Thursday, July 30, 2009

Big money in energy efficiency

A new report on energy efficiency from the consulting firm McKinsey found that the United States could save $1.2 trillion through 2020, by investing $520 billion in improvements like sealing leaky building ducts and replacing inefficient household appliances with new, energy-saving models. Such savings are far greater than the $520 billion that would be needed for upfront investment in efficiency measures.

That investment would cut the country’s projected energy use in 2020 by about 23 percent. It would also more than offset the expected growth in energy use that would be expected otherwise in the United States.

The reduction in energy use would also result in the abatement of 1.1 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions annually, the equivalent of taking the entire U.S. fleet of passenger vehicles and light trucks off the roads.

Homes account for about 35 percent of the possible gains in end-use efficiency, according to McKinsey. The industrial sector accounts for 40 percent and the commercial sector for 25 percent.

Barriers to achieving the savings were: it would be expensive; inertia and poorly aligned incentives. The report recommendations include better information and education about potential energy efficiency savings; tighter codes and efficiency requirements for appliances; and stronger financial incentives for making efficiency improvements.

What’s more, energy efficiency is the very best way to create so-called green jobs.

Well, what’s true of the US also holds elsewhere, even if on a smaller scale. In the developing world, a large chunk is still deprived of access to power. But that doesn’t mean the rest do not waste energy using inefficient technology. India’s integrated energy policy recognizes the role for energy efficiency.

Encouragingly, the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE), through its sustained campaign, has prodded households to go for star-studded certified energy-saving appliances and ensured industries adopt new technologies, helping save electricity worth 1,500 mw in 2008-09, says a survey by the National Productivity Council.

As much as 2,106.16 million units of power was saved through BEE’s star rating programme for electrical appliances. BEE has proposed to provide tax advantage to consumers to encourage them to purchase more energy efficient electrical appliances.

But as MGI report says, more awareness, tighter codes and stronger financial incentives can help to obtain the maximum from efficiency drives.

Biofuel cheap and in plenty

A startup based in Cambridge, MA--Joule Biotechnologies--has revealed details of a process that it says can make 20,000 gallons of biofuel per acre per year. The company also claims that the fuel can be sold for prices competitive with fossil fuels.

Joule Biotechnologies grows genetically engineered microorganisms in specially designed photobioreactors. The microorganisms use energy from the sun to convert carbon dioxide and water into ethanol or hydrocarbon fuels (such as diesel or components of gasoline). The organisms excrete the fuel, which can then be collected using conventional chemical-separation technologies.

Conventional, corn-grain-based biofuels require a large amount of land, water, and energy to grow the grain. Joule’s microorganisms (much like algae, but not the same) can be grown inside transparent reactors, where they're circulated to ensure that they all get exposed to sunlight, and they are fed concentrated carbon dioxide--which can come from a power plant, for example--and other nutrients.

While algae typically produce oils that have to be refined into fuels, Joule's microorganisms produce fuel directly--either ethanol or hydrocarbons. And while oil is harvested from algae by collecting and processing the organisms, Joule's organisms excrete the fuel continuously, making harvesting the fuel cheaper.

Scaling up the process will be a challenge. Another challenge is keeping the microorganisms producing fuel at a steady rate. (Algae populations can bloom and grow so quickly that they outrun the supply of nutrients or sunlight, leading to a collapse of the population.)

But the price and yield promised has stumped industry observers. No refining. Direct production. $50 a barrel. And commercialization by next year. Worth watching this one. If it addresses even transport needs, it will mean a load off fossil fuels.

Switch to DC?

With solar poised to play a big role in renewable energy offerings, is it time to switch our homes and workplaces to DC? Or is it not advisable?

The electricity that comes out of a photovoltaic panel is DC and hence a part of every PV solar installation is the installing of a big inverter to change the DC to Ac.

A company is exploring the idea of having many small inverters (aptly named microinverters) into each solar cell or module instead of one single, large inverter. Startup GreenRay Solar is getting funding to develop this kind of technology, so that one day a homeowner can buy a solar panel and pretty much install it him/herself. Its panels will be simple to install because they bypass the inverter step.

Yes, these solar panels will cost more money. But, microinverters offer additional benefits. For example, if part of the panel is blocked, it will not affect the other parts. And, if you are the kind of person who wants to carefully monitor your system’s performance, the microinverter panels will give you more precise and detailed information.

But, most AC/DC converters are designed for a specific load (power usage) at which they are most efficient. In this regard, larger converters will be more efficient than many tiny micro converters. Right?

The technology to convert power from AC to DC, ramp up the voltage, and crank it all back down to usable voltage AC was so wasteful some time ago which was why DC transmission was avoided. But now the up/DC/down/AC process wastes less than 2% of the energy and even that is recovered in more efficient transmission at distances greater than 250 miles or so. A major HVDC line is the Pacific Intertie which carries hydro power from the Pacific Northwest to Southern California. It may soon be used to move thermal solar to major western cities.

But if you are living off the grid, does it make sense to convert all your equipment into DC friendly gadgets? Inverters are cheaper to buy.

With more digital technology in the market which requires DC power, is it wiser to adopt DC? Direct access to DC is believed to be safer and more efficient. And more sustainable, reducing the amount of materials needed. More and more digital, DC-powered devices today operate at less than optimal efficiency in an aging, AC-based building infrastructure.

Would total conversion not mean huge costs? Should we go for parallel lines of both? Most AC/DC converters are designed for a specific load (power usage) at which they are most efficient. With loads most often below, efficiency is lowered.

