No Hot Air

Water everywhere

Or at least in the news today:

Here is an inconvenient truth about renewable energy: It can sometimes demand a huge amount of water. Many of the proposed solutions to the nation’s energy problems, from certain types of solar farms to biofuel refineries to cleaner coal plants, could consume billions of gallons of water every year.

“When push comes to shove, water could become the real throttle on renewable energy,” said Michael E. Webber, an assistant professor at the University of Texas in Austin who studies the relationship between energy and water.

Don't even ask about water and nuclear by the way:  Every summer we see stories about French and German nukes unable to produce power due to low river levels.  Energy and water seem to go together, as do some objections about shale gas.

On water, as in carbon, with friends like the Robert F. Kennedy's Waterkeeper Alliance and the Sierra Club on shale's side, at least some people realise that there is never a perfect solution. And we can't afford to wait for one.

Converting rapidly from coal-generated energy to gas is President Barack Obama’s most obvious first step towards saving our planet and jump-starting our economy. A revolution in natural gas production over the past two years has left America awash with natural gas and has made it possible to eliminate most of our dependence on deadly, destructive coal practically overnight – and without the expense of building new power plants.

America’s cornucopia of renewables and the recent maturation of solar, geothermal and wind technologies will allow us to meet most of our energy needs with clean, cheap, green power. In the short term, natural gas is an obvious bridge fuel to the “new” energy economy.

Since 2007, the discovery of vast supplies of deep shale gas in the US, along with advanced extraction methods, have created stable supply and predictably low prices for most of the next century. Of the 1,000 gigawatts of generating capacity currently needed to meet national energy demand, 336 are coal-fired. Surprisingly, America has more gas generation capacity – 450 gigawatts – than it does for coal.

However, public regulators generally require utilities to dispatch coal-generated power in preference to gas. For that reason, high-efficiency gas plants are in operation only 36 per cent of the time. By changing the dispatch rule nationally to require that whenever coal and gas plants are competing head-to-head, gas generation must be utilised first, we could quickly reduce coal generation and achieve massive emissions reductions.

In an instant, this simple change could eliminate three-quarters of America’s coal-burning generators and save a fortune in energy costs. Around 920 US coal plants – 78 per cent of the total – are small (generating less than half a gigawatt), antiquated and horrendously inefficient. Their average age is 45 years, with many over 75. They tend to be located amidst dense populations and in poor neighbourhoods to lethal effect.

Structures, not cycles

On the energy supply side we have the revolution in gas production combining with the game changer of oil/gas decoupling and globalisation to create all good news in energy supply. 

Energy bulls at wholesale and energy risk merchants at retail clutch at straws and search for energy tea leaves by saying that recovering demand will cause prices to rise. Quite apart from how difficult it would be to counteract a doubling, tripling or nine fold increase in supply with a demand rise, the big problem to that theory is: demand is not rising.  Energy has been cyclical up to now. From now on it will be structural, much more interesting, much less volatile and  far cheaper in the cost per unit.

The bull/risk story depends a lot on oil and gas prices acting as they have in the past:  A boom and bust cycle in prices has similar impacts in the demand cycle. But on the demand side, we have certainly passed the peak in developed economies and see a precipitous decline in the rate of growth of developing economies. Why?

Those seeking simple answers, please look away. But the simple overall answer is that people are no longer energy obese. And just like losing a few kilos of weight, losing the fat surrounding energy isn't the same as cutting off ten pounds of ugly fat (your head as any ten year old can tell you), but a whole suite of little things that end up adding up to if not a lot, at least to a trend significant enough to start having an impact on markets.

This time will be different for a variety of reasons. Energy markets can blame themselves a lot by pushing up prices so far last year. Energy producers thought that as in the past demand is inelastic and that all levels of customer simply pony up however outrageous prices became. But this time, price sticker shock combined with efficiency gains,conservation measures and the rising number of alternatives to carbon fuels to cause a drop in demand across all industries and sectors.  Sure we see collapsing industrial demand (Iron and Steel 30% down year on year), but even assuming a big if of a rising economy,  structural changes are replacing cyclical ones. One of our favourite stats is how UK domestic gas use fell by 4% in January 2009 despite weather 40% colder than Jan 2008. 

Price had a lot to do  with that, but it's not  all of it.  Perhaps people lagged their attics, or put on a cardie.  But a more prosaic explanation is that one can reasonably expect 5% of gas central heating boilers to be replaced naturally every year. And any GCH boiler today is going to be at anywhere from 25 to 60% more efficient than the one it replaced. 

Similar savings come from anything else: A consumer may be of the  opinion that  carbon change is one big con, but however much they try, it is impossible for them to buy a light bulb that uses more energy than the one it replaced. They would have to replace one 60 watt bulb with four CFL bulbs and would  still be using less energy.

