Home › Blog › Page 1593

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Science

PhotobucketIn preparation for the book I’m writing on renewable energy, which I hope to publish sometime this winter, I’ll be interviewing my colleague and friend Wally Rippel. Readers of “The Three Brass Tacks” will remember Wally’s comments on cold fusion. In the book, I think it’s important that I offer a chapter tentatively called “Cutting-edge Physics, Fact and Fantasy,” enabling readers to see where the energy industry might be 50 years or so from now.

In my call with Wally just now, I was encouraged that he was so enthusiastic about the book, on the basis that he believes that public ignorance is what’s holding all of this back. There are currently an average of 385 parts per million of CO2 in our atmosphere, and the consensus in the scientific community that that this needs to come down at a maximum of 350 PPM to prevent global warming. But the oil companies and others who would profit at the expense of the destruction of our earth are pointing us into technologies that are clearly unworkable, most notably hydrogen — and most people don’t understand enough about science to see that is simply a hoax. The theoretical limit on the efficiency of hydrogen fuel cells is below 30%, compared with electric motors that are already in the high 80s. Yet Wallt points out that people are thoroughly confused on this issue; many even believe that hydrogen is a form of energy — rather than a carrier of energy — like a battery or the driveshaft of your car.

The thing I love about our talks is that I learn something – normally pertaining to both science and philosophy — from almost everything that comes out of Wally’s mouth.  Here’s a great example, from my 10-minute phone conversation earlier today:

The breakthroughs of 19th century physics turned into useful tools very quickly. E.g., when Faraday and Maxwell nailed electricity and magnetism, we had electric motors and generators within a few years. With modern physics, by contrast, it takes many decades for breakthroughs for such ideas to affect our lives — if they make any difference at all. For instance, look at the work going into quantum entanglement, the concept that certain pairs of particles, no matter how distant from one another, seem to know each other’s state instantaneously. Obviously, like so many other things about quantum physics, this is very weird and counter-intuitive, if only that it violates the theory of special relatively that would have us believe that nothing (particles, information, etc.) can travel faster than the speed of light. In any case, the world of advanced physics is working hard to make use of this phenomenon, certainly in communications—and perhaps one day in energy — but at best, it will be many decades before any of this happens.

That was worth 10 minutes of my time any day of the week.

Tagged with: , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Business

Investing in Green Energy  

– Mike Brace

 

I think that one of the hardest questions we face when considering the technology paths of tomorrow is which one we chose.  There are many great, novel and truly workable ideas for new ways to harness the natural energy flow of this planet and generate energy, motion and work from it. With this many choices the question then becomes which one we chose to pursue en masse.

The answer will be based on a myriad of inputs: conversion factors, collection means, cost-effectiveness, environmental impact, energy source and availability, and so on. The one input that many people miss is that of scalability. In terms of green energy I define scalability as “the technology’s ability to meet a significant percentage of the demand for the energy (or work) in which it produces.” It is a combination of power density, affordability and durability. Think of it as the formula for global acceptance. All of the grants I have worked on considered ‘scalability’ to be a major factor in their decision making process as to which technology to invest in.

Scalability is the means by which to gauge a technology’s ability to grow in the marketplace. Take steam for instance. Converting water to steam is still considered one of the most powerful means by which to generate force. When the automobile first hit the road 100 years ago some were actually powered by steam. But it wasn’t very scalable in that application. In other words, the mechanics of generating work through extracting the heat energy from steam wasn’t good in that application.

Yet today steam produces better than 2/3rds of the electricity on this planet, and more so everyday. (Yep, it’s true; all coal and nuclear plants heat up water to make steam to drive turbines.) And even though we don’t use it to drive our cars it is still the power of choice to throw a 30-ton aircraft off the edge of an aircraft carrier (60 years after it was invented!). We discovered that the mechanics by which to generate steam AND convert it to electricity were very scalable. When you look at a coal-fired or nuclear power plant all you really see is a giant steam boiler. There’s no magic going on in there. And because water is an inexhaustible mechanical power source all we need is fuel to make steam.

