 per cent. It is difficult to know what impact, if any, handling the fish to tag them had on their ability to survive passage through the turbine system. While pressure differentials are killing fish, it is unclear if the mortality rate is greater or less than would be expected in a traditional hydro installation. Nova Scotia Power has made improvements to the original fish way designed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. As the turbine operates on the ebb tide, the fish-way is only needed during the generation cycle.

Needless to say, you won't find me endorsing this potential next gen idea anytime soon until more research is done on turbines ecological impacts. But it's not just about protecting charismatic species at sea...in an arguably more practical consideration, the payoff from investment--at least right now--isn't all that worthwhile due to high initial costs.

So when it comes to 'offbeat ideas' for energy, I'm more excited about some other realistic possibilities not far down the pipeline.

Read the comments on this post...

Higher, higher, higher!

Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:01:54 -0500

Everyone knows wind turbines will play a role in the energy mix of the near future. But ground-based turbine farms aren't the only way to turn atmospheric kinetic energy into electricity. Among the more imaginative alternatives to the fossilized status quo is the good old-fashioned kite.

This is actually not even a dark horse, at this point, I will concede. (I'm not talking about some Benjamin Franklin scheme involving lightning, as the painting suggests, although that, too, would be mighty powerful.) Indeed, it might strike some as one of the more out-there suggestions to grace these pages. I doubt kites will ever be delivering significant quantities of electrons to the grid. But as an example of the type of thinking we'll need to drag ourselves into the post-petroleum age, it's worth a few minutes of your day. Consider:

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

The dark horse technology of the century: Thermoelectricity

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:11:21 -0500

The buzzwords of the day: TE with high TZ.

The world doesn't need a major technology breakthrough to cost-effectively cut carbon emissions in half by midcentury. Indeed, most such breakthroughs would be difficult to deploy fast enough and on a large enough scale to make a significant difference in that timeframe. Other key medium-term technologies, like low-cost solar photovoltaics, don't require breakthroughs as much as they need steady technological advances, economies of scale, and continued experiential learning from increased market sales.

Sure, we are going to need big-time advances to give us new low-carbon technologies for widescale deployment in the second half of this century to have any hope of getting back to 350 ppm -- but is there any genuine breakthrough that could make a serious difference fast enough to matter by 2050? Such a technology would have to be compatible with the existing energy system. Ideally, it would take advantage of major existing inefficiencies or flaws in our current energy system. It would have to be a technology that could be scaled to many different applications.

Only one long sought for technology I can think of, a true clean energy dark horse or holy Grail, fits the bill: thermoelectric (TE) materials and devices, which directly convert temperature differences to electric voltage and vice versa.

Thermoelectric devices are based on the fact that when certain materials are heated, they generate a significant electrical voltage. Conversely, when a voltage is applied to them, they become hotter on one side, and colder on the other. The process works with a variety of materials, and especially well with semiconductors -- the materials from which computer chips are made.

Why does the ability to turn low-level heat into electricity matter? Because the energy system throws away vast amounts of energy as waste heat. Heck, the energy now lost as waste heat just from U.S. power generation exceeds the energy used by Japan for all purposes.

And that doesn't even include the massive amount of waste heat from much smaller scale engines, like those in your car, where some 80% of the fuel's energy is lost. Wouldn't it be great to capture some of that waste heat and use it for electricity -- in plug-in hybrids, for instance? Imagine if you could design a TE device right into a microchip, to take waste heat and generate more power for you laptop? And what about the potential of high-efficiency, solid-state heating and cooling devices? Or, as M.I.T. noted recently:

The same materials might also play a role in improving the efficiency of photovoltaic cells, harnessing some of the sun's heat as well as its light to make electricity. The key will be finding materials that have the right properties but are not too expensive to produce.

And, of course, a larger scale system could take the waste heat that needs to be rejected from baseload solar (a concentrated solar thermal electric system) and use it to increase efficiency and power output.

Okay, if TE devices are so great, why aren't they everywhere already? After all, the key underlying scientific principles of TE were first discovered nearly 200 years ago.

But [TE] always had one big drawback: it is very inefficient. The fundamental problem in creating efficient thermoelectric materials is that they need to be very good at conducting electricity, but not heat. That way, one end of the apparatus can get hot while the other remains cold, instead of the material quickly equalizing the temperature. In most materials, electrical and thermal conductivity go hand in hand. So researchers had to find ways of modifying materials to separate the two properties.

This looks like a job for nanotechnology. Critical work in the early 1990s by MIT Institute Professor Mildred S. Dresselhaus and others has lead to a tremendous resurgence in TE devices:

The key to making it more practical, Dresselhaus explains, was in creating engineered semiconductor materials in which tiny patterns have been created to alter the materials' behavior. This might include embedding nanoscale particles or wires in a matrix of another material. These nanoscale structures -- just a few billionths of a meter across -- interfere with the flow of heat, while allowing electricity to flow freely. "Making a nanostructure allows you to independently control these qualities," Dresselhaus says.

For those interested in a more technical discussion, I'd strongly recommend a major review article in the latest issue of Science by Lon Bell: "Cooling, Heating, Generating Power, and Recovering Waste Heat with Thermoelectric Systems" (subs. req'd). Bell explains "TE devices are solid-state heat engines. Unlike today's airconditioners, which use two-phase fluids such as the standardrefrigerant R-134A, TE devices use electrons as their workingfluid."

