Green Infrastructure and Energy

In February the city of Austin was added to American Forests’ list of “Top 10 Best Cities for Urban Forests.”  The city beat out 40 of the most populous cities in the nation for its efforts in civic engagement, strategies in infrastructure, accessibility, health and condition, documented knowledge, and management of urban forests [1].  The award is good news for Austin considering the benefits of urban forestry as a part of green infrastructure (GI) which not only includes street trees, but also includes green roofs, green facades, permeable pavements, rain gardens, and stormwater treatment swales. 

GI is known for its ability to enhance storm-water management and water quality, improve human health by improving air quality and reducing UV exposure, reduce pavement maintenance costs via reduced deterioration, and increase property values.  Less well-known, however, is the potential green infrastructure has to reduce energy consumption.  

Urban trees, for example, have the potential to reduce energy use by providing shade, wind control, and active evaporation.  “Homeowners that properly place trees in their landscape can realize savings up to 58% on daytime air conditioning and as high as 65% for mobile homes,”[2]  Proper tree placement is important to achieve these savings so utilities have teamed up with urban foresters to promote programs such as “Plant the Right Tree in the Right Places.”  The following diagram provides recommendations from the Environmental Protection Agency for tree placement to maximize energy savings [3].

Green roofs, on the other hand, have the potential to reduce energy consumption by lowering surface temperatures.  A comparison between a green roof and a conventional roof in Chicago, for example, showed a temperature of 169 degrees F on a conventional roof and a range from 91-119 degrees F on the same day on a green roof of an adjacent building [3].

Unfortunately green infrastructure has gotten off to a slow start.  Traditional challenges have included underinvestment, a patchwork of uncoordinated efforts, the need for tailored solutions and the limits of sharing lessons learned, a lack of experience and dependency on public education, and the crossing of jurisdictional boundaries.  Despite these challenges many efforts across the United States are relying on both voluntary and policy initiatives in order to take advantage of GI benefits as part of an energy, air quality, water, and sustainability efforts [3]. 

[1] American Forests. “10 Best Cities for Urban Forests.” Web. February 2013. http://www.americanforests.org/our-programs/urbanforests/10-best-cities-for-urban-forests/

[2] Keep Indianapolis Beautiful, Inc. Benefits of Urban Trees. Web. 4 Apr. 2013.

[3] Reducing Urban Heat Islands: Compendium of Strategies. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013. Web. 18 Apr. 2013.

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/

Straws of Life: A Global Solution

We take for granted the fact that we live in a country that provides easily attainable clean drinking water. Water fountains provide tap water that has been purified of disease-causing bacteria and are widely available and accessible to the public. Clean drinking water has evolved into an expectation for us; it is now considered a basic human right to have access to improved sources of drinking water.

Sadly, this is not the case for underdeveloped countries.

Worldwide, 783 million people drink water that is unclean and unsafe [2].

These unsanitary conditions, usually typical for third world countries, can be deadly. It is estimated that up to 4,000 children die every day from diarrheal disease and other illnesses caused by unclean drinking water [1][2]. Most of these countries don’t have the infrastructure to provide clean water, or any other form of residential energy, for the public. Africa is in real trouble: “Of the 25 nations in the world with the greatest percentage of people lacking access to safe drinking water, 19 are in Africa” [3].

The main cause for lack of clean water is simple lack of power. Impoverished countries don’t have the energy (or money) to construct and operate water treatment facilities. Having said that, necessity is the mother of invention; in 2005, the swiss-based company Vestergaard Frandsen found a solution: It’s called LifeStraw. [4]

The LifeStraw is a handheld straw-like device that allows the user to filter water as they drink it.

When a user sucks on the top of the straw, water is pulled through hollow fibers with pores 0.2 microns in length. These small pores trap any bacteria, parasites, or impurities in the water as it flows up to the user’s mouth [6]. It’s a relatively simple strategy, and is fairly effective. It removes 99.9% of bacteria and parasites from the water. One of these straws can last for 1,000 liters; this is equivalent to sustain one grown human with drinking water for a year [5].

While this device seems like a life saver, it has some limitations. Firstly, it is unable to filter out chemicals and water-borne viruses. However, the main issue is with the cost of the item. While only $6.50 per personal LifeStraw, citizens of impoverished nations still can’t afford them [1].

Again, Vestergaard came up with a solution to that problem: they donated LifeStraws to over 4.5 million Kenyans.  LifeStraws help users to bypass burning wood to boil water, which helps Vestergaard earn carbon credits. The company can then sell these credits to other companies who need to offset their carbon emissions [1]. In this way, Vestergaard can save lives while the pollutant companies pay for it.