We've been meaning to  thank, as we have before, Peter Tertzakian of the Calgary Herald.  Energy books are not generally delivered in a clear, witty and understandable way as in The End Of Energy Obesity, a book we commend, or is that channel, to everyone. The best energy book of the year for sure.

Lighting as cheap as newspaper

People who should know better like the NY Times Business of Green, and those who don't want to know better like the Daily Mail or (usually, but not always) the Daily Telegraph, were united this week in looking for controversy and problems over the new rules consigning incandescent bulbs to, well, the age of Edison.

The problem is that where there isn't a controversy for 95% of people, the noisy, and usually stupid, minority get the headlines. The problem here is that CFLs are thought of as the permanent solution, whereas it will be an LED and OLED world of illumination sooner than most think.

And it isn't simply a matter of cheap light bulbs, OLED will also replace LCD displays, again for a better product at minimal cost.  Illumination can be anywhere from 20 to 50% of total energy spend for a business.  The issue won't be how to keep the lights on when the lights do the same or better job at  consumption rates of <5% of current use.  In sunnier climes, solar panels and rechargeable batteries will be able to replace grid power entirely.

OLEDs will also impact carbon through generation reduction. Surging supply of natural gas meets accelerating demand destruction.  The future of energy is all good news.  The problem is that those who have made a career of providing expensive solution to big problems will fight a rearguard action to disinform energy buyers over non-existent risks based on anecdote instead of fact.

Latest OLED good news comes from Japan:

“We have discovered a range of conditions using a two-solvent method that can make extremely smooth thin films using electrospray deposition,” says Yamagata. “Using this technology these devices could be manufactured as inexpensively as printing newspapers.”

Lifesaver Water

We've never done a water story before, but the story of Lifesaver is so disruptive and shift changing that we can't resist

Using nanotechnology to filter the filthiest of water down to potable water in less than 10 seconds, the Lifesaver does what it says on the bottle.

Using chemicals to sterilise water is not always effective, and you will still be drinking a poisonous cocktail with some dead pathogens in it”

We first found Michael Pritchard  the inventor on TED, Riveting Talks by Remarkable People.

The video is amazing and inspiring.

While you're there, check Barry Scwhartz, Dan Arielly, Daniel Kahnemann and just about anyone.

Growing Energy

No, this isn't about growing energy demand. Any reader knows that we stress that the impact of declining demand and increasing supply brings on the paradox of falling energy prices at the time that conventional wisdom merchants tell us prices are up.

What we're talking about here is growing energy.  Dubbed oilgae, this is better energy production through biotech.  This is a long way from coventional biofuels, of which there is considerable doubt over both cost and efficiency. 

There are any number of off the wall sounding schemes to produce energy, but this one is different.  Look who is taking this seriously and who is investing serious money:

On Tuesday, Exxon plans to announce an investment of $600 million in producing liquid transportation fuels from algae — organisms in water that range from pond scum to seaweed. The biofuel effort involves a partnership with Synthetic Genomics, a biotechnology company founded by the genomics pioneer J. Craig Venter

Venter is the guy who did what they said couldn't be done:  He replicated the human genome (it just happened to be his) in two years instead of thirty. The combination of Venter with Exxon is very, very big. Perhaps it will be a big failure. Or it would have a huge payoff.  Exxon looks at things in thirty year views, and they can afford to, but  $600 million is still a fair piece of change even by their standards but this partnership between one of the most conservative energy companies and a true scientific visionary could be massive. 

Exxon’s partnership with Synthetic Genomics is also a vote of confidence in the work of Dr. Venter, a maverick scientist best known for decoding the human genome in the 1990s. In recent years, he has focused his attention on a search for micro-organisms that could be turned into fuel.

“Algae is the ultimate biological system using sunlight to capture and convert carbon dioxide into fuel,” Dr. Venter said.

Algal biofuel, sometimes nicknamed oilgae by environmentalists, is a promising technology. Fuels derived from algae have molecular structures that are similar to petroleum products, including gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, and would be compatible with the existing transportation infrastructure, according to Exxon

 Venter told the New Scientist in 2007:

Over the next 20 years, synthetic genomics is going to become the standard for making anything. The chemical industry will depend on it. Hopefully, a large part of the energy industry will depend on it. We really need to find an alternative to taking carbon out of the ground, burning it, and putting it into the atmosphere. That is the single biggest contribution I could make.

 

Outbreak of optimism

What is it about UK journos that they invariably look for lead linings in every passing cloud, all while acting as stenographers for scare switch sites.  Is being an actual reporter, someone who discovers news as opposed to rewriting fluff, all that hard work?   

Three stories here to relieve the gloom. Peter Tertzakian is someone we feel like being a stenographer to, and his common sense approach would get printed in the UK press as often as, well, us for example. Maybe if we point people to this John Stewart video, he'll get heard more often. Here he is in print telling us the other side of the coin to the we're doomed view:

The big energy debate over the last few years has been around the concept of “peak oil.” There is little doubt that offsetting production declines and bringing more oil to hungry markets like China will challenge the upstream industry, but it’s time for the debate to also include discussion about “peak demand,” and even declining demand. In wealthy mature economies, the data is clearly starting to show it.

And one side of how demand is declining, and by a big potential number comes from Italy :

Solar electricity could compete, cost wise, with other sources of electricity in parts of Southern Europe, by as early as next year, according to an industry report released Monday

And why is photo-voltaic about to take off?  Lots of the reason is staring you in the face.  LCD display technology is broadly similar to PV.  But with TV now so cheap, Taiwanese manufacturers are seeing opportunity:

Beyond this, they are even talking about expanding into a new line of green business, a huge shift for them, which could be silicon-based LED or Solar ...

Optimism is profitable.  Fear eats the balance sheet.  When will UK business get that?

Inputs and outputs

Very instructive piece here about how it is possible to decrease carbon emissions up to 30% by simply tweaking the inputs slightly.

This has relevance to any manufacturer or energy producer who too often complain about the price of the inputs instead of concentrating on the price of the outputs. Firstly let's define the problem. It smells funny, but it makes sense:

..the United Nations called livestock one of the most serious near-term threats to the global climate. In a 2006 report that looked at the environmental impact of cows worldwide, including forest-clearing activity to create pasture land, it estimated that cows might be more dangerous to Earth’s atmosphere than trucks and cars combined.

Frank Mitloehner, a University of California, Davis, professor who places cows in air-tight tent enclosures and measures what he calls their “eruptions,” says the average cow expels — through burps mostly, but some flatulence — 200 to 400 pounds of methane a year.

We don't know how many cows there are in the world, but this a ton of CO2.  Or many millions of tonnes actually. But the solution is at hand:

A potential solution was offered by Groupe Danone, the French makers of Dannon yogurt and Evian bottled water,..... Scientists working with Groupe Danone had been studying why their cows were healthier and produced more milk in the spring. The answer, the scientists determined, was that spring grasses are high in Omega-3 fatty acids, which may help the cow’s digestive tract operate smoothly.

When the scientists began putting high concentrations of Omega-3 back into the cows’ food year-round, the animals were more robust, their digestive tract functioned better and they produced less methane.

The new feed is used at 600 farms in France, said Julia Laurain, a representative of Valorex SAS, a French company that makes the feed additives and that is working with Stonyfield Farm to bring the program to the United States.

A reason farmers like corn and soy is that those crops are a plentiful, cheap source of energy and protein — which may lead some to resist replacing them. But Ms. Laurain said flax cost less than soy, although grain prices can fluctuate.

How often do we have to say it?  Saving energy is neither complicated or expensive. Just use less. And save more. It does demand new thinking. Creating new options as opposed to catering to old ideas. Back to, or is that behind, the cows:

The methane-reduction results have been far more significant in France than in the Vermont pilot — about 30 percent — because the feed is distributed there not just to organic farms, where the animals already eat grass for at least half the year, but also to big industrial farms.

A 30 percent drop in bovine emissions would be a giant step forward which would be better for everyone on two legs. And four:

Mr. Choiniere said that regardless of how the tests turned out, he planned to stick with the new feeding system.

“They are healthier and happier,” he said of his cows, “and that’s what I really care about.

Finnish Fiasco?

NHO is open minded and neutral.  We simply want businesses to spend only a little time and money on energy. For 99% of end users anything else is just expensive noise.

In our neutral and open minded way, lets state at the outset that we have no bone to pick with nuclear power. France and Japan are two examples that come to mind of being paradigms of safety, reliabllity and good sense in nuclear. To dismiss nuclear would be unwise and unrealistic.

But it's equally unrealistic and unwise to propose a massive nuclear ramp up as providing a cost effective way forward. We scratch our heads when those who complain over the cost of wind or solar or smart meters, or the impossiblity of "unconventional" gas propose massively expensive grand projects that end up being subsidised by both tax payer and end user, or in other words everybody. Twice. Nuclear is an option.  But not cheaper than anything else.

One example is proposals from the likes of Ian Fells, Bernard Ingham or Dominic Lawson to build up to 40 new nuclear plants. That works out to over £2k for each man, woman and child. Give that sum to each householder to upgrade their energy efficiency instead and for a quarter of the cost one would have a greater impact on energy and carbon use, with extra gains through job creation and eliminating fuel poverty.

We wanted to believe that the new generation of nuclear power would be different. But is it a false dawn as the  Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble ?

The massive power plant under construction on muddy terrain on this Finnish island was supposed to be the showpiece of a nuclear renaissance. The most powerful reactor ever built, its modular design was supposed to make it faster and cheaper to build. And it was supposed to be safer, too.

But things have not gone as planned. 

A new fleet of reactors would be standardized down to “the carpeting and wallpaper,” as Michael J. Wallace, the chairman of UniStar Nuclear Energy — a joint venture between EDF Group and Constellation, the Maryland-based utility — has said repeatedly.

In the end, he says, that standardization will lead to significant savings.

But early experience suggests these new reactors will be no easier or cheaper to build than the ones of a generation ago, when cost overruns — and then accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl — ended the last nuclear construction boom.

We wanted to believe. We tried. It hasn't worked. There are plenty of other options, and many of them cheaper and quicker to achieve the result that the New Nuclear was seeking. Let's try them.

One excuse less

China provides a big excuse for two counter productive energy behaviours:

Inaction: What I do want have any impact, China is building  coal plant everyday which cancels out anything I/my industry/western civilisation as we know it, can contribute

Fear:  China is going to suck up every commodity going, pushing prices up. Best to buy now.

We hear this a lot, generally from traders and others in the energy expertise industry.  We heard the one about a power station every day twice over the past week, both from people who should know better:  James Naughtie on the Today show and the FT interviewing Ed Miliband. (EM didn't contradict the FT either)

That line sounds snappy and believable and we'll hear it again. But once again,(sigh), the quick and the easy soundbite is about as reliable as any other urban energy myth. Those who want to profit from unconventional wisdom should read this. We've said it before, and we'll say it again:  Don't assume China will repeat the energy mistakes of the "developed" economies.

But largely missing in the hand-wringing is this: China has emerged in the past two years as the world’s leading builder of more efficient, less polluting coal power plants, mastering the technology and driving down the cost.

The steps they’ve taken are probably as fast and as serious as anywhere in power-generation history

So what about the power station every day snappy idea?:

Western countries continue to rely heavily on coal-fired power plants built decades ago with outdated, inefficient technology that burn a lot of coal and emit considerable amounts of carbon dioxide. China has begun requiring power companies to retire an older, more polluting power plant for each new one they build

And to the paranoid, this is all about blaming someone else for being successful while we engage in endless analysis and almost as constant whingeing. First these foreigners ignore our advice. Next thing they'll be selling us solutions to clean up our own mess.

By adopting “ultra-supercritical” technology, which uses extremely hot steam to achieve the highest efficiency, and by building many identical power plants at the same time, China has cut costs dramatically through economies of scale. It now can cost a third less to build an ultra-supercritical power plant in China than to build a less efficient coal-fired plant in the United States.

Ah but I met Jeremy Clarkson down the pub and he said energy efficiency won't have any impact so fill up the tank put the pedal to the metal. Or:

China’s improvements are starting to have an effect on climate models. In its latest annual report last November, the I.E.A. cut its forecast of the annual increase in Chinese emissions of global warming gases, to 3 percent from 3.2 percent, in response to technological gains, particularly in the coal sector, even as the agency raised slightly its forecast for Chinese economic growth. “It’s definitely changing the baseline, and that’s being taken into account,” said Jonathan Sinton, a China specialist at the energy agency.

All we can hope is those who do nothing about their own emissions via blaming China or other BRIC economies might possibly learn something, or at least hesitate the next time someone pushes the old "UK power prices will increase whatever happens because of soaring world demand" scenario. Don't assume the western model is so compelling to "less developed" economies. But a big problem is short termism. How much easier things would be if we could follow this advice:

Cao Peixi, the president of the China Huaneng Group, the country’s biggest state-owned electric utility and the majority partner in the joint venture building the Tianjin plant, said his company was committed to the project even though it would cost more than conventional plants.

“We shouldn’t look at this project from a purely financial perspective,” he said. “It represents the future.”

Tweeting outside the box on Smart Metering

We've said for a while, that bi-directional smart metering is a nice to have, but why should we wait 10 years or more for it?  Most people, as we noted last week in the post Thinking outside the Box on Smart Metering, need a widget not a gadget: software not hardware.

We think that SM will be delivered through Home Area Networks sometime in the next 18 months to five years. But the geeks at Tweet-a-Watt have something that might not be exactly what we want, but it's here today and it works.  Energy is measured at each device level and sent to an application that transmits it to Twitter. Now Twitter strikes us a horrible application: most people over the age of fifteen don't need to know in real time every thought as it strays across their friend's cerebellum or what someone had for dinner. But the concept here of energy information delivered straight to an iPhone appeals to us. In fact we had asked for exactly that in a post last July.

First the idea, then proof of concept, and now they release this open source application out in to the world. Someone will get seriously rich on something like this, unfortunately it won't be us.