The Global Community for Sustainable Energy Professionals
Bruno De Wachter is a freelance engineer-copywriter. He distils clear, concise, and comprehensive written messages out of often complex technical subjects. He has wide interests, with a strong focus on energy and environment. De Wachter obtained Master Degrees in Electrical Engineering at the University of Ghent and in Dutch Language and Literature at the University of Antwerp. He has fifteen years of experience with written communication across a wide variety of technological and industrial domains.
The development of Electrical Energy Storage technology (EES) carries the weight of huge expectations.
Energy efficiency has been a key topic for many years now, yet there still remain opportunities to reduce energy use
The intention of this paper is to look at various aspects of generator sets (gensets) utilised globally to provide me
In the whitepaper 'Coping with the Energy Challenge
Is it a zero energy, net zero energy, low carbon, or renewable energy building?
This application note is intended to be a source of guidance and to help reduce confusion pertaining to the design, c
Busbars, busducts, and busways using copper conductors have several advantages compared to their counterparts fabrica
Many attractive investment projects – for instance in energy efficiency – are not carried out because companies tend
Energy prices are high and expected to rise.
Statistics regarding electrical accidents worldwide indicate that thousands of people are injured or killed every yea
Life Cycle Costing (LCC) analysis helps you compare several investment opportunities based on the costs and revenues
Automation, control, and supervision systems can have a significant impact on the energy consumption of buildings and
This application note provides an introduction to a series of papers on industrial electric process heating technolog
Electric motors are available for a wide range of applications and in a variety of power outputs.
Can we evolve to a post fossil-fuel economy by 2050? A recent study at Stanford University investigated the development of an energy system driven solely by wind, water, and the sun. In contrast to that, the article 'Renewables Won’t Keep the Lights On' by Euan Mearns, which appeared in the Oil Drum, sketched a pitch-black view of our energy future and considered nuclear energy the only reasonable option. The fact that both scenarios are possible in terms of energy flows has already been well-argued by David MacKay in his book 'Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air'. Unlike MacKay, however, the Stanford University and Euan Mearns texts also take the cost of the future energy system into account. It is interesting that they arrive at two radically different conclusions. It should be noted that both articles were written before the Fukushima accident in Japan.
Equipping windows with sun screens, blinds, and shutters is one of the oldest and simplest methods of controlling the
In 2007, Leonardo Energy reported the inauguration of the 11 MW PV plant in Serpa, Portugal. For a short time, it was the world’s largest plant of its kind. Four years later however, it has dropped to 94th place in the world ranking.
This shows just how fast the market of solar energy has been evolving in recent years.
The current top five are as follows:
This is not a light bulb...
Incandescent light bulbs are often criticized for having a luminous efficiency of only 5%. However, flip-flop your perception and you have a device with a heating efficiency of 95%. Change the name from 'light bulb' into 'heatball', and same device transmogrifies from efficiency Class F to efficiency Class A.
There are several ways to look at government incentives for renewable energy. Often, the choices that governments have to make are presented as a balance between cost, environmental return, and economic return. But in reality, it is extremely difficult to evaluate such choices by simple calculations of return on investment. The way decisions will eventually turn out is difficult to predict, as it is dependent on many uncertain variables. In other words, the choices incorporate many business risks. This means that governments should choose their energy politics by evaluating the potential plans with due diligence and by making appropriate risk assessments.
In Ireland, the government is currently evaluating the choice between two potential National Renewable Energy Plans. The Irish Times rightly remarked that such a choice should not be taken lightly.
This past month, both The New York Times and CleanTechnica.com reported on a paper from Duke University in North Carolina claiming that the costs of solar energy and nuclear energy have passed an historical crossover point at 16 dollar cents per kilowatthour. Solar photovoltaics are now supposed to be a lower-cost alternative to new nuclear plants. How accurate is this claim? Why are the figures on the cost of nuclear energy so divergent? And to what extent are solar photovoltaic energy and nuclear energy competitors?
Whether it is to reduce CO2 emissions and mitigate climate change, because the rese
American scientists capture lost energy
The solar energy falling onto the earth is incredibly abundant, but the majority gets lost anyway. So what is the big deal about improving the efficiency of solar cells? Well, for starters, highly efficient PV cells could create a complete sea change on the cost, material use, and the amount of land presently employed in harvesting the sun’s energy.
