Google’s concern with carbon emissions

Google.com is a website that many people have set to their homepage, and has become the standard in internet search engines for quite some time now. The corporation has expanded to providing maps, email, and shopping tools online. Interestingly, they have put research efforts toward futuristic glasses, cars that drive themselves, and (less known) renewable energy. In this blog I comment (without trying to plug the company) on how Google is being responsible with their energy requirements and why I think they are serving as a model for companies in the future.

Few people think about the energy intensity of a Google search. For me, it’s tempting to lazily have Google give me the conversion from inches to millimeters when working on an engineering homework problem. This one search requires 0.0003 kWh of electricity, resulting in roughly 0.2g of CO₂ [1]. Although this doesn’t seem like a lot, using Google has become second nature to a large portion of the population, to the point where their 2010 emissions consisted of 1,449,825 tonnes of CO₂e. For scale, this is close to the emissions of Laos or the island of Fiji during the same year [2].

So Google has emissions comparable to a small country, what are they doing about it? Well, it’s clear that the company cares about their environmental impact as they provide detailed information on their measures to increase efficiency in their data centers, down to how they selected the color of the LED lights on their servers [3]. Google also seems to be one of the hubs for data generation as they provide tools like Google trends, showing the amount of internet popularity of a given topic [4]. They are also concerned with generating their own data, especially in how much energy they consume. Figure 1 shows an example of this data, displaying their Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) the last 5 years.

Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) average for all large-scale Google data centers (a PUE of 1 means all energy consumed goes toward computing, and isn’t wasted on heating or cooling) [3].

Google is doing more than plotting their energy usage, though. To date, the company has invested over a billion dollars toward wind and solar energy projects, such as the Spinning Spur Wind Farm in West Texas and large scale photovoltaic plants in California [5]. The intention of these projects is somewhat mind blowing – they are not only doing this to provide power to their data centers, they are doing it purely to promote the expansion of renewable energy. This intention is clear with the $75 million investment to create a Clean Power Finance fund that helps homeowners install PV panels and the $280 million to support financing for residential solar projects through a SolarCity fund [5].

Google’s large scale photovoltaic project near Sacramento, California [5].

Now, Google is pressuring others to help out their crusade to a cleaner future as they have sent a formal request to utilities asking to make renewable energy options available to them and other energy consumers the utility provides for [6]. As I am writing this, it’s hard to n ot feel like I’m plugging Google’s name. However, Google has clearly given conscious thought to their environmental impact and I guess I can only say good things about a company whose slogan is “Don’t Be Evil” [7]. It goes without saying that we can only hope other companies will follow in Google’s footsteps toward providing services in a clean, efficient manner.

[1] https://www.google.com/green/bigpicture/references.html#investments

[2] http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8

[3] https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/efficiency/internal/index.html#servers

[4] https://www.google.com/trends/

[5] https://www.google.com/green/energy/investments/

[6] http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/19/google-utilities-green-energy/

[7] https://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/

So you’re telling me that my electric car’s battery is in the paint?

What comes to mind when you picture a battery? The familiar Duracell Coppertop AA battery? A clunky  automotive battery? The small rectangular battery in your cell phone? Researchers at Rice University are reinventing the concept of batteries and battery packaging by creating a lithium-ion battery with spray paint. That’s right, your local neighborhood hoodlum taggers can now be more energy forward than you sitting at home watching Cops.

A team of researchers from Rice University have demonstrated in a paper in Nature Scientific Reports that special “spray paints” can be used sequentially to build up the layers needed to form a lithium-ion battery. A spray-on battery could be used on a variety of materials, both rigid and flexible. They point out that the technology could be coupled to energy conversion devices such as solar cells.

Simply put, a lithium-ion battery is created by tightly layering cathodes and anodes like in the image shown below. The researchers at Rice University replicate this cylindrical design in a customizable form using the spray coatings that they developed. They applied the battery painting process to a variety of materials including stainless steel, glass, ceramic tile, and flexible polymer sheets. An SEM image of a cross section of the battery is shown below. Each of the spray painted batteries performed as a typical battery. They even applied the spray paint to a coffee mug to spell out the name of their Alma mater while also storing energy. They added that more complicated surface geometries could be possible using different spray nozzle designs that are tailored to the different viscous properties of the paints.

The are a few drawbacks to a spray painted lithium-ion battery. For one, the materials are highly toxic, corrosive, and flammable, hence why they are always tightly packaged and hidden away in their conventional form. Secondly, the batteries are highly sensitive to oxygen and moisture. This sensitivity currently restricts their widespread use because they still have to be packaged like their conventional brethren, reducing their novel promise. A spray painted battery is shown below on a glazed ceramic tile alongside its final packaged form. One of the researchers’ next steps is to develop a sealing layer to protect the batteries from these elements. Because who wants to paint their electric vehicle with a new battery but then have the painter tell them that they always have to keep the car cover on.

Typical lithium-ion battery construction.

Conventional and spray painted lithium-ion batteries.

SEM image of spray painted lithium-ion battery cross section.

