John Lennon’s iconic song “Imagine” has been rated #3 on Rolling Stone’s list of the “500 Greatest Songs of All Time”. It envisages a world where elimination of some of the major things that divide humanity – religion, nationalism, and materialism – are discarded in order to achieve global peace and harmony.
While the ideas delivered so powerfully in this song are immensely attractive at the conceptual level, things get a bit more nuanced when you take a cold, hard look at the details.
John Lennon’s iconic song “Imagine” has been rated #3 on Rolling Stone’s list of the “500 Greatest Songs of All Time”. It envisages a world where elimination of some of the major things that divide humanity – religion, nationalism, and materialism – are discarded in order to achieve global peace and harmony.
While the ideas delivered so powerfully in this song are immensely attractive at the conceptual level, things get a bit more nuanced when you take a cold, hard look at the details. Would any of us really want to try and live with “no possessions”? I don’t think so. And yet there are social changes afoot that are heading in that general direction.
This fairly radical view of the future is based upon a growing recognition, especially amongst the millenial generation, that we don’t all need to own a copy of every possible consumer item even if we can afford to have one. Instead, it might be possible to enjoy almost exactly the same lifestyle as we do today by employing a technique which was common in rural agricultural communities not so long ago – it’s called sharing!
Evidence of the growing popularity of this approach is everywhere.
On a vacation in Chicago in 2010 my family used a bike-sharing system for the first time. Unlike a traditional rental shop which requires you to pick up and drop off a bike at the same location, the Divvy system encourages you to pick up a bike from any of hundreds of locations, drive it to where you want to go and drop it off at a station near your destination. You can keep doing that as many times as you like in 24 hours for as little as $7.
Over the course of a week various combinations of family members drove bikes throughout the downtown area and along the lakeside bike paths for more than 20 hours in total. The cost? $87 including taxes and some surcharges for trips lasting more than 30 minutes. The convenience and flexibility of the system really made it a pleasure to use (in 2015 I wrote a blog post on similar systems in Northern European cities and the Mobi system started operations in Vancouver in 2016).
An identical strategy is taking place with car-sharing. Here in Vancouver there are now no less than 4 car sharing systems available. As with the bike sharing systems these services allow you to locate the nearest available car using a computer or Smartphone app, pick it up and drive it to your destination where you simply leave it for the next system user.
Car and bike sharing are really not that innovative in the sense that car and bike rentals have been around for a very long time. But what about specialty consumer goods?
Do we all really need to have a full set of power tools? When was the last time you used a router, circular saw, or sonic stud-finder? And what about that deep fryer, chaffing dish, or food processor?
No doubt it is handy to know that you have these items around in case you need them (if you can actually find them in some dark storage cupboard buried under other “essential” items – I often can’t).
But even if you can afford to own them and even if you have a storage space for them think about this.
What if we could avoid the enormous use of energy required to fabricate these items, package them and deliver them to a retail outlet if we just didn’t require as many? In order to try and assess what the potential savings could be I recently put together a video on the Fantastic Voyages of the Stackable Chair (See it on Youtube).
The idea of sharing our precious possessions is more than a little bit disconcerting. And there are certainly things (like my 1975 Stratocaster) that I personally would not feel comfortable entrusting to the use of anyone but a very close friend. But there are many other things that I use but rarely that it would make sense to make available in some sort of sharing scheme. How much damage could someone do to my 20 foot aluminium ladder or my wheelbarow?
There might even be a few items that I wouldn’t be too upset to see damaged or destroyed – the Garden Gnome I received as a gift from my aunt Matilda comes to mind.
A recent article in a local newspaper here in North Vancouver described a new initiative which demonstrates how the concept could actually be put into practice as well as providing a great summary of the phenomenon that is becoming known as collaborative consumption.
The benefits go beyond efficiency and a reduction in energy use. Sharing within a community, be it a University, neighborhood, or club reinforces the social connectivity within the organization and builds that most precious of social commodities – trust.
I grew up in a rural community where helping neighbors take hay off the fields in the late summer was just expected behaviour. In the winter the outdoor ice rinks were built by volunteers. When the local recreation hall was destroyed by fire the entire community pitched in to build a new one. So I get the idea of sharing work. But the concept of collaborative consumption takes sharing to a new level.
I am not quite ready to go “all in” with this idea. But I do find it intriguing enough to pursue it in some form or other. Any concerns I have are definitely not enough to overcome the reality that this is just the right thing to do on so many levels.
“Imagine all the people sharing all the world…”
Unrealistic? Probably. But what a fantastic tribute it would be to John Lennon’s vision and legacy if collaborative consumption reaches even a fraction of its potential.
There has been a lot of discussion about the electric vehicle revolution and what its impacts will be. Are EV’s gaining traction or getting stuck in the mud? Will they quickly replace internal combustion powered vehicles or will they represent a “green” niche market for decades to come? Will manufacturers be willing to lose billions of dollars on EV development forever or will they eventually make most of their profits from this technology?