Today, the efficiency limit of photovoltaic cells is approximately 30 percent. For a long time, this was thought to be a physical border, as certain high-energy photons in sunlight exceed the band-gap energy in a PV cell. That energy, in the form of so-called 'hot electrons', is too high to be turned into usable electricity and is lost as heat in conventional solar cells.
Well, it seems we had better start referring to that physical border in the past tense. The 'hot electrons' could not be captured — until now.
Gardening is presently a hot topic in many metropolitan areas around the world. Small open spaces — from rooftops and patios to unused parking spaces and disused building sites — are actively being turned into vegetable, herb, and decorative gardens. Terms like 'square meter gardening', 'parking space gardening', and 'micro-gardening' seem to be blooming everywhere. Self-styled 'guerrilla gardeners' even occupy public and private strips of land to plant their greenery and vegetables.
The advantages of small city gardens are obvious: they bring more green into the city, it is a pleasurable pastime for many individuals, and often provides a cheap source of produce. It is surprising in fact how much food a small urban garden can produce. Proponents argue that a single 30m2 piece of land is enough to feed one person for one year. In Singapore, for example, one quarter of all of the vegetables consumed are products of inner-city gardens.
Now suppose you are living in a large city and take the decision to stop using a privately owned vehicle and rely instead upon a shared car, public transport, or bicycling. Assuming you had off-street parking, what is the best use of your former parking space: gardening or solar electricity?
If your point of view is more heavily oriented towards aesthetics and leisure activities, then the garden will probably be your preferred option. But what is the economic and ecological balance between these two options?
It has long been considered self-evident that green energy will cost more than conventional sources. Individuals opting for green energy do so because of their strong belief in the necessity of achieving a greener planet. Given the possible alternatives, this small price premium is not an issue. These people are truly early adopters, proud to anticipate major shifts in the energy market. Companies, on the other hand, are generally perceived to be investing in green energy to stress their public image of corporate responsibility and consider this added cost as part of doing business.
Today, the green energy climate has changed. The period of big hype is over. Green energy is becoming increasingly mainstream. In addition, the worldwide economic crisis is forcing potential investors to think twice before spending their money. In the current economic climate, the assumption that paying more is acceptable is no longer obvious. One can regret this evolution, but the de-idealisation of the market also brings along certain advantages. The Jersey City Independent recently featured an article on the Szapala family. Adam Szapala calls himself 'a climate change sceptic' but has installed photovoltaic arrays on his rooftop. Sceptic or not, he has decided to take advantage of the ample New Jersey state financial incentives and the system of Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs) to bring the payback time of his installation down to five years.
Last April, the Spanish newspaper El Mundo published a story on PV farms that claimed to have produced solar electricity between midnight and 7 a.m. The newspaper suspected the operators of running diesel-burning generators at night to cash in on the high feed-in tariffs for photovoltaic electricity in that country. A number of foreign media channels, including the influential Bloomsberg Businessweek, picked up the story.
The reaction of the Spanish PV industry association, Asociación de la Industria Fotovoltaica, regretted the fact that vague and sometimes unsubstantiated accusations of photovoltaic fraud get into the press with relative frequency. Not all of these stories translate into a valid legal case. Concerned about the public image of the sector, they asked the government to investigate the newspaper’s claims.
Such messages do indeed harm the image of solar energy. Moreover, they fuel questions regarding the usefulness of government incentives. Is the potential for fraud an argument against the system of feed-in tariffs?
Before jumping to any conclusions, it is worthwhile to put the figures into perspective. The total amount of energy that was allegedly produced fraudulently was 4,500 MWh, according to El Mundo. This is 0.05% of the total PV production in Spain in 2009 (Sources: Energyportal.eu and IEA). In the same period, the European retail sector lost 1.33% of their turnover to theft and the American retail sector even more at 1.61% (Source: CRR Centre for Retail Research).
According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in the US decreased by 7% or 405 million metric tons in 2009. This is the largest absolute and percentage decline since the start of EIA’s recording of annual data in 1949.
Energy-related carbon emissions in the US reached their highest values between 2004 and 2007, when they stabilised around 6,000 million metric tons per year. Following the declines in 2008 (-3%) and 2009 (-7%), the emissions are now back at the 1995 level of approximately 5,400 million metric tons per year.
Is this a big success for America’s carbon emission reduction programmes? The answer is mostly no — but from a certain perspective, yes. The EIA report includes a comprehensive analysis on the causes of the emission decline, showing that the economic downturn played a primary role.