Glazed ceramic tile with spray painted battery prior to packaging (left) and post-packaging (right)

 

Salinity gradient power rising as a realistic renewable energy source

Amazon River estuary
http://images.gizmag.com/gallery_lrg/11206_12030952855.jpg

Estuaries are the locations where river water mixes with seawater. They are found along coastlines throughout the world, but what most people don’t realize is the significant potential to produce clean energy from these mixing water streams. The salinity gradient between the two streams of water contains a large amount of osmotic power, which can be thought of as the available energy (or chemical potential) from the differences in salt concentration between the fresh water and seawater. The enormous amounts of energy released where freshwater and seawater meet “can be utilized for the generation of power through osmosis”, which is “defined as the transport of water through a semi-permeable membrane.” [1]

The idea of obtaining energy from osmosis, or salinity gradient power, has been studied for decades, but in early 2009 two teams were racing to be the first to build a working prototype power plant making salinity gradient power a feasible method for renewable energy generation. Both teams have been working on the development and implementation of a membrane based osmotic process, but their approaches for generating the electricity are very different [2]. Westus (The Centre for Sustainable Water Technology), located in the Netherlands, is focusing on the Reverse Electrodialysis (RED) method to produce electricity. They claim that they will utilize fresh water from the Rhine river and saltwater from the North Sea to construct a type of battery by employing two membranes permeable to ions, but not to water. Utilizing the saltwater, one membrane will allow the passage of positively charged sodium ions into a stream of fresh water and the other membrane will allow the passage of negatively charged chloride ions into another channel of freshwater. The separated charged particles with electrodes placed in both streams makes up the chemical battery, which directly produces electricity. [2] Statkraft, a leading renewable energy group located in Norway, is focusing on Pressure Retarded Osmosis (PRO) as their method to extract electricity from salinity gradients. This method utilizes a membrane, permeable to water, to draw fresh water into the concentrated salt water, thus increasing the pressure in the salt water chamber. The resulting pressure can then be used to drive a turbine to produce electricity. In November of 2009, Statkraft opened the world’s first prototype osmotic power plant in Tofte Norway. [3] This facility had a limited production capacity (of around 4 kW) and is mainly used for testing and validation of data, hopefully leading to the construction of a large commercial power plant by 2015.

Statkraft osmotic power prototype
http://images.gizmag.com/gallery_lrg/osmotic-2.jpg

While the idea of harvesting free energy from estuaries and salinity gradients may seem like a flawless idea, it comes with both pros and cons. On one side, the technology is considered “as green as it gets”, with the only waste product being brackish water, which flows into the sea mixing with the sea water [2].  It is a constantly flowing source of renewable energy, unlike the intermittent energy provided by sources such as solar or wind power. It can also easily be combined with existing power plants and industries and can be built underground, thus reducing costs and visual pollution [2]. On the other side, the membrane technology still has a long way to go. The membranes are prone to bio-fouling from algae and silt, which reduce the membrane’s lifetime and efficiency. Salinity gradient power is mainly suitable only for places where there is an abundant supply of freshwater meeting saltwater, which clearly favors countries with a large coastline [2]. Also, the environmental impact and environmental policy should be considered for future plants of this type. First off, there are many species of aquatic life that are adapted to survive in waters with a specific range of salinity concentrations, and these power plants could affect the salinity of an area of water. It has been found that large salinity changes in aquatic environments can result in low densities of plants and animals [4]. Then one must consider the environmental policy and impact of structures that intake such large volumes of river water and sea water. These power plants must conform to strict construction permits and environmental regulations.

While many issues dealing with the viability of salinity gradient power as a renewable energy source are still being addressed, advancements in the technology are constantly being made. In June of 2012, Statkraft’s head of osmotic power said “We see that the development of technology is accelerating and that an industry is emerging. The membranes we are testing at Tofte this summer are ten times more efficient than the ones we installed during the opening of the prototype in the autumn of 2009” [5]. Earlier this year, researchers discovered a new more efficient way to harness osmotic power utilizing Boron nitride nano tubes [6]. They claim that a 1 meter-squared membrane using this technology could have the same 4 kW capacity as the whole Statkraft prototype power plant. This experimental device, which is three orders of magnitude more efficient than the current system, could significantly enhance the commercial viability of salinity gradient power as a realistic source of energy [6]. While the ultimate future of salinity gradient power is unknown, it has the potential to be one of the prominent renewable energy sources on the planet.

[1] http://www.statkraft.com/energy-sources/osmotic-power/

[2] http://www.gizmag.com/salinity-power-renewable-energy-osmosis/11206/

[3] http://www.gizmag.com/statkraft-osmotic-power/13451/

[4] Montague, C., Ley, J. A Possible Effect of Salinity Fluctuation on Abundance of Benthic Vegetation and Associated Fauna in Northeastern Florida Bay. Estuaries and Coasts. 1993. Springer New York. Vol. 15 No. 4. Pg. 703-717

[5] http://www.statkraft.com/presscentre/news/statkraft-considering-osmotic-power-pilot-facility-at%20sunndalsora.aspx

[6] http://www.gizmag.com/osmotic-salinity-gradient-power-nanotubes/26623/

Dr. Ernest Moniz: A New Era for Energy?

