Category: Articles

  • We need new energy guidance

     

    Only recently has it become clear that these seemingly disparate issues are a collective manifestation of a dysfunctional energy system. Globally and at the national level, energy is still conceptualised and managed in terms of energy sources, not in terms of the energy services these sources provide. Yet consumers have no particular interest in what sources of energy fuel their production, transportation, lighting, heating, air conditioning, or appliances. The existing paradigm serves to rigidify decision-making at a time when extraordinary flexibility and rapid change are essential.

    At the global level, a host of intergovernmental organisations is tasked with addressing various pieces of the energy puzzle. Among these, the most conspicuous is the International Energy Agency (IEA). Created by oil consumers in the 1970s in response to the Opec price shocks and embargoes by Arab oil exporters, the IEA has succeeded in establishing and supervising a system of national oil stockpiles, which has helped to prevent a recurrence. With a small but highly competent professional staff, the IEA has also become the primary source for the world’s energy statistics and is playing a key role in the climate debate.

    But it is nowhere near the truly international organisation that its name implies. The IEA was established by and for a small number of wealthy oil-importing countries, under the aegis of the OECD. Its membership remains restricted to OECD countries, even though surging demand from non-member countries like China and India is rapidly undermining the IEA’s ability to speak for, and co-ordinate responses among, oil importers as a group. Although the IEA’s mandate has expanded beyond oil since the early 1990s to include broader energy policy, several of its own member governments, led by Germany, found its record on renewables so unsatisfactory that they recently established the International Renewable Energy Agency, whose membership is open to all.

    Other key intergovernmental organisations face their own limits. The International Energy Forum, which grew out of a series of meetings of energy ministers, is intended to provide a common forum for fossil-fuel producers and consumers. It has taken some useful steps that may help to stabilise markets, such as the Joint Oil Data Initiative, but it plays a relatively minor role. The Energy Charter treaty has failed to bring Russia into a rule-based framework for international transit via oil and gas pipelines. The World Bank’s energy financing remains overwhelmingly dedicated to fossil fuels, despite limited efforts to establish funding for low-carbon energy.

    Numerous networks and partnerships have emerged in response to the gaps in global energy governance. For example, the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership, founded in the UK, has grown into a multi-stakeholder body supporting renewables and efficiency in numerous countries. So far, however, such initiatives remain quite small. They will not, in the foreseeable future, operate on a scale that can foster a rapid transition away from fossil fuels or provide energy services to billions of new consumers.

    As is true of other global problems, a lot depends on the capacity and willingness of the most powerful national governments to act collectively. Yet these countries’ deeply flawed systems of national energy governance will make such action all the more challenging.

    Indeed, in many ways, the situation has been getting worse. Over the past two decades, advocates of privatisation have promised greater efficiencies and lower energy prices, but the failure to accompany privatisation with appropriate regulation and enforcement has left many countries with poorly governed and often deeply corrupt energy sectors.

    Moreover, given the vast profits available under the current system, the struggle to bring about a significant energy transition faces stiff resistance from deeply entrenched vested interests. Market forces alone are unable to cope with major externalities such as greenhouse gas emissions, with overwhelming government control over major energy sources such as oil, and with huge numbers of people too poor to constitute a market.

    Our fractured landscape for energy governance was not planned. It has evolved piecemeal, with little co-ordination among its various parts. If we are to avoid paying a high economic, strategic, and environmental price for its shortcomings, a better system of developing and enforcing internationally agreed energy rules is essential.

  • Qatar to use biofuel? What about the country’s energy consumption?

     

    But the airline is doing an analysis to see if it might one day start burning biofuels. Perhaps the biofuels will be grown on the huge chunk of farmland the state controversially wants to buy in Kenya.

    Qataris have the highest carbon footprint on the planet. The country’s per-capita emissions from burning fossil fuels are way ahead of any other nation, and almost three times those of everybody’s poster bad boy, the US. This is all the more extraordinary since Qatar’s electricity is mostly generated from burning natural gas, which has half the emissions of coal.

    Those emissions have also risen almost fourfold since 1990. But, thanks to the vagaries of the Kyoto Protocol, the country is not penalised for this. Qatar is by some measures the second richest country in the world, but for the purposes of climate law, it is classified as a developing nation. And so it has no emissions targets.