History is full of stories of men feverishly searching for the magic trick that will solve all of our energy problems. Those quests have generally been whistled back by the laws of physics. These laws are what they are and we have to cope with them; our energy future will not be built by revolutionary solutions plucked out of the blue.
Perhaps the most intelligent solutions are not those that try to breech the limits of nature, but those that make maximal use of what nature has on offer. These are the stories of side effects turned into advantages, resulting in efficient combined techniques.
Photovoltaic (PV) energy is probably the simplest technology available for producing electricity. As a result, many green energy-minded individuals and companies have assumed a pioneering role and installed PV panels on their rooftop or site. However, not everybody is a pioneer. For the majority of individuals and companies, the financing, developing, and operating of PV panels are not at the top of their list of priorities. They do not — or no doubt in some cases cannot — expend precious time and resources on the effort that planning and installing PV initially entails. Yet, they may feel positively regarding renewable electricity and own a suitable site for harvesting solar energy. For those people, specialised renewable energy companies provide Solar Energy as a Service (SEaaS). The SEaaS company takes on a large part of the work and investment, in return for part of the benefits.
You would think that no word has a more unambiguous meaning than 'zero': nothing is nothing. Not so in today’s world of green building. Labels like 'zero energy building', 'nearly zero energy building', and 'zero carbon building' are frequently used, but lack any standardised or official definition. The same can be said of the expression 'bâtiment à énergie positive' that is used in France.
At the end of March, the French press scored a remarkable scoop: the Transgreen project will be officially launched at the coming summit of the 'Union pour la Méditerranée' (UPM) scheduled for 25th May in Cairo. Other European newspapers from several countries subsequently reported the story, eliciting a heated debate. By looking at a few numbers, however, the project can be seen in a more modest perspective. Huge as it may seem, it is only a small step in the creation of a sustainable energy system for Europe. There is plenty of room left for other initiatives, such as Desertec.
The sustainable energy world is bouncing from hype to hype. It comes with a lot of buzz, and in many cases, simply disappears into oblivion after a short period.
Last February, another new hype was born, this time from the California-based company Bloom Energy. They launched their 'Bloom Box' concept. This device consists of a small power station in a box containing fuels cells that convert natural gas or biogas into electricity and heat.
Bloom Energy presents it as an innovation that will create a revolution in the energy world. The company claims it will enable every individual or organisation to produce their own clean and cheap electricity. 'With Bloom Box you can be green and save money at the same time,' proclaims their website. However, they remain strikingly vague about the design and actual performance of their box. The majority of their claims are patently false.
In December 2009, the International Electricity Partnership (IEP) published its 'Roadmap for a Low-Carbon Power Sector by 2050'. The IEP was created in October 2008 at an international summit of electricity chief executives held in Atlanta, USA. Its roadmap focuses on Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, and the United States.
The IEP industry leaders see a crucial role for the electrical power sector. Historically, electrical power has been the largest source of CO2 emissions, the main contributor to climate change. But in the upcoming decades electricity can become a key lever in evolving towards a low carbon economy, states the IEP. The key technological evolutions necessary to make this happen are the electrification of heating and transport, and carbon-free power generation.
The report sets a target of 60% to 80% reduction in carbon emission by 2050. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) this is the level of reductions required to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere at 450 to 550 ppm CO2eq. This is estimated to correspond with an average global temperature rise of 2-3 °C. The IEP argues that reaching this target is only possible through an aggressive application of technology. It advocates policies that provide incentives for high investments in renewable energy, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), nuclear power, smart grids, electric vehicles, heat pumps, and energy efficiency.
Last September, an interesting new analysis was published by two California-based think tanks: Searching for a mi
Numbers have something that mere words seem to lack. Let’s call it an aura of absolute truth, of incontestability.
What are the decision factors in replacing an operating distribution transformer with a new one
If we are able to influence the earth’s CO2 density and climate in a negative way, it seems logical to assume that we are also able to influence it in a positive way. That is the basic idea behind geo-engineering solutions to climate change. Those solutions generally include such ideas as afforestation, CO2 air capture, ocean fertilisation, cloud albedo (using sea water spray to whiten clouds and increase cloud reflectivity), surface albedo (using specifically coloured roofing and paving materials), creating stratospheric sulphur aerosols, and space solar reflectors.