On Monday March 4^th, President Barack Obama filled two important, energy-related positions in his administration with the nomination of Ernest Moniz for the Secretary of Energy and of Gina McCarthy for the administrator of the EPA. These nominations mark a changing of the guard as both Steven Chu and Lisa Jackson move on to other pursuits. Furthermore, they come at a time when political momentum to combat climate change and to tackle energy issues seem to be increasing.  Recently, in both his Inaugural Address and State of the Union speech, President Obama discussed the threat of climate change and the need for cleaner energy technologies.  With this new momentum of support for clean energy, the appointment of a new Energy secretary raises a few questions. Just who is Ernest (Ernie) Moniz and will he be able to capitalize on the seemingly shifting politics of climate change to push towards a more renewable future?

Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy

First, let’s talk about his background.  With experience as an experimental scientist and as a government administrator, Moniz is no rookie to energy technology or policy issues. Formally trained as a nuclear physicist at Stanford University, he joined the physics faculty at MIT in 1973 where he later went on to become department head. Then, from 1995 to 1997, he served as the associate director for Science in the White House Office, and from 1997 to 2001, he served as the Undersecretary of Energy. Currently, Moniz is a professor of physics and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as well as the director of the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI), a program started in 2006 to link all of the interdisciplinary energy research projects taking place on MIT’s campus. No one can argue about his outstanding resume. He brings technical knowledge from his experience as a professor and administrative knowledge from his background in the government. All of these experiences should help Moniz get settled quickly into the new position and allow him the opportunity to hit the ground running on different energy opportunities.

© Justin Knight. Courtesy of M.I.T.

However, it is also important to consider his history with some of the important energy technology issues. Under Moniz, the MITEI has supported many different research projects and two thirds of them have been associated with renewable energy, energy efficiency, carbon management, and other renewable energy enabling tools. The largest single area of funded research for the Energy Initiative has been in solar energy. Nevertheless, Moniz does not deny the importance of oil and gas production and supports hydraulic fracturing technology, putting some environmentalists up in arms.  He has stated that natural gas is “a bridge to a low-carbon future,” a comment that even more environmentalists  dislike. This information is important. Research into his background and history on different energy topics provides vital information about how he will approach the same technologies in his new position.  At the same time, though, how much will energy policy even factor into Moniz’s job?

© Getty Images

It might be even more important to consider the limitations of the Department of Energy’s budget. As Forbes Magazine reports, “Moniz knows better than anyone else that the Department of Energy has almost nothing to do with energy.  It’s all about weapons and waste. Nuclear weapons and nuclear waste to be exact.” To visualize this assertion, take a look at this interesting graphic that breaks down the DoE’s 2013 fiscal year budget . About 65% of the department’s budget relates to nuclear weapons, nuclear waste management, and other nuclear technologies.  Only 15% of the budget solely relates to energy technologies of which almost 3% goes into nuclear energy funding, and Moniz, a nuclear physicist himself, is a strong proponent of nuclear energy. After the Fukushima crisis in 2011 when many countries decided to shut down or curtail their nuclear programs in response to environmentalists, he stated that “it would be a mistake” to let Japan’s Fukushima failure to end the use of nuclear power. To a certain extent, it makes sense that the last two Energy Secretaries were nuclear and atomic physicists.  The majority of their budget deals with general nuclear technology, not with a variety of energy technologies.

For this reason, it will be interesting to see if Moniz will try to reinsert the word Energy back into the Department of Energy. His record as a researcher and policy leader in both the scientific community as well as the energy industry should provide him with the skills and resources to do some heavy lifting in such an important time for Energy policy. Only time will tell if he will be a game changer for the DoE and for energy policy in the United States.

Eat your leftovers

Americans throw away about 30% of all food produced domestically each year, and since at least 8% of the U.S. energy budget goes towards bringing food to tables across the country, energy waste is closely tied to food waste [1]. In fact, all of that wasted food equates to about 350 million barrels of oil per year [1].

The energy embedded in food waste comes from many sectors of the food industry: production, transportation, storage, and preparation. Since food waste is a cultural problem, it is not likely that it will stop any time soon. A better solution to waste prevention could be to take advantage of the energy potential of food in our landfills. Rather than sitting in a landfill, organic wastes such as food leftovers are put into anaerobic digesters that produce biogas rich in methane [2]. This biogas can be used as fuel for heat and power generation, and the stuff that’s leftover can be used as composting material [3].

But how useful is this biogas? The EPA estimates that “if 50% of the food waste generated each year in the U.S. was anaerobically digested, enough electricity would be generated to power 2.5 million homes for a year” [3]. What kind of power does that translate to? From a study conducted by the EPA regarding production of biogas rich in methane from anaerobic digestion food waste, anywhere from 730 to 1300 kWh can be harnessed per dry ton of food waste [3].