Some people are upset with Vestergaard’s philanthropic move on the basis that the public image covers up the profit that they are actually making [1]. But I’m pretty sure the Kenyans aren’t complaining, and no one can argue against the value of lives saved.

[4]

References:

[1] Barksdale, Martha, and Kate Kershner. “How LifeStraw Works.” HowStuffWorks. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Apr. 2013.

[2] “Clean Water Campaign.” Clean Drinking Water. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Apr. 2013.

[3] David, Michael,, David,, and Caroline. “Africa.” ThinkQuest. Oracle Foundation, n.d. Web. 02 Apr. 2013.

[4] “LifeStraw FAQ.” Waterforlifestraw.co.uk. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Apr. 2013.

[5] “LifeStraw Frequently Asked Questions.” LifeStraw Frequently Asked Questions. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Apr. 2013.

[6] “LifeStraw.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 04 Feb. 2013. Web. 02 Apr. 2013.

Solar Aviation: Around the World in 80 Days by 2015

A recent article from Forbes introduced me to a new technology I honestly would not have expected to exist: manned airplanes powered by solar energy. [1] Solar Impulse – the name of the Swiss company and the actual plane– offers an addition to a field that has been steadily developing since the 1970s. [2] The plane contains approximately 12,000 solar cells and four lithium-polymer batteries. These solar cells cover the 208 foot wingspan and give the craft an feather-like appearance. [1] After reading the headline and looking at the photo below, I found myself thinking of Icarus, the overconfident boy in Greek mythos who flew too close the sun. (A nerdy confession I know, but hopefully my ninth grade English teacher would be proud.) The story is one of hubris and failed ambition, and I could not help but think it applicable here. Interesting and innovative though they may be, are such advances in solar aviation really helping us combat the energy crisis?

The first solar-powered flight took place in California on November 4, 1974. “Sunrise I” was a tiny unmanned craft that weighed practically nothing and flew for approximately 20 minutes. A few years later, the first piloted solar aircraft (“Solar One”) used nickel-cadmium batteries with some success. [2] Progress in the field developed through the decades, with crafts such as the “Gossamer Penguin”—first to fly purely on solar energy, the “Sunseeker”—now the only solar aircraft in continuous operation, “Helios”—which reached nearly 30,000 feet in 2001, and Alan Cocconi’s craft—first to fly through an entire night, all contributing their fair share in honing solar aviation technology. [2] [3] But the Solar Impulse project is seeking to make the achievements in solar aviation less of a novelty and more of a practical solution to energy concerns. The company has aspirations to be the first to circumnavigate the globe with a larger aircraft in 2015. [4] The current “Solar Impulse” uses electricity produced from solar cells that can generate up to 45 kW of power. There are four, 10-horsepower electric engines on board that allow the plane to average about 40 miles per hour. [1]

That’s not very fast. In fact, numerous precautions are taken into account in order to avoid inflight complications, such as limiting weight (“Solar Impulse” is 3,500 pounds) and taking off early in the morning then landing at night. [1] An engineer and pilot associated with the project stated that the commercial applicability of solar aircrafts was still four decades away. And yet, the Solar Impulse project has demonstrated that solar energy can be a “stand-alone fuel”. [4] These early stages in developing a technology are admittedly slow. At this moment, solar aviation may not be immediately applicable to our energy problems. But commercial airlines are burning through fossil fuels and the innovation spurred by companies like Solar Impulse may someday be a saving grace for transportation. This is a long-term investment that may prove to be more of a gamble, but I’d rather take that risk now even if at the end of the day we get a little too close to the sun, our wax melts, and the whole project crashes and burns…metaphorically, of course.

Sources:

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/uciliawang/2013/03/28/get-ready-for-a-solar-power-planes-maiden-flight-across-the-u-s/?ss=business%3Aenergy

[2] http://ecoble.com/2009/02/16/sun-power-jet-fuel-for-the-21st-century/

[3] http://www.solarimpulse.com/en/airplane/solar-aviation/

[4] http://gigaom.com/2013/01/30/coming-to-america-a-swiss-solar-powered-plane/

Ethanol and the Quest for Energy Independence

Recently, the United States has pushed for new energy sources to fuel our transportation sector and the overall economy. Ever since the oil crisis of the 1970s, the country’s dependence on foreign petroleum has been evident. Since then, a growing portion of our energy sector has come from corn ethanol. This growth has mostly been due to policies the US government has implemented over the past 10 years in order to achieve energy independence in a way that is sustainable and environmentally friendly. While the US has only recently started implementing these policies, Brazil has already achieved energy independence through their use of sugar cane ethanol.