The questions about EV’s go far beyond the impact on the automobile manufacturing industry (which is one of the biggest industrial concerns in the world). The impacts upon electricity utilization and the grid, both positive and negative, will in many ways shape future decisions about generation and grid management. I am going to explore a few of these questions in this blog posting.
Firstly, what is the current status of EV sales worldwide?
In trying to answer this question we are immediately faced with another question. What is an EV?
One definition would be that an EV uses an electric motor as its primary propulsion system. Such a definition would probably exclude the Toyota Prius and other Hybrids which normally use the internal combustion engine for motive power and reserve the electric motor for very low speed driving (under 25 miles per hour) and more importantly to boost power during acceleration. The Chevy Volt would meet that definition as it only uses an electric motor to power the vehicle even though it has an internal combustion engine which can generate electricity to drive the engine when the battery pack has discharged to a certain level.
In my blogs I always stress that we need to be looking at the ultimate goal which is to eliminate our use of hydro-carbons, including gasoline. Simply reducing our use of gasoline is not sufficient. By continuing to use an internal combustion engine for long distance travel hybrids and even the Chevy Volt avoid the most difficult issue facing EV adoption. Namely, an unacceptably short range under normal driving conditions.
The Chevy Volt can travel approximately 45 miles on battery power alone under good conditions. The Plug-in Hybrid version of the Toyota Prius is rated at 14 miles. Of course both of these figures can be considerably less in cold winter conditions or under heavy load (for example going uphill for a long distance).
The average commute for U.S. workers is about 16 miles so the Volt would probably work using electric power only. The Prius would definitely not. Neither would work for many weekend trips under electric power alone.
For these reasons I am not going to include either plug-in hybrids or the Chevy Volt in my definition of Electric Vehicles. I will discuss vehicles that are practical, electric power only vehicles that have no gasoline tank. These vehicles are, in my opinion, the true future of the automobile.
Using that definition there are only two mass-market EVs available today. The Nissan Leaf and the Tesla Model S.
Although it is difficult to get accurate quarterly sales figures the graph below represents a reasonable estimate of how sales of these two vehicles have grown since the launch of the Leaf in 2011 and the Model S in mid-2012.
There are now more than 80,000 Leafs on the roads of the world and about 30,000 Tesla Model S’s. This number has been increasing at a steady pace, notably due to a price decrease by Nissan at the beginning of 2013 and by increasing recognition of the Model S as a vehicle that has dependable long-range capability.
The EPA estimate for “average range” for the Leaf is 75 miles. That will certainly handle most commuter trips and some longer trips.
The Tesla Model S is EPA rated at 265 miles range with the largest battery available in 2013. The Model S can also be equipped with super-charging capability which is able to fully recharge the battery in less than an hour. The large battery range and the existence of super-charging stations make long road trips with a Model S quite realistic. A map of the super-charging stations in place at the end of 2013 is displayed below.
EPA ratings and marketing brochures are one thing. Real world experience can be quite different.
When I began to write this blog posting I started looking out for EV’s in my home city of Vancouver, B.C. After a few days I caught sight of a Tesla (I probably missed a few Nissan Leafs which are harder to differentiate from other similiar sized vehicles). I was able to follow the Tesla into a parking lot where the owner, Barry Yates, kindly agreed to an impromptu interview.
Barry purchased his vehicle the first day they were available locally. He regularly travels to Whistler Mountain for ski trips, a distance of about 70 miles. The road to Whistler climbs uphill to an elevation of more than 2,000 feet and has to be done in cold, winter conditions. Barry told me that he never has trouble making the round-trip on a single charge, partially because there is regenerative charging on the trip down on some of the steeper declines.
One thing that surprised me was that Barry felt the Tesla had good winter road handling despite being a rear-wheel drive vehicle. The large battery distributes the weight very evenly between the front and rear wheels which probably helps. Barry has installed snow tires which is a normal requirement for all vehicles travelling to Whistler.
Barry has also made a few trips to Seattle, Washington, about 150 miles from Vancouver. He has been in the habit of stopping at a Super-charging station at Burlington, Washington, about half-way to Seattle. The 15-20 minute stop tops up his charge so that he doesn’t have to worry about being low on power as he gets closer to Seattle. Anyone that has been in the traffic jams on the I-5 can appreciate that.
What is the bottom line? I think a fair evaluation would say that currently available technology can produce a vehicle that meets the everyday needs of most North Americans.
But that does not guarantee that the adoption of EV’s will be quick or smooth. The Tesla Model S is an impressive vehicle. However, the pricetag is also impressive with the long range version costing more than $70,000. The Nissan Leaf, at about $30,000 is more manageable particularly after various rebates and incentives are accounted for. But for a vehicle its size it is not inexpensive.
There are very significant savings to be had with a true EV with regards to fuel costs. Barry Yates indicated that his home electric bill had gone up about $50/month after installing a 220 V charging system for his Tesla. However, his fuel bill went down more than $500/month. An annual savings of something like $5,000 isn’t a bad return on an investment of $70,000 – as long as you have the $70,000 to put into a vehicle.