A recent article on the subject in the Financial Times also includes CO2 capture at the stack ('Carbon Capture and Storage', CCS) among other geo-engineering solutions. This is noteworthy primarily since this solution is generally seen as more realistic. CCS already receives significant amounts of R&D funding, in contrast with the other geo-engineering solutions.
A successful transition to electric vehicle (EV) transport will require more than electric cars that perform well on the road. It will also require charging systems that fulfil the consumer’s needs.
The development of such systems can only be accomplished through collaboration between car makers and utility companies. The latter have to ensure that the appropriate charging technology is in place and that the national electric grid can support the increased demand.
Since drivers will need to be able to charge their vehicles wherever they are, smart charging meters will have to be installed in large numbers. Moreover, car makers and utility companies will have to agree on an industry standard to ensure that those meters communicate with all the EVs.
Surfing the Internet, one frequently comes upon articles on new inventions for harvesting energy and solving the energy problem. Last week, we reported on the concept of 'solar highways'. That idea is certainly not the craziest one to come along...
The US Department of Transportation has awarded funding for building a 'solar highway' prototype. A solar highway contains photovoltaic (PV) modules covered with bulletproof glass as a road surface. The surface also contains a grid of LEDs that can light the roadway, draw lines, and flash warnings that react to traffic sensors. Apart from supplying power for the LEDs and sensors, the energy generated by the PV modules will also be used to heat the highway when required. The remaining energy can be used for houses and businesses alongside the road. If this systems works as projected, it could well make power stations and power lines superfluous. According to an article on Matter Network, covering all American roads with this system would produce an annual yield of energy three times as large as the entire U.S. energy consumption in 2006.
According to the most widely accepted definition of sustainability, a sustainable business has objectives on three different fronts: the environment, the economy, and social capital. These are often seen as conflicting goals, an idea that results in a search for compromises and tradeoffs. David Dornfeld, Department Head of the Laboratory for Manufacturing and Sustainability at the University of California (Berkeley), opposes this point of view. He states that 'a business must be analyzed holistically, that is, let’s not fiddle with just little parts'. In such a holistic approach, the economy, the environment, and social capital become integrated. Much of the foundation for Dornfeld’s ideas can be found in the Total Quality concepts of W. Edwards Deming.
Massive investments in wind and solar energy projects
A concept often causing confusion
The 'smart grid' is commonly presented as an indispensable part of the future power system. It is claimed that a true liberalised electricity market with a high penetration of distributed generation will only be able to supply a high degree of power reliability if grids are made smart.
But what exactly is a 'smart grid'? Reading through some literature on the subject, one quickly discovers that it can mean many different things to many different people, often leading discussions to end in confusion.
A smart grid is neither a clearly defined single concept nor a single technology. Rather it is like a basket containing various combinations of balls. The context and the interpretation depend upon the user. Carnegie Mellon University recently published an article describing all of the various balls typically found in this metaphorical basket. Some of them represent innovations that are still in the development phase, while others stand for technologies which have already been applied for years.
A criterion for expressing the development phase of a new technology
Ever since climate change emerged as a major issue, news reports on innovative sustainable energy technologies have reached a flood level. What those reports mostly do not mention is the particular stage of development of those innovations at the moment of writing. It is generally a long reach between innovation and market introduction, and this path is marked by several development phases, each of which presents particular barriers.
To assess the maturity of evolving technologies, NASA developed a new standard: the Technology Readiness Level or TRL. This standard divides the evolution between the first basic technology research and market introduction into nine levels.
Some renewable energy systems rely on scarce resources
In the quest for alternatives to fossil fuels, renewable energy systems are being rapidly developed across a wide spectrum. However, the fact that these new systems replace depletable fossil fuels with renewable sources is in itself not a guarantee of high sustainability. The article 'Why sustainable power is unsustainable' in New Scientist draws attention to this often under-appreciated fact. In our growing focus on energy and climate change, we have a tendency to applaud every renewable energy technology that is being developed and without considering its other sustainability aspects.
Five times cheaper than nuclear power
A recent study by the World Resources Institute (WRI) calculated that India could reduce its annual electricity usage by 183.5 billion kWh by investing US$ 10 billion in energy efficiency improvements.
India’s energy demand is expected to more than double by 2030. The country is consequently in need of a huge amount of new power generation capacity. Considering the figures of the WRI, the cheapest generating capacity for India will no doubt be energy savings.