Bell explains the one term of art, ZT, that is worth being able to drop in semi-technical discussions to impress your friends and wow your colleagues:

A figure of merit, ZT, expresses the efficiency of the p-typeand n-type materials that make up a TE couple. The parameterZ is the square of the Seebeck voltage per unit of temperature,multiplied by the electrical conductivity and divided by thethermal conductivity, and T is the absolute temperature. Intoday's best commercial TE cooling/heating modules, ZT is about1.0, and in air-conditioning applications is about one-quarteras efficient as a typical conventional system, such as one thatuses R-134A. Ideal TE system efficiency increases nonlinearlywith ZT, so that to double efficiency, ZT has to increase toabout 2.2. To achieve a fourfold increase (to equal the efficiencyexhibited by today's two-phase refrigerants), ZT would needto increase more substantially to about 9.2.

As noted, it has really been the emergence of nanotechnology that has led to the resurgence of interest in TE by industry, academia, and government :

In 1993, the U.S. government's Office of Naval Research andDefense Advanced Research Projects Agency asked interested researchersto propose pathways to improve ZT for cooling and heating applications. A specific interest was to determine whether the then-emergingnanotechnology and its potential quantum-scale synthesis couldlead to new superior TE materials. In 1993, Hicks and Dresselhousepublished a theoretical model predicting the effect on ZT ofconfining electrons to two-dimensional quantum wells. Theycalculated that the Seebeck coefficient could be increased andthe thermal conductivity could be suppressed. The promise ofthis concept and other ideas from within the TE community ledthe U.S. government to fund several innovative approaches inthe mid-1990s. This initiative set in motion a substantial increasein both theoretical and TE-material developmental research.

By 2001, Venkatasubramanian of Research Triangle Institute announcedachievement of a room-temperature ZT of about 2.4 for a nanoscalestructure made by alternating layers of two TE materials thatboth enhanced the Seebeck coefficient and suppressed thermalconductivity. The next year, Harman of Lincoln Laboratorypublished results claiming a ZT of up to 3.2 at about 300°Cfor a material with nanoscale inclusions that dramatically reducedthermal conductivity. In 2003, Kanatzidis at Michigan StateUniversity led a team in the development of a complex bulk tertiarymaterial with a ZTof at least 1.4 at 500°C. Recently,Heremans at Ohio State University and an international teamclaimed reaching a ZT of 1.5 at 500°C.

Despite thesepromising results, efficiency gains at the device level haveyet to be demonstrated. The scaling of the nanomaterials hasproven to be quite difficult and is still in the developmentstage. The bulk material has yet to be made commercially available.

So we still need a major breakthrough to get commercial products. Still, I have talked to serious companies actively pursuing TE materials and related devices. The potential opportunity is simply too large to ignore:

Until recently, TE technology has languished despite the astonishinggains made in electronics, photonics, and other solid-statefields. Now, 15 years after U.S. government initiatives spurredresurgence in TE research, substantial progress is evident.More-efficient thermodynamic cycles and designs that reducematerial costs are coming into commercial production.

If thefinal enabling advancement, higher ZT in TE materials, is realized,gas-emission-free solid-state home, industrial, and automotiveair conditioning and heating would become practical. In powergeneration, fuel consumption and CO₂ emissions would be reducedby electric power production from vehicle exhaust. Industrialwaste-heat recovery systems could reduce emissions by providingsupplemental electrical power without burning additional fossilfuel.

The question is, Is TE technology on a path to overcomethe historic limitations of low efficiency and high cost perwatt of power conversion that have limited its applicationsin the past? If so, TE solid-state heat engines could well playa crucial role in addressing some of the sustainability issueswe face today.

Read the comments on this post...

Tides, tornadoes, and tourists

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:39:58 -0500

In the race to replace coal and oil, several of the technologies we've discussed here—photovoltaics, wind, nuclear—seem to be projected, by proponents, politicians, investors and the media, as it, the saving grace that will lead us into a new era of renewable energy.

But there are other players in the game, and one of these "dark horse" innovations could yet turn out to be the most promising.

Perhaps the one with the best chance is tidal energy. The sun is not the only celestial body whose unique effects on Earth can be exploited. The reliable cycles of tidal flows, created by the moon's gravitational pull on the planet, also have potential to be tapped for energy production, particularly where oceanic currents are swift and strong.

Although modern forms of tidal power are still in their infancy, the concept is not. As early as the first century B.C., dam—called barrages—were constructed across naturally occurring basins to drive grain mills, and tidal power plants today use the same basic model, with turbines and generators taking the place of waterwheels. A newer form of tidal power, tidal stream generators, are also in development in several countries.

Then there are other contenders: Craig Venter's miraculous 4th generation biofuels; artificially generated tornadoes; even energy created by tourists' footsteps.

So, does tidal energy—or any other, slightly more offbeat idea—have a shot at becoming the next big thing? In 20 or 50 years, will our energy come from the oceans? Or the Spanish Steps? Which is your favorite "dark horse" in this race?

Read the comments on this post...