Prices will come down as the technology matures, as manufacturers start to achieve economies of scale, and as inevitable increases in the price of gasoline make the returns more attractive. So in my opinion the transition to EV’s is underway and won’t slow down anytime soon.
Given that new reality it would be wise to consider some of the non-automotive consequences that will likely result from this transition.
First, what will the impact of EV’s be on electrical load factors?
Like most things when it comes to load factors the impacts are not that easy to predict. However, it is likely that a typical charge cycle will extend from the time a person gets home from work until the battery is fully charged.
Barry Yates indicated that charging his Tesla takes about 10-12 hours on a 220 V outlet (the same type used for a clothes dryer or oven). As the number of EVs increases this new source of load will start to have an impact on demand curves and the grid.
In Northern areas where the peak demand is in winter this will be particularly problematic. The period 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm is already a high demand timeframe and adding EV charging will definitely result in new record demands unless significant changes in energy usage can be implemented.
In the south where summer air-conditioning results in peak demand the impact will not be as severe. The main impact will be to extend the typical peak demand period (2:00 pm until 5:00 pm) later into the evening but it is unlikely that higher peak demand would result.
For workers with longer commutes there will possibly be a need to charge vehicles after arriving at the workplace. This should not be much of a problem because the morning peaks are not as high as afternoon and evening peaks regardless of the season.
Based upon this very preliminary high level assessment it would probably be wise to try and delay home EV charging until later in the evening. A start time of 11:00 pm would still provide a long enough charging period for most users. As EVs, like other appliances, become “smarter” it may well be possible for them to be programmable to delay the charging cycle until a specified time. Perhaps, ala Siri, this could be done by voice command.
“Car – start charging at 11:00 pm” – sounds both futuristic and creepy at the same time!
In anticipation of an eventual fleet of hundreds of thousands of EVs, considerable research has been conducted into how this resource can be used for grid stabilization and frequency smoothing services. A number of papers published by scientists from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) have discussed implementing real time demand response by controlling when the EV fleet starts and stops charging (see for example “Value of Plug-in Vehicle Grid Support Operation”). Of course this would depend upon vehicle owners allowing the local grid operator to control the charging functions of their vehicles. It also assumes a reliable grid-toEV communication infrastructure and protocol was in place.
There has also been some speculation that EV batteries could be used as a source of electricity for the grid when sharp drops in generation capacity occur (as a result of changing weather patterns which impact renewable generation sources such as solar or wind or as a result of an unexpected plant/unit shutdown). This is much less likely because it would require that whatever outlet the EVs were plugged into was capable of receiving electricity as well as delivering it.
Finally, there have been proposals to combine used EV batteries into an array that could act as utility-scale energy storage, capturing excess electricity at night or other low demand times and delivering it as a peak demand source. I discussed this research in one of the first postings in the Black Swan Blog.
It was more than 100 years ago that Henry Ford’s Model “T” rolled out of a factory in Detroit Michigan signalling the beginning of the end for steam powered automobiles. Those were radical times; the internal combustion engine and the assembly line combined to bring affordable transportation to the masses. Our love affair with the automobile has never waned since that time.
The change we face today is no less radical.
This revolution will put you in the driver’s seat of vehicles that move so quietly they can hardly be heard; they will not pollute our atmosphere; they will not rely upon the extraction of an energy source that cannot be replenished.
I don’t know about you but I can honestly say that I can hardly wait until I have managed to trade in my 7 passenger Town & Country (can you really call a 4,000 lb vehicle a mini-van?) for an EV – maybe even a Smart Bike!
Posted in Uncategorized at 10:57 pm by Administrator
Having spent more than 25 years in the oil and gas industry I have seen my fair share of hydro-carbon price fluctuations. So it has not come as a complete surprise to me that the “shale gas” phenomenon has had such a dramatic impact on North American Natural Gas prices.
At the beginning of the 21st century Natural Gas prices were about $4.00/Million BTU and thereafter they rose rapidly to $8-$10/Million BTU in the years 2005-2007. The economic crisis that started in the fall of 2008 coincided with increasing production due to the success of shale gas development which translated into a very rapid decline in Natural Gas prices to just over $2.00/Million BTU in 2012. Since then prices have recovered somewhat to about $4/Million BTU.
The low prices since 2008 have resulted in a very predictable decline in the number of drilling rigs exploring for new natural gas reserves. The impact is displayed in the graph shown below.
There are a few very striking features of this graph.
First, the almost total elimination of vertical drilling rigs is interesting. In traditional gas fields widely spaced vertical wells are able to drain the reservoir efficiently because the gas flows quite freely through the rock. In technical terms this type of reservoir has relatively high permeability.
Reservoirs that consist of rocks with lower permeability cannot be produced very efficiently with vertical wells. It is much more efficient, although also much more expensive, to develop these reservoirs using horizontally drilled wells as shown below.
As horizontal drilling grew more common in the late 1990’s it was possible to economically produce reservoirs that previously had been difficult or impossible to exploit. These so-called “tight gas” reservoirs became an ever more important source of Natural Gas in North America.
Because “tight gas” does not flow freely through the reservoir rock these wells produce a lot more gas in the first year of production than they do in subsequent years.