With the passage of the Energy Policy Act in 2005, all gasoline retailers were mandated to blend 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol made from corn annually by 2012. This was called the Renewable Fuel Standard. Its main purpose was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, decrease reliance on foreign oil supplies, and create jobs (mostly in the agricultural sector). Two years later, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was passed which ratcheted up the ethanol mandate to blending 13.2 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol by 2012 and rising to 36 billion gallons by the year 2022.

Congress sensed the challenge this mandate would pose and proposed the Domestic Alternative Fuels Act in January 2012 which had bipartisan support. This act would allow sources other than corn to be used in ethanol production. This bill received a huge amount of backlash from corn farmers, agribusiness and its stakeholders because the legislation would loosen their foothold in the biofuel industry.

Brazil has come a long way on its journey to energy independence, however it can be seen as somewhat of an anomaly. The US has had some success in using ethanol and biofuels but hasn’t achieved the level of independence Brazil has. This can be attributed to more favorable conditions in Brazil such as vast amounts of fertile land, government policies, and heavy investment in infrastructure.

The main push for Brazil’s energy independence came back in the 1970s when oil prices increased at an unprecedented rate and countries realized how susceptible they were to the swings in the global oil market. Following the crisis, the Brazilian government looked towards other solutions to help the country be less susceptible to the unpredictability of the global oil market. The answer came in the form of a crop that they had already been producing and exporting for decades: sugarcane. In 1975, ProAlcool (Programa Nacional do Álcool) was created by presidential decree. The purpose of this program was to utilize Brazil’s robust sugarcane industry to produce ethanol for the purpose of fueling automobiles.

The first part of this strategy was a mandate that by the year 1980, 3.5 billion liters of ethanol be produced annually. Along with this mandate came a large amount of subsidies to aid farmers in adding ethanol distilleries. This strategy would increase the ethanol supply so it would be widely available across the country. The second piece of their strategy was to forge an agreement with automakers in 1979 to start producing more cars that ran on ethanol. The government in turn launched a robust media campaign to inform the public on the benefits of these new flex-fuel cars.

While the US set some policies in reaction to the global oil crisis, the problem seemed to fade once oil prices stabilized and the American public turned their attention elsewhere. Brazil on the other hand maintained its resolve and implemented policies long after oil prices dropped. From what critics saw as just a short-term boost to Brazil’s sugarcane industry, emerged a comprehensive plan to reach the country’s energy independence goal.

Many parallels can be drawn between the US and Brazil on their quests to achieve energy independence. Even though these two countries are different on many economic, social, and geographical levels, we might be able to gain some insight from their policies and implementation methods in order to reach our goal here in the US.

Sources:

1. http://www.economist.com/node/21542431
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/18/business/worldbusiness/18iht-menergy_ed3_.html?_r=0
3. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_fuel_basics.html
4. http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1077685/our_sugarcane_is_greener_than_your_corn_brazil_takes_on_us_biofuel_industry.html
5. http://www.ibtimes.com/how-brazil-turned-ethanol-unique-success-1064308

Pictures:

1. http://www.planetforward.ca
2. http://www.usda.gov
3. Agence France-Presse – Getty Images

The Evolution of Geothermal

You can only operate a geothermal power plant in the presence of abundant geothermal energy, right? Wrong! Well, sort of.

Geysir, Iceland
Source: Personal Collection

Historically, the building and operation of geothermal power plants has been tightly restricted to geothermally active areas. Think places like New Zealand, Iceland and the Philippines, where energy literally comes bubbling out of the ground in the form of hot springs, geysers and steam. These areas are usually found on the boundaries of the huge tectonic plates that make up the earth’s lithosphere. Along the borders of these plates, geothermally heated aquifers often flow relatively close to the surface, and these sources of energy are simply begging to be harnessed. The problem is, however, that the areas where these conditions exist make up less than 10 percent of Earth’s dry land.

What About the Cool 90 Percent?

Here is the good news. Geothermal energy originates below the earth’s crust, where the steady decay of naturally radioactive materials produces heat continually. Theoretically, this source of energy is available virtually everywhere, albeit at a greater depth than in the previously mentioned, geothermal areas. The total amount of thermal energy within a depth of 10 km from the earth’s surface is estimated to be 50,000 times greater than all the natural gas and oil resources in the world.