Since food waste and the push by the federal government via mandates and subsidies to increase the production of biofuels in general are here to stay, biogas produced through anaerobic digestion of food waste may become a larger part of the overall fuel mix for electricity.

References

[1] Cockrell School of Engineering (n.d.). Wasting Food Means Wasting Energy. Retrieved from   http://www.engr.utexas.edu/features/research/wastedfood

[2] International Energy Agency (2007, January). Biomass for Power Generation and CHP. Retrieved  from http://www.iea.org/techno/essentials3.pdf

[3] United States Environmental Protection Agency (2013, February 19). Anaerobic Digestion.   Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/foodrecovery/fd-anaerobic.htm

Iran’s Role in OPEC and the New Oil Bourse: What may be the impacts?

Since 1979, Iran is under trading sanctions by the US over its refusal to curb its nuclear program [1].  In 2010, the United States and Europe significantly tightened sanctions on Iran, making it difficult for countries to do business with Iranian companies in all types of trades such as banking, shipping, insurance and petrochemicals [1]. The sanctions have changed the dynamics of relationships between the group’s member states. OPEC ministers are now divided on how much oil to produce, with Saudi Arabia keen to keep prices stable at existing levels, Iran pushing to cut production and Iraq supporting Iran [2]. Sanctions levied by the U.S. over Iran’s refusal to curb its nuclear program significantly impacted exports of Iranian crude oil, i.e. it has been reduced from 2.5 million barrels a day to 1.6 million barrels in 2011 [2]. Iran and Iraq have formed an alliance within OPEC, raising concerns among producers like Saudi Arabia, thereby increasing the potential for discord in the oil producers’ group [3]. Saudi Arabia has a long standing rivalry with Iran. Saudi Arabia is predominantly Sunni and Iran is predominantly Shia, i.e. they belong to different Islamic factions, and both compete to be the frontline leader of the Muslim world. Iran has warned Saudi Arabia to refrain from increasing supplies to countries that can no longer import Iranian crude oil due to US sanctions [2]. Iranian oil minister Rostam Ghazemi has warned the US and Europe about increase in oil prices and market volatility [2]. In the OPEC meeting held in June 2012, it was proposed by Venezuela that the group should protest against the EU sanctions against Iran which were to begin on 1^st of July 2012 [3].  This proposal was backed by Iran, Iraq and Algeria [3]. It was rejected by Saudi Arabia and other member countries such Nigeria, Libya and Kuwait [3]. The latter group argued that these issues are a matter of concern for the foreign ministers of the member countries and not oil ministers [3]. Saudi Arabia is determined to prevent the group being dragged into Iran’s nuclear deadlock with the west [3]. However it has been increasingly difficult for OPEC to maintain that neutrality, with the issue of sanctions causing a division in OPEC, forming a sub group between Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Algeria and Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE [3]. Growing relations between Iran and Iraq have been a concern for Saudi Arabia. Earlier in 2012, Rostam Qasemi, Iran’s oil minister, visited Baghdad for talks with Nouri al Maliki, Iraq’s prime minister, and during the visit it was announced that the two had agreed to adopt a unified position on OPEC production [3].

The two main oil trading exchanges in the world are the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) in London. Oil is priced in U.S. dollars [1]. It is interesting to note that Iran has established an oil exchange known as the International Oil Bourse [1]. It was created by cooperation with Iranian ministries, the Iran Mercantile Exchange and other state and private institutions in 2005 [1]. The function of the International Oil Bourse is to act as an oil exchange for petroleum, petrochemicals and gas in currencies other than the U.S. dollar, primarily the Iranian Rial, Yuan and a basket of other major currencies [1]. Iran began to trade through this bourse on July 13, 2011 [1]. The bourse is still in its initial stages and a limited number of transactions have been done through it.

Not all countries follow the sanctions imposed by the USA strictly, a critical one being China [1]. India and China, though have decreased the quantities of their oil imports from Iran, continue to import a significant amount. Iran supplies China with about half a million barrels of oil per day presently [4]. This is after a 30% decrease in imports from China in 2011.  Iran’s oil bourse will make it easier for countries who do not want to follow U.S. imposed sanctions to trade in oil [1].  According to Iranian parliament member Fakhroddin Heydari, Iran’s oil exchange is its rebuttal to U.S. sanctions: “It also strengthens Iran’s position in setting oil prices in regional markets. The oil bourse helps us break the barriers of sanctions; therefore, enabling the world’s outstanding businessmen to enter into transactions without any problem” [1].

Another country which imports oil from Iran is India. In 2011, India imported 400,000 barrels a day from Iran [1]. In the latest news by Bloomberg, India has reduced oil imports in 2012 by 40% due to tightening U.S. sanctions [4]. In 2011, Iran supplied the oil to India on credit and the balance outstanding amounted to $7 billion.  India and Iran arranged the settlement through a Turkish banking arrangement [1]. This caused disapproval from the United States and was a temporary solution to manage Iran and India’s trade balance settlement situation [1]. Iran’s oil bourse, when it becomes more active and liquid, may fulfill the need for an alternate oil clearing union and may provide a substitute for such transactions. Iran has also started working on barter agreements with countries, for example it may trade oil with other commodities, such as rice, wheat etc. At a time when the U.S. dollar is vulnerable due to worldwide recession, Iran is piling on the pressure with their oil exchange [1].