One of the other issues with low voltage DC on a household level is interruptabillity. When a DC current is suddenly interrupted, the current will want to keep on flowing due to inductances in the current loop present. Large capacitance or charge will be available in such a system. In comparison, AC power goes to a zero voltage level 5060 times per second.

Is the AC-DC part the problem or the lack of standardisation of secondary equipment – like the many adaptors for mobile phones, ipods, laptops??

Join in the discussion. Here is a ‘direct’ chance!

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Muscling in waste


While it’s not the first city to adopt BigBelly Solar’s cordless trash compaction system, Philadelphia’s installment of 500 new solar trash compactors represents the most “comprehensive” program seen thus far. The benefits come from reductions in the frequency of trash collection, and hence decreased fuel costs, leading to reduction of greenhouse gases by 80 percent. BigBelly also provides cost efficiencies from labor savings, fuel cost and maintenance savings.

The solar powered trash smashers can hold about 150-200 gallons of refuse and only need to be emptied 5 times per week. The technology also self-monitors by way of an electron beam which is broken when trash fills too high, setting off the compaction motor. Once the smashed trash builds up, the light on the front of the apparatus changes from green to yellow. A wireless monitoring system alerts city collectors that the light has changed and its time for service.

The compactors are projected to save $12.9 million over the next decade.

This is a demonstration of the amazingly different, indirect ways of reducing fuel use and ghg emissions. But, hey, what about the stink?!

From horsepower to manpower?


A two year study led by the University of Leeds in the UK aims to develop a system that can harness kinetic energy from marching soldiers.

The $1.5 million plan will focus on finding a way to convert human energy into usable power for military field applications. It is part of the larger “battery-free soldier” project that also includes development of solar and body heat-harvesting technologies for the military. This technology can find applications in the civil world too.

Earlier Japanese telecommunications company NTT said it was developing shoes that generate electricity upon movement. The shoes generate 1.2 watts of electricity and are powered by small turbines. Each shoe has a small generator attached to the water-filled sole, which spins a small turbine and generates power each time the wearer takes a step.

M2E Power plans to release a portable charger for mobile devices sometime next summer. The charger, which is the size of a pack of cards, derives power from cumulative motion from walking, jogging, cycling, or driving. Six hours of motion provides 30 to 60 minutes of extra power.

The kinetic energy system uses the Faraday Principle, which states that the movement of a conductor through a magnetic field produces voltage in the conductor proportional to the speed of movement. In this case, the conductor is a wire coil. The system uses a magnet that moves against the coil every time the charger moves, generating a charge that is captured in a capacitor. A logic circuit takes the charge to the built-in Li-Ion cell, where it is stored until use.

The Leeds scientists plan to create a similar system that includes knee wraps and backpack straps with crystals and high-tech ceramic materials acting as piezoelectric transducers. These piezoelectric components are responsible for converting mechanical energy from movement into electric charge.

According to source, the technology would work pretty much like regenerative braking in cars. Problems could arise in differences in the manner of walking. But the right material could help cancel out such variations.

There are lots of ideas out there. It should be a good idea for our colleges and universities to encourage students to take up such projects. Looking at many ways to meet our varied demands is a better idea than using the same (scarce) source for all our needs.

Monday, July 27, 2009

Conserving energy

The broadband DSL access network consumes about 20 billion kilowatt-hours of energy per year worldwide (equivalent to four percent of Germany’s annual energy consumption). A large amount of this can be saved in a simple step.

At present, broadband access always runs on full power, but the L2 mode could reduce the transmission output of the system and therefore its power usage during quiescent communication. While this mode is available it is often not used as it causes interference to neighbouring DSL systems.

When a modem connects to the Internet while neighboring modems are still in L2 mode, only a small degree of interference occurs and the data transmission rate is high. If, however, systems in neighboring houses or apartments become active, the interference to the first system is so great that the connection crashes and the modem can only go online again after a prolonged restart phase.

But now scientists at the Fraunhofer Institute for Communication Systems ESK have found a way around the problem by using artificial or virtual noise to stabilize DSL connections so that L2 mode can be deployed. The artificial noise simulates typical cable bundle interference to the broadband receivers.

Network operators can reduce their electricity consumption by several million kilowatt-hours per year. At a later stage, users too would benefit.

Engineers have developed a technique that saves energy and servicing costs by indicating when air conditioners are low on refrigerant, preventing the units from working overtime.

The new "virtual refrigerant charge sensor" is particularly practical for automotive air conditioners, which tend to leak refrigerant more than other types of units, and also for household central air conditioning units.

Maintaining the proper amount of refrigerant in a system, saves energy because air conditioners low on refrigerant must operate longer to achieve the same degree of cooling as properly charged units.

The research has been funded by the California Energy Commission through its Public Interest Energy Research, or PIER, program. Taking this further, a software algorithm was developed that interprets temperature-sensor data to estimate the amount of refrigerant in the system.
The method could be commercialized if a company invested some time in the implementation side, according to the team.

The savings can be lots. When energy is scarce, and sources shrinking by the day, every pinch saved means releasing more for other needs. It has been shown that retrofitting a home with efficient lighting and heating can involve an initial cost of Rs 30,000 but in the long run can bring around Rs 24,000 savings every ten years.

One unit of power saved is equivalent to three units generated. Right?

Friday, July 24, 2009

'Cheap' hydrogen-fuelled bus

Sao Paulo in southern Brazil has launched the first hydrogen-fuelled bus in Latin America – claimed to be the first step towards environmentally sustainable public transport of the future. The project is supported by public, private and international sponsors like the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

Unlike a diesel engine, in which fossil fuels are burned, combining with oxygen to produce energy and carbon dioxide – the main greenhouse gas - a hydrogen-powered motor relies on an electrochemical reaction where water is the only byproduct. The bus wheels are driven by traction motors fuelled by the electrical energy from this reaction. Hydrogen fuel is stored in tanks on the upper part of the bus.