Efforts to harness this hidden energy are already being made in various places across the globe, using a new technology called Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS). The method essentially expands traditional geothermal energy production through the use of hydraulic fracturing. It consists of drilling a well to a depth of about 3 to 10 km, where temperature levels are usually between 70 and 315°C. In contrast to EGS, traditional geothermal power plants usually only require wells that are 2 to 3 km deep, in order to reach the same temperature levels. Upon reaching this depth, water is pumped into the dry layers of hot rock at high pressure, which causes the rocks to break and thus increases their permeability. Cold water is then pumped down through an injection well, where it flows through the hot rocks before returning back to the surface as steam, through a separate well. The steam is then run through a turbine where it produces electricity, before it is cooled and condensed, and pumped back into the ground.

The EGS Process
Source: EERE

An Earth-Shaking Prospect

This technology offers a number of different benefits. First of all, it introduces a vast supply of geothermal energy potential to areas that have hitherto been considered too cold for such ventures. The EGS technology also enjoys many of the same benefits associated with traditional geothermal energy production. It is a steady, renewable source of energy and geothermal plants require very little land space per MW produced, in comparison to other types of power plants. However, drilling in itself is a messy and expensive business, and as the technology is still in its infancy, the upfront cost of an EGS project remains very high.

The technology also has to deal with the issue of induced seismicity, as the injected water can act as lubricant on highly stressed layers of rock near geological fault lines. In 2009, a $60 million EGS venture was cancelled in Basel, Switzerland, due to a flurry of earthquakes that were generated as a result of the project. While the momentum of EGS has been lessened by setbacks such as the Basel shutdown, as well as the under-delivery of other ongoing projects, the potential benefits that the technology promises are hard to negate. Proponents of EGS are still willing to brace the significant learning curve that lies ahead, before the technique becomes both technologically refined and cost competitive, and geothermal becomes a global source of renewable energy.

 

Texas Wind Farm Diaries

Wind is making quite a big stir in the energy world these days. It seems everyone is talking about, and that eventually leads those discussions to Texas, where a large percentage of American wind energy is being built and generated! Just yesterday the [1] American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) issued a press release announcing wind energy was the top source for new generation in 2012! The wind energy installed over 13,000 MW of electric generating capacity! The cumulative total reached over 60,000 MW, which has the potential to power around 15,000 homes. Be looking for the final report in April, which will discuss the new capacity built in the 2012. Some reasons for the rapid expansion of wind energy in the U.S. have been pointed out, including the [2]  looming expiration of the Production Tax Credit at the end of 2012. This credit was renewed on January 1, 2013. Even in light of this “renewed” production tax credit, there are predictions that the [3] wind energy will still have a difficult time this coming year.  Only time will tell when it comes to the future of wind energy! This AWEA also discussed the U.S. states that are leading in wind energy installations, please see the list below [1].

“Top states for new capacity installations in 2012 include:”

1. Texas (1,826 MW) 2. California (1,656 MW) 3. Kansas (1,440 MW) 4. Oklahoma (1,127 MW) 5. Illinois (823 MW)

6. Iowa (814 MW) 7. Oregon (640 MW) 8. Michigan (611 MW) 9. Pennsylvania (550 MW) 10. Colorado (496 MW)

Of course Texas leads the new installed capacity factor, but do not mistake these numbers with capacity already built prior to 2012. Texas wind energy is most intriguing to me because I had the golden opportunity to visit the west Texas area (specifically Sweetwater) to get a first hand look at the wind farms. The [4] Roscoe wind farm, the wind farm I got the pleasure to experience is quite an interesting place in the middle of  “no where,” as urban Texans might say. I received a first hand tour from Mr. Cliff Etheredge, a wind farm expert! He is quite a fellow and gives an amazing breakdown of wind energy on his tours. He was recently interviewed in the [6] Switch Energy Project and documentary discussing Texas wind energy and the wind farms near Sweetwater (some of the same places I visited are shown in the interview!). Have a look at what Texas wind energy is all about [6]:

 

Sources:

[1] American Wind Energy Association. “Wind Energy Top Source for New Generation in 2012.” Press Release.  2013. http://www.awea.org/newsroom/pressreleases/officialyearendnumbersreleased.cfm

[2] Colman, Zach. “Facing Expiring Tax Credit, Wind Industry Posts Record Year.” The Hill. 2013. http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/280175-facing-expiring-tax-credit-wind-industry-posts-record-year