    How come Qatar’s emissions are so high? The main reason is its soaring use of energy. By the end of next year Qatar will have six times the electricity-generating capacity it had as recently as 1995. One outlet for all this power is industry, based round its huge natural gas reserves. Just this week, the national gas company announced a deal with ExxonMobil for a new $6bn (£3.69bn) petrochemicals plant.

    A lot of Qatar’s gas is exported as liquefied natural gas – the country is the world’s largest producer of the stuff. It’s a fairly clean fuel at our end, but takes a lot of energy to liquefy in Qatar. So to that extent Qatar is taking a hit to allow Europe and North America to cut their emissions – handy for helping us meet the Kyoto Protocol, but not much good for the planet.

    The Qatari government recently used this argument to downplay its emissions. In its recent Human Development Report, it called them “relatively modest”.

    But that is not the real story. Those Qatari emissions are so extraordinarily high for another reason. Qataris just don’t seem to care.

    Sure, there is the biofuels initiative from the state airline. Sure, a year ago Qatar held a conference to discuss how to cut its emissions without damaging the economy.

    But if its rulers were serious about cutting emissions they might charge for their energy supplies. Yes, you read that right. Qatari households get their electricity free. So why would they cut down on how much they burn?

    Oh, and they get their water free as well. And in Qatar, even more than most places in the Middle East, water is liquid electricity. Almost every drop coming out of the taps is produced from desalinating seawater. This is extremely expensive in energy – and therefore expensive in carbon emissions.

    But because the water is free, Qataris waste it like, well, water. Despite being a desert state with virtually no rainfall, the country has among the highest per-capita water uses in the world. Use averages around 400 litres per head per day. According to Hassan Al-Mohannadi, a geographer at the University of Qatar, people in “big, often palatial houses” consume up to 35,000 litres per day.

    Even here, they have a way of blaming foreigners. According to Hassan Al-Mohannadi, one reason water use is so high is that “the large number of foreign domestic servants, who come from water-rich countries, are not educated in water conservation”.

    Water consumption continues to rise, so Qatar is building more desalination plants. If Qatar was serious about cutting its carbon footprint it would do something about water demand. At the least, it might charge for the stuff.

    Will Qatar’s emissions carry on up? Looks Likely. Electricity demand is currently rising by about 7% a year. That is not as fast as the national economy, which is growing by 11% annually – the fastest boom on the planet.

    But stopping this out-of-control carbon-emitting juggernaut will take more than an Airbus full of biofuels.

  • Report Limks Vehicle Exhaust to Health Problems

     

    It said there was “strong evidence” that exposure to traffic helped cause variations in heart rate and other heart ailments that result in deaths. But among the many studies that evaluated death from heart problems, some did not separate stress and noise from air pollution as a cause, it said.

    The institute, based in Boston, is jointly financed by the Environmental Protection Agency and the auto industry to help assure its independence. Its reports are peer-reviewed but are not published in a scientific journal.

    The researchers noted that proving that air pollution from vehicles caused illness was difficult. The pollutants studied often come from sources like industry in addition to cars and trucks, they said, and many of the studies failed to rule out factors like income levels that could contribute to the illnesses studied.

    Many people who live near major roads fall into lower-income categories. Vibration and noise rather than air pollution could also cause some health damage, the report said.

    Nonetheless, “we see a strong signal that says traffic exposure seems to be causing effects,” said Dan Greenbaum, the president of the institute.

    The study found that the biggest effects occurred among people who lived within 300 to 500 meters — about two-tenths to three-tenths of a mile — from highways and major roads. That applies to 30 percent to 45 percent of the population of North America, the authors said.

    The pollutants studied in the report do not include ozone, the chemical for which the Environmental Protection Agency proposed new regulations last week. Ozone is more prevalent in places distant from highways.

    For many categories of health effects, the authors concluded that the studies completed so far suggested that air pollution from vehicles was the cause, without establishing that as fact.

    Contacted for comment, the environmental agency said it welcomed the study. The agency added that it was taking steps to cut toxic materials in gasoline and that the federal recovery act included $300 million for cleaning up diesel engines.

    Outside experts briefed on the study had mixed reactions.

    “Like the issue of second-hand smoke, it’s very difficult to understand the exact mechanisms that make it bad — but it’s easy to understand that it is in fact bad,” said Rich Kassel, an expert on diesel engines at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. “This study underscores that difficulty.”