While concentrated solar power is entering the commercialisation phase, 'concentrated wind power' is still in the area of bold claims intended to attract research money.
The idea of concentrated wind power is to build a structure that conducts the wind towards the turbine blades and in this way harvests more power.
Recently, an article on CleanTechnica presented a new design of this kind created by Leviathan Energy. It consists of a screen around the base of the turbine that changes air circulation. The company claims this passive structure can increase the turbine efficiency from 30% to as much as 150% at low wind speeds (0-6 meters per second).
Two recent decisions by the Spanish government regarding wind energy have highlighted concerns about the affordability of this sector.
The first decision was to create a special fund for the €10 billion government deficit originating from wind energy incentives. The second decision was to end the complete autonomy of the regions in licensing wind projects. These decisions were taken to avoid exceeding the target capacity of 20,155 MW under the government incentives currently in force. Via agreements with the regions, the wind industry was already projecting 41,000 MW. Such a figure would be unaffordable for the government if the current regimen of incentives is left in place. The new national registration of wind projects will also force wind developers to give priority to the most profitable wind sites nationwide, instead of considering projects only on a regional basis.
The Spanish government’s measures provoked a lively discussion on Power Globe and other Internet forums. Can Spain still be regarded as a textbook example of renewable energy promotion, or is the country on the edge of a bankruptcy due to excessive investments in wind?
Incremental changes can result in substantial cost reductions
The technologies for producing electricity from solar thermal energy can be divided into three main categories:
The first commercial CSP plant, which was built in California in the 1980s, used the parabolic trough concept. It has a total capacity of 354 MW. For many years, this was the only large scale CSP plant in the world. Elsewhere, only small demonstration plants were built, as the high investment cost hampered further deployment.
In 2006, a new commercial 1 MW parabolic trough CSP plant was built in Tucson, Arizona. Since then, the development of CSP as a commercial electricity generating technology has taken off. Many CSP projects are currently being built, the majority of which are in Spain and the USA. It is very likely that because of this market boom, investment costs for CSP will go down. The question is how much and how quickly.
Diversification complicates price predictions
In regards to PV energy, we will focus on grid connected systems only, since they represent the large majority of the market. The cost of a grid connected PV system is composed of the PV module cost and the 'BOS' cost (Balance of System). The BOS consists of the structures for mounting the PV modules and of the power-conditioning equipment that converts the DC power of the modules into the AC grid power.
Three difficulties arise when trying to predict the future cost development of PV energy starting from existing experience curves.
Design improvements provide the main potential - material costs the main barrier
When predicting the learning curve of wind energy, a distinction should be made between on-shore and off-shore wind. While the former started to develop in the mid 1970s, the latter only took off around the year 2000 and is consequently still lacking extensive historical data. As the figures of the NEEDS study show, today’s off-shore wind and on-shore wind electricity prices are of the same order of magnitude.
Historical cost development curves of on-shore wind show large differences that depend mainly on the timeframe, the system boundaries, and the geographical area. As a general rule one can say that the experience ratio is higher for the complete system than for the turbine alone. This is confirmed by the bottom-up study of NEEDS, which shows that the relative share of the turbine cost in the complete wind energy cost increased in the past decades.
Future cost development of renewable energy
How will the cost of the various renewable energy systems evolve in the future? That is a question a great many people are concerned about. To make the transition to a sustainable energy economy, the development and deployment of renewable energy systems will be indispensable. While all of these technologies presently have a higher cost than traditional energy systems, it is generally believed that they will become cheaper once they have gone through their learning curve.
Predicting this cost development curve was the goal of the NEEDS project (New Energy Externalities Development for Sustainability). The accuracy of decision support tools depends on the reliability of such predictions. It provides investors and policy makers alike with knowledge as to what degree investing in a particular renewable technology is likely to be worthwhile.
Provided by the NRDC and Google Earth
Google Earth recently started a new service targeting renewable energy project developers in the U.S. It consists of maps showing restricted lands and wildlife areas in the western U.S. that have to be avoided. The service was developed in collaboration with the National Audubon Society and the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC).
On its website, the NRDC also provides other kinds of maps developed for the same target group. These include maps of the entire U.S. showing the potential for wind, solar, and biomass projects, as well as the existing and planned projects in those technologies.
