The US military is making a major push to deploy renewable energy on the battlefield because our soldiers are being killed protecting convoys of gasoline trucks. According to a front page story in The New York Times, the Secretary of the Navy "wants 50 percent of the power for the Navy and Marines to come from renewable energy sources by 2020."
There are many reasons for this dramatic push towards renewable energy on the battlefield:
1. Oil Kills
A US Army study found that one soldier or civilian is killed for every 24 fuel convoys that are sent out to provide fuel to troops on the battlefield. The Times reports that six Marines were wounded guarding oil convoys in just the past three months.
2. Oil Keeps Our Troops from Fighting the Enemy
The Navy Secretary is quoted in the Times as saying that guarding fuel in Afghanistan "is keeping our troops from doing what they were sent there to do, to fight or engage local people."
3. Oil is Outrageously Expensive
Do you think the military pays $2 or $3 per gallon for gasoline? Actually they get it for a wholesale price of about $1 per gallon, but transporting it to the battlefield adds on huge costs. For some remote locations, the cost of supplying fuel reaches $400 per gallon.
4. Oil Telegraphs Our Strategy to the Enemy
Want to know where our troops are low on fuel or getting ready to fight? Just follow the convoys of oil tankers. They will lead the enemy directly to our troops, inform the enemy of the size of our forces (more oil for larger contingents or more equipment), and provide hints of what might happen next. On the other hand, troops that do not need to re-fuel have tactical advantages not only on land but on sea as well. The Navy Secretary told the Times that "[e]very time you cut a ship away from the need to visit an oiler -- a fuel supply ship -- you create an advantage."
5. Oil Causes Wars
Although not directly quoting the Secretary of the Navy, the Times reports that he and others said that "greater reliance on renewable energy improved national security, because fossil fuels often came from unstable regions and scarce supplies were a potential source of international conflict." Duh! You mean we fight wars over oil? When did someone realize that?
We have known all this for, well, forever. So why are we only now making the push for renewable energy on the battlefield? The Times suggests that recent advances in technology make renewable energy more viable. This tells only a very small part of the story. Most of the renewable energy technologies being used by the military are not based on dramatic technological breakthroughs. If the military had been serious in the past, it could have financed and tested new technologies better than almost anyone else. The Navy Secretary admitted as much: "If the Navy comes knocking, they will build it. The price will come down and the infrastructure will be created."
So why is the military "knocking" on the renewable energy door now? Simple. The war is not ending, and our the competitive advantages on the battlefield from high-tech weapons and communications are far more dependent on energy than ever before. Oil supply convoys have become a very dangerous Achilles heel.
Civilians should take note. Our civilian economy is also far more dependent on energy than ever before. In the future, other countries will compete against us for jobs and growth not on the basis of lower wages, but on the basis of lower energy costs. How competitive will our economy be when we are still paying for oil, coal, and other non-renewable fuels, while other countries are getting 50% or more of their power from sources with almost no ongoing fuel costs such as wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, and nuclear?
A great nation will not wait until we are in a crisis and stalemated on the economic battlefield. If we want to retain our status as a great nation, we must start building sustainable energy infrastructure right now. Let's build a competitive advantage into our economy with energy sources that have no fuel costs. Let's build a society that can say "No" to despotic oil regimes, "Keep your oil because we're not buying it." Let's build a society with a foreign policy focused on promoting our economic interests and our interests in democracy and human rights, instead of one that goes to war to protect access to oil fields.
If the military can do it on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, certainly we can do it from the comfort of home. Let's start right now.
John Howley
Orlando, Florida
www.HowleyGreenEnergy.com
Showing posts with label solar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label solar. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Greece Invests Bailout Billions In Greener Energy
Greece announced today that it will invest 12 billion euros ($15.6 billion) in environmental and energy projects over the next five years. This amounts to more than 10% of the 110 billion euro bailout fund it received from the EU and the IMF. If successful, Greece will get 40% of its electricity from renewable sources within 10 years, compared to only 4% today.
Imagine what 40% renewable electricity could do for an economy and an environment. Yes, it requires a large investment up front, but within 10 years Greece could get a significant portion of its energy needs from sources such as wind and solar that have zero fuel costs. Talk about a competitive advantage. Businesses in other countries will be paying inflated prices per ton of coal or barrel of oil, while Greece will have zero fuel costs for a significant portion of its energy needs.
Considering all the ways IMF bailout funds have been used by countries in the past (where, exactly, did all that money go?), investing in infrastructure that will reduce energy costs and emissions over the long term has to be one of the better plans.
Greece hopes to leverage its investment by attracting an additional 32 billion euros of private sector funding for energy infrastructure projects such as natural gas pipelines and storage terminals. It also hopes to create almost 200,000 new jobs in the process.
This will be fascinating to watch. Getting 40% of electricity from renewable sources and creating jobs over 10 years is not a pipe dream. I wish Greece all the best on this venture….and hope they succeed as an example for the rest of us.