A traditional diesel bus travelling the same route and distance as the hydrogen bus uses an average of 270 litres of diesel a day, or one litre per kilometer.

In contrast, the hydrogen bus has an energy efficiency of 90 percent, equivalent to 900 grams of hydrogen gas per kilometre. The other 10 percent is recycled and reused within the vehicle's system.

Brazil is one of five countries in the world that have mastered this technology along with the United States, China, Germany and Japan. But the bus made in Brazil, one of only 78 in the world, is the cheapest. It can be used alongwith electric batteries to supplement the hydrogen. Even the heat produced during braking is captured and stored in the batteries, enhancing fuel economy.

While a diesel bus has a useful life of five to eight years, a hydrogen bus will last an average of 20 years.

All that is fine but when you think of the fact that hydrogen is only a carrier of energy and not a source, questions arise on how it is produced. For the hybrid bus, hydrogen will be made by electrolysis, by passing electric current through water.

The claim of the company, that hydrogen can be made wherever water and electricity is available, is exactly the point. There is an amount of input electricity that is necessary. What is the EROEI? That should be studied. Any answers?

PS: Meanwhile, the world’s cheapest and most fuel efficient cars marketed towards developing economies, Tata’s Nano is stepping into foreign shores. Fiat and Tata have announced plans to market the car in South America.

The car also recently passed European safety standards and will start being sold there in 2011. It is capable of an incredible 23.6km/litre (55.5 mpg) and ultra-low carbon emissions of 101 g/km, one of the lowest in India.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Going beyond coal

The focus of the Integrated Energy Policy by the Indian Planning Commission is to sustain a growth rate of 8%. This requires an increase in installed capacity of electricity from 1,60,000 MW to 800,000 MW by 2031-32, an annual growth in coal demand between 4.7% to 7.27%.

Towards meeting the demand, the Government of India has approved 213 new coal plants in the next eight years. And to pave way for more coal mining, the coal ministry and Ministry of Environment have joined hands by putting ‘degraded’ forest lands (between 55 to 60 per cent of the total forest land in the country) as “Go” areas for coal exploitation.

Did the environment minister mean ‘open’ forests when he said ‘degraded’? If so, it will further reduce the country’s overall forest cover, which is already short of the desired 33 per cent mark.

Is this the right way ahead? Energy demand has to be met but have we seriously considered the potential of energy efficiency and renewable energy to reduce the demand on fossil based energy?

How can renewable energy manage to cope when coal-based power is sold way below its actual cost? If you monetize costs of environmental damage from coal based generation, it works out to Rs 6.97 per kWh, according to World Institute Sustainable Energy.

Given climate imperatives, can we mindlessly afford to beat the same track?

India has very poor quality extractable coal reserves left for 30-40 years, according to CMPDI (central mine planning and design institute) whereas if depending largely on coal, power generation would have to ramp up about 6 times from the present 70,000 MW to nearly 400,000 MW.

Two thirds of India’s CO2 emissions come from coal used in power generation. India is the lowest per capita emitter, but given that 5% of the world’s CO2 emissions from fossil fuels come from India, serious thought has to be given to how we meet our energy demand. Is it through removing forests and burning more scarce coal?

Or is there a balance we have somehow missed so far?

Protectionism, or 'saving' the planet?

Even as the chances of the US climate bill being passed by the Senate remain bleak, there is some amount of belligerent talk from those quarters. Carbon tariffs on countries that don’t abide by a cap on emissions is one such.

Mooted by the Obama government (even though the president himself has opposed it), it backs the idea that if the US is to clean up its act, it will have to make sure that others do not go scot-free and lure jobs and emissions!

Among its votaries is Nobel Laureate and economist Paul Krugman, who has minced no words to justify carbon tariffs. ‘China cannot continue along its current path because the planet can’t handle the strain […] It is unfair to expect China to live within constraints that we didn’t have to face when our own economy was on its way up. But that unfairness doesn’t change the fact that letting China match the West’s past profligacy would doom the Earth as we know it […]’

Another Nobel Laureate has a different view. The head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, is the latest to warn against carbon tariffs. AP reports: “This is a dangerous thing, and I think people in Congress must understand this,” said Pachauri. “The United States has always stood for a free market system. … Legislation to move away from that principle is clearly counterproductive.”

Contrast this with Krugman’s stand: ‘They will complain bitterly that this is protectionism, but so what? Globalization doesn’t do much good if the globe itself becomes unlivable. It’s time to save the planet...’

True, China’s economic growth has led to a huge increase in emissions—from factory smokestacks, from coal-fired power plants, from millions of new cars. But disallowing its growth is perhaps not the solution, if you look at the argument which says: the richer a nation becomes, the better it is equipped to tackle emissions. But can the planet wait till then, especially as that would mean even more carbon up there??

Perhaps it is in this connection that the call by Indian prime minister has to be viewed. Let the rich nations pay for the growth of the developing ones.

Manmohan Singh has called on annex 1 countries to provide 0.5% of GDP to help developing countries reduce emissions, and categorically said that India would not collaborate with inspection of their emissions unless this rose to 0.8%. Obama’s climate change envoy Todd Stern has already dismissed it.

Saving the planet, as Krugman puts it, is everyone’s job. But there can be no denying the onus on the rich nations who have had their fill. Are they doing anything about it, despite having the means? Emissions have risen by 17 percent since 1990. How many Americans are willing to ‘compromise on their lifestyles’?