A Scientific American article provokes a lot of reaction
An article in the recent April edition of Scientific American discusses the statement of Jon Wellinghoff that the U.S. will never need to build another coal or nuclear power plant. He claims that all of the new capacity that is required could be delivered by new wind, solar, and biomass plants and — in a transition period — new natural gas plants. 'Nuclear and coal plants are too expensive,' he claims.
Jon Wellinghoff is the new chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. With this statement, he goes beyond those of other Obama administration officials, who have strongly endorsed renewables and energy efficiency, but also say nuclear and fossil energies will continue to play a major role.
Scientific American noted that Wellinghof’s statement generated some sceptical reactions from leading experts at universities, research institutes, and energy associations. A lively debate on this topic has also taken off on the Power Globe expert forum (see April 2009 - Week 4).
Jay Apt, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, reacted to Wellinghoff by saying renewables are not suitable for delivering baseload because of their intermittent character. This provoked Wellinghoff to respond that 'Baseload is an anachronism'.
According to Wanda Reder, president of the IEEE Power & Energy Society, the Green Economy development plan of US president Barack Obama will be impossible to effect due to a shortage of electrical engineers. In response to this, IEEE founded the U.S. Power and Energy Engineering Workforce Collaborative. This workgroup published its first report in April, drawing a very dark picture of the situation. Though the authors clearly have some good arguments, one must wonder if the situation is really as bad as they make it out. In the past, workforce shortages in certain professional domains have usually been solved automatically by the law of supply and demand.
When discussing sustainable building services (HVAC, electricity, and water), the main factors that are usually considered are environmental impact, financial cost, comfort, and sometimes safety. Although carbon emission reduction is rightfully dominating the debate nowadays, we must not forget that health can be an important fifth factor when designing sustainable building services. This is made abundantly clear in the PhD thesis 'Healthy Building Services for the 21st Century' of Francesco Franchimon at the Technical University of Eindhoven.
In discussions regarding electric vehicles, the argument is often heard that electric drives have to surrender to internal combustion drives when it comes to output power. That is a myth, as is proved by giant electrically driven mining trucks of 3,000 hp.
These trucks are used in mines throughout the world. They convert power from a diesel engine into electricity, which is then used in an electric drive system. The main reason for this energetic detour is to ease braking and speed regulation. Using an internal combustion engine for such a powerful truck would require an enormous gearbox and a complex braking system, involving a considerable amount of maintenance.
Siemens recently developed a new technology for improving the performance of this kind of electric vehicle: trolley trucks.
In the past on this blog, we have shown many pictures of unsafe electrical wiring in the slums of developing countries like Senegal or emerging economies like Brazil. This does not mean however that electrical safety ceased to be an issue in OECD countries. In the USA, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) recently launched a campaign to show the risk of an inappropriate electrical installation and to promote correct electrical wiring. The campaign includes a Home Wiring guide and a ten minute YouTube video. The video explains how electrical faults can lead to fatal fires and enumerates attention points to make a residential electrical installation safe:
The Investors Community at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos of January 2008 mandated a Green Investing report. This report was to be presented at the next Annual Meeting in January 2009. The remit of the report was to explore the potential engagement by leading investors in addressing climate change.
The report starts by sketching the scale of the challenge. It points out that green energy is often considered a luxury. Nevertheless, a huge volume of investment will be required to avoid catastrophic climate change and ensure our future energy security. Various experts all place the estimated cost in the range of US$500 billion per year.
Fortunately, the investment in green energy in the past five years has already been substantial. According to the report, 'Clean energy technologies are becoming increasingly cost-competitive with fossil-based energy. A carbon price will eventually level the playing field, but in the meantime clean energy solutions require support from policy makers.'
Potential production capacity far overrated
The Office of Metropolitan Architecture (OMA) headquartered in Rotterdam and headed up by the Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas, has developed a master plan for large-scale wind energy production in the North Sea. The operative adjective here is large-scale. The plan projects a potential annual production of 13,400 TWh by 2050.
The principal idea is to develop a huge ring of wind farms on offshore marine sites in the Exclusive Economic Zones of Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and the UK and to connect them by a power cable super ring. Such a ring would enable fewer connections with the coast, avoiding the necessity of connecting every wind farm with the grid separately.
The plan sounds good and looks brilliant. The trouble is that it appallingly neglects some basic technical aspects of wind energy. A quick verification of the annual production figure leads one to suspect that OMA simply "forgot" to take a capacity factor into account...
Reegle provides information about clean energy policies worldwide
A crystal-clear and quantitative view of the road towards a low-carbon economy
Heat pump reduces energy and water consumption dramatically
When talking about a heat pump, most people will think of a system taking heat at low temperature from the ground, the air, or a water reservoir. However, other configurations are possible. Sony City, the new Sony headquarters in Tokyo, receives heating and cooling from a heat pump connected to a nearby sewage water treatment plant.
By recycling the heat from the sewage plant, the system achieves a Coefficient of Performance (COP) of 5.19, which is exceptionally high. It means that the building receives 5.19 units of energy for each unit of primary energy that is consumed.
By David Chapman & Bruno De Wachter
'What is the use of supporting energy efficient appliances, when rebound effects cancel out all net energy savings?' This kind of scepticism regarding energy efficiency is being heard more and more in public debates.
The rebound effect occurs when energy efficiency of products improves, but then people just use more of these products. The net effect is thus cancelling out any overall savings. The rebound effect can be both direct and indirect. For instance, a direct effect can occur when consumers buy a fuel efficient car, but then discover that they can drive much more for the same cost and alter their previous driving habits. The rebound effect can also be indirect as when people use the money they save by driving more efficiently for other energy services, such as an extra holiday by air to Spain.
While this rebound effect certainly exists, it is being overused 'as another reason to do nothing', argues Bill Thompson in a post on WattWatt. Jumping to the conclusion that the rebound effect makes all energy efficiency measures useless is indeed an oversimplification that cannot be justified.
The rebound effect is directly linked to what economists call price elasticity: that is, the degree to which a given population will buy less or more of something as the price goes up or down.
If we are to build a sustainable energy future for Europe, a key role will be reserved for electricity. Its simplicity and cleanliness at the point of use, combined with the feasibility of clean power generation, make it a preferred energy carrier.
That is the main conclusion of Eurelectric’s study 'The role of electricity'. A summary of that paper was released in March 2007. While it is easy to agree with the general conclusion, the study would gain relevance if it did not limit itself to advocating only those technologies in which power utility companies play a key role.
Meeting organised by the Sierra Club
Energy security and climate change are two major public concerns. Most governments are intervening with policies aimed at ensuring a continuous energy supply and reducing carbon dioxide emissions. But how are those two objectives related? And which policies can maximise both goals?
The International Energy Agency (IEA) studied these questions and published its findings in the book Energy Security and Climate Policy/Assessing Interactions, released on 28 March 2007. The book does not take positions on what actions should be taken. Its merit lies in the fact that it offers governments quantitative tools to assess policy choices.
Concerning energy security, the book focuses on the danger of market concentration of fossil fuel resources. Other energy security issues (supply disruptions due to extreme weather conditions, short-term balancing problems, etc.) are not discussed since they have no direct link with climate change mitigation.
Following the Minute Lecture Four analogies to explain reactive power, we received many reactions.
This past summer, the International Energy Agency (IEA) published its Trends in Photovoltaic Applications report. It is the result of a survey conducted in 18 selected countries for the period between 1992 and 2005, within the framework of the Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme (PVSP).
The general cost of fire runs around 1% of GDP in most advanced countries, but has generally received much less attention than the cost of crime or of road accidents.
The World Fire Statistics Centre advocates strategies for reducing this cost. The centre is part of the Geneva Association for the Study of Insurance Economics. It publishes an Information Bulletin each month, highlighting a few key statistics from their Annual Report to the United Nations. The statistics show, among other things, the number of fire deaths in various countries as well as the cost of direct and indirect fire losses.
As we reported earlier in another post on this blog, the photovoltaic industry is booming. An interesting question is to what degree this boom could withstand a cut in the subsidies that are currently being injected into this industry.
The US solar power industry seems to be divided on this question. At the Solar Power 2006 conference in San José, California in October, solar industry representatives voiced a variety of opinions. Some predicted that within four years, solar power systems will be competitive with fossil fuels and will no longer need subsidies. Others spoke about a span of five to eight years to achieve that point. Some were predicting significant cost reductions for solar powered systems, but did not dare to predict when they will be able to compete without subsidies. The latter also depends largely on how fossil fuel prices are going to evolve.
We are not on course, but it is not a lost cause
Modified circumstances change cost-effectiveness of technology
Coping with the high requirements of wind generation
A minute lecture proposing four different analogies on reactive power:
This paper demonstrates how over the past 30 years, public lighting has developed into an increasingly complex domain