According to the British Petroleum (BP) future energy outlook, by 2030 China and India will be the world’s largest and 3rd largest economies and energy consumers, jointly accounting for 35% of global population, GDP and energy demand [5]. Over the next 20 years China and India are expected to account for 94% of net oil demand growth [5]. The import dependency on oil is expected to increase by 91% for India, 80% for China and 94% for Europe [5].

Given that China and India will be amongst the top three largest economies in the future, with an increase in the number of their expected oil imports, their behavior towards importing of oil will be the key to OPEC’s future. The U.S. currently consumes 20% of world’s total consumption of oil and produces 8% of total world production; it is currently a net importer [5]. Its expected reliance on imports is expected to decrease in the future as can be seen in the graph. As the oil exporting countries will see a shift in demand from the U.S. to emerging economies, specifically India and China, combined with an international oil exchange which does not require the U.S. dollar to transact, world’s dependence on the U.S. will decrease. The OPEC sub division of Iran, Iraq and Venezuela, currently comprise of 50% of total OPEC reserves, and a combined production of 12% of world oil today. Since Iraq and Venezuela have strained relations with the U.S., they have no incentive to support the U.S. in its sanctions against Iran. India and China though currently have reduced their imports from Iran; continue to import a significant amount of oil to meet its current needs. Iraq, Iran and Venezuela will be critical in deciding the future of oil supply, and with their growing conflict with the U.S., will resort to the Iranian International Oil Bourse as a clearing union for international oil transactions. To meet the growing oil demand in the future, the developing economies will have no choice but to transact with some of the key OPEC members thorough the International Oil Exchange or else a rise in the price of oil will be witnessed. Given that the dependence of U.S. on imported oil would have been reduced and substituted by an increased demand from India and China, it will become imperative for OPEC member countries to cooperate with each other in order for OPEC to achieve its goals of achieving a fair price of oil. The shift to an international oil exchange which does not require U.S. dollars to transact will change the world economic and political scenario. Many developing countries are dependent on multi and bi lateral agencies for loans in USD as they lack the foreign exchange to settle international trade transactions. As a result the world is dependent on the U.S. as the U.S. dollar is the reserve currency for the world. If countries start transacting with other countries through an international oil exchange, where currencies other than the current reserve currency are used for settling transactions, it will relieve the pressure of obtaining foreign exchange in U.S. dollar for many developing and developed economies, thereby reducing dependence on the U.S. This will lead to a decline in the value of the U.S. dollar along with its status as the world’s reserve currency faster than the debt ceiling or a U.S. debt default. OPEC’s dependence on India and China will increase along with a decrease on the U.S., which will aid in member countries of OPEC to stick together as an interest group for their collective good.

 

[1] Barden, S. (2011, February 08). Iran’s Oil Bourse. Who is next? RIANOVOSTI.

[2] Jahn, G. (2012, June 13). Saudi-Iran rivalries high ahead of OPEC meeting. Bloomberg Businessweek.

[3] Chazan, G. (2012, June 15). Iraq and Iran form alliance within Opec. Financial Times.

[4] Lakshmanan, I. A. (2012, Nov 30). Nations May Keep Sanctions Exemption for Cutting Iran Oil. Washington: Bloomberg.

[5] (2012). BP Energy Outlook 2030. London: British Petroleum.

 

 

 

Elon Musk’s Guide to the Galaxy

Over the past month, I’ve had the distinct privilege and opportunity to attend two of Elon Musk’s keynote presentations where he discussed his vision for a sustainable energy future, electric vehicle technology, and humanity’s multi-planetary quest.  As a way of background, Elon Musk is considered to be a modern day visionary, inventor, and innovator, and he is often compared to legendary inventors such as Nikola Tesla, Thomas Edison, Richard Branson, and Steve Jobs.  Elon Musk founded and runs companies such as PayPal, Tesla Motors, SpaceX, and SolarCity [1].

Elon Musk and DOE Secretary Steven Chu speaking at 2013 ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit, Washington, D.C. – 2.26.13

Photo: Michael Belfiore

The first keynote speech I attended was on February 26, 2013 in Washington, D.C. while attending the 2013 ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit.  This particular conference brings together some of the brightest energy minds in the world to discuss energy policy, energy technology innovation, energy security, and funding opportunities and successes through the ARPA-E program [2].

Mr. Musk’s presentation focused primarily on the process he went through to secure a low-interest $465 million loan through the Department of Energy’s Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing (ATVM) Program [3].  The ATVM program was authorized by President Bush in 2007 under the Energy Independence and Security Act and later appropriated in the Fall of 2008.  The ATVM was already authorized and funded before President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus program was enacted in 2009.  The ATVM program was geared towards helping the private sector accelerate the advancement and production of alternative fuel technology vehicles such as hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), plug-in hybrids electric vehicles (PHEVs), and full electric vehicles (EVs) in order to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil.