In previous blog postings I have expressed my concerns about the relative return on investment and the economic fairness of roof-top solar panels. But I am also a big fan of solar power which is, after all, the most abundant and the most reliable energy source that we have at our disposal. In this blog I want to draw attention to some encouraging news in the industrial development of solar power. I also want to point out a few very fanciful uses of solar power that I believe demonstrate some of the future potential of this resource.
First, it is an exciting time to be involved with Concentrated Solar Power (CSP). With the commissioning of both the Solana Plant in Arizona and the Ivanpah Plant in Nevada over the next few months the global CSP generating capacity will almost double. The Solana Plant is particularly encouraging because it incorporates molten salt storage allowing the Plant to run for up to 6 hours after sunset. It is not the first plant to incorporate molten salt storage but it is the biggest.
Half a world away CSP developments in North Africa and the Middle East are starting to gain traction. The Noor I CSP Plant broke ground in Morocco in May, 2013 with financial support from the German government. In the same month the Internationally backed Climate Investment Funds approved a revised plan for the rapid development of CSP in North Africa. This plan aligns with the Desertec Foundation’s vision of utilizing solar resources in desert regions to transform local economies while supporting a transition to sustainable energy resources.
This year the government of Saudi Arabia made a massive committment to the development of solar power with the goal of converting most of the oil-fired desalination facilities in the Kingdom to solar power. That would provide some relief for global oil supplies (currently almost 2% of global oil production is used in Middle East desalination plants) as well as representing another very substantial increase in global CSP capacity.
The only negative development in the world of CSP is the 180 degree change to support mechanisms for the development of this technology in Spain.
Prior to 2013 Spain had been a world leader in developing CSP and is home to the two premier CSP engineering firms. However, the elimination of almost all financial supports for CSP developers in August, 2013 has led to a collapse of CSP projects in Spain. Luckily there continue to be many new opportunities in Africa, the Middle East and the U.S.
Photo-Voltaic solar panels have had more of a mixed year in 2013. Module prices seem to have bottomed out and the resulting price competition has led to the bankruptcy of a number of manufacturers. In jurisdictions where the penetration of solar panels has reached double digits as a percentage of normal load incentives are being cut back and in some cases regulatory barriers are being raised, most notably the capacity studies in Hawaii. In Arizona monthly service fees are being added to the utility bills for homeowners with rooftop solar panels. The many challenges facing PV solar represent a serious risk to the further development of this resource.
Although dropping solar cell prices and associated reductions in margins are disrupting the supply side of the PV solar business these developments are making it possible to showcase solar power in ways never before possible.
The team behind the Solar Impulse solar-powered airplane announced that they will attempt an around-the world flight in 2015 entirely on solar power. This well-funded and experienced team has been working for more than 10 years to make solar powered flight a reality.
Solar Impulse is not the only game in town when it comes to harnessing the energy of the sun to power an aircraft. Flying somewhat under the radar is Eric Raymond and the team behind the Sunseeker series of aircraft. The newest member of the family, the Sunseeker Duo (shown above) is currently undergoing flight tests. It will be the speediest solar-powered aircraft ever built. It will also be the first to be able to carry a passenger. I would encourage my readers to visit these sites and if you like what you see consider making a donation which will help these organizations continue their ground-breaking work.
Shifting from the skies to the oceans, the world’s largest solar-powered ship, MS Türanor recieved a new life mission as a research vessel after completing the first solar-powered circumnavigation of the earth’s oceans. It has set off on a Swiss-sponsored voyage to study the seasonal changes in the behaviour of the Gulf Stream.
These innovative applications of solar power demonstrate the potential of an energy source that can meet many of our current needs. Efficient and cost-effective energy storage remains elusive but with a dedicated global effort storage solutions will be developed. In the meantime it is interesting to watch as solar power moves from the hand-held calculator to powering transcontinental flights and beyond.
n previous blog postings I have expressed my concerns about the relative return on investment and the economic fairness of roof-top solar panels. But I am also a big fan of solar power which is, after all, the most abundant and the most reliable energy source that we have at our disposal. In this blog I want to draw attention to some encouraging news in the industrial development of solar power. I also want to point out a few very fanciful uses of solar power that I believe demonstrate some of the future potential of this resource.
First, it is an exciting time to be involved with Concentrated Solar Power (CSP). With the commissioning of both the Solana Plant in Arizona and the Ivanpah Plant in Nevada over the next few months the global CSP generating capacity will almost double. The Solana Plant is particularly encouraging because it incorporates molten salt storage allowing the Plant to run for up to 6 hours after sunset. It is not the first plant to incorporate molten salt storage but it is the biggest.
Half a world away CSP developments in North Africa and the Middle East are starting to gain traction. The Noor I CSP Plant broke ground in Morocco in May, 2013 with financial support from the German government. In the same month the Internationally backed Climate Investment Funds approved a revised plan for the rapid development of CSP in North Africa.