    “Despite 40 years of building ever-cleaner vehicles, we still have a vehicle pollution problem in this country,” Mr. Kassel said.

    Howard J. Feldman, the director of regulatory and scientific affairs at the American Petroleum Institute, noted that the evidence of a causal factor was inconclusive for some ailments.

    “The only conclusive thing that was found was with the asthma,” Mr. Feldman said. “Nothing else was found to be conclusive, which to me was interesting in itself.”

    “These are epidemiological studies, which by definition reflect past exposures with past fuels,” he added.

    As emissions from traffic decline, Mr. Feldman predicted, exposures from other sources will become more important.

  • Florida Feed-in

     

    Solar photovoltaic rebates had traditionally been part of the energy efficiency program. In addition to rebates, retail net metering was offered to PV customers in 2008. These incentives were successful by comparison: Although making up 1 percent of the state’s population, Gainesville residents installed 12 percent of the distributed PV in Florida in 2008.

    However, GRU felt the solar program was falling short on two key elements. First, rebates were issued to purchase equipment and not energy. Once the equipment was purchased, there was no further incentive for customers to maintain their systems. Second, net-metering provided little incentive for commercial customers to install PV. Since they were paid at the same rate they purchased energy, which is traditionally much lower than residential rates, they were less inclined to invest in PV, although they had the largest rooftops.

    In the summer of 2008, the Solar Electric Power Association sponsored a trip to Germany for utility executives, so that they could see firsthand the effect that German renewable energy policies had had on that country. GRU’s representative on that trip returned with accounts of market transformation, innovative design and manufacturing and an explosion of green jobs, all due directly to a policy known as a “feed-in tariff” (FIT). In short, the feed-in tariff allows anyone to become a renewable energy generator, have access to the power grid and guarantees a flat rate-payment for every kilowatt hour of energy they produce.

    Upon reflection, it was clear that applying such an approach to Gainesville would have two immediate benefits. Replacing rebates with a performance-based incentive would increase the actual delivery of energy. And there would be a much greater incentive for commercial customers to participate.

    The potential of the FIT to spark economic growth, in addition to simply developing renewable energy sources, was not lost on the Gainesville City Commission. Implementing the FIT was seen as a chance to use energy policy to create jobs and establish a flourishing green marketplace. However, in order to meet these objectives, investors needed to be convinced that building PV installations would be a prudent business move. Therefore, an FIT rate was designed to provide a return high enough to be worthy of investment.

    In March 2009 the Gainesville FIT program was officially launched with these primary objectives:

    • To transform the GRU capacity-based incentives to performance-based incentives
    • To provide much greater incentive for commercial participation in the solar program
    • To assure a ready supply of renewable energy for the near and far future
    • To create both jobs and a strong, renewable energy marketplace.

    In the months since the program’s inception, the FIT has proven successful beyond expectations. Thirty megawatts of solar capacity has been successfully applied for and reserved through 2017. Already, in less than a year, GRU has doubled the amount of solar capacity that had ever been installed in the city. Two solar “farms” designed to produce nearly 2,400 MWh of energy each year are currently in construction and a 2 MW rooftop system will crown Gainesville’s largest shopping center by the end of the year.

    As Ray Kroc, the innovative founder of McDonald’s once said: “The two most important requirements for major success are: first, being in the right place at the right time, and second, doing something about it”. The time for renewable energy is now, and Gainesville is proud to have taken the steps towards its success.

  • Camel-drawn solar-powered mini-van

     

    Only a trickle is left in the river, whcih began flowing for the first time in a year last Thursday, and peaked at 2.85 metres at the weekend.

    Klaus Menzel, 61, has been on the road with his camels Snowy and Willy for eight years and says he is enjoying the desert’s wet conditions.

    “It is good to have but it is hard to pull through,” he said.

    “Willy was with me over at Camels Corner but then Snowy his partner came from Queensland.

    “We walked 14 wild ones up to Queensland and as a reward I got these two fellas and they been pulling me around ever since.”

     

  • China powers the global green tech revolution

     

    Yes and no. When it comes to technological and entrepreneurial innovation, Beijing lags Silicon Valley (and Austin, Boston, and Los Angeles)—for now. But as a market, China is likely to drive demand for renewable energy, giving companies like eSolar the opportunity to scale up their technology and drive down costs.