John Howley
Orlando, Florida
www.HowleyGreenEnergy.com
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Windmills on Office Buildings?
Solar panels on office buildings and homes have become almost commonplace. But windmills?That is what SC Johnson is doing at its corporate headquarters in Racine, Wisconsin. The company has launched a wind energy pilot program with the installation of three new wind turbines. The objectives are to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and raise awareness that renewable energy is not just for factories, but also office buildings in urban settings.
The three wind turbines are located on the roof of one of the seven buildings on SC Johnson's international headquarters campus, which has an approximate eight block radius and where more than 1,300 employees work. The wind turbines are expected to be fully functioning by the end of the month. Once fully operational, the turbines will be connected to the company's electrical distribution system. The output they generate will power a small portion of the company's campus.
Admittedly, this is a test project and it is difficult to project how many computers, machines and other basic office resources can be powered by renewable energy. "While we are not sure how much alternative energy these turbines will produce, we expect to have clear, consistent results within a year," said Johnson. "This pilot program will help provide useful information on ways we can develop more sustainable solutions for our campus."
The turbines are expected to be fully installed and connected in late January and will be monitored closely throughout the year. Depending on the impact of the turbine's energy output, it is possible the company will extend the project to additional local SC Johnson facilities.
This is not SC Johnson's first foray into sustainable energy. Its largest global factory, based in Racine, Wisconsin, is partially powered with cogeneration using methane gas from a local public landfill. The company's Bay City, Michigan plant is powered with wind energy, reducing the annual purchase of coal-fired electricity by nearly half. In Indonesia, waste palm shells are burned as a substitute for fuel, using 80 percent less diesel fuel, and in Mijdrecht, The Netherlands, the company's largest European manufacturing facility is operated by an 80 meter-tall wind turbine which is expected to eliminate 3,900 tons of carbon dioxide annually.
Through these efforts, approximately 36 percent of SC Johnson's total electricity usage worldwide came from renewable energy. The company cut GHG emissions at its worldwide factories by 27 percent during the last eight years, including all its United States operations by 17 percent since 2005. These reductions -- achieved three full years ahead of the company's 2011 target -- are the equivalent of taking approximately 11,100 U.S. cars off the road for one year.
John Howley
Orlando, Florida
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
New Jersey Getting 12 More Megawatts of Grid-Connected Solar Power
New Jersey’s largest regulated gas and electric utility is adding 12 megawatts of grid-connected solar energy. PSE&G hopes to start construction at its sites in Edison, Hamilton, Linden and Trenton this spring, with projects completed this summer and fall.
The four ground-mounted solar farms will be among the largest to be developed in New Jersey, with the Hamilton project being the largest in the state and the project in Linden the second largest. All four sites will utilize crystalline solar panel technology and have monitoring and communications functionality.
Together, the four projects will add 48,000 solar panels on 38.2 acres of property. They will produce enough energy to power about 1,300 homes and eliminate some 6,700 tons of CO2 emissions, the equivalent of removing nearly 1,200 cars from the road for one year.
The State of New Jersey has become a leader in solar energy installations in the last few years, installing more than 100 MW of solar energy, making it second only to California in terms of the amount of solar capacity installed.
"We're moving ahead with clean energy projects that will put people to work, installing tens of thousands of solar panels that will help the environment and stimulate the economy," said Ralph LaRossa, president and COO of PSE&G.
The latest projects are part of PSE&G's Solar 4 All program, which was approved by state regulators in July. The program involves a total of $515 million investment in 80 megawatts of solar, creating green jobs and nearly doubling the size of New Jersey's installed solar capacity.
The four ground-mounted solar farms will be among the largest to be developed in New Jersey, with the Hamilton project being the largest in the state and the project in Linden the second largest. All four sites will utilize crystalline solar panel technology and have monitoring and communications functionality.
Together, the four projects will add 48,000 solar panels on 38.2 acres of property. They will produce enough energy to power about 1,300 homes and eliminate some 6,700 tons of CO2 emissions, the equivalent of removing nearly 1,200 cars from the road for one year.
The State of New Jersey has become a leader in solar energy installations in the last few years, installing more than 100 MW of solar energy, making it second only to California in terms of the amount of solar capacity installed.
"We're moving ahead with clean energy projects that will put people to work, installing tens of thousands of solar panels that will help the environment and stimulate the economy," said Ralph LaRossa, president and COO of PSE&G.
The latest projects are part of PSE&G's Solar 4 All program, which was approved by state regulators in July. The program involves a total of $515 million investment in 80 megawatts of solar, creating green jobs and nearly doubling the size of New Jersey's installed solar capacity.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
More Important Than Copenhagen
I told you so.