Most supporters of renewable energy development are probably pretty comfortable with the way things are going. Wind and Solar generation has been increasing both in "nameplate capacity" and in actual production of electricity. There have not been any significant grid failures that can be blamed on renewables. Apart from a consolidation within the solar cell manufacturing sector there have not been any notable bankruptcies within the electricity generating sector. All visible signs are positive for a continued expansion of renewable resources.
When I talk to groups about renewable energy I start off with a Youtube video which demonstrates testing the compression strength of a concrete block. For 2 minutes and 40 seconds this is the most boring video you could imagine. The block shows absolutely no sign of stress. At 2:41 the concrete block fails and is utterly destroyed. As far as I am concerned we are at about 2 minutes and 30 seconds with respect to the electrical grid.
In order to understand what I believe to be the serious risks facing the electrical generation and distribution system it is necessary to review the structure of the system as it was before renewables began to be developed in a significant way. The chart below shows hypothetical load profiles for a peak demand day during the spring/fall, winter and summer as well as a line that represents the overall generating capacity in the system.
It can be observed that the system demand/load varies considerably throughout the day and throughout the year. It is also clear that there is a great deal of excess supply available for most hours on most days. In fact, only on the highest peak demand days of the entire year will the demand come close to the supply. That is by design as every well-managed electrical generation system in the world requires a reserve margin of 8-15% above peak demand. This reserve is meant to provide resiliency for the grid to accommodate scheduled maintenance shut-downs at major facilities such as nuclear plants, natural gas-fired and coal-fired plants as well as unscheduled outages due to storms or switching problems or other operational issues.
(Note: I appreciate that many people will raise objections to the demand curves presented in that their local situation might be very different. That is one of the challenges facing every Independent System/grid Operator. Local demand curves can be all over the map due to the mix of commercial, residential, and industrial users. My point is not that these particular curves are the most typical in all locations. The point is that demand varies significantly over the course of the day and through different seasons.)
So before we began to develop renewable energy there was plenty of generation capacity within the system. In fact, many generation facilities were not running at anything close to capacity most of the time.
Because of a public policy decision to reduce the burning of hydro-carbons (and the associated production of CO2 emissions) wind and solar generation sources have been subsidized through a variety of financial instruments including capital grants, tax credits, and feed-in-tariffs. Renewables have also been given preferential access to the grid in most jurisdictions.
These measures have achieved the stated policy goal. Wind and solar now make up a significant percentage of generation capacity in a number of jurisdictions and at times provide a large percentage of electrical production.
For example, Germany has developed over 30 GW of solar power and over 30 GW of Wind. On a blustery spring day in Germany renewables can meet up to 40% of the total electrical demand for a few hours at mid-day. There are regular announcements of "new records" for both solar and wind generation. A similar situation exists in Texas with regards to wind and in parts of Hawaii with regards to solar.
Remembering that there was already a surplus of generation capacity in the system before the development of renewables it is obvious that when renewables hit their generation peaks most traditional thermal generation plants are unable to sell electricity. That would not be a problem if the construction of these plants had not been financed based upon assumptions regarding how often they would be used and what wholesale electricity prices would be. In fact, the economics of running these plants has deteriorated to the point where many utilities, especially in Europe, are on a "credit watch".
The rational response of companies trying to sell electricity into a market that has a great over-supply would be to decommission some of the oldest and most polluting plants to bring supply and demand into a better balance. But there is a problem. Renewable resources cannot be relied upon, particularly at peak demand times. The chart below displays the wind resource available compared to the demand curve for a week in November, 2013 in Texas (this week was not chosen on purpose to make wind look bad. It was literally the first file I found on the ERCOT site when I was starting to write this blog).
In this situation demand rose throughout the week as a strong high pressure system spread across the state bringing with it colder temperatures while at the same time shorter days required more lighting. One of the more troublesome realities of meteorology is that large, stable high pressure systems are often responsible for peak electrical demand in both winter and summer because they are associated with clear skies and temperature extremes. These systems are also commonly characterized by very low winds across a wide area.
As a result while demand continued to climb wind energy faded away to almost nothing. At this point most of the thermal generation assets available within Texas had to come on-line in order to meet demand.
So it is impossible to decommission even the oldest and least efficient thermal generation plants in the system regardless of how many wind farms have been built and solar panels deployed. German utility E.on came face-to-face with that reality in the spring of 2013 when they were instructed by the local grid operator to keep an old plant operational even though it would rarely be needed.
But a new day is dawning in the U.S. and it could be a darn cold (or hot) one.
The EPA announced regulations in December 2011 that will require coal-fired thermal generation plants to clean up or shut down. The reality is that for many of these plants it will not be feasible to clean them up. In fact, in some cases the EPA will not even allow them to be updated with modern pollution controls. As a result more than 30 GW of firm generation capacity will be decommissioned over the next several years.
Plans to replace this loss are in some cases vague and have been changing often. Increased conservation and better utilization of existing plants are frequently included in Integrated Resource Plans. In other cases greater reliance upon renewables is explicitly identified. These are not really replacements for firm capacity.
A number of new Natural Gas fired plants are also under construction. While current low gas prices make this an attractive option the threat of future significant price hikes as well as the EPA's stated goal to regulate CO2 emissions are worrisome and are impacting the ability to secure financing of these plants in some cases.
