EcoRadio

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. 

  • Photovoltaics my remain niche industry

     

    From Solid State Technology

    A panel discussion at Thin Film Solar Summit (San Francisco, CA, Dec. 2-3) gave attendees a dose of reality: financing in the world of thin-film PV isn’t a short-term play. The reality, according to Neal Dikeman, partner with VC firm Jane Capital Partners, is that only one or two thin-film projects have brought product to market in 30 years, and it’s a $100M-$200M dollar up-front investment “just to play the game and see if your product really works.”

    Silicon Valley investors have mistakenly bet on “really great teams” while the technology is still at a science experiment stage, he argues — investors are beginning to realize this, he thinks, and that the industry is sitting on the back end of about 5-10 years of $100M bets. “We’re going to see a bunch of write-offs coming up,” he warns.

    The challenge that has caught startups in this sector time and time again, Dikeman explained, is underestimating the engineering scale-up and production on a tens-of-MW scale. “People always assumed that if the technology worked and the team was good, that the rest was just engineering…and so far, that has never proven to be the case,” he observed, noting that there have been several hundred (thin film) companies that have tried and only two succeeded. “The challenge has been that the engineering scale-up has been much harder than the science experiment.” Citing the “black art” aspect to thin-film projects, he observed that for factories in the 30MW-40MW range, what matters is getting the same yields, distributions, and performance out of the second plant as was achieved in the first. “You can take the same people, same technology, same equipment, same materials, and you’ll get something different between the two plants,” he said. “I don’t think that’s changed.”

    Lest he dash the hopes of conference attendees, Dikeman acknowledged that while thin-film PV technology has to come down the cost curve, it is the only hope for making solar more than a niche subsidized business. “We have to deliver $1/Watt at the module level, not the cell level, in order for anyone downstream to have a serious business,” he urged. “Otherwise, we’ll be living off the investment tax credits and rebates over the next few years.”

    But don’t hold out hope for a disruptive technology to solve the cost-curve challenge. “There is no disruptive technology in energy, only disruptive policies that make certain technologies look disruptive after the fact,” Dikeman told the audience. He believes that the big cost-changing improvements that will come in the next few years will be manufacturing process improvements, and he’s excited by the entrance of companies such as Oerlikon and Applied Materials, as well as some of the large semiconductor manufacturers. “We need [that] manufacturing scale,” he said.

    At the end of the line — what model works?

    Analysts at the summit also tackled the question of how utilities will drive the PV industry, and how some clear trends will benefit the industry. “The one technology that the American consumer wants to buy is solar; it’s a ready market,” said Bill Roth, green business coach for Entrepreneur.com and president of NCCT, “but the one thing standing in their way is sticker shock.” So it’s crucial to help move the transaction to the point where these consumers who wants to say “yes” can close, and Roth noted that an integrated model will enable the purchase to take place. He offered up as an example other commodity providers of energy, such as the oil companies, that are vertically integrated. “While the technology and science are critically important and they have to work, integration enables the purchase,” he explained.

    Dikeman countered that the PV industry hasn’t been able to figure out exactly the overhead and operating cost of a distributed utility over a wide range of contracts. “It is very unclear to me what the fully loaded cost of solar is at any kind of scale being distributed,” he said. “There are no very large fleets out there from which you can get data, and a lot of costs are hidden due to subsidies and tax equity.”

    However, Dikeman noted that Japan was always reasonably vertically integrated, and he’s waiting for vertical integration to come to the US and Europe. For a hundred years in the energy business, the money has been made upstream from owning the asset/the resource — so, solar on a serious scale means owning a piece of very sunny land next to water and right next to a transmission line and a load, he observed. “The guy who owns the land with the best resource is the one that makes the money,” said Dikeman. “Everything else will be commoditized. The person owning the land with the best resources will make the most money.” — D.V.

  • Ethanol plants lose money as energy prices fall

    After its meteoric rise as a major ag industry and world corn price lifter, US ethanol production is experiencing some tough times, according to Jim Jenkins, a cattleman, restaurateur and chairman of the Nebraska Ethanol Board.