Marketing goes green!


Solar-powered “flower stations” are sprouting across major U.S. cities providing free Wi-Fi and electricity for charging laptops, cell phones and other devices.

The flowers are part of Toyota’s national marketing campaign for the third generation Prius launch in 2010. Aside from providing clean electricity and a dandy place to rest, the flowers are also adorned with “leaves” which showcase advertisements and short informationals about the new Prius.

Standing at a height of 18 feet, solar panels on the backs of the petals power 110-volt outlets found on the benches, which can seat up to 10 people. Currently, the flower-power stations can be found in Boston, but they will also be making rounds in New York, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. The giant daisies are set up to operate daily from 8:00am to 9:00pm.
Innovative ideas like this can do much to ease the power problem. It may not be big but many such small ideas can make a revolution. Write in to us.

Innovative financing for RE

Berkeley City has hit what could be a gold mine on financing clean, but costly, renewable energy. The city started a solar financing program which allows property owners to borrow money to install solar photovoltaic systems and pay the cost over 20 years through a special tax on their property tax bill.

This reduces the up-front cost; repayment is spread over 20 years; financing costs are comparable to a mortgage; when property is sold the new owners start paying!

The Berkely FIRST program, as it is called, is currently in its pilot phase and the application period is now closed. In fact the total project costing the city $1.5 million was sold out in the first nine minutes of being announced! Thirty-eight solar installation projects, distributed throughout Berkeley, have funding committed by the City of Berkeley.

And now, San Francisco plans to adopt municipal financing that helps building owners add renewable power. Its program for $30 million will fund any renewable energy source including co-generation, geothermal ground heat exchanges, wind power and even just efficiency measures like boiler upgrades and tank-less heaters.

Municipal tax assessment financing eliminates the loan application process. The loan is attached to the property rather than the individual. Thus, the owner can make the retrofits and later sell the property without worrying about the cost of the retrofits being watered down in the overall sales price of the house or building.

Good idea to encourage renewable energy? Can our municipal authorities be enthused?

More wide roads and few trees


It is the same story whether being played out in Sao Paulo or Bangalore. Massive felling of trees make way for wider roads that can carry more cars which can cruise at greater speeds. A few people protest but for a majority it is just another ‘development’ work. Is it?

The environmental community in Sao Paulo is protesting over a project to improve traffic that is taking over thousands of trees at the margins of the Tiete river (see pic).

Dersa, company responsible for the works, states that the environmental compensation will cover the trees taken down and that the project is complementary with the other. By introducing three more lines of cars for 23 kms, 25 percent of traffic jams will be reduced and hence, save 1.5 milion litres of petrol a year, says the government. Even if it means 1500 ancient trees have to go.

In Bangalore too, every day sees tree hackers at work on some road that needs widening. Now it is the Adugodi-Madivala stretch where huge trees are being reduced to logs.

Sure, choked streets require respite but does the solution lie in making room for more traffic? Or looking at ways in which to reduce the number of vehicles on the road – like cities of Curitiba and Bogota have shown.

Can compensation by way of planting new saplings really compensate? And how well are these saplings nourished and sustained into adult plants? Very seldom. Does anyone think about the oxygen we lose with the loss of trees?

In Curitiba, Brazil, and Bogota, Colombia, much relief was possible by encouraging public transit. But this means that governments need to be immune to car lobbies. Can they?

Look at the advantages of bus rapid transit (which is a ‘metro’ of sorts for the bus.) BRT reduces smog and traffic. Bogotá’s TransMilenio has made life easy in the city and more livable: A 40-percent drop in air pollutants was reported in the first year of the system’s use, and average travel times were 32 percent shorter.

The system also reduces greenhouse gases by introducing fewer, cleaner buses and coaxing people from their cars. By removing 7,000 small private buses, TransMilenio has allowed Bogotٔá to reduce its emissions by more than 59 percent since the system’s opening in 2001.

Global emissions linked to transportation are set to double by 2030. Eighty percent of this growth will come from the developing world, where major cities are already struggling to provide mobility to their exploding populations. China with more than 30 projects on way shows it has recognized this fact. In India, the government is struggling with a couple of pilot projects.

Political will has to play a stronger role.

Share your thoughts.

Monday, July 20, 2009

The next revolution?

Could the ‘inter-grid’ be the next revolution? If you are wondering what exactly this is, it is a coinage of renowned economist and social critic Jeremy Rifkin, and what he sees as the Third Industrial Revolution.

Just like the digital media and the Internet has made it easy to share information, he sees a time not too far away, when the world will be distributing energy peer-to-peer! Every person who consumes energy will also be contributing to its generation and distribution. The mammoth buildings we live in will be an active participant in this scheme. Every possible source of energy from the sun to the ocean to the wind will be harnessed and distributed, and stored. The first inter-grids will be up this year in Houston, Bouldor Colorado and Southern California.

The microgrid local generation concept alongwith economic regionalization will see a new and better socio-economic world order, Rifkin believes.

At a time when the centralized power supply system is struggling to meet the demand, localized distributed systems make perfect sense. The microgrid concept is simple. It makes buying and installing a wind or solar power generating unit as simple as any other gadget at home.

Initially a bit costly, it generates all the electricity your home needs and pays for itself in just a few years.

Your home still connects to the existing wires and power plants, but it is a two-way connection. You're just as likely to be uploading power to the grid as downloading from it. So you end up getting paid for the energy you generate at home. That goes for office buildings and others.

What do you think? Is this the ideal way to meet the energy challenge?