Four months ago, I predicted that, "Those looking for simple solutions to climate change will be very disappointed by the absence of firm emission reduction targets in Copenhagen later this year. . . . But at the same time, [the US and China] will pursue a second path of cooperation towards achievable solutions with or without an agreement on targets." See US and China Forge a New Path on Climate Change.
That is exactly what the US and China did in Copenhagen yesterday.
Why? Because nothing this important and this complicated ever gets resolved by a committee.
Consider for a moment the race to put a man on the moon. Thomas Friedman and others have said that this should be our model for the Green energy revolution.
I agree. But we did not get to the moon by holding international conventions and listening to dictators and despots like Iran's Ahmadinejad, Zimbabwe's Mugabe, and Venezuela's Chavez lecture us on the evil nature of our plans to be the first to put a man on the moon. Nor did we wait until we could reach the lowest common denominator consensus with Russia, China and 180 other nations on how and when to put a man on the moon.
If we had followed the path of seeking international consensus before we went to the moon, then we probably never would have achieved the goal.
So, now that we have gotten Copenhagen out of our system, let's get down to the serious work of pursuing the Green energy revolution the old fashioned way. With vigorous competition among nations to be the most energy efficient and energy independent economies in the world.
Walmart has given us a good first step. The company has sent out a Sustainability Index survey to 100,000 of its suppliers. The survey asks each supplier to provide information about their carbon footprint, energy and water usage, plans and goals to reduce their carbon footprint, energy consumption and water usage, and other factors that affect the sustainability of their operations. For now, Walmart will review this data internally. But it plans in later stages to release the data to consumers and possibly even disclose a ranking of individual products based on a Sustainability Index for the product and the company that manufactured it.
If you were a factory owner in China, what would provide a better incentive for you to reduce your carbon footprint and use of energy and water? (a) An international treaty that committed China to nation-wide carbon reduction targets over a 20 or 30 year period? Or (b) a Walmart Sustainability Index that made your products unsellable to the world's largest retailer unless you reduced your own company's carbon footprint and use of energy and water?
Forget Copenhagen. We need barriers to entry that will make it difficult for producers around the world to sell their products unless they are made using non-polluting energy sources and sustainable manufacturing practices.
We also need to alter the economics of energy at home. Yes, solar and wind are more expensive than most carbon-emitting alternatives right now. But only because those carbon-emitting alternatives do not pay the full cost of their pollution. If we make coal and oil companies include in their pricing the cost of eliminating their products' emissions (either with cap and trade or a carbon tax), then solar, wind and other non-emitting alternatives would seem very inexpensive by comparison.
Lastly, we need to use government funding and regulations to promote sustainable energy based on the long-term benefits -- just as we did when we used government funds to finance space exploration.
Imagine, for example, if all new construction and renovations in the US had to be "net zero" in terms of direct and indirect carbon emissions. By "net zero" I mean that the amount of energy used by a facility from non-carbon-emitting sources like solar and wind is equal to or exceeds the amount of energy from carbon-emitting sources. This could be accomplished by a combination of building codes requiring higher levels of efficiency in buildings (which many local governments are already imposing) and subsidies for investments in solar, wind and other non-carbon-emitting energy sources.
Yes, this would cost us in the short term. But think for a moment about the competitive advantage this would give us in the longer term. What if five or ten years from now our factories used highly efficient buildings that required less energy, and that energy was supplied by solar and wind plants that had ZERO fuel costs. Our factories would have a tremendous competitive advantage over factories in China and elsewhere that continued to use power generated by coal and petroleum fuels.
I hear all those out there who say that climate issues are different because they transcend borders. But space travel transcended borders too. And we did not succeed with space travel by waiting for everyone to agree. We went out and did it.
John Howley
Woodbridge, New Jersey
Four months ago, I predicted that, "Those looking for simple solutions to climate change will be very disappointed by the absence of firm emission reduction targets in Copenhagen later this year. . . . But at the same time, [the US and China] will pursue a second path of cooperation towards achievable solutions with or without an agreement on targets." See US and China Forge a New Path on Climate Change.
That is exactly what the US and China did in Copenhagen yesterday.
Why? Because nothing this important and this complicated ever gets resolved by a committee.
Consider for a moment the race to put a man on the moon. Thomas Friedman and others have said that this should be our model for the Green energy revolution.
I agree. But we did not get to the moon by holding international conventions and listening to dictators and despots like Iran's Ahmadinejad, Zimbabwe's Mugabe, and Venezuela's Chavez lecture us on the evil nature of our plans to be the first to put a man on the moon. Nor did we wait until we could reach the lowest common denominator consensus with Russia, China and 180 other nations on how and when to put a man on the moon.
If we had followed the path of seeking international consensus before we went to the moon, then we probably never would have achieved the goal.
So, now that we have gotten Copenhagen out of our system, let's get down to the serious work of pursuing the Green energy revolution the old fashioned way. With vigorous competition among nations to be the most energy efficient and energy independent economies in the world.