Mr. Musk was joined by Secretary of Energy Steven Chu on stage for the keynote session.  It was interesting to learn that both General Motors and Chrysler were both ineligible to apply for the ATVM program since both companies were going through bankruptcy proceedings at that time.  The two largest loans that were approved under the ATVM program went to Ford ($5.9 billion) and Nissan ($1.6 billion) to accelerate the development of their advanced vehicle technology platforms.  As Secretary Chu pointed out during the session, the most attractive piece of Tesla Motors’ application for an ATVM loan was that the company is vertically integrated and all of Tesla’s vehicle components and systems are designed and built here in America.  According to Secretary Chu, Tesla designs and builds everything from their battery systems, electric drive trains, suspension systems, chassis, and even the test and evaluation equipment to ensure that the vehicle is performing optimally.

The major announcement that Mr. Musk revealed during the session is that the production and sales of Tesla’s new Model S electric sedan was going so well that Tesla will be repaying their ATVM loan within 5 years instead of 10 years, which is in half the time than what was stipulated under the ATVM program terms.  Mr. Musk ended the session by reminding the audience that the DOE’s efforts to fund and support advanced energy technology research and development have produced many major successes similar to Tesla.  He pointed out that these successes all too often go overlooked due to the failure and over politicization of Solyndra.

Tesla and SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk, speaking at SXSW 2013 – 3.9.13

(Credit: Daniel Terdiman/CNET)

The second and most recent keynote address I attended was during SXSW Interactive in Austin on March 9, 2013.  Mr. Musk touched on the challenges of running multiple companies at the same time and cautioned entrepreneurs to not make the same mistakes that he has made.  When Musk was asked what was the biggest mistake and lesson he’s learned so far about being an entrepreneur and innovator, he explained to the audience that he has learned the hard way that you can’t hire someone simply because they are the smartest person available to do the job.  Musk said that you have to hire someone who is capable of doing the job and who also has their heart in the right place and a personality that you can easily get along with.

Musk also discussed his SolarCity venture and how the company is providing cheap solar power to customers who previously could not afford it through a full service community solar-based business model.  He also went into detail on SpaceX’s recent successful test launch of their new vertical take-off and landing vehicle (VTVL) called the Grasshopper.  SpaceX is taking a private sector approach to space flight by focusing on fully recoverable rockets in an effort to minimize the cost of each launch and mission.  SpaceX recently completed a successful text launch and docking mission to the International Space Station (ISS).  NASA subsequently awarded SpaceX a 10-mission contract to deliver supplies to (ISS).  Musk believes that humanity will be a multi-planetary species in the very near future due to private sector innovation and efforts like SpaceX.  Musk concluded the keynote session by saying, “I’d like to die on Mars, just not on impact.” [4]

References:

[1] http://elonmusk.com/

[2] http://www.arpae-summit.com/

[3] http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/clearing-air-our-doe-loan

[4] http://news.cnet.com/8301-14013_3-57573439/elon-musk-at-sxsw-id-like-to-die-on-mars-just-not-on-impact/

PUCT Moves Closer To Smart Meter Opt-Out

In December, the Texas Public Utilities Commission (PUC) approved the creation and distribution of opt-out rules for electric consumers who oppose smart meter installations [1].  The rules will go back for a final vote, but unfortunately it appears the PUC is moving in this direction and is not the first state to do so.  As of spring 2012 Maine, Oregon, California, Nevada, Michigan, Vermont and Arizona were also introducing opt-out programs [2].

I support utilities fighting the opt-out clause for several reasons.  Most importantly, forcing utility companies to retain use of old utility meters takes away from the societal benefits widespread smart meter deployment can provide.  In terms of outage management, increased reliability, reduced congestion, and reduced peak demand that could lead to reduced energy prices and a reduced need for new peak power plants, smart meters are an important building block of the broader grid modernization effort.

Additionally, reading some customer meters on a monthly basis drives utility companies to retain additional utility vehicles and meter readers, and maintain two accounting systems, one for manually read data and one for the automated smart meter data.  The cost of this effort depends on the alternative the utility chooses between installing an analog or digital meter, leaving the smart meter with the radio turned off, or changing the point of delivery, and includes the upfront costs of making these changes and the monthly cost of reading the meter.  Hopefully the PUC will at a minimum decide this cost will be passed to the customer who decides to opt-out so that utility funds can be used to progress further into other smart grid technology.

One of two traditional arguments against smart meters is the health concerns of the radio frequencies emitted by the meters.  The PUC has tried to communicate that meters are within the Federal Communications Commission’s standards for radio frequency devices.  As shown in Figure 1 below, not only is RF exposure from smart meters less than RF exposure from a mobile phone, it is less than natural RF exposure from other humans and the planet [2].  Certainly health reasons alone lack justification for the missed opportunities of the new smart meter infrastructure.