    While some US ethanol plants are experiencing economic hardships, many plants are still profitable, Mr Jenkins told a Nebraska Farmers Union members convention.

    “Every industry, especially those that grow fast, faces some bumps,” he says

    Citing a Merrill Lynch analyst, Mr Jenkins says, “Without ethanol in the motor fuels market, gasoline prices would have been about 15pc higher, for most of 2008.”

    Nebraska has 22 ethanol plants with a capacity to produce about 1.6 billion gallons of ethanol, Mr Jenkins says.

    Ethanol is already a $3-billion a year segment of the Nebraska ag industry, which places it third, behind cattle ($7 billion) and corn ($3-4 billion)

    Another speaker, National Farmers Union President Tom Buis, said that ethanol’s detractors blamed corn alcohol for price rises in many products, even products such as beer and toothpaste which don’t contain any corn.

    “It’s a public relations war,” he says.

    When he was in Washington last summer, a local bagel shop made a big deal about having to raise the cost of a bagel 35 cents—even though there’s just 7 cents of wheat in a bagel.

    Wheat prices are now much lower, but bagels stay at the new higher price

    Now that energy prices are lower, Mr Buis worries that the fickle American public, and their elected leaders, will slack off on their call for greater energy independence.

    Biofuels, solar, wind and geothermal energy need continued support, or the next energy crisis could be more painful than past difficulties

    “Congress has failed the American people on energy,” says Rep. Adrian Smith of Gering.

    “We need it all – bioenergy, wind, solar, hydro.

    “I’m afraid $1.50 gas in the US will push energy aside.”

    Mr Smith says the 2008 Farm Bill leaves a lot to be desired, but it took a lot of effort by pro-agriculture members of Congress to obtain for farmers as much protection as they did in the legislation.

  • Germany passes US as biggest renewable market

    From Ernst and Young

    Press Release

    The US has seen its position as the most attractive destination for investment in renewable energy nose dive, helping Germany move to joint first place according to Ernst & Young’s latest Renewable energy country attractiveness indices.

    The indices – which track and score global investment in renewable energy – also reveal that there has been a record reduction in the attractiveness of all 20 countries included for the first time since its creation five years ago.

      Jonathan Johns, head of renewable energy at Ernst & Young says, “Although the financial crisis has negatively impacted the attractiveness of all countries in the indices, the US has borne the brunt of the economic slowdown.”

    The economic situation in the US has restricted access to finance and slowed the recycling of Production Tax Credits (PTC) and Investment Tax Credits (ITC), which allow corporates to gain tax breaks by purchasing credits from renewables developers.

    “This has allowed Germany, almost by default, to take the position of most attractive destination for renewable investment alongside the US, largely as a result of its feed-in tariff making the German market more resilient,” Johns adds.

    The UK moved one place to joint fifth in the All renewables index, sharing the position with Spain. The attractiveness of the UK was boosted by the UK Government’s announcement in its Pre Budget Report to extend the renewables obligation to 2037, as well as the enactment of the Energy and Planning Act 2008, which includes the establishment of a new feed-in tariff for small wind farm projects with up to 5 megawatt capacity.

    US’ fall from grace

    Johns says that although the US attractiveness has been enhanced by the signing of the Energy Improvement and Extension Act – which includes the extension of production and investment tax credits for renewable technologies – the economic crisis has hit the industry hard.

    The financial services industry was by far the biggest consumer of PTC and ITC, which have been the cornerstone of the industry’s success in the US. However, the volatility in the global financial markets has meant many of these institutions have been unable to purchase these credits, and this is preventing many investors in renewables projects from realizing the value of their investments. A radical improvement in the effectiveness of the PTC will therefore be needed to restore the fortunes of the US industry.

    “The path followed by the US is critical to the industry and measures announced by the impending Obama presidency will be keenly monitored. Worldwide growth of renewables is likely to continue, albeit at reduced levels, but if the US were to stall its plans there would be significant reverberations for the global industry,” adds Johns.