Walmart has given us a good first step. The company has sent out a Sustainability Index survey to 100,000 of its suppliers. The survey asks each supplier to provide information about their carbon footprint, energy and water usage, plans and goals to reduce their carbon footprint, energy consumption and water usage, and other factors that affect the sustainability of their operations. For now, Walmart will review this data internally. But it plans in later stages to release the data to consumers and possibly even disclose a ranking of individual products based on a Sustainability Index for the product and the company that manufactured it.
If you were a factory owner in China, what would provide a better incentive for you to reduce your carbon footprint and use of energy and water? (a) An international treaty that committed China to nation-wide carbon reduction targets over a 20 or 30 year period? Or (b) a Walmart Sustainability Index that made your products unsellable to the world's largest retailer unless you reduced your own company's carbon footprint and use of energy and water?
Forget Copenhagen. We need barriers to entry that will make it difficult for producers around the world to sell their products unless they are made using non-polluting energy sources and sustainable manufacturing practices.
We also need to alter the economics of energy at home. Yes, solar and wind are more expensive than most carbon-emitting alternatives right now. But only because those carbon-emitting alternatives do not pay the full cost of their pollution. If we make coal and oil companies include in their pricing the cost of eliminating their products' emissions (either with cap and trade or a carbon tax), then solar, wind and other non-emitting alternatives would seem very inexpensive by comparison.
Lastly, we need to use government funding and regulations to promote sustainable energy based on the long-term benefits -- just as we did when we used government funds to finance space exploration.
Imagine, for example, if all new construction and renovations in the US had to be "net zero" in terms of direct and indirect carbon emissions. By "net zero" I mean that the amount of energy used by a facility from non-carbon-emitting sources like solar and wind is equal to or exceeds the amount of energy from carbon-emitting sources. This could be accomplished by a combination of building codes requiring higher levels of efficiency in buildings (which many local governments are already imposing) and subsidies for investments in solar, wind and other non-carbon-emitting energy sources.
Yes, this would cost us in the short term. But think for a moment about the competitive advantage this would give us in the longer term. What if five or ten years from now our factories used highly efficient buildings that required less energy, and that energy was supplied by solar and wind plants that had ZERO fuel costs. Our factories would have a tremendous competitive advantage over factories in China and elsewhere that continued to use power generated by coal and petroleum fuels.
I hear all those out there who say that climate issues are different because they transcend borders. But space travel transcended borders too. And we did not succeed with space travel by waiting for everyone to agree. We went out and did it.
John Howley
Woodbridge, New Jersey
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Of Energy Dreamers, Past and Present
Rich Karlgaard, the publisher of Forbes magazine, writes a column in every issue called “Digital Rules.” He is a very smart guy and, usually at least, very innovative and forward thinking.
I say “usually” because he just missed the boat in his latest blog entry on the future of renewables.
Mr. Karlgaard argues that we are stuck with coal, oil and nuclear as our major sources of electricity in the United States for the foreseeable future. He asserts that “[t]here is no way the U.S. economy can enjoy future prosperity without the big three electrical energy sources of clean coal, natural gas and nuclear.”
Why? Because only 10% of current electricity generation comes from renewable sources, and most of that comes from hydro. Solar and wind provide less than 3% of current electricity generation.
According to Mr. Karlgaard, solar, wind and other renewables cannot possibly meet a significant part of our electricity needs 10 years from now when they are starting from such a small base. His Forbes colleague Ken Fisher agrees, urging investors to “buy into fossil fuels” because they account for “89% of electricity” and “that fraction won’t change dramatically in the next decade.”
As for Thomas Friedman, John Doerr, and others who point to Moore’s Law and argue that renewables will experience the same rapid technological advances as semiconductors if given the right incentives, Karlgaard calls them “dreamers.”
Funny. That’s exactly what they said about Thomas Edison, Nicolas Telsa, and others who set out to build centralized electric power plants in the late 1800’s.
At that time, centralized electric power plants had an even smaller share of the market than renewables have today. In fact, there were only a couple of electric demonstration projects involving only a few hundred streetlights. Gas companies had a virtual monopoly on powering lights in homes and businesses, and the new electric power plants being built had to charge far higher prices than gas. The gas companies also had an existing and very efficient distribution system for their gas, while the electricity dreamers needed to build very expensive copper mains to carry the electricity to customers.
Edison, Telsa, Westinghouse, and the other dreamers who built our current centralized electric generation system also faced a number of very significant barriers beyond price. There was, for example, the fact that the electric motor had not yet been invented. So they were trying to sell electricity before it could be used in factories.
How did the dreamers prevail? Transportation and municipal contracts. The electricity dreamers got their break by building dedicated power plants for new electric streetcars and streetlights.