Figure 1. Comparison of RF Exposure Sources to Smart Meters [2]

The second traditional argument with respect to privacy concerns is stronger, however, the Texas Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) mandates the following, “All meter data, including all data generated, provided, or otherwise made available, by advanced meters and meter information networks, shall belong to a customer, including data used to calculate charges for service, historical load data, and any other proprietary customer information.”  Furthermore, the PUC has given the customer power to authorize its data release to retail electric providers [3].

The second part of the privacy concern applies to cyber security.  Fortunately, the first version of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) smart grid guidelines and standards has been released [4].  Monitoring adherence to these guidelines is difficult, however, utilities have strong incentive to ensure the security of their new computerized systems and protect their investment.  Thus for me, promoting improvements in security is better accomplished by supporting utilities in their efforts to create a smarter grid rather than obstructing them with opt-out rules.

For those that share my opinion, there may fortunately be a legal strategy for utilities to prevent the new opt-out clause.  In a feasibility study conducted by Oncor at the request of the Commission, it was identified that “Texas law does not allow a regulatory agency to amend or rescind a final, non-appealable order,” which could apply to the original non-appealable Commission order that approved meter deployment to all customers in their service area  [5].

[1] The Dallas Morning News. “Public Utility Commission approves writing rules for Texas smart meter opt-out.” http://www.dallasnews.com/business/headlines/20121214-public-utility-commission-approves-writing-rules-for-texas-smart-meter-opt-out.ece

[2] Black & Veatch. “The Opt-Out Challenge.” March/April 2012. Electric Light & Power. http://bv.com/docs/articles/the-opt-out-challenge.pdf

[3] Public Utility Regulatory Act, Title II Texas Utilities Code. September 01, 2011. pg 121. http://www.puc.texas.gov/agency/rulesnlaws/statutes/Pura11.pdf

[4] U.S. Government Accountability Office. “Electricity Grid Modernization, Progress Being Made on Cybersecurity Guidelines, but Key Challenges Remain to be Addressed.” January 2011. GAO-11-117.

[5] Public Utility Commission Interchange.  “PUC Proceedings to Evaluate the Feasibility of Instituting a Smart Meter Opt-out Program.” 40190-326. http://interchange.puc.state.tx.us/WebApp/Interchange/Documents/40190_326_728872.PDF

How Changing Your Diet Can Reduce Carbon Emissions

In the modern times, the world has seen a shift in public opinion as well as government policy concerning emissions. The two main areas that are emphasized are the Energy sector as well as transportation. One example of how government policy is changing is President Obama’s National Fuel Efficiency Policy. It states that the average fuel economy must be 35.5 mpg in 2016 [1].

However, there is one sector that very few Americans think about when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, that is the Agricultural Sector. Just living in the US it is easy to see that we live a life of luxury compared to most places. As a result of that we are able to afford large quantities of food that we inevitably waste. This waste of energy was detailed in a post by HIRSCH2013 titled “When we waste food we waste energy” (link provided below) [2]. However the energy used, and the resulting emissions, from that energy production needs to be accounted for as well.

From the ten years spanning 2002-2011, the United State averaged more than 27.2 billion pounds of annual beef consumption [3]. In a life cycle analysis of greenhouse emissions for common foods conducted by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), Beef was shown to have emission of about 27.0 kg of CO₂e (Carbon Dioxide equivalents) per kilogram of beef. The following graph was also produced by the EWG [4].  Those 27.2 billion pounds of beef translates to 462.4 billion pounds of CO₂e per year.

Source: EWG [4]

This source of emissions in never really talked about, yet adds significantly to the about of greenhouse gases produced. Now, while the US government will not likely mandate how much food we eat, we Americans can take it upon ourselves to be conscious about our food choices. Now, I love steak as much as anyone else, but research shows that eating too much read met can have harmful side effects.  Eating read meat could increase the risk getting heart disease, kidney disease, osteoporosis, and cancer. This risk increases as people being to eat more processed meat such as bacon and hot dogs [5]. In a study by the Harvard School of Public Health, they found that each additional serving of meat increased the chance of death among the participants, and advised that people should eat red meat only about two to three times in a week [6].

Based on health and energy research, changing ones diet to reduce the intake of red meat in favor of poultry or fish (or other protein providers) would aid in keeping ourselves healthy and reducing our carbon footprint, both of which can be taken as very positive things.

Sources:

1: President Obama Announces National Fuel Efficiency Policy. (2009, May 19). Retrieved February 17, 2013, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-announces-national-fuel-efficiency-policy

2: http://webberenergyblog.wordpress.com/2013/02/09/when-we-waste-food-we-waste-energy/

3: USDA ERS – Cattle & Beef: Statistics & Information. (n.d.). Retrieved February 17, 2013, from http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/statistics-information.aspx

4: Climate and Environmental Impacts. (n.d.). Retrieved February 17, 2013, from http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/a-meat-eaters-guide-to-climate-change-health-what-you-eat-matters/climate-and-environmental-impacts/

5: Are You Eating Too Much Meat? (n.d.). Retrieved February 17, 2013, from http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/nutrition/healthy-eating/are-you-eating-too-much-meat.html#b 

6: Harding, A. (2012, March 13). Study: Too much red meat may shorten lifespan. Retrieved February 17, 2013, from http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/12/health/red-meat-shorten-lifespan

 

The Patch Technology-Natural Gas

It is somewhat of an undisputed fact, whether from a policy perspective, environmental perspective, or from the perspective of your wallet, that America should look at switching its primary choice of transportation fuel— petroleum. 