Permafrost - the ticking bomb

If you have been closely following the climate change debate, especially the predictions, you are aware that there has been frequent adjustment in the numbers thrown up for warming and its consequences. As also the reductions in emissions required to keep life cruising along.

Every new study indicates that the climate change danger has been underestimated by earlier studies. This is largely due to the complexity of the climate model that has so many dynamic parameters. But there is the other aspect which is that of incomplete understanding of positive and negative feedback systems that add or remove from the warming effect.

The impact of the biosphere’s response to global warming has not been fully considered. Like the way warming seawater releases carbon dioxide. Or soil bacteria that heat up will respire more, generating more CO2. As temperatures rise, tropical forests will die, releasing the carbon they contain. Feedbacks account for about 18% of global warming.

The 4th impact assessment report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has a table which links different cuts to likely temperatures. To prevent global warming from eventually exceeding 2°, it suggests, by 2050 the world needs to cut its emissions to roughly 15% of the volume in 2000. The IPCC admits that “emission reductions … might be underestimated due to missing carbon cycle feedbacks”.

The findings of a recent peer-reviewed study published in the July 13 issue of the journal Nature Geoscience provides evidence that current climate models are still underestimating the amount of warming that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide can cause.

In other words, the potential consequences of global warming are likely worse than what scientists are predicting.

The study examined the extent to which increased carbon dioxide levels could explain a 5 to 9 degree Celsius increase the Earth experienced 55.5 million years ago. The authors concluded that current estimates of how much carbon dioxide increases the average Earth temperature only explains 3.5 degrees of warming.

This in turn means forecasts of future warming could be severely underestimating the problem in store as ghgs accumulate.

Some of the changes due to warming could aggravate the problem. For example, increasing CO2 concentrations:
melt tundra, which then releases methane and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere; warm the air, which then can hold more water vapor, another heat-trapping gas; and
melt white ice, which exposes the ocean and land, which, because they are darker in color, absorb more heat from the sun and reflect less of it back into space.

Large amounts of methane, which has roughly 20 times the warming potential of CO2, could make an enormous difference. And, compared to the carbon in the atmosphere, there is about twice as much carbon in the permafrost as we thought, roughly 1.5 trillion tons.

Any thawing of permafrost due to global warming may lead to significant emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. Carbon deposits frozen thousands of years ago can easily break down when permafrost thaws releasing greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, according to another recent study by University of Florida.

Carbon in permafrost is found largely in northern regions including Canada, Greenland, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Russia, Scandinavia and USA.

Is that a good enough reason for all nations to take this climate change seriously and do something, and do it fast? Can we afford to keep feeling around, eyes blinded, till we decide that there is an elephant in the room?

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Cheapest clean energy?

Geothermal energy is the cheapest form of clean energy coming next to wind energy, says new report from New York University Stern.

Geothermal energy was singled out as the cheapest renewable energy source, and could become competitive with coal and gas-fired power with about $3.3 billion in research and development spending, the report said.

The United States got about 2800 megawatts of geothermal energy in 2006, or 0.3 percent of the total. But it only costs 4 to 6 cents per kilowatt hour to make on average, according to DOE's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy division - close to the ultra-cheap price of energy made from coal.

Research into "hot, dry rock" geothermal technology could yield big increases in geothermal energy's potential, the report stated. Most geothermal energy today comes from capturing hot water and steam already underground. Hot dry rock systems, also known as enhanced geothermal systems, seek to inject water from aboveground into wells that reach deep hot, dry rock formations to make steam to drive a turbine and generate power.

This is what Australia plans to capitalize on, as the continent is rich with such rock formations. In the US, Google and General Electric have agreed to work on geothermal together.

An earlier MIT study had said that geothermal is risky; loss of water to the formation, loss of heat over time, dry (cold) holes that are non-productive; difficult drilling conditions (hot etc). As regards the cost, the question is whether the numbers cited includes O&M and if it is over the margin or an average.

Can the earth supply the energy we are looking for?

Mighty wind

If there is anything that fluctuates as much as the wind, it is the forecasts for the wind energy market. A new Harvard University study says that global wind energy potential is considerably higher than previous estimates by both wind industry groups and government agencies.

The study appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States.

Using data from thousands of meteorological stations, the Harvard team estimated the world wind power potential to be 40 times greater than total current power consumption. A previous study cited in the paper put that multiple at about seven times.

While remote regions of Russia and Canada have the greatest theoretical potential, the Harvard study pointed out that there are real gains to be made in high-emission nations, especially China.
Large-scale development of wind power in China could allow for an 18-fold increase in electricity supply relative to consumption reported for 2005, the Harvard study said.

The authors based their calculations on the deployment of 2.5- to 3-megawatt wind turbines situated either in accessible rural areas that are neither frozen nor forested, or relatively shallow offshore locations. They also used a conservative 20 percent estimate for capacity factor (a measure of how much energy a given turbine actually produces).

Wind speeds are greater at higher elevations. Previous wind studies were based on the deployment of 50- to 80-meter turbines. As turbines go taller, more of wind will be captured.

Forty times the present global consumption is no small number. Are we not doing enough to harness this energy?

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Tapping more solar

Tiny pillars with dimensions on scale of billionths of a metre could spell cheaper and more efficient solar cells, according to researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California at Berkeley.

Unlike conventional solar cells, nanoscale pillars offer a much larger surface area for collecting light. They are more sensitive to light and hence more efficient at converting collected light to electricity.

A new and more controlled method of producing large-scale arrays of highly-ordered nanoscale pillars of cadmium sulphide on aluminium, with a thin coating layer of cadmium telluride, holds promise. The pillar array showed an efficiency of 6%. Higher performance and simpler fabrication is possible say the team of researchers who believe nanopillar arrays are a new path to versatile solar modules.