    [We’ll pause here to state the obvious: China’s investment in renewable energy and other green technologies is miniscule compared to the resources devoted to its continued building of coal-fired power plants and efforts to secure dirty oil shale supplies in Canada and elsewhere.]

    “All the learning from this partnership will help us in the United States,” Bill Gross, eSolar’s founder and chairman, told me. “I think as soon as the economy improves in the rest of the world and banks start lending, there will be a lot of competition in the U.S. and Europe. But, until then, China has the money and the demand.”

    In a one-party state, a government official saying, “Make it so,” can remove obstacles to any given project and allocate resources for its development. Construction of the first eSolar project, a 92-megawatt power plant, in a 66-square-mile energy park in northern China, is set to begin this year

    “They’re moving very fast, much faster than the state and U.S. governments are moving,” says Gross, who is licensing eSolar’s technology to a Chinese firm, Penglai Electric, which will manage the construction of the power plants. Another Chinese company will open and operate the projects.

    For the past two-and-a-half years in California, meanwhile, the state’s first new solar thermal power plant in two decades has been undergoing licensing as part of an extensive environmental review process.  The goal is to maximize production of carbon-free electricity from BrightSource Energy’s 400-megawatt Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System project in the Mojave Desert while minimizing its impact on fragile ecosystems.

    The end game begins Monday in Sacramento at a public hearing where BrightSource will face off with environmental groups that argue the project will harm the imperiled desert tortoise and destroy the habitat for a host of plants and animals.

    In contrast, it was only six months ago that executives from Penglai Electric first contacted eSolar as they scoured the world for a technology to use in that nation’s first big foray into solar thermal power.

    China leads the world in production of photovolatic panels like those found on residential and commercial rooftops, but the country has had little experience with solar thermal technology, which uses arrays of mirrors called heliostats to heat a liquid to create steam that drives an electricity-generating turbine.

    Penglai executives flew to Los Angeles last fall to meet with Gross and examine a five-megawatt demonstration power station called Sierra that eSolar brought online in August in the Southern California exurb of Lancaster. “A parade of people came over—we probably had 20 different government officials from China come to look at Sierra and review its operation,” said Gross.

    “The most convincing aspects of eSolar’s technology is the fact that it is the only commercially operating technology in North America,” Eric Wang, a Penglai Electric spokesman, told me in an email.

    That’s not quite correct—a solar trough plant was recently built in Nevada and solar power plants from the 1980s continue to operate in California—but eSolar’s technology is particularly suited for China.

    As I wrote in a Green State column about eSolar last year, eSolar’s innovation is its sophisticated software controls systems and imaging technology which controls heliostats that focus the sun’s rays on a tower that contains a water-filled receiver. That allows the company to use small mirrors packed closely together as the software positions them to create a virtual parabola to focus sunlight. The mirrors are cheap to make and easy to install.

    “When we do solar fields in California, we use $8 labor to open up the fields,” said Gross. “It takes 15 minutes training. In China, they wanted to use untrained labor as well.”

    Since eSolar can place the mirrors close together—its standard 46-megawatt solar farm has 176,000 of them—the power plants needs half the land of an equivalent photovoltaic farm, according to Gross—a feature attractive to China, Wang said.

    China, however, is not merely importing eSolar’s technology. Biomass power plants will be built alongside the solar farms and will use the same turbines, cutting the project’s costs and allowing the energy complex to operate when the sun goes down. The sand willow plant, a shrub planted in the surrounding region to fight desertification, will provide the fuel for the biomass power plants, according to Penglai Electric.  ESolar already makes its heliostats in China and will begin manufacturing its proprietary receiver technology there as well.

    While eSolar, which counts Google among its investors, retains ownership of the intellectual property behind its solar technology, China will gain valuable experience building and operating large-scale renewable energy facilities. 

    Much the same is happening in the nascent electric car industry, where China is pushing ahead and partnering with California companies like Coda Automotive to develop advanced battery technology.

    All of which is not necessarily a bad thing. But one has to wonder if it won’t be too long before we’re cruising down the Pacific Coast Highway in our Chinese-made electric car and plugging it in to our Chinese-made solar array