    Germany could fall as quickly as it has risen

    As well as the attractive feed-in tariffs, Germany’s position at the top of the Indices has been boosted by the news that its Government has set out plans to build 33 offshore wind farms as part of its efforts to achieve 25 gigawatts from wind by 2030, but in practice investments maybe delayed.

    “While the German Government has set out bold plans for energy generation from wind farms, the reality may turn out to be different as the financial crisis stems the flow of capital and funding,” says Johns.

    Falling pound takes wind out of UK’s sails

    While the UK’s position has been bolstered by the extension of the renewables obligation and the enactment of the Energy and Planning Act 2008, the UK industry is facing increasing cost pressures due to the decline of the pound versus the euro.

    Johns says, “The falling value of the pound is making UK renewable projects increasingly expensive as imported technologies from Europe continue to rise as a result of the exchange rate. The declining price of oil is compounding the problem by reducing project revenues as wholesale energy prices fall, resulting in many projects becoming uneconomical. It is unlikely that falling commodity prices such as steel and copper will compensate enough.”

    Across the globe, there is likely to be a raft of project cancellations and delays as industry players adopt a wait and see approach in relation to regulation and supply chain costs. In the meantime, Johns says that capital rich investors will take advantage.

    “An interesting dynamic developing in the industry, and one to watch over the coming months, is the increase in partnerships and joint ventures between industry players and cash rich investors in these capital constrained times,” he concluded.

  • Stanford sicentist ranks renewables

    Read the full report

    The best ways to improve energy security, mitigate global warming and reduce the number of deaths caused by air pollution are blowing in the wind and rippling in the water, not growing on prairies or glowing inside nuclear power plants, says Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford.

    And “clean coal,” which involves capturing carbon emissions and sequestering them in the earth, is not clean at all, he asserts.

    Jacobson has conducted the first quantitative, scientific evaluation of the proposed, major, energy-related solutions by assessing not only their potential for delivering energy for electricity and vehicles, but also their impacts on global warming, human health, energy security, water supply, space requirements, wildlife, water pollution, reliability and sustainability. His findings indicate that the options that are getting the most attention are between 25 to 1,000 times more polluting than the best available options. The paper with his findings will be published in the next issue of Energy and Environmental Science and is available online here. Jacobson is also director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford.

    “The energy alternatives that are good are not the ones that people have been talking about the most. And some options that have been proposed are just downright awful,” Jacobson said. “Ethanol-based biofuels will actually cause more harm to human health, wildlife, water supply and land use than current fossil fuels.” He added that ethanol may also emit more global-warming pollutants than fossil fuels, according to the latest scientific studies.

    The raw energy sources that Jacobson found to be the most promising are, in order, wind, concentrated solar (the use of mirrors to heat a fluid), geothermal, tidal, solar photovoltaics (rooftop solar panels), wave and hydroelectric. He recommends against nuclear, coal with carbon capture and sequestration, corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol, which is made of prairie grass. In fact, he found cellulosic ethanol was worse than corn ethanol because it results in more air pollution, requires more land to produce and causes more damage to wildlife.

    To place the various alternatives on an equal footing, Jacobson first made his comparisons among the energy sources by calculating the impacts as if each alternative alone were used to power all the vehicles in the United States, assuming only “new-technology” vehicles were being used. Such vehicles include battery electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and “flex-fuel” vehicles that could run on a high blend of ethanol called E85.

    Wind was by far the most promising, Jacobson said, owing to a better-than 99 percent reduction in carbon and air pollution emissions; the consumption of less than 3 square kilometers of land for the turbine footprints to run the entire U.S. vehicle fleet (given the fleet is composed of battery-electric vehicles); the saving of about 15,000 lives per year from premature air-pollution-related deaths from vehicle exhaust in the United States; and virtually no water consumption. By contrast, corn and cellulosic ethanol will continue to cause more than 15,000 air pollution-related deaths in the country per year, Jacobson asserted.