Cool Energy, a startup based in Boulder, CO, is developing a system that could help make solar energy competitive even in relatively dark and cold climates.

The company's system combines a conventional solar water heater with a new Stirling-engine-based generator that it is developing. In cool months, the solar heater provides hot water and space heating while in warmer months, excess heat is used to drive the Stirling engine and generate electricity.

The system is designed to provide almost all of a house's heating needs. But the generator, which will produce only 1.5 kilowatts of power, is designed to work with power from the grid, although the power is enough to run a refrigerator and a few lights in the event of a power failure.

The company's key innovation is the Stirling engine, which is designed to work at temperatures much lower than ordinary Stirling engines. In these engines, a piston is driven by heating up one side of the engine while keeping the opposite side cool. Ordinarily, the engines require temperatures of above 500 °C, but Cool Energy's engine is designed to run at the 200 degrees that solar water heaters provide.

Stirling engine's efficiency is limited by the difference in temperature between the cool and hot side. Typically, reaching the necessary high temperatures using sunlight requires mirrors and lenses for concentrating the light and tracking systems for keeping the concentrators pointed at the sun.

To make a practical Stirling engine that runs at low temperatures and doesn't require concentrators, the engineers addressed the heat leak problem by using materials that do not conduct heat. Like plastics and ceramics.

The third prototype is expected to raise efficiencies and also cut costs.

Any reason why this won’t work?

Hybrid auto rickshaw

For those familiar with Indian roads, the auto rickshaw is a ubiquitous element as it weaves and speeds dangerously through the traffic, spewing exhaust fumes generously. Many cities have emission norms but implementation is lax at times.

There is a competition to design the cleanest, cheapest and most practical upgrade kit for around 1 million auto rickshaws to save fuel and cut carbon emissions. Enviru, which is an environmental think tank in Rotterdam, now has announced the first winners.

Enviru, which is looking for funding to retrofit 1 million auto rickshaws in India, held a race in Rotterdam in May. Final judging will take place later this month in India.

The “Hybrid Auto-Rickshaw Battle,” as it was called saw university teams in Holland and India working to come up with a prototype for a cleaner rickshaw that reduces emissions and fuel use, and is also cheap to build.

Enviru has already researched the auto rickshaw situation together with experts in Bangalore and Hyderabad, which proved the project to be more than worthwhile. Their study revealed that a hybrid auto rickshaw can increase a driver’s income to at least 35%, due to the money they save on fuel. Furthermore, the overall impact of upgrading one million of these vehicles can reduce the CO2 emissions of each one by 40-60%.

If found successful, it can be replicated with the remaining autos.

Anyone know how much of carbon dioxide that would save?

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Double trouble

It smacks of irresponsibility of the highest kind what Russia plan to do. It is prospecting for oil in the caving Arctic ice and doing it, using floating nuclear reactors! The United Industrial Corporation is planning to build a series of such floating stations to extract oil and gas offshore in some of the remotest oil and gas fields in the world in the Barents and Kara seas. To go into operation by the end of 2012, the ship will accommodate two 35 MW reactors.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Russian Federation dumped radioactive waste from more than 160 decommissioned nuclear submarines into the Arctic. In 1993, per Nuclear Power Daily 16 nuclear reactors and 10,000 containers of nuclear waste were dumped in the Kara and Barents sea.

During the Cold War, the Soviet arctic was a nuclear test zone with pollution from the Soviet military program leaving a “slow-motion Chernobyl” in excess of 3 billion curies of radioactivity. (By comparison, Chernobyl itself released only 100 million curies)

Will this be return to the Cold War times? Will dwindling energy be the driving force for the next big conflict on the planet? What will be the effect of drilling the Arctic for oil?

Degree of sustainability

Are we simply jumping from one problem to another? Is renewable energy the solution to the energy challenge? How sustainable are renewables? Think about it.

The New Scientist cites three examples of "unsustainable sustainable power systems" in the renewable offerings: Multiple-junction PV cells, which have promising performance in so far as efficiency goes, but use the relatively rare metal Indium; Hydrogen fuel cells, which use the very scarce metal Platinum as a catalyst ; Bio-fuels, which make use of large areas of scarce arable land.

All renewable energy systems, except the hydro power to some extent, make use of materials which are limited in supply. To that extent they all are unsustainable. Building all those turbines and panels will also consume energy before they start delivering. But, still their negative impact is lesser than that of fossil fuels.

As we look for diverse energy resources, every system has its use during the transition. But the question is, where to cry halt?

Is it a better choice to check consumption and use less energy, instead of looking for new energy sources? Is there a limit to energy supply, like the limit to growth now being talked about?

Water wars imminent?

According to an article by Stephen Faris in Foreign Policy and the IPCC, the Himalayan glacier in the Kashmir province that provides 90 percent of Pakistan’s water for agricultural irrigation will disappear by 2035 as a consequence of climate change.

Titled “The Last Straw,” the article reviews water conflicts exacerbated by climate change in general while focusing on Pakistan’s unsustainable dependence on Kashmiri waters – a dependence that will aggravate the situation in the region.

A shocking “ninety percent of Pakistan’s agricultural irrigation depends on rivers that originate in Kashmir.” This water comes from three of the six tributaries that India and Pakistan split in their 1960 Indus Waters Treaty.

By diminishing water flows in the Indus Valley, climate change puts the treaty – and the current tentative peace between Pakistan and India – at risk of collapsing.