Once they built a base of electric generating capacity for streetcars and streetlights, the pace of innovation and growth quickened. Innovators began inventing other things to use electricity, including electric motors which revolutionized the economics of running a factory. By 1892 – less than 15 years after Edison’s first streetlight project – General Electric’s capitalization was $50 million. The incredible speed at which centralized electric power plants developed is described in The Power Makers, by Maury Klein:
Woodbridge, New Jersey
I say “usually” because he just missed the boat in his latest blog entry on the future of renewables.
Mr. Karlgaard argues that we are stuck with coal, oil and nuclear as our major sources of electricity in the United States for the foreseeable future. He asserts that “[t]here is no way the U.S. economy can enjoy future prosperity without the big three electrical energy sources of clean coal, natural gas and nuclear.”
Why? Because only 10% of current electricity generation comes from renewable sources, and most of that comes from hydro. Solar and wind provide less than 3% of current electricity generation.
According to Mr. Karlgaard, solar, wind and other renewables cannot possibly meet a significant part of our electricity needs 10 years from now when they are starting from such a small base. His Forbes colleague Ken Fisher agrees, urging investors to “buy into fossil fuels” because they account for “89% of electricity” and “that fraction won’t change dramatically in the next decade.”
As for Thomas Friedman, John Doerr, and others who point to Moore’s Law and argue that renewables will experience the same rapid technological advances as semiconductors if given the right incentives, Karlgaard calls them “dreamers.”
Funny. That’s exactly what they said about Thomas Edison, Nicolas Telsa, and others who set out to build centralized electric power plants in the late 1800’s.
At that time, centralized electric power plants had an even smaller share of the market than renewables have today. In fact, there were only a couple of electric demonstration projects involving only a few hundred streetlights. Gas companies had a virtual monopoly on powering lights in homes and businesses, and the new electric power plants being built had to charge far higher prices than gas. The gas companies also had an existing and very efficient distribution system for their gas, while the electricity dreamers needed to build very expensive copper mains to carry the electricity to customers.
Edison, Telsa, Westinghouse, and the other dreamers who built our current centralized electric generation system also faced a number of very significant barriers beyond price. There was, for example, the fact that the electric motor had not yet been invented. So they were trying to sell electricity before it could be used in factories.
How did the dreamers prevail? Transportation and municipal contracts. The electricity dreamers got their break by building dedicated power plants for new electric streetcars and streetlights.
Once they built a base of electric generating capacity for streetcars and streetlights, the pace of innovation and growth quickened. Innovators began inventing other things to use electricity, including electric motors which revolutionized the economics of running a factory. By 1892 – less than 15 years after Edison’s first streetlight project – General Electric’s capitalization was $50 million. The incredible speed at which centralized electric power plants developed is described in The Power Makers, by Maury Klein:
“By 1900 electricity had become an integral part of American life, especially in cities. Between 1890 and 1905 the output of electric power in the United States increased a hundredfold. By revolutionizing production and manufacturing, electricity made possible the rise of the consumer economy that was to dominate the twentieth century and transform every corner of American life. Already factories consumed more than half of the electricity generated…. Arc lights illuminated the streets of even small towns and flooded with light the avenues of large cities. In 1902, some 51,000 electric streetcars whisked urban passengers along 22,000 miles of track."
Now Messrs. Karlgaard and Fisher may be correct that coal, oil and nuclear will still be significant contributors to our energy mix ten years from now. After all, centralized electric power plants did not force the gas industry into bankruptcy.
But the history of centralized electric power plants suggests that renewables can and will grow at a much faster pace than traditional fossil fuels as sources of electricity. Once started, that pace will accelerate as the competitive advantage of renewables starts having a significant impact on the bottom line.
Think about it. Five years from now, those who invested in solar and wind today will have ZERO fuel costs for that portion of their electricity needs, while those who did not invest in renewables today will still have to pay the cost of fuel for every kWh – and at higher prices than it is paying today. Add in the fact that renewable technologies five years from now will be even more efficient than today, and everyone will be clamoring for renewables. It is easy to see how the tipping point will be reached.
Or has it already been reached? China has just announced that it is constructing a 2 gigawatt solar power plant in Inner Mongolia, the largest solar plant in the world. That is on top of nearly 80 gigawatts of renewable energy that China has already built in recent years. When China has hundreds of gigawatts of fuel-free energy, what country will be able to compete when it must continually pay for fossil fuels to generate 90% of its electricity? More to the point, what country can afford to wait?
Woodbridge, New Jersey
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Distributed Generation? Try Distributed Storage.
One of the hot topics in renewable energy is "distributed generation." If every home and business would install some solar panels or small wind turbines to generate their own electricity, then any excess electricity could be sold back to the grid. Build enough small solar photovoltaic systems and windmills, the theory goes, and we won't have to build as many coal-fired power plants.
Those who support this concept make analogies to the internet, where the computing power and brainpower of numerous individuals and their personal computers can be harnessed via distributed computing and wikis and social networks into something really big and powerful.
Will the same concept work with “distributed generation” of electricity?