As more and more coal-fired plants are retired it is likely that total system firm generation capacity will drop resulting in smaller reserves. This, in turn, will make the system more susceptible to storms or other unplanned outages.
The degree to which grid security is compromised will vary from region to region depending upon the penetration of renewables, number of coal-fired plant retirements and the health of the local economy which has a major impact on electricity demand. Based upon those factors I believe Texas and the Mid-west are the areas most at risk.
It may be that the reduction in coal-fired generation will do nothing more than cull excess capacity out of the system with no negative impacts. But groups such as the Institution of Engineering and Technology in the UK have issued warnings about the progressive stress on a system that has taken decades to evolve and is now faced with unprecedented challenges.
Like the concrete block in the Youtube video the system is not displaying any outward signs of weakness. The question is this – will the North American electricity system encounter its own version of second 2:41?
In many parts of the world there are significant financial incentives for homeowners to install roof-top solar panels. This can include capital grants for the equipment, tax write-offs and/or Feed-In-Tariffs that guarantee that electricity produced by the solar panel will be purchased by the local utility at above-market prices. In Hawaii the annual cost of these incentives is at least $200 million. In Germany it is now in the $billions.
As I pointed out in an earlier blog posting there is inherent unfairness in these subsidies which are only available to relatively wealthy single-family home owners. People living in multi-family dwellings, renters, and those on low or fixed incomes that cannot afford the capital costs of the installation cannot share in these programs. They can, however, contribute through taxes and electricity bill payments to the cost of the subsidies. They can also disproportionately help pay for the added complexities of a grid that can incorporate distributed power generation.
The incentive programs in many areas are also vulnerable to abuse. One couple in Ohio have installed over $180,000 worth of solar panels in order to provide year-round heating for their large indoor swimming pool and indoor tennis court. I’m sure they are most grateful to the taxpayers of Ohio and in fact the entire U.S. for the more than $55,000 they will receive in various tax breaks. And by the way, their solar panels do not help anyone become independent of Middle Eastern Oil. Electricity in Ohio is generated primarily by coal-fired plants with a small amount from natural gas-fired and nuclear plants.
Putting aside the fairness issue there is also a very strong argument against residential roof-top solar panels based upon basic economics.
If you live in the suburbs your street probably has dozens of single family homes of different sizes and shapes with various configurations of roofs covered by a variety of materials. Imagine if you will a veritable army of roofers crawling over these houses, attaching frames and mounting solar panels. If you think about that for a moment you will have to come to the conclusion that it is not an overly efficient operation. Lots of up and down ladders time and safety setup time and not so much install solar panel time. Now imagine that same scenario when it is raining or snowing – more than a little scary for everyone involved.
Compare that to utility-scale solar where uniform racks can be laid out and solar panels mounted from the ground in a matter of minutes. The two scenarios are illustrated by the photographs.
Recognizing that the public and electrical utility customers are footing a large part of this installation bill which configuration would seem to provide the best return on investment? It would be hard to argue against the utility-scale solar panels.
What about efficiency in terms of making the best use of the solar resource?
In the case of residential roof-top solar there are likely to be plenty of other buildings, trees, and hills nearby so that the solar panels are often in the shade. Almost all of these solar panels will also be mounted rigidly, most commonly at the angle that is the roof pitch. This will not be the optimal angle for most sites and latitudes.
Utility-scale solar panels can easily be equipped with single or dual-axis tracking which very significantly increases the power generated under all circumstances. They will also be located in large open areas where they will be in direct sunlight for most of the day.
Battery backup?
Having small, deep-cycle batteries as backup for the solar panels might be an expensive necessity at Possum Lodge but in suburban North America that type of installation doesn’t make a lot of sense – which is probably why almost nobody does it. Instead, through the magic of net metering, the surplus solar at mid-day is pushed out onto the grid whether it is needed or not. The home-owner effectively gets to use this mid-day electricity as a credit against the much more expensive evening and night electricity that would otherwise have to be purchased from the local utility at peak demand prices.
For the local utility the end result is a significant reduction in revenues from the owners of the roof-top solar panels even though they are making the grid more expensive to build and maintain. Who picks up the slack? Everyone that does not have roof-top solar panels.
Regular maintenance?
The home owner that installs the roof-top solar panels will probably be pretty excited about them and will maintain them to some degree. But as houses change hands that commitment could fade; as leaves, moss, and dirt accumulate through the years who is going up on the roof-top to polish up those solar panels. Nobody is my guess. So the overall efficiency of the panels is bound to decline over time. The same with local battery storage if it has been installed.
Finally, the presence of roof-top solar panels has been identified as a significant danger to fire fighters.
All in all, looking at roof-top solar panels perfectly objectively they just don’t make sense. There are better ways to spend those dollars as we transition away from a hydro-carbon economy. Some other ideas are described in my Sustainable Energy Manifesto.