Climate change disrupts the natural regulation of the Himalayan glaciers that feed into Kashmir’s waters: by preventing precipitation from freezing in the winter, climate change disrupts the summer melts and prevents farmers from getting adequate water for irrigation during the growing season. In fact, “the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates the glaciers could be mostly gone from the mountains by 2035.”

The effects are already serious, says research by ActionAid.

Do you believe climate change is a distant thing? What should developing nations do?

Friday, July 10, 2009

Solar hopes afloat

Solar-powered vehicles on road are still more of an oddity than a reality. But going by recent news, the sun may yet take wings in air and sails at sea!

Toyota’s 60,000-ton, seven story cargo ship can carry more than 6,200 cars at a time and regularly does so, transporting Toyota, Lexus and Scion vehicles from Toyota Motor Co. factories in Japan to Toyota’s 144-acre spread at this port in Los Angeles.

Toyota installed a test array, comprising 328 solar panels, on the top deck as an experiment to see if such a system would work effectively aboard a car carrier. There has been no problem since the panels were installed last December. No leakage, no wiring issues.

Electrical engineers at Toyota’s headquarters in Japan have found solar modules that are three times more efficient than the ones, in terms of using less space and generating same power.

Meanwhile, Solar Impulse, the solar powered test flight will take off by end of the year. With a 63 metres wingspan and 12,000 solar PV cells, it is armed with 400 kg of batteries to store the energy for night flying. The plane will not attain great speed but if it works, it could mean a lot for the aviation industry.

If land availability is what bogs down solar energy, why not lay out solar panels out there in our seas? Yes, we will still need cables to transport the energy, and water proofing of the panels. But can it not be studied? Do share your thoughts.

Is it too late to be a pessimist?


For the weekend, here is something interesting you can do – watch a film. It’s free for download from the Net.

French photographer Yann Arthus Bertrand's documentary Home is a collection of unique aerial footage from over 50 countries, showing how humans are mining the planet’s resources beyond the criteria of need. It offers a solution in moderation, intelligence and sharing.

Much like one of the astronauts recommended a trip to space for humans to overcome notions of borders and war, this film strikes the human conscience by providing hard evidence of disaster from greedy consumption. It takes you across the globe from the farmland of Australia to the cold unwelcoming plains of Siberia, from desert land to Antarctica, from poverty stricken Africa to the concrete jungles of skyscrapers and criss-crossing flyovers glittering at night!

Both the rich and poor are exploiting natural resources – one for a living, another for a lifestyle. But whether it is oil, or machinised agriculture, the clock is ticking. Can we slow down? Can we change? Or do we simply give up and carry on as usual?

Stark. Evocative. Silencing. The vivid colours of planet earth, from the blue and green and rust to the cruel brown gashes on the hill slope, it is a reminder of what we have and what we are doing.
It took 217 days of shooting in 54 countries, which added up to 488 hours of footage.

Interestingly, the emissions for the making of the movie were offset, by financing a project for Diffusion of anaerobic digesters in India!

Home was released free and worldwide to reach as many people as possible. To make this possible, the film was sponsored by PPR Group.

Message and visual delight apart, the movie has an equally appealing music score written by Armand Amar and recorded with the Budapest Symphony Orchestra and the Shanghai Percussion Ensemble.

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

A new index

As the GDP goes up, what does it signify? How does it translate into our lives? Into how many lives, more importantly? Is it time to shift to some other index – like the Happy Planet Index?

The HPI was launched in 2006 as a marked departure from GDP and identified health and a positive experience of life as universal goals, besides natural resources. It combines three targets - high life expectancy, high life satisfaction, and a low ecological footprint. The ultimate efficiency ratio, it takes into consideration carrying capacity of the planet.

The second version has just been released with improved data from 143 countries. Costa Rica is the greenest and happiest country in the world, according to the HPI index.

Unique in the world for having combined its ministries of energy and the environment back in the 1970s, a staggering 99 per cent of its energy comes from renewable sources. In 1997, a carbon tax was introduced on emissions – with the funds gained being used to pay indigenous communities to protect their surrounding forests. Deforestation has been reversed, and forests cover twice as much land as 20 years ago. In 2007, the Costa Rican Government declared that it intended to become carbon neutral by 2021.

The US with its affluent lifestyle figures way below in the index, and that is largely owing to its BIG eco-footprint which requires more than 3 planets to sustain!

HPI is claimed to be a much better way of looking the success of countries than through standard measures of economic growth. The HPI shows, for example, that fast-growing economies such as the US, China and India were all greener and happier 20 years ago than they are today.

The HPI goes to prove that it is possible to live long, happy lives with much smaller ecological footprints than the highest-consuming nations.

In a telling commentary, the report recalls how British economist John Maynard Keynes thought that, by the end of the twentieth century, people would be working two days a week thanks to the great productivity increases he was seeing. He assumed that, rather than producing more to keep everyone in work, we would simply work fewer hours and take the benefits of increasing productivity as increasing leisure time. How could he have known that humanity would choose instead to continue working longer hours so as to produce and consume products that do not enhance our well-being, whilst ravaging our finite and precious natural resources?

Are we simply producing more and more of what we do not need? At the expense of the environment? Care to share your thoughts?

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Impasse

It is not the same as accepting a binding cap on emissions but there is intention behind a pledge! The US has just joined the other G-8 industrialized nations in pledging to halt the increase of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, and to keep the worldwide temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius.

No commitment, no plans on how it will be done. So does it constitute anything?

The draft was drawn up by government officials from the G-8 nations, which are to meet in Italy this week.

Meanwhile, the new Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh has said that India won't accept binding caps on its emissions of greenhouse gases. “India will not accept any emission-reduction target--period,” Ramesh said. “This is a non-negotiable stand.”