[3] Wernau, Jill. ” Illinois 5th in Wind Power Installations in 2012.” Chicago Tribune. 2013. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-01-30/business/chi-illinois-5th-in-wind-power-installations-in-2012-20130130_1_wind-power-awea-new-wind

[4] E.ON. “The Roscoe Wind Complex.” 2013. http://eoncrna.com/contentProjectsRoscoe.html

[5] Switch Energy Project. 2012. http://www.switchenergyproject.com/index.php

Smart Grid and Infrastructure Security Implications

Image via Washington Post

It’s time for real talk. Existing power generation in Texas is having a tough time meeting the state’s rising power demand. The February 2, 2011 cold snap took the state by surprise and temporarily disabled the Oak Grove coal-fired power plant. The 1.6 GW shortage cascaded across the state and disabled back-up natural gas turbines, forcing the Electric Reliability Counsel of Texas (ERCOT) to issue rolling blackouts across the state. It’s not to say that Texas is unprepared for these kind’s of surprise weather conditions, but current demand management techniques are falling short. ERCOT would like the state’s peaking power reserve margin to sit at 13.75% of the state’s total generation capacity, but this number is pretty idealistic when considering how quickly Texas is growing.

So what’s the solution? Depending on who you ask, integrating a smarter infrastructure with distributed renewable energy sources is the way to go. This means installing new smart grid technologies with renewable power sources like wind and solar and taking dependence off centralized peaking power stations. The US Department of Energy is enthusiastically embracing this modus and has already allocated $4.5 billion in grants to smart grid technologies, along with setting clean energy generation targets to 80% of national generation by 2035. This is good news for Texans, where 10.9 GW of existing wind infrastructure is ready to help offset demand loads, not to mention all that untapped solar potential. So how exactly does a smart grid help?

It’s all about information feedback. By giving the power generators insight into how electricity is being consumed and where the faults lie, we collectively gain more control over how we use electricity. Smart grid  is often touted as a self-healing technology, in that it can respond to system outages much quicker than the existing electro-mechanical infrastructure. In addition, smart grid is expected to combat the rising cost of energy. By 2050, utilities are expected to increase by up to 400% of current prices. With smart grid in place, we can expect these to increase by about 50%. Not bad. However, an underdeveloped smart grid network could have catastrophic consequences for national security.

In 2010, the US media revealed that uranium enrichment plants in Iran had been catastrophically damaged by a very complex computer program known as Stuxnet. The malicious code was specifically engineered to damage industrial control systems and SCADA networks. These networks can be found in the oil and gas industry, water management,  power generation, etc. In the case of the Iranian enrichment facilities, the code was able to gain control of the uranium centrifuges and effectively destroy them before operators realized something was awry. The truly alarming thing about Stuxnet, though, is that it was operational and in the open for a full year before anyone realized it. The code is designed to install and exploit system back doors, known as rootkits, and can be installed on any media plugged into infected hardware. That means a flash drive plugged into a corrupted system becomes an infectious vector for other industrial infrastructure. Like a smart grid network. Stuxnet is kind of like the bull in the china shop. It’s very capable of causing a lot of damage, but it isn’t too particular about what it breaks. That means any existing industrial control system can be implicated.

There isn’t solid proof as to who designed Stuxnet. The United States has been implicated, as well as Russia and Israel. However, it is an extraordinarily complex piece of work and is almost assuredly the product of a technologically developed government. This would make Stuxnet the first form of cyber-warfare that is capable of targeting entire infrastructures. Scary stuff, especially if your entire electric infrastructure is tied to an integrated smart grid system.

It’s often said that no network is impenetrable, but good people are doing a lot of pioneering work to make sure that the bad guys can’t get in. Smart grid is a very promising avenue to bringing electricity generation into the future, but we need to be confident that we’re not unnecessarily introducing vulnerabilities into existing infrastructure.

What’s going on with First Solar (and cadmium telluride solar cells)?

Above: Year-to-date price history of several large solar cell manufacturers.
FSLR = First Solar (American)
SPWR = SunPower (American)
STP = Suntech Power (Chinese)
YGE = Yingli Green Energy Holdings (Chinese)

Followers and investors in one of the world’s largest solar panel producers have experienced a continuous stream of bad news since February. First Solar, a global leading producer of thin-film solar cells, has lost nearly half of its market capitalization since the beginning of 2012 and seems to be plumbing new all-time lows every few days [1]. First Solar is not without company in its suffering: its biggest American rival, SunPower Corp, has performed under the S&P 500 for the year as well (though not nearly as badly), and the established solar sector as a whole took a particularly bad tumble in mid-2011 and hasn’t yet recovered [1].