Oct-2016 Update: A study by the Brattle Group provides a detailed analysis that concludes that utility scale solar is less than half as expensive to develop and produces far better environmental results than residential roof-top installations. Another study commissioned by a California utility found that relying upon roof-top solar to meet the carbon reduction goals of the state was the most expensive and least reliable approach.
Reports are beginning to emerge regarding the difficulty of selling homes with leased solar systems. As financial incentives are wound down to rational levels I would predict that many home owners will likely not re-install their solar panels when roofs need to be replaced.
The electricity generation situation in British Columbia, Canada is both simple and complex. The simplicity arises from an abundance of hydro-electric generating capacity. The complexity comes from a somewhat disjointed ownership of generating assets compounded by government policies that have been confusing to both generators and rate-payers.
Starting in 2002 BC Government policy mandated that BC Hydro (the publicly owned near-monopoly) change the way it added new generation capacity. Updates to existing hydro facilities and development of new large-scale hydro facilities would remain with BC Hydro. However, integration of new renewable and small-scale hydro generation would have to be through long-term purchase contracts with Independent Power Producers (IPPs). The rationale provided for this decision was the desire to transfer the risk of investments in new generation to the private sector.
I recently joined a discussion about how gravity might be used to generate and store energy. One of the comments provided a link to Gravity Power, a company that has proposed a modified take on “pumped storage” whereby a vertical water reservoir is used with a heavy piston. During the discussions a few variations on this technology were proposed. I suggested that abandoned open pit mines might represent a good starting point for very large facilities.
As in my earlier posting on Funicular Power the principle behind Hydraulic Energy Storage is to use excess electricity generated mainly from wind farms when demand is low (for example at night) to raise the potential energy of a mass by moving it to a higher elevation. In this case the means to do that is a relatively standard hydro turbine in a very non-standard configuration.
In energy storage mode a massive solid piston is raised by increasing the water pressure below it by running the turbine in reverse, acting as a pump to force water down the penstock.
In generation mode the piston is allowed to sink forcing water back up the penstock and through the turbine.
The piston would be a large concrete “cup” filled with as heavy a material as could be justified by the economics of the project. This could be rock debris, dense concrete, or even iron ore. The denser the material the better.
The containing cylinder would also have to be reinforced concrete. Between the cylinder and the piston there would have to be a pressure seal. This could be a large rubber or plastic tube such as that used to contain oil spills.
The advantage of using hydraulic storage is that it can be scaled up to a truly massive size. A large hole, such as that left behind after an open pit mine has been abandoned, would accommodate a gargantuan cylinder and piston (for example the Marmora Iron mine shown below);
The facility described below would use only a portion of the Marmora pit;
200
Diameter of piston (m)
50
Height of piston (m)
2200
Density of concrete (kg/m3)
1,570,795
Volume of piston (m3)
3,455,749,000
Weight of piston (kg)
1,884,954,000
Bouyant weight of piston = concrete – water (kg)
150
Piston movement = Mine depth – piston height (m)
2,770,882,380,000
Energy (Joules)
769.69
Energy (MW-Hours)
76.97
Energy in MW if generated over 10 hours
The concrete pour required to line the hole and create the cylindrical “cup” is not overly large compared to a major hydro dam. A solid concrete piston would be rather expensive – on the order of $150 million in this example. It would be much cheaper to fill the “cup” with rock debris although this would be less dense. Increasing density by adding iron filings or using “dense” concrete would be useful but expensive.
Based upon other large engineering projects and mining operations this facility could probably be constructed for less than $1 billion – possibly less than $500 million. While that is a large amount of money it would provide 86 times the energy storage capacity compared to the largest battery complex in North America for less than 20 times the price. The Notrees facility completed in December, 2012 by Duke Energy cost $44 million to construct and the battery performance will degrade over time. Hydraulic Energy Storage, which uses exactly the same components as a hydro dam, would have a useful life of as much as 100 years.
Rather than trying to use an abandoned open pit mine which might be a long distance from transmission facilities Hydraulic Energy Storage could also be located close to a wind farm although that would involve additional costs associated with excavating a new hole.
When it comes to long-term, dependable and reliable energy storage there are not a lot of options available. Creative use of existing technologies (see unpumped storage) or investigation of untested concepts such as Funicular Power and Hydraulic Energy Storage have to be on the agenda if we are serious about transitioning to a sustainable energy environment.
I recently joined a discussion about how gravity might be used to generate and store energy.
It must be admitted that the circumstances were unique.
The consequences, although predicted by a few (or so they claimed) were dismissed as impossible by political leaders and the general public.
And yet there had been warning signs.
For months the price of oil had been moving monotonically higher; not at an alarming rate but without any obvious underlying cause.
Those with technical knowledge of the subject would have pointed out that the increase in daily oil production capacity had not been keeping pace with the increasing daily demand for several years.
It was in October of 2012 that I started "The Black Swan Blog".