This is also the Chinese stand that sees historic responsibility as the precursor for action.

Unless developing nations accept some target, US has indicated its non-inclination to do the same. This has led to discussions whether the climate talks will have to change track from emission targets.

After all the modest targets set under Kyoto protocol have not been achieved. Under Kyoto, participating nations promised to reduce emissions below 1990 levels by 2012--instead, their emissions have been rising steadily.

From 1990-2006, emissions increased in Japan by over 5 percent; in the US by 14 percent; in Canada by 20 percent; and in Australia by 30 percent.

Could investment in clean energy be the better option? The Indian government plans to invest $100 billion in solar energy production over the next decade, with a target of 20 GW by 2020. In China, officials will soon unveil a massive ten-year renewable energy investment plan on the order of $440-660 billion.

But can the climate wait for the outcome of these plans to take fruit in some years? Already there is enough evidence of the process having already started to impact. Not only on crop productivity, but on health, water availability, etc. The time to act is very short, less than a decade.

Can we wait?

No takers for energy saving?

A recent study by the World Resources Institute (WRI) calculates that India could reduce its annual electricity usage by 183.5 billion kWh by investing US$10 billion in energy efficiency improvements. A doubling of demand by 2030 will mean accelerated generation. Energy savings is the cheapest way. Nuclear power is five times more expensive than the energy savings accrued!

However, the biggest barrier for energy efficiency improvement in India is not cost, but the availability of qualified technology, products, and people, says the study. India desperately needs energy efficiency technology providers, equipment manufacturers, and — above all — energy service providers (ESCOs) which though growing at 68 percent is still too small to address the task.

What plans does the new government have to tackle energy efficiency? Is there really a dearth of qualified people? Is there lack of incentives, encouragement?

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Chicken in your fuel & a dry washing machine

Continuing with our earlier post on abundant sources of energy, how about hydrogen which is plentiful in our universe? If only we could find some efficient way to store and transport!

Hydrogen gas takes up about 40 times as much room as petrol, and as a liquid it needs to be kept very cold, resulting in high pressure tanks. To go a single mile takes 20 gallons of hydrogen given existing modes of storage (like carbon nanotubes or metal hydrides).

Apparently, chicken feathers could lead the way!

Chicken feathers are made up of a natural protein called keratin. This forms hard, hollow tubes which when heated creates cross-links. This in turn strengthens the structure, becomes more porous, and increases the surface area. These carbonized feather-tubes can hold as much, if not more than the much-more expensive carbon nanotubes or metal hydrides.

Cost-wise, where a 20 gallon nanotube tank would cost upwards of $5.5 million, a similar sized metal hydride tank will cost around $30,000. The team that worked on this idea estimates that a 75 gallon tank full of hydrogen and carbonized chicken feathers could travel about 300 miles, something they hope to improve on.

Well, we cannot go about farming chickens to pluck their feathers for our fuel. Perhaps our material scientists could develop synthetic feathers?

New materials with interesting properties are throwing up amazing possibilities. Like a washing machine that works with one cup of water!

An environmentally friendly washing machine has been developed by the University of Leeds, Britain. The project team claims that this clean and green machine will just need a cup of water to wash one batch of clothes. It uses 90 percent less water and 30 percent less energy and will be commercially available soon.

Here the work of water is done by tiny reusable nylon polymer beads. These plastic beads attract and absorb dirt under humid conditions. These beads are reusable. One can reuse them up to a hundred times.

The beads have a crystalline structure. This structure makes the surface of beads with an electrical charge that attracts dirt. When the beads are heated in humid conditions they lose their crystalline structure and acquire an amorphous structure. Now the dirt is drawn into the core of the bead where it remains locked in place.

When so little water is used and the warm beads help dry the laundry, less tumble drying is needed. Hence less energy and finally a lower carbon footprint.

Could material science be the new magic box?

Star power

Fossil fuel was abundant once upon a time. Not anymore. The search is on for a new source of energy which is clean and abundant.

Some argue that nuclear power could be the answer. Nuclear is the best technology available, they say, for producing reliable, carbon-free electricity at base-load scale. Critics insist that nuclear power will indeed help us reduce CO2 emissions, but only at a high cost and to a very limited extent.

Leaving that argument aside, the next question is how abundant is the fuel, and what about the waste? Terrestrial Uranium found in the earth’s crust, if used at current rates will last for 100 years and if nuclear were the sole energy powering earthlings, it will last 15 years. But there exists an ‘inexhaustible’ supply in seawater which could eventually be tapped and provide energy for all for 1000s of years, claim some!

As to waste, all the waste generated to date will hardly fill a single football stadium, say the proponents. Anyway, advanced nuclear fuel recycling technologies are being developed which reduce the volume, heat and toxicity of used fuel and also recover the unused energy that remains in the fuel.

Now, the laser facility at Livermore lab in California is all set to begin its experiments with nuclear truth. Using very high laser energy, they plan to make hydrogen fuse in a reaction similar to what happens in stars. The small amount of hydrogen pellet will reach a temperature of 100 million °C and a density 100 times that of lead, which is enough to start a fusion reaction.

While the output is ten times greater than the energy of the lasers, the aim is to multiply it further so that the energy spent in creating the lasers is discounted. For this, the scientists are toying with the idea of fusing this experiment with fission (what happens in our nuclear reactors.) The stream of neutrons from the fusion can not only extract more energy out of the fission fuel (normally only 1 percent of its energy is used!) but also decrease the waste substantially.

Laser focus, containment process, sustainable fusion, etc are technical hurdles but the scientists are focused!

What do you think? Will star power be the future of energy?