Much of this is likely due to changing market conditions and foreign competition. Over the past few months, much discussion has taken place regarding the Chinese government’s role in the selling of solar cells to Western markets, providing subsidies to Chinese manufacturers selling their products abroad in an attempt to undercut Western manufacturers and force them out of business. In late March, the US Commerce Department announced that they had found evidence that the Chinese government had indeed provided impermissible export subsidies to its local manufacturers, and placed small tariffs on solar panels from several Chinese manufacturers in response [2]. There is the possibility for even more punitive tariffs should the Commerce Department decide that Beijing is engaged in dumping practices, which would involve the government heavily subsidizing producers to the degree that they would be able to sell their panels abroad below cost [2].

But First Solar seems to have special problems, beyond the market conditions that would be affecting its competitors as well. Unfortunately, most of the company’s unique problems likely stem from its technology. First Solar is the leading producer of thin-film solar panels using cadmium telluride (CdTe) as its semiconductor material, and  produces the most efficient CdTe panels available [3]. CdTe panels, while having less sunlight-to-electricity conversion efficiency than some other materials like crystalline silicon, are particularly cheap to manufacture, with First Solar’s solar panels being the first to fall below a dollar per watt [4]. This cost advantge has been a boon to First Solar during its life, but some troubling news arose out of its 2011 10-K filing and annual earnings report. In the company’s earnings conference call, its then-CEO noted that it had used more money than originally predicted in fulfilling product warranties in 2011 and had alloted additional money to its warranty reserve [5].

The 10-K filing also noted that the company believed its higher rates of product are failure can be traced to a potentially increased failure rate of its cells in hot climates. It reached this conclusion “based on technical literature, data that we have developed internally including through accelerated-life testing, our analysis of modules returned under warranty, and our analysis of performance data from systems that we monitor under O&M agreements” [6]. It should be noted that, given the short short life span of thin-film technology and First Solar’s dominance of the market, this is really the first evidence or investigation towards the potential problems of cadmium telluride solar cells in hot climates. If First Solar’s suspicions are correct, we may be finding out for the first time that CdTe has a shorter lifespan in hot, sunny weather (where solar would be most appealing anyway).

This could be some pretty terrible news for First Solar, since its business strategy now focuses entirely on building utility-scale solar installations. During First Solar’s rapid growth in the second half of the 2000s, much of its sales and revenue came from its operations in Germany, where the national government heavily incentivized solar power development through the use of a generous feed-in tariff (a type of production subsidy). In 2010, amid many other austerity measures, the German government slashed this subsidy over the protest of domestic and foreign solar cell producers [7]. First Solar took this as cause to focus on building utility-scale projects in hot climates like the American southwest [8], and recently ceased all German manufacturing operations [9]. It was only after expanding out of temperate climates that First Solar found out about their potential problems in hot climates. This potential shortfall in meeting the company’s best market opportunity has gotten many investors spooked and concern about its viability [10].

Will this spell the end for the company? At this point, it doesn’t look like it. True to its goals in orienting towards utility-scale solar, First Solar has been able to sell projects in Arizona and California to plant operators like NRG Energy and Berkshire Hathaway’s MidAmerican Energy [11,12]. It would seem that these investors, at least, are not as concerned about the technology as the stock market seems to be.

References:
[1]: http://www.google.com/finance?q=fslr
[2]: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/business/energy-environment/us-to-place-tariffs-on-chinese-solar-panels.html
[3]: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110726005689/en/Solar-Sets-World-Record-CdTe-Solar-PV
[4]: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/solar-wind/4306443
[5]: http://seekingalpha.com/article/399251-first-solar-s-ceo-discusses-q4-2011-results-earnings-call-transcript
[6]: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1274494/000127449412000015/fslrdec1110k.htm
[7]: http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/03/31/31greenwire-slashed-subsidies-send-shivers-through-europea-32255.html
[8]: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203518404577097540383138700.html
[9]: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/business/energy-environment/first-solar-to-cut-2000-jobs-and-close-a-german-factory.html
[10]: http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2012/03/12/first-solar-slides-again-on-price-target-cut-warranty-woes/
[11]: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nrg-energy-midamerican-solar-first-201300851.html
[12]: http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2012/05/04/midamerican-first-solar-start-work-on.html