Not exactly.
Asa an energy efficiency measure, putting solar panels and wind turbines on individual facilities is a very good idea. It will reduce the need for that facility to draw power from the grid. But for large scale production of electricity and selling back to the grid, distributed generation does not provide the quality control and economies of scale necessary for the efficient generation and distribution of electricity. Let’s look at those two issues:
Power Quality. The internet works by allowing everyone to post whatever information they want, without any initial filter on quality. That won't work on the electric grid.
An efficient power distribution system requires that power quality (voltage, harmonics, etc.) be maintained at all times. That is difficult enough to accomplish with highly variable generation sources such as wind and solar. Every time the wind dies down or clouds start to cover the solar panels in one geographic area, the grid would have to find power elsewhere to maintain adequate voltage levels. That is a very difficult and complicated task when you are dealing with large wind and solar farms. It is even more difficult when the wind and solar power is being supplied by thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of different sources, each with its own variations in power quality.
Economies of Scale. Building small windmills and solar photovoltaic arrays is not very cost efficient. The number of workers required per megawatt -- and the gasoline they will use going from one site to another -- makes this a very inefficient process. And what about maintenance? Can we really afford a renewable energy system that requires maintenance crews to take care of generation capacity that is located at hundreds or thousands of different locations?
Does that mean our electric power systems will continue to be centralized? Yes, but only on the generation side. On the storage side, distributed networks may offer an excellent solution to the problem of matching generation with demand.
The biggest inefficiency in our current electric power system is caused by the need to build excess generation capacity to meet peak demand. Many electric utilities have generators that are used less than 40% of the time. They exist solely to provide extra power when it is needed -- like from 7 am to 7 pm when every office building has its lights, computers, fax machines and HVAC systems turned on. And on that very hot August day when everyone turns on their incredibly inefficient window air-conditioning units at the same time.
Power companies must build enough generating capacity to handle the highest possible peak demand for electricity. When we operate substantially below peak capacity (like, almost every night of the year), that peak capacity goes wasted.
The real problem is not generation, but storage. If we could use that generating capacity at night and store the electricity for the next day, then we would have a truly efficient system.
Fran Lamparello, my good friend and business partner, sees the future of energy storage by looking at the past. Fran has spent his entire working life in different aspects of the energy industry, from designing building controls systems to running a home heating oil distribution business. He envisions a time in the near future when the electric utilities will address energy storage the same way the home heating oil industry did. At the customer's home or business.
By putting storage tanks at each customer's home or business, the oil companies turned their customers into a "distributed storage" network. It was a very efficient system. The distributor could buy home heating fuel during the off season when prices were low, and then store it until the winter. The distributor did not have to pay for storage of large fuel inventories because it could store that inventory at the customer's home or business. Properly sized, an oil tank at the home or business also reduced the number of trips that had to be made to deliver fuel to the customer.
Fran and I predict that you will see the same type of distributed storage system with electricity. As the efficiency and cost of fuel cells and other storage mechanisms for electricity improve, you will see utilities offering to put that storage mechanism on site at the customer's location. It may be in the form of electric cars as Tom Friedman predicts in his book "Hot, Flat, and Crowded," or it may be in the form of fuel cells.
The real value of the internet model for electricity is not “distributed generation.” It is “distributed storage.” Do not put a solar panel on every roof. Put a hydrogen fuel cell in every backyard or basement! Or an electric car in every garage!
John Howley
Manila, Philippines
Those who support this concept make analogies to the internet, where the computing power and brainpower of numerous individuals and their personal computers can be harnessed via distributed computing and wikis and social networks into something really big and powerful.
Will the same concept work with “distributed generation” of electricity?
Not exactly.
Asa an energy efficiency measure, putting solar panels and wind turbines on individual facilities is a very good idea. It will reduce the need for that facility to draw power from the grid. But for large scale production of electricity and selling back to the grid, distributed generation does not provide the quality control and economies of scale necessary for the efficient generation and distribution of electricity. Let’s look at those two issues:
Power Quality. The internet works by allowing everyone to post whatever information they want, without any initial filter on quality. That won't work on the electric grid.
An efficient power distribution system requires that power quality (voltage, harmonics, etc.) be maintained at all times. That is difficult enough to accomplish with highly variable generation sources such as wind and solar. Every time the wind dies down or clouds start to cover the solar panels in one geographic area, the grid would have to find power elsewhere to maintain adequate voltage levels. That is a very difficult and complicated task when you are dealing with large wind and solar farms. It is even more difficult when the wind and solar power is being supplied by thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of different sources, each with its own variations in power quality.
Economies of Scale. Building small windmills and solar photovoltaic arrays is not very cost efficient. The number of workers required per megawatt -- and the gasoline they will use going from one site to another -- makes this a very inefficient process. And what about maintenance? Can we really afford a renewable energy system that requires maintenance crews to take care of generation capacity that is located at hundreds or thousands of different locations?