Currently, the United States’ gluttony of oil is detrimental to the environment and leads us towards an unstable future. Our outrageously huge consumption of oil is sure to be detrimental in the future, whether because of a financial meltdown from the price of oil, or the destruction of environment and the health problems future generations could be expected to face due to pollution.  America needs to look for a domestic, more environmentally friendly, more stable alternative to oil in order to minimize the detrimental effects of our current oil dependency.

There are many technologies that have promise at solving the issue over the next century.  Electric cars, hydrogen fueled cars, super-rail, jet packs… you name it, and some one is suggesting it.  But for most of these solutions, the technology isn’t quite there. 

Electric cars, for example, have many problems of their own.  “Popular Mechanics has tested the Volt’s mileage claims and found that it gets 33 miles on its electric charge (not 40) and that its miles-per-gallon performance is 31.67 in the city and 36 on the highway (not 50).”[i]  Also, a question electric vehicle (EV) enthusiasts must answer is how convenient is it to charge the battery?  “There are currently 500 charging stations in the United States — 400 of them are in Southern California.”ⁱ  Then can we not just charge our EVs at home?  According to the Washington Examiner, the fine print on the Nissan Leaf states that “it takes 20 hours to charge on a standard 110V outlet” for a 100 mile range.ⁱ  That is quite an inconvenient amount of time.

Now I am not here to beat up on electric vehicles.  I also understand that technology must progress and in the future electric vehicles (among other technologies) may be the solution.  But until then, we need a patch.

Senator Lisa Murkowski sums up the patch perfectly:

“Without a doubt, the new technology that we’re seeing has enabled a natural gas boom that has changed our energy landscape and the outlook for our economy,” Murkowski said. “Natural gas is now an abundant, affordable, and clean source of energy, providing great opportunities for economic growth and energy security.”[ii]

Various Natural Gas Technologies

Compressed Natural Gas Conversion Kit Schematic

Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles Schematic

http://talkbestcar.blogspot.com/2011/03/mercedes-benz-e200-ngt-comes.html

Liquified Natural Gas Maritime Storage Container

www.alibaba.com

Natural gas technologies include compressed natural gas vehicle conversion kits, compressed natural gas vehicles, and maritime fuel containers for LNG engines among other solutions.  These technologies use natural gas instead of oil as a fuel source.  Through the use of natural gas instead of oil, oil dependency is thus lowered.   Although natural gas still produces emissions, the percentage of harmful emissions is much lower compared to power plants.[iii]  NGVs also have a total emission reduction of 20-30%, including a carbon monoxide reduction of 70-90% and oxides of nitrogen reduction by 75-95% over gasoline or diesel powered cars.[iv]  The economics of a NGV are superior as well to gasoline or diesel powered vehicles.   The quantity of CNG a vehicle uses is measured in gallons of gasoline equivalent (GGE), which is the quantity of CNG that offers the consumer the same amount of energy, measured in BTUs, as a gallon of gasoline. A natural gas GGE is on average significantly cheaper than a gallon of gasoline, making CNG a more economical fuel source for drivers.^iv  For the commuting American, converting his or her vehicle to natural gas from gasoline will save an estimated $600 per year.[v]  Also, since natural gas burns much cleaner than gasoline or diesel, the amount of wear and tear on engines caused by gunk and combustion residue is greatly decreased.[vi]

There are promising technologies for natural gas that work today and can use conversion kits to efficiently convert our vehicles to natural gas from gasoline or diesel.  Natural gas as a fuel source is both abundant and domestic, and for the time being, cheap.  I understand that there is not a solution that is perfectly inconsequential.  Natural gas has its own downsides, as I am sure many people can speak to, but it does offer an emission reduction alternative that is readily available, policy positive and less or evenly expensive as gasoline or diesel.  If we use natural gas as a patch until one of the other technologies can progress to being suitable alternative, we can help the environment, our security and our pocketbooks.

William McCraney

---

[i] http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-problem-with-electric-cars/article/37094

[ii] http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republican-news?ID=826309f0-5dc7-46a5-8f56-98e85c4f1eb2

[iii] Wang-Helmreich, Hanna, and Stefan Lochner. “The Potential Of Natural Gas As A Bridging Technology In Low-Emission Road Transportation.” Thermal Science 16.3 (2012): 729-746. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Dec. 2012.

[iv] http://www.ngvc.org/about_ngv/for_consumers.html

[v] http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/natural_gas_emissions.html

[vi] Tirkey, J. V., H. N. Gupta, and S. K. Shukla,”Integrated gas dynamic computational modelling and thermodynamic combustion diagnostics of multicylinder four-stroke spark ignition engine using compressed natural gas as a fuel,” International Journal Of Sustainable Energy 29, no. 2: 59-75. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost