Category: Energy Matters

The twentieth century way of life has been made available, largely due to the miracle of cheap energy. The price of energy has been at record lows for the past century and a half.As oil becomes increasingly scarce, it is becoming obvious to everyone, that the rapid economic and industrial growth we have enjoyed for that time is not sustainable.Now, the hunt is on. For renewable sources of energy, for alternative sources of energy, for a way of life that is less dependent on cheap energy. 

  • COST OF SOLAR ENERGY WILL MATCH FOSSIL FUELS BY 2013, CLAIMS SOLARCENTURY

     

    Last December, the renewable energy analysts New Energy Finance predicted silicon costs – a key material for much solar panel technology – would fall by 31.5% in 2009 compared with 2008 levels. Energy consultants Element Energy, under commission from the government, have also forecast solar PV costs will fall by around half between now and 2020.

    Derry Newman, CEO for Solarcentury, said: “When you reach grid parity, you have a watershed moment where the perceptions of investors and consumers shift. People have been programmed to believe solar is expensive and takes a hundred years to pay back, but when parity arrives people realise it takes 8-10 years to payback, and they can then be making money out of it.”

    Jeremy Leggett, executive chairman of Solarcentury said, “The feed-in tariff that the government has said it will bring in from April 2010 is vital. A burst of premium-pricing for solar energy, of the kind now on offer in 18 European countries, will stimulate a very fast-growing market.”

    Experts said the projections were based on significant assumptions in future energy prices, which have been extremely volatile over recent years – last year saw gas and electricity prices double, but now household bills are falling again.

    Ray Noble, solar PV specialist at the Renewable Energy Association, said: “The predicted grid parity by 2013 could be possible if all of the predictions, both in terms of grid electricity prices increasing and reductions in the cost of solar PV, come through. However that’s a big if – any slight changes in the pricing can add further years to this date.” He added that the important message is that even if grid parity slipped to 2016, the moment when solar can compete on cost is not far off.

    Chris Goodall, Green party parliamentary candidate and author of Ten Technologies to Save the Planet, warned the grid parity predictions were based on unrealistic price assumptions. “This projection of residential grid parity depends crucially on continually increasing prices of conventional electricity, but I just don’t see any evidence that residential electricity will cost 17-18p a kWh in 2013. The ‘underlying’ retail price of electricity at the moment is no more than 11p per kWh,” he said.

    Newman argued that China will continue to take more fossil fuel and believes peak oil will begin to bite in 2013, which will both contribute to rising prices in fossil fuel electricity.

    Other parts of the world, such as Spain and California, have already achieved grid parity on the price of solar, but only for large installations rather than small scale ones for homeowners.

  • Green feed-tariff needs to maximise solar power

     

    For solar PV, the government has already come a long way from its dismissive treatment of the technology in the 2008 Renewable Energy Strategy consultation, and with good reason. Under the level playing field of the government’s own grants programme, for example, solar PV has been the technology of customer choice, accounting for 70% of completed projects to date.

    But currently, we are only scratching the surface of the potential of this technology in the UK. The absolute resource potential of solar PV is 460 terrawatt hours each year, more than current total demand for electricity in the UK. That message is beginning to get through to MPs and others, helped by the launch of the “We Support Solar” campaign, which is backed by the Federation of Master Builders, Friends of the Earth, RSPB, and more than 220 MPs.

    MPs and others now recognise one of the prizes of a well-structured and properly implemented feed-in tariff will be green jobs, and lots of them. Our own modelling, which reflects assumptions made by the government’s own independent consultants, shows that by 2020 the tariff could create more than 100,000 solar PV services and installation jobs.

    So how are we going to ensure that the feed-in tariff really does maximise the jobs potential in solar PV, but also in the other small-scale renewable electricity technologies? Here’s how we think the UK feed-in-tariff should operate.

    The government must keep it simple. The tariff should be structured to pay for generation not export to the national grid, to encourage the broadest range of take-up in small-scale renewable energy, from homeowners to investors. They must ensure it’s easy for people with small green energy systems to connect to the grid.

    Secondly, the tariff needs to encourage investment. That means setting the price for each unit of green electricity generated high enough to allow suitable returns for investors. We also need support for low- or zero-interest loans, to help people get beyond the up-front cost of many small-scale renewable technologies.

    Lastly, the UK’s feed-in tariff must create green jobs. The tariff should be structured to encourage microgeneration on buildings. For example, solar PV on buildings is more job-intensive than mounting PV on the ground and involves a broad range of skills from the construction industry (roofers, surveyors and consultants). In hand with this job creation, government should subsidise the re-training of electricians, roofers, engineers and others whose jobs are now lost or under threat from the construction industry’s decline.

    You can help the government to create an effective feed-in tariff for green energy too – email your MP asking them to sign early day motion 689, or demonstrate your support online.

    • Jeremy Leggett is the executive chairman of Solarcentury

  • The bullish outlook for lithium

    For tin, it was three days up in a row: on Wednesday, a 7.2 per cent gain (or $US905/tonne), then another $US495 on Thursday followed on Friday by a more modest $US100, ending at $US14,000/tonne.

    How is this working out in the equity markets?

    Firstly, traders are getting excited once again by promising news out of the junior end. But if there’s another rout – and you cannot rule out the possibility of another dreadful shoe yet to fall – then investors will drop the market like a stone. They came back after last year’s shock; it is doubtful if they will bounce back so quickly after a second.

    Shocking though the suggestion may be some of those with a speculative, buy-today-and-sell-tomorrow approach to the market, this may be the time for little long term thinking.

    What is going to be in short supply in the next few years? Well, some say lithium could be such a metal (although there are those who discount this).

    The bullish theory is that lithium, which is so far used mainly in glass and in batteries for laptops and mobile phones, is going to be a supply deficit once the hybrid and electric car business really hits its straps.

    Just look at the battle royal going on over who gets to develop the Uyuni salt flat in Bolivia, which reputedly contains half the world’s known lithium reserves. The government in La Paz will decide between France’s Bollore Group, Mitsubishi or South Korea’s LG Group.

    There have been developments at two of the Australian-listed lithium plays. Orocobre has done a scoping study on its Argentinian project which shows the potential to produce 15,000 tonnes a year of lithium carbonate (along with 36,000 tonnes of potash). A bankable feasibility study (BFS) should be completed mid-2010.

    The financing deal for that was released this morning. First, US-based Lithium Investors will take a $2.6 million placement, and shareholders will be offered a rights issue with a target of another $2.8 million with Patersons Securities to be the underwriter. This means Orocobre has covered the cost of its BFS — and further supports confidence in the lithium story.

    And Galaxy Resources has appointed a Shanghai-based company to do the study on building a lithium carbonate plant in China to process the output of the company’s planned lithium mine near Ravensthorpe, Western Australia.

    This morning Galaxy announced the site of the plant would be at Zhangjiagang, a deep water port on the Yangtze River and the location of a free trade zone.

    One last point: if you go back two years and re-read all the forecasts for demand for various metals (not to mention their prices), chances are that 90 per cent of them have been proved wrong. Keep that in mind when you read any projection into the future – even for lithium.

    The writer implies no investment recommendation and this report contains material that is speculative in nature. Investors should seek professional investment advice.

  • Hydrogen economy goes to the back burner

    The hydrogen economy is officially yesterday’s future now that the US Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, has announced an end to funding for research into fuel cell vehicles. Mr Chu said that the funds would be diverted to projects that have a greater probability of producing results. Research will continue into stationary fuel cells. Funds will also be put into separating hydrogen and carbon dioxide from gasified coal and sequestering the carbon dioxide.

    Detailed story

  • Obama backs away from corn based fuels

    President of the United States, Barak Obama, has announced that the White House will not promote corn based ethanol as a future fuel source for American vehicles. Instead the government has backed the development of new bio-fuels that do not displace food production and which significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists have been at odds with the corn growers because research indicates that growing corn to produce ethanol increases greenhouse emissions.

    Detailed story

  • China heats up biocoal debate

    From Renewable Energy World and National Bio Energy

    Coal, which started out as the cheapest of fuels, is a victim of its own success. The more coal we burn the more expensive it becomes as we are forced to deal with more and more unintended environmental consequences. A clean power plant requires expensive additions to protect public health by removing particulates, Nox, sulphur and mercury. Now climate change is adding an urgent need to remove CO2 emissions. Since every ton of coal burned produces 3.7 tons of CO2, this is an almost impossible task that will take at least ten years to develop and will almost double the cost of coal power. Coal is no longer cheap when you consider these extra costs.

    Wind, solar and geothermal power can provide clean sustainable energy but it will take decades of work to grow enough capacity to satisfy our power needs.  We can solve our problems quickly by converting our existing coal power plants to biomass power.  Biomass is carbon neutral and has virtually no sulphur or mercury.  Conversion cost will be much less than the cost of adding carbon capture and mercury scrubbers and more importantly, it can be done now!

    Biomass has about half the energy density of coal so transportation costs could be high for large urban power plants.  The solution is simple: torrefy the biomass at its source. This will convert the biomass to biocoal, which has the same energy density, moisture resistance and friability as coal.

    Torrefaction is like coffee roasting. When any woody biomass is heated to about 270° C in the absence of oxygen it undergoes a transformation that increases its density while retaining most of its heating value.  The result is extruded into pellets that have an energy density of 11,000 Btu/lb, just like coal. Since it doesn’t absorb water, biocoal can be shipped in the same train cars and barges as coal. It can be stored outdoors, fed into a coal pulverizer and burned just like coal. The big difference is much less ash and NOx, and virtually no sulphur or mercury.

    Biomass waste is abundant. China has an estimated total supply of 700 million tons/year. About 100 million of this is currently being burned in the fields. Using biomass to produce power qualifies for carbon credits. One ton of biocoal prevents several tons of CO2.

    National Bio Energy is a new Chinese company specializing in building new biomass power plants that use waste straw from grain production as fuel.  Since their founding in 2005 they already have approval for 40 biomass plants, mostly in Northern China. Twelve of their projects are already in production, producing 324 MWe.  The plants are relatively small and located near the biomass sources. An excellent presentation by Dragon Power gives many more details. These power plants provide independent power and jobs for local farmers and eliminate the pollution of burning fields.

    Our massive investment in existing coal power plants can be cleaned up by repowering them to burn biomass. In the U.S., Georgia Power is planning to convert an existing 96MW coal plant to biomass power.  The fuel cost compared to coal is expected to be roughly 30 percent less per year and maintenance costs are expected to be about 13 percent less. FirstEnergy is converting a 312 MW plant to biofuel and will thus avoid the $330 million cost of adding scrubbers to remove mercury. In Canada, Ontario Power Generation is considering a similar move. The U.S. already has 80 biomass power plants in operation. A recent government report found that fuel and maintenance costs were lower than coal.

    Large existing coal power plants can be cleaned up by building a network of regional torrefiers along the tracks or waterways currently used for coal supply. These centers should be close to sources of farm or forestry waste or marginal land that can be used to grow specially adapted biomass. In the South, giant reed, elephant grass or other fast-growing perennial grasses can produce up to 20 tons/acre with little watering or fertilization. Agave can produce as much in semi-desert. Other specialized plants can grow on saline, acid or polluted soil.

    There are several manufacturers of torrefiers who have working prototypes but none have yet reached the full-scale production stage. The project that is the probably the furthest along was developed by Ecocern in the Netherlands. Integro, in the U.S., is building a fleet of 10 plants. And 4Energy Invest in Belgium is collocating a torrefaction plant at one of its biomass power plants. The waste heat from the power plant will be used to dry biomass and start the torrefier and the biocoal produced will be sold to existing coal power plants.

    Repowering or cofiring existing coal plants is a quick fix that can be implemented now to slow global warming while providing good jobs. However, since coal plants average only 33% efficiency, this is only a stopgap solution.  When new plants are built they should be much smaller in size so that waste heat can be put to good use.  Wherever heat is needed, cogeneration plants can generate power and sell it to the grid while putting the excess heat to good use.  Overall efficiencies of 85% are possible with good design. New turbine and heat recovery technology and the reduced need for pollution control equipment makes smaller plants economical.

    Biomass is also a perfect match for solar thermal hybrid plants.  As the sun grows weaker the biomass is gradually fired up to keep the turbines running at full speed even at night. Think of biomass as a store of solar power that can be used when needed. Wood pellets are already taking over the heating market in some areas because fuel costs are cut in half. Torrefied pellets will be even more cost effective.

    Future economics will be even better as we learn to increase the tons/acre yield using highly efficient C4 photosynthesis plants. Further research will certainly increase future yields significantly as it did with food crops.  Mixtures of plants that grow well together may be even better than monoculture. As the real costs of coal grow more expensive, innovation will drive the cost of biomass down.  The world will be a cleaner, safer, sustainable place.

    Google Earth makes it easy to explore the practicality of growing biomass near actual coal power plants.  Just click on the Coal Plant Names here for a satellite view. Zoom back to see the large amount of unused land surrounding most coal power plants.