    Because the wind turbines would require a modest amount of spacing between them to allow room for the blades to spin, wind farms would occupy about 0.5 percent of all U.S. land, but this amount is more than 30 times less than that required for growing corn or grasses for ethanol. Land between turbines on wind farms would be simultaneously available as farmland or pasture or could be left as open space.

    Indeed, a battery-powered U.S. vehicle fleet could be charged by 73,000 to 144,000 5-megawatt wind turbines, fewer than the 300,000 airplanes the U.S. produced during World War II and far easier to build. Additional turbines could provide electricity for other energy needs.

    “There is a lot of talk among politicians that we need a massive jobs program to pull the economy out of the current recession,” Jacobson said. “Well, putting people to work building wind turbines, solar plants, geothermal plants, electric vehicles and transmission lines would not only create jobs but would also reduce costs due to health care, crop damage and climate damage from current vehicle and electric power pollution, as well as provide the world with a truly unlimited supply of clean power.”

    Jacobson said that while some people are under the impression that wind and wave power are too variable to provide steady amounts of electricity, his research group has already shown in previous research that by properly coordinating the energy output from wind farms in different locations, the potential problem with variability can be overcome and a steady supply of baseline power delivered to users.

    Jacobson’s research is particularly timely in light of the growing push to develop biofuels, which he calculated to be the worst of the available alternatives. In their effort to obtain a federal bailout, the Big Three Detroit automakers are increasingly touting their efforts and programs in the biofuels realm, and federal research dollars have been supporting a growing number of biofuel-research efforts.

    “That is exactly the wrong place to be spending our money. Biofuels are the most damaging choice we could make in our efforts to move away from using fossil fuels,” Jacobson said. “We should be spending to promote energy technologies that cause significant reductions in carbon emissions and air-pollution mortality, not technologies that have either marginal benefits or no benefits at all.”

    “Obviously, wind alone isn’t the solution,” Jacobson said. “It’s got to be a package deal, with energy also being produced by other sources such as solar, tidal, wave and geothermal power.”

    During the recent presidential campaign, nuclear power and clean coal were often touted as energy solutions that should be pursued, but nuclear power and coal with carbon capture and sequestration were Jacobson’s lowest-ranked choices after biofuels. “Coal with carbon sequestration emits 60- to 110-times more carbon and air pollution than wind energy, and nuclear emits about 25-times more carbon and air pollution than wind energy,” Jacobson said. Although carbon-capture equipment reduces 85-90 percent of the carbon exhaust from a coal-fired power plant, it has no impact on the carbon resulting from the mining or transport of the coal or on the exhaust of other air pollutants. In fact, because carbon capture requires a roughly 25-percent increase in energy from the coal plant, about 25 percent more coal is needed, increasing mountaintop removal and increasing non-carbon air pollution from power plants, he said.

    Nuclear power poses other risks. Jacobson said it is likely that if the United States were to move more heavily into nuclear power, then other nations would demand to be able to use that option.

    “Once you have a nuclear energy facility, it’s straightforward to start refining uranium in that facility, which is what Iran is doing and Venezuela is planning to do,” Jacobson said. “The potential for terrorists to obtain a nuclear weapon or for states to develop nuclear weapons that could be used in limited regional wars will certainly increase with an increase in the number of nuclear energy facilities worldwide.” Jacobson calculated that if one small nuclear bomb exploded, the carbon emissions from the burning of a large city would be modest, but the death rate for one such event would be twice as large as the current vehicle air pollution death rate summed over 30 years.

    Finally, both coal and nuclear energy plants take much longer to plan, permit and construct than do most of the other new energy sources that Jacobson’s study recommends. The result would be even more emissions from existing nuclear and coal power sources as people continue to use comparatively “dirty” electricity while waiting for the new energy sources to come online, Jacobson said.

    Jacobson received no funding from any interest group, company or government agency.

    Energy and vehicle options, from best to worst, according to Jacobson’s calculations:

    Best to worst electric power sources:

    1. Wind power 2. concentrated solar power (CSP) 3. geothermal power 4. tidal power 5. solar photovoltaics (PV) 6. wave power 7. hydroelectric power 8. a tie between nuclear power and coal with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).

    Best to worst vehicle options:

    1. Wind-BEVs (battery electric vehicles) 2. wind-HFCVs (hydrogen fuel cell vehicles) 3.CSP-BEVs 4. geothermal-BEVs 5. tidal-BEVs 6. solar PV-BEVs 7. Wave-BEVs 8.hydroelectric-BEVs 9. a tie between nuclear-BEVs and coal-CCS-BEVs 11. corn-E85 12.cellulosic-E85.

    Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles were examined only when powered by wind energy, but they could be combined with other electric power sources. Although HFCVs require about three times more energy than do BEVs (BEVs are very efficient), HFCVs are still very clean and more efficient than pure gasoline, and wind-HFCVs still resulted in the second-highest overall ranking. HFCVs have an advantage in that they can be refueled faster than can BEVs (although BEV charging is getting faster). Thus, HFCVs may be useful for long trips (more than 250 miles) while BEVs more useful for trips less than 250 miles. An ideal combination may be a BEV-HFCV hybrid.

  • Algae top of the biofuel pops

    Harvesting kelp by handA grant last week from the European Union to Scottish scientists in Oban near Glasgow has alerted the mainstream media to the potential of marine algae, such as seaweed to supply large quantities of fuel oil. Algae can potentially return hundreds of times the volume of complex hydrocarbons as the same area of land growing crops such as corn or soyabeans. Because the marine algae does not compete with food crops for land and water it does not have the impact on the world’s food supplies that has led to tensions over land-use in developing countries during 2008. The scottish scientists will be working with natural seaweeds, harvested by traditional methods at low tide. Most of the companies formed to commercialise the potential of marine algae are farming microscopic forms. Spanish company Biofuel Systems believes it can meet the world’s existing demand for oil from an area of open ocean 250 kilometres squared.

    Read The Generator from 2006

    Read the facts on biofuel from algae

    Read The Guardian article

     

  • China leapfrogs US car manufacturers

    From Business Week quoted at BYD.com

    While U.S. automakers struggle to survive after the Senate rejected a bailout for Detroit, one company from China may be showing a way forward for the industry. On Dec. 15, BYD Auto got a jump on General Motors (GM), Toyota (TM), and Nissan (NSANY) by introducing in its home town of Shenzhen the first mass-produced plug-in hybrid, the F3 DM. BYD’s new car, with a $22,000 price tag, can run for up to 60 miles on a battery charged from an ordinary electricity outlet.

    Early this year there was plenty of skepticism in auto circles about BYD’s ability to put together a car that would ever become truly roadworthy. The company unveiled its plug-in hybrid at the Detroit Auto Show in January, and few outsiders figured the Chinese upstart, which had only been in the auto business since 2003, had the know-how to produce a commercially viable plug-in.

    One person who seems to believe in the car’s viability is Warren Buffett. In September, Des Moines-based MidAmerican Energy, which is controlled by Berkshire Hathaway (BRKA), paid $231 million for a 9.9% stake in BYD Auto’s parent company BYD with a view to helping BYD distribute its cars in the U.S. by 2011.

    U.S.-China Collaboration

    Others believe in China’s potential in developing cars that are more environmentally friendly. The F3 DM’s China launch comes just a few days after Washington and Beijing announced plans to work together on green car technology: China’s Science & Technology Ministry signed an agreement with the U.S. Energy Dept. to collaborate on battery technology to power cars on Dec. 11.

    Although it’s not much to look at—the F3 DM is based on the same platform as the gas-powered F3 sedan by BYD that resembles the Toyota Camry—driving one is remarkable. On a recent test drive at BYD’s sprawling Shenzhen campus, the car’s acceleration was impressive, going from zero to 60 in a respectable 10.5 seconds. What makes the experience so novel is the absence of engine noise, which heightens one’s awareness of the sounds of rushing air and tires on the road. The car’s top speed is about 100 mph, and it is capable of running for 60 miles before the batteries need recharging, which occurs automatically when the gas engine kicks in.

    But the car faces an uphill climb to gain acceptance in a highly competitive Chinese auto market with dozens of manufacturers. After years of red-hot growth, China’s vehicle sales are in a slump, falling 17% in November vs. a year ago. And Toyota’s Prius has had a lackluster reception in China, having sold just 748 cars in the first 10 months of this year.

    BYD’s plug-in faces other challenges. Its battery pack takes about seven hours to recharge fully using a traditional power source, but most car owners live in apartment buildings with parking lots that don’t provide electricity. “Infrastructure is a problem. It’s not like North America, where everybody has independent housing where you have a plug-in in your garage,” says Yale Zhang, director of Great China at automobile forecaster CSM Worldwide in Shanghai.

    “In cities like Shenzhen, Shanghai, and Beijing, people live in big buildings where there is nowhere to plug in.” Henry Li, general manager of BYD Auto, acknowledges this problem and only projects sales of a few hundred in the next 12 months. “We need to try and demonstrate the cars and show their benefits,” he says.

    Ample Battery Experience

    What BYD lacks in experience as an automaker it makes up for in battery expertise, says Li. It is the world’s largest producer of cell-phone batteries, boasting a 30% market share, and it also makes batteries for everything from power tools to laptops. “We have rich production and R&D experience, so we were able to solve all the technological barriers and turn this into commercial use,” he says.

    The auto division’s 3,000-strong research and development team developed a ferrous battery technology that he says is superior to the nickel metal hydrate battery used in the Toyota Prius. “For them the gas engine is the main driving mode; for us it’s a small engine and a big battery,” says Li. Actually, the F3 DM is based on 100 3.3-volt batteries strapped together and stored under the rear seat. Packs are good for about 2,000 recharges or 100,000 miles. The engine is only 1 liter and is capable of recharging the battery when the car is switched to gasoline mode.

    Li figures the potential cost savings on fuel are a big selling point, not to mention the vehicles’ smaller carbon footprint. He reckons it takes about $1.40 worth of electricity to power the car for 100 kilometers, compared with $7 for a conventional F3 gasoline model. BYD expects its first cars to be delivered to the city government of Shenzhen and China Construction Bank, which signed an order for them at the launch. Paul Lin, marketing manager of BYD’s auto export division, said other banks and state-owned enterprises might follow suit as they see running a fleet of green cars as a key element of corporate social responsibility in China, where foul air in the cities is a huge problem. He says the Prius is still primarily a gasoline-powered car and is thus not viewed by Chinese corporate buyers as particularly green.

    Still, it will take a lot of driving to justify the F3 DM’s price tag, more than twice the gasoline version of the F3, which is available for between $7,500 and $9,900. Another challenge is how to set up quick-charge ports in Chinese cities, which will be essential for the success of BYD’s fully electric vehicle, the E6, which it plans to roll out later next year. The company is exploring cooperation with local utilities to set up quick-charge ports that would allow batteries to restore 50% of capacity in 10 minutes. However, these would require a stronger current than is now available: Household outlets provide about 20 amps of current, while a quick charger would need about 100 amps of juice.

    BYD has momentum on its side. The F3 was China’s best-selling sedan in October, shipping more than 15,000 cars. In the first 10 months of the year, BYD’s total sales grew 36%, compared with industrywide sales of just 10.25%. BYD’s Hong Kong-traded shares are down 12% this year, compared with a nearly 50% fall in the Hang Seng China Enterprise Index of mainland stocks, thanks to the Buffet stake and strong auto sales. The company, which had sales of $3.1 billion in 2007 and earnings of $235 million, will have sales of $3.93 billion and profits of $196 million this year, estimates brokerage CLSA.