Does that mean our electric power systems will continue to be centralized? Yes, but only on the generation side. On the storage side, distributed networks may offer an excellent solution to the problem of matching generation with demand.
The biggest inefficiency in our current electric power system is caused by the need to build excess generation capacity to meet peak demand. Many electric utilities have generators that are used less than 40% of the time. They exist solely to provide extra power when it is needed -- like from 7 am to 7 pm when every office building has its lights, computers, fax machines and HVAC systems turned on. And on that very hot August day when everyone turns on their incredibly inefficient window air-conditioning units at the same time.
Power companies must build enough generating capacity to handle the highest possible peak demand for electricity. When we operate substantially below peak capacity (like, almost every night of the year), that peak capacity goes wasted.
The real problem is not generation, but storage. If we could use that generating capacity at night and store the electricity for the next day, then we would have a truly efficient system.
Fran Lamparello, my good friend and business partner, sees the future of energy storage by looking at the past. Fran has spent his entire working life in different aspects of the energy industry, from designing building controls systems to running a home heating oil distribution business. He envisions a time in the near future when the electric utilities will address energy storage the same way the home heating oil industry did. At the customer's home or business.
By putting storage tanks at each customer's home or business, the oil companies turned their customers into a "distributed storage" network. It was a very efficient system. The distributor could buy home heating fuel during the off season when prices were low, and then store it until the winter. The distributor did not have to pay for storage of large fuel inventories because it could store that inventory at the customer's home or business. Properly sized, an oil tank at the home or business also reduced the number of trips that had to be made to deliver fuel to the customer.
Fran and I predict that you will see the same type of distributed storage system with electricity. As the efficiency and cost of fuel cells and other storage mechanisms for electricity improve, you will see utilities offering to put that storage mechanism on site at the customer's location. It may be in the form of electric cars as Tom Friedman predicts in his book "Hot, Flat, and Crowded," or it may be in the form of fuel cells.
The real value of the internet model for electricity is not “distributed generation.” It is “distributed storage.” Do not put a solar panel on every roof. Put a hydrogen fuel cell in every backyard or basement! Or an electric car in every garage!
John Howley
Manila, Philippines
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Free Cooling?
A data center that requires no air-conditioning?
Google has figured out a way to do it. And it is so simple. Locate your data center in a place like Belgium where you can use outside air as “free cooling.”
The concept of “free cooling” – bringing in outside air to cool the inside of a building -- is not new. Building managers in the US and elsewhere have been doing it for decades. By controlling dampers to balance the mix of inside and outside air, building managers can use the “free” outside air to better control temperature, humidity, and air pressure inside buildings without spending money on electricity.
Actually, all of us have done this at one time or another. Like on a Fall day when the sun hitting our windows makes it a little too warm inside, even though the air outside is cool. Instead of turning on the air-conditioning, we just open the window a little. Same concept. “Free” cooling.
All Google has done is take this very basic principle of facility energy management and apply it to complex data centers by adding a dash of information technology and off-shoring. The equipment in data centers generate a lot of heat. By locating them in a cooler climate and carefully managing the amount of cool fresh air coming into the building, Google can control the temperature without needing electricity to generate air-conditioning.
Belgium does have a few days per year (maybe about 7) when the outside air temperature is not cold enough to cool a data center. Google will monitor the weather and outside temperatures. If it gets too warm in Belgium, Google will simply shut down some equipment there (which will reduce the amount of heat being generated inside the data center) and shift some of the work load to other data centers around the world until the weather in Belgium returns to normal.
Now, in complex buildings like data centers, the cooling is not entirely "free." First, you need a building management system to monitor operating conditions inside the building and external data such as weather. Then you need to use the brainpower of facilities engineers to manage the system. But that little bit of data analysis and brainpower leads to tremendous reductions in both energy costs and carbon emissions.
Pretty good results for essentially opening windows.
John Howley
Manila, Philippines
Google has figured out a way to do it. And it is so simple. Locate your data center in a place like Belgium where you can use outside air as “free cooling.”
The concept of “free cooling” – bringing in outside air to cool the inside of a building -- is not new. Building managers in the US and elsewhere have been doing it for decades. By controlling dampers to balance the mix of inside and outside air, building managers can use the “free” outside air to better control temperature, humidity, and air pressure inside buildings without spending money on electricity.
Actually, all of us have done this at one time or another. Like on a Fall day when the sun hitting our windows makes it a little too warm inside, even though the air outside is cool. Instead of turning on the air-conditioning, we just open the window a little. Same concept. “Free” cooling.
All Google has done is take this very basic principle of facility energy management and apply it to complex data centers by adding a dash of information technology and off-shoring. The equipment in data centers generate a lot of heat. By locating them in a cooler climate and carefully managing the amount of cool fresh air coming into the building, Google can control the temperature without needing electricity to generate air-conditioning.