What was my motivation? The trigger for me was reading a white paper written by Vinod Khosla entitled Black Swans thesis of energy transformation. This paper put forth the proposition that step-change technologies and approaches rather than incremental improvements will be required to address the energy needs of developing economies. The "Black Swan" event represents a sudden change in thinking or perspective which can lead to true innovation. This was the fundamental concept at the heart of the book "The Black Swan" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
When I investigated various alternative energy initiatives that were underway and the way taxpayer and ratepayer funding was being allocated I became alarmed. It did not seem to me that the large subsidies supporting the development of photo-voltaic solar panels and wind farms were sustainable. It actually seemed like this was in many ways lost money. Nor did there seem to be any serious effort towards overcoming the biggest problems associated with renewable energy sources; reliability and variability.
In order to bring my concerns to the attention of the public I started "The Black Swan Blog". Over the past year I have published more than 45 articles on everything from concentrated solar power to geoexchange to hydro-kinetics. At Energyblogs.com I have had more than 25,000 "reads" and counting other sites that I post at (and various cross-postings of my blog) the total number of times my blog entries have been read is greater than 70,000.
Is that impressive? In a world where almost any celebrity blog posting attracts millions of readers I certainly don't think so. On the other hand, from many positive comments that I have received there are thousands of people who have found at least some of the postings in "The Black Swan Blog" to be of interest.
I have learned a lot while researching and writing blog entries. I am now more convinced than ever that we should be focusing almost all of our R&D and funding towards the development of inexpensive utility-scale energy storage solutions that can retain energy for many days. If we had a solution to that problem then wind turbines could basically meet all of our energy needs. Conversely, without affordable energy storage solutions wind farms cause more problems than they are worth.
I am now absolutely opposed to any financial support for residential roof-top solar panels. They are expensive to install and maintain, inefficient because they are installed at a fixed angle, and require unnecessary upgrades to the local grid infrastructure which other utility customers end up paying for. This type of installation is consuming enormous amounts of money through capital grants, tax credits and Feed-In-Tariffs – tens of billions of dollars that could be better spent on storage technology.
I am also now opposed to any solar power development north and south of about 35 degrees latitude. My concern with such developments is the very large difference between winter and summer energy production.
In the higher latitudes peak demand is often during the late afternoon and through long winter nights when solar is not available. Relying upon solar in any significant way will require a lot of over-building in order to deal with low solar energy availability in winter and would result in a large surplus of electricity during the middle of the day in the summer. The other alternative would be to maintain some other source of electricity as back-up in winter. Neither situation really helps us move towards a sustainable energy future in a cost-effective manner. At some point in the future compressed hydrogen may provide the large scale, long duration energy storage that would allow solar energy to be balanced throughout the year at these latitudes. But until then solar power developments north and south of 35 degrees do not make a lot of sense.
On the other hand I believe that solar power should be the primary focus at latitudes lower than 35 degrees. Combining Photo-Voltaic (PV) solar panels to supply electricity during the day with Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) and Thermal Energy Storage at night would provide dispatchable and reliable base load electricity generation for a reasonable cost.
The Solana plant in Arizona which cost approximately $2 billion (about $7/watt) represents one example (although it is a pure CSP facility). The plant can produce 280 MW of electricity for up to 6 hours after the sun has set (in the same way that the Gemasolar plant in Spain generates 24×365). A combined PV/CSP facility could have been built for significantly less and would have provided the same extended generation profile.
I am particularly bullish about PV+CSP for the Hawaiian Islands where residual fuel oil is burned to produce electricity.
Another possible application of this technology is in the Middle East where more than 2% of the world's oil consumption is used by desalination plants. One large solar-powered plant is under construction in Saudi Arabia; PV+CSP has the potential to completely eliminate the burning of oil for desalination, a very poor use of a valuable and non-renewable resource.
While we develop energy storage solutions we also need to become more flexible in the way we use electricity. Demand Response programs are being initiated by some utilities but even more needs to be done to promote public education and awareness of the importance of reducing energy use at peak demand times. The truth of the matter is that we only have a problem with energy for a few hours per day for a few weeks per year. A program such as the one implemented in post-Fukushima Japan would have a significant positive impact on our ability to manage peak demand.
Finally, I continue to be a strong advocate for geoexchange systems. If building codes mandated the use of geoexchange rather than traditional HVAC systems the impact on energy use for both heating and cooling would be very significant. Widespread deployment of geoexchange systems could effectively "clip" peak demand both in the summer and winter.
I can't say that "The Black Swan Blog" has had any impact on alternative energy policy or practice during year one. I do think it has given readers some different perspectives on the complex issues surrounding renewables and the practical realities that will need to be faced as we transition to a sustainable energy enviroment.
What's the bottom line? I have had enough interest and positive feedback to keep "The Black Swan Blog" going for another year.
The incentive programs in many areas are also vulnerable to abuse. One couple in Ohio have installed over $180,000 worth of solar panels in order to provide year-round heating for their large indoor swimming pool and indoor tennis court. I’m sure they are most grateful to the taxpayers of Ohio and in fact the entire U.S. for the more than $55,000 they will receive in various tax breaks. And by the way, their solar panels do not help anyone become independent of Middle Eastern Oil. Electricity in Ohio is generated primarily by coal-fired plants with a small amount from natural gas-fired and nuclear plants.
@enrgy_manifesto