Now we have come to realize that while the mechanics were very scalable, and that the mechanical power supply (water) was inexhaustible, the fuel to convert it is not scalable because the environment is overwhelmed by our ability to convert it and Mother Nature’s ability to replace it. A clever investor will discover that while carbon-based fuel is lowering the scalability factor [for steam power] efforts in solar power may be doing just the opposite. A good investor is also part soothsayer. Thomas Edison, in conversation with Harvey Firestone and Henry Ford, once remarked “I’d put my money on solar energy. I hope we don’t have to wait till oil and coal run out before we tackle that.”

In order to be scalable in today’s world an ‘energy conversion device’ (e.g. the hydrokinetically-powered electric generator or “HyPEG”) needs to achieve a ‘positive’ balance between the product (in this case electricity) with the mechanics (an underwater paddle wheel) and the energy source (river currents) as well as the environment (aquatic) in which it operates to achieve the desired scalability. Windmills worked great for grinding flour 400 years ago, but when the world needed more flour we had to abandon them because they weren’t scalable for what they were designed to do (grind flour). Here in the US, our forefathers ground flour with mills along streams. Now we no longer use either of those energy sources (wind and hydropower) to make flour but instead we use them to make electricity. When it comes to making a useful amount of electricity, and in a global environment, it is important to understand the scalability of the mechanics. For a layman and/or investor this can be tough to do, especially when you don’t see it in front of you (like you can with coal and nuclear plants). For the average investor this myopic vision becomes a ‘safe’ means to determine if a technology is scalable; the more you see the more we have made, therefore it must be scalable and a safe investment. While it may be a logical means by which to invest, it is not the smartest. I don’t imagine that the last investment banker which held the most stock in buggy whips is still around today, and the case of Ferdinand Graf von Zeppelin also comes to mind here.

Scalability needs to be looked at in a historical perspective to be understood. When we built dams we turned a blind eye to their effects on the river’s eco-system, thinking only about the scalability of large hydro-turbines and the economics of using them to make electricity. Now that the dams are too expensive (compared to other means of generating electricity) and mankind understands the negative impact they have on the environment, very few utility companies want to build them anymore (with the exception of those in China and Africa). But we did like the hydro-turbines; so many companies are designing new energy conversion technologies around them and many investors consider them a safe haven. However, not many are looking closely enough at the scalability of the hydro-turbine design.

Underwater run-of-river and ocean current turbines are a viable means of turning current flow into electricity, but considering that most of the usable current flow that we have access to lies in relatively shallow waters, turbines are not very scalable; to make a lot of power (more than 4 MW in 13 knots of current) you need a very large turbine diameter (30+ ft), so you need ‘deep water’ (more than 60 feet deep). There are not a lot of usable river currents that run that deep. We can put really big turbines along the bottom out in the deep ocean, but there is not much access to the grid along the coast so all of that power doesn’t do us much good. (T. Boone Pickens ran into this problem with his wind-turbine strategy.) Besides, large turbines need to stick up a long way from the bottom thus making them an even larger target for fish, dolphins and whales to run into. Rightfully so, you don’t see a lot of effort being put into those really large turbines because of their ‘scalability’ problems.

The technology exists to build smaller turbines for run-of-river electrical production, but you would have to build [literally] millions of then to even start to make a dent in world’s current demand for electricity. The idea of making millions of them may be appealing (from an investment point of view) but the problem is that they are not very scalable. They are expensive, not very robust, not very fish-friendly, and we would run out of rivers long before we could use enough of them to replace coal. Some states are even doing their best to steer clear of them for all of the reasons mentioned above. However there are other hydropower technologies out there that may not appear to use the latest in technology but do offer a design approach that is far better suited to larger scalability than some of the more familiar efforts. These are factors that need to be considered when investing in hydrokinetics.

Long term investment strategists that desire continuous high-yield results for years to come need to look forward and make decisions based on more factors than just what is popular (or what has been done before). Companies such as Emerson usually shun innovation, and only invest in proven technology regardless of its forecasted future. A shrewd investor can always make 15% on investments by doing this but [like Emerson] you’ll find your market-share dwindling over time. It can be a profitable pattern, but it is not usually a growth pattern; especially in transitional times like these. Companies like the kind that Henry Ford started were successful because he knew that even though the horse was responsible for over 90% of the personal transportation market it was not scalable beyond that market. He also knew the automobile could go beyond personal transportation. When asked “Why the automobile?” he responded “If I had asked them what they wanted they would have said ‘Faster horses’”.

Before you decide on what to invest in (and what not to invest in) first decide how long you are willing to let your investments grow. If the technology has a high scalability factor, then your investments in such will have not only have a high growth rate, but a growth rate that can be maintained for years and years to come. Think of ‘scalability factor’ as an investment potential in not only your children’s future, but your grandkid’s future as well. If that growth pattern is appealing to you, make the smart investment — not necessarily the popular one.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Science

PhotobucketI’m hoping that I can get Matthew Simmons to help me with the “peak oil” section of the book I’m writing on Renewable Energy. Though I’ve never met Matt personally, he’s a friend of numerous friends, and I have a good feeling that this will ultimately happen.  And to stimulate discussion on the topic, I’ve begun writing posts on a variety of blogs in which the subject is discussed.

Here’s what I wrote on the distinguished R-Squared, in response to a heated discussion on Mr. Simmons’ credentials as a scientist:

I strain to understand the fascination for the fine points of this subject, i.e., exactly when the world experienced – or will experience – peak oil. Whether or not you agree with Matt Simmons’ analysis and conclusion (which I happen to, personally), I think you have to concede that CO2 levels of 385 ppm and climbing means taking an unacceptable risk with the future of our planet – in terms of both global climate change and ocean acidification. I’m less interested in the rhetoric surrounding peak oil — and more interested in beginning to create what I know will be a monumental effort to build legislation that establishes a level playing field for renewables, as I’ve written in numerous blogposts at 2GreenEnergy.com, e.g., this morning’s.

Tagged with: , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Business

The 2GreenEnergy mantra “It’s business” is played out in this interview with General Electric’s Energy Infrastructure CEO John Krenicki on the company’s investment in renewables. As with most such interviews, the content here is extremely broad, general, and at times evasive; I find it funny when I see someone on camera answer a direct question in a way that has absolutely nothing to do with the query. But to be fair, I suppose that’s part of the skill-set of the CEO of any Fortune 25 company: staying on-message.

It’s important for us all to understand that a company with the global footprint of GE has (apparently profitably) invested billions of dollars of resources into solar and wind.  The wind business that they bought from Enron for $300 million did $6 billion in high-margin revenue last year. That gets a lot of attention from Wall Street.

And let’s not forget that all this is being done in the context of renewable energy that comes with a price tag that is significantly above that of energy from fossil fuels. So exactly when will the price of renewable energy fall to the point that it’s competitive with fossil fuels — and coal, etc. can become a thing of the past? A friend of mine recommends this 83-pager on wind power that purports to answer that question. But I can see from its synopsis that it boils down to this: with natural gas demand factors falling and the supply factors skyrocketing, renewables will not be directly cost-competitive for some time.

Of course, here is the real problem that advocates for renewables face: customers of fossil fuel-based energy are not paying anywhere near the true costs.  When we buy a tank of gasoline, the manufacturer simply passes the cost of cleaning up the mess on to future generations — and they’re so powerful that no one even thinks of taking them to task. What would happen if we were to close that loophole? What if the price of a gallon of gasoline rose to include the cost of the healthcare to deal with the lung disease that is caused by burning it, and to include the cost of pulling the CO2 and other garbage out of the atmosphere?

The answer is obvious: We’d have a level playing field on which electric vehicles and renewable energy would be rightly perceived as the bargain of the millennium. And that, in very short order, would be the end of internal combustion engines and the oil companies in very short order. But as long as the oil and coal companies retain the power to defecate on the health of future generations and nothing happens to change the way we deal with them, renewable energy will continue to fight an uphill battle.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Politics

PhotobucketI intend to make only a minimum of remarks about the ethics of environmental stewardship, for fear of preaching to the choir, as well as offering opinion on a site otherwise devoted to fact. Yet occasionally, experiences call upon me to write such a post.

The first experience on which I’d like to comment is one that I know I share with many readers: the PBS special on the National Parks. I know we are all deeply moved to learn about the discussions between John Muir and Teddy Roosevelt and how, at the beginning of the last century, our world was transformed forever with the establishment of protection for many of the national treasures.

PhotobucketThe second experience is a far more personal. I took my 13 year-old daughter (pictured here) and one of her friends to the Santa Barbara Art Museum last Sunday for a docent-led tour of the travelling exhibit of Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot. I happened to join another tour an hour or so later in the day for a discussion of a piece of contemporary art: a huge piece of pale grey and pink with almost no content; it was like looking out on a dense fog. The docent asked the crowd, perhaps 25 of us, what we felt the artist had intended to communicate. I didn’t answer, as I’m by no means an art expert, and I certainly didn’t want to pontificate in front of this group of strangers who couldn’t hit their “back” button and shut me up.

But in fact, the artist’s message was very straightforward me: ambiguity. We struggle to assign meaning to the people, the things, and the events in our lives. We live in a cold and uncaring world, one that is quite indifferent to your and my happiness. Our presence in this universe is the only thing that confers meaning upon it.

And with this fact comes responsibility. Exactly what meaning do we confer? What decisions and actions do we make, and what are their consequences? What difference will we make in our own lives, in the lives of those around us, and in the lives of generations yet to come? It’s up to each of us to create lives of true meaning – and preserving the natural purity and beauty of our planet is a great place to start.

Tagged with: , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Electric Vehicles

PhotobucketI’ll be moderating the “infrastructure” panel at the AltCarExpo in Santa Monica, CA this Friday. I already feel a warm connection with my panelists that I’m sure will make for a good presentation to the audience when we take the stage at about 3:30 that afternoon. And I’m very glad to be moderating; I’m happy to provide answers as I see the issues from my political and technological viewpoints, but I feel that asking good questions is probably just as important.

I’ve met one of my panelists, AC Propulsion CEO Tom Gage, several times. A man for whom I have the utmost respect, Tom describes himself as a “car-nut since childhood.” He took AC Propulsion’s helm from founder Alan Cocconi (designer of General Motors EV-1 — star of “Who Killed the Electric Car“) and leads a team of people here in a California and in Shangai in building the world’s most advanced drivetrains for electric vehicles, including BMW’s Mini-E. “It just rubs me the wrong way to start up a gas engine,” Gage says. I know the feeling.

I’ve also established friendships with panelists Paul Scott from Plug-In America and Enid Joffe of the Clean Fuel Connection – both magnificent people with huge stores of knowledge to share. Again, I hope anyone in the area will drop by.

 

 

Tagged with: , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Business

PhotobucketAs part of my report “25 Tips for Renewable Energy Businesses” I include an idea that I call “Match Your Brand to Customers’ Self-Expression.”

I believe that the most fundamental ingredient in successful marketing is understanding your target market’s “self-concept.” Generally, people like themselves; they approve of who they are and how they think. And they manifest this self-concept by aligning themselves with brands that reflect that approval back to them. If you doubt this, I offer this simple challenge: write down a few of the values that are at the core of your own self-concept—the beliefs that make you who you really are. I think you’ll find that the car you drive, the clothes you wear, the books you read, etc., are all a very direct reflection of those values.  And no place is this more important than in the marketing of environmentally sustainable products and services.

I know that you and I are are totally wrapped up in the idea of clean energy — both on a personal and professional viewpoint – and I’m cautious about thinking that everyone on Earth is as tuned into this as we are – which is obviously not the case. But each time I wash my 14 year old BMW with its 206,000 miles on it, I remind myself of the promise I made to myself (that I’ll never my another car without a plug on it). I’m SO done with traditional transportation, with defining myself in terms of what I drive, with needing a car that will go 130 MPH, with driving a car that causes a little piece of environmental death each time I step on the gas. I simply can’t help but think that other people must be tired of this stupidity as well.

I believe most of the 25 tips apply fairly well to businesses of all types, but I have to think this concept is even more relevant in the clean energy space. As I’ve written elsewhere, the zeitgeist that surrounds environmental stewardship is probably the most pronounced and sweeping trend of the 21st century. 

I’m reminded of the seachange that took place in the fur industry in the 1960s, when civilization took hold of the brutality by which minks and chinchillas were slaughtered to make ladies’ coats.  In a very short period of time, women who didn’t get the message and weren’t willing to make this minor sacrifice were regarded as pariahs.  It seems to me that the situation is the same now, with Hummer drivers and others who somehow haven’t developed some level of eco-consciousness. 

In a few words (by no means original), I would say that this consciousness is summed up as:

I live in a world where others’ rights — even the rights of those as yet unborn — are just as important is mine.

I do not own the Earth or any piece of it; I am a caretake of Earth for a short period of time.

I am proud and happy to make sacrifices of my own convenience and comfort to ensure that the world a better place for us all to live — now and forever.

My advice:  Do some research to validate the idea that this spirit is alive in your target customer base.  If it is, work hard to capture the essence of that spirit in your marketing.

Tagged with: , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Science

This week I had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Peter Lilienthal of Homer Energy — arguably the most experienced person on the planet regarding the optimal mix of renewable resources within a power system.  He’s spent the last 30 years in the clean energy industry — 17 of them at The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).   Peter’s software — which he makes available for free — simulates systems that have multiple renewable resources blended with one another and with traditional fossil fuels to supply the minute to minute demand for electric power.

Let’s explore what all this means exactly. Suppose you’re responsible for power generation in a certain region – anything from the scope of the Western United States to a small remote village – and that you can have multiple sources for this power. Suppose, for instance, that you’d like to make use of wind turbines whenever possible, but you need diesel generators as a supplement. Exactly what happens when the wind slows down? Or, consider an even more urgent question: what happens when it blows like stink?

In the US, where renewables are a regrettably small percentage of our total electrical power mix, it’s really not a huge issue. Coal provides 48% – 49% of our power, and those plants run 24-hours per day turning out power with extreme consistency – albeit at considerable expense to the environment. But where renewables are a relatively large percentage, e.g., Europe – or when they’re in the process of growing, which most of us hope to see here in the US, it’s a huge issue.

This is a game of optimization, i.e., how does one deliver the cleanest, least expensive, most reliable blend of power onto the grid? In the course of my conversation with Peter, I got an immediate sense for how difficult this process of optimization is, due to the many variables at play:

– You want to favor renewables over fossil fuels wherever possible, but you don’t want an unacceptably high risk of brownouts.

– Dirty power sources are only dirty when you use them; there is nothing wrong with coal or oil if it’s used as a back-up. However, if you might later need power from a coal or nuclear plant you can only back its output down a limited amount. If you turn off a coal plant, it takes about 24 hours to bring it back online. Nuclear is even less flexible.

– For the greatest reliability, you don’t want all your eggs in one basket; you want to distribute power generation methods across different technologies.

– You want to minimize cost. There is plenty of clean energy out there if you’re willing to spend enough to get it. (I laughed out loud in this part of the conversation, as I had just published a blog post on far-offshore wind farms, which would be ideal, if it weren’t for the cost.)

– Utilities don’t want to decommission plants that are working fine.

As suggested above, this is a much bigger issue internationally. Up until the last decade, most of Peter’s attention was on small, remote areas in developing counties. But when the world decided that money was too tight to put too much attention on impoverished people in poor countries, the area of focus became the Australia, Alaska, and the Caribbean. Island communities are perfect for renewables as their power is entirely generated by importing oil – not at all ideal, insofar as it’s expensive and its dependence puts the country’s security at risk. They can also get to high renewable contributions quickly with just a couple of projects.

“Wow, 30 years.” I mused. “That’s an impressive period of time. You must have seen some heavy-duty changes. Can you take me through some of that?” I asked.

“When I got into this, it was mostly anti-nuclear activists. And by the way, I’m sad to report that nuclear isn’t dead. When you hear politicians say ‘We need to keep all our options on the table,’ that’s usually code-speak for ‘let’s resurrect nuclear power.’”

“Then what happened?  Did the activists just go away?”

“No, but then in 1990s they were joined by ‘the tinkerers’ and the ‘mad scientists,’ followed by ‘the arrogant millionaires’ from their dot-com IPOs looking for the next big thing.”

“So now we have the makings of a trillion-dollar industry, which is going to need all kinds of skills and experience.”

“Yes,” Peter replied. “As you put it on your website, ‘It’s business.’ Now we have pragmatic people – lots of them – working to make viable businesses. HOMER Energy’s user base is a community of the innovators, working hard with their sleeves rolled up, looking at all the different ways to get this done.”

35,000 people all over the world use Homer Energy software to optimize the delivery of renewable power — and about a thousand new users join the family each month. What a fantastic contribution to the world of sustainability. On behalf of us all, Peter, thank you.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Wind Energy

In this quite lucid and compelling video on offshore wind farms, The Sierra Club points out the numerous benefits of this technology. Until I watched it, I was unaware that turbines could be 12 miles offshore, and that the continental shelf off the eastern US was shallow enough such that the units could be anchored to the ocean floor that far from land. In my mind, this makes a compelling case. Of course, the issue is cost, which the video does not mention.

Sierra spokeperson Ivy Main, the renewable energy chair for the club’s Virginia chapter does an excellent job in contrasting this solution with dirty power sources like coal, but does so in a calm, measured, and professional tone.  She also points out that this idea does not require the transmission of large amount of power over thousands of miles, which, of course, is a requirement of the solution I favor, solar thermal. However, with high voltage direct current (HVDC), which I also favor, there is relatively little power loss in such a scenario.

Again, it is my fondest wish that we can somehow put politics aside, conduct a fair-minded study of all the options that are available to us as a nation, and make the right decision. There are, of course, numerous reasons that this is not happening — the most obvious of which, as I’ve covered many times, is the power of the interests that are working to prevent it.

But here’s another wrinkle: we seem to be working within the paradigm that a great number of different technologies are all going to be part of the long-term solution, and that anyone who holds a contrary position is an extremist. Frankly, I’ve never understood that. I liken this “macro” decision to the “micro” decision that I would make if I were going to take our farm off the grid. Would I have some array of wind turbines, solar panels, and geothermal heat pumps? Probably not. I’d do a study, and try to remove the biases of the salespeople.  Then I’d adopt the technology that made the most sense and implement it in sufficient quantity to fulfill my needs.

I really fail to see where this analogy breaks down. There must be a single best solution. It’s my hope that we can identify it and get it done.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Hydrokinetics

PhotobucketThose of you who read my Three Brass Tacks article on hydrokinetics will remember the concept of the HyPEG (Hydrokinetically Powered Electric Generator). I’m thrilled to announce that we at HLK (Hydrokinetic Labs, LLC) made significant forward progress this week, where US Representative Geoff Davis (R-KY) recommended that the DoE take a hard look at funding and developing HyPEG technology.

It’s too early pop the champagne corks, but it’s certainly movement in the right direction.