Belgium does have a few days per year (maybe about 7) when the outside air temperature is not cold enough to cool a data center. Google will monitor the weather and outside temperatures. If it gets too warm in Belgium, Google will simply shut down some equipment there (which will reduce the amount of heat being generated inside the data center) and shift some of the work load to other data centers around the world until the weather in Belgium returns to normal.
Now, in complex buildings like data centers, the cooling is not entirely "free." First, you need a building management system to monitor operating conditions inside the building and external data such as weather. Then you need to use the brainpower of facilities engineers to manage the system. But that little bit of data analysis and brainpower leads to tremendous reductions in both energy costs and carbon emissions.
Pretty good results for essentially opening windows.
John Howley
Manila, Philippines
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Solar Panel Glut??
Yesterday's electronic version of the Wall Street Journal had an interesting headline:
"Solar Prices Headed Down on Massive Glut"
The story reports that the "supply of solar panel modules ramped up at the beginning of this year and came into collision with slack demand, sending inventories up 64.3%." (emphasis in original).
Wow! Massive Glut! Inventories increased by 64.3%! That is terrifying! The solar energy industry must be headed for disastrous over-supply and ruin!
Wait a second. What does a 64.3% increase in inventories actually mean?
It means, according to an expert quoted in the WSJ story, "the equivalent of one-and-a-half months of excess inventory."
So, let me get this straight. The Stimulus Bill contains tens of billions of dollars for investments in renewable energy including solar, plus it looks like we will have some sort of "cap and trade" or other carbon reduction legislation in the US that will provide a further incentive to invest in solar, plus the Obama Administration is taking a leadership role in global efforts to reduce carbon emissions which will require more investments in renewables like solar, plus the price of oil is still over $60 per barrel despite the worst global recession in most of our lifetimes -- and who knows where the price of oil will go once we start emerging from recession -- which makes renewables like solar attractive alternatives.
But the solar panel industry is experiencing a "massive glut" because it has one and a half months of excess supply?
Fortunately, solar energy investors have a slightly longer perspective than journalists and financial analysts. That one and a half month excess supply of solar modules will soon be history.
John Howley
Orlando, Florida
"Solar Prices Headed Down on Massive Glut"
The story reports that the "supply of solar panel modules ramped up at the beginning of this year and came into collision with slack demand, sending inventories up 64.3%." (emphasis in original).
Wow! Massive Glut! Inventories increased by 64.3%! That is terrifying! The solar energy industry must be headed for disastrous over-supply and ruin!
Wait a second. What does a 64.3% increase in inventories actually mean?
It means, according to an expert quoted in the WSJ story, "the equivalent of one-and-a-half months of excess inventory."
So, let me get this straight. The Stimulus Bill contains tens of billions of dollars for investments in renewable energy including solar, plus it looks like we will have some sort of "cap and trade" or other carbon reduction legislation in the US that will provide a further incentive to invest in solar, plus the Obama Administration is taking a leadership role in global efforts to reduce carbon emissions which will require more investments in renewables like solar, plus the price of oil is still over $60 per barrel despite the worst global recession in most of our lifetimes -- and who knows where the price of oil will go once we start emerging from recession -- which makes renewables like solar attractive alternatives.
But the solar panel industry is experiencing a "massive glut" because it has one and a half months of excess supply?
Fortunately, solar energy investors have a slightly longer perspective than journalists and financial analysts. That one and a half month excess supply of solar modules will soon be history.
John Howley
Orlando, Florida
Thursday, April 24, 2008
We Are The Solution
Last week I gave a presentation on “Energy Efficiency Best Practices” to more than 100 CEOs of multinational corporations. The presentation began with a disclaimer. I did not intend to talk about alternative energy. I would focus, instead, on energy efficiency. On how companies can dramatically reduce their energy costs -- without changing what they do -- simply by using existing technologies to make their facilities run more efficiently.
Just to be clear, the first slide in my presentation said: “Focus on Efficiency.” Then I ended with the same slide: “Focus on Efficiency.”
What happened during the Q&A session? No one asked about energy efficiency. Instead, every one asked about alternative energy. What about electric cars? What about fuel cells? What about biofuels? What about cellulose? What about solar? What about wind?
Why were they asking about alternative energy? Because we all want to find the magic new technology that will make energy both environmentally friendly and inexpensive. Then we won’t have to do anything ourselves.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m no Luddite. In fact, I firmly believe that over time very smart scientists and engineers will make major breakthroughs that will eliminate our dependence on carbon-based fuels. Just in my lifetime, the microprocessor has revolutionized communications, media, data processing, medical diagnostics, and virtually every aspect of our lives. Once discovered, similar types of breakthroughs in energy and power generation will relegate carbon to the same dustbin of history as the rotary telephone.
But continuing to waste energy while waiting for alternative energy breakthroughs is a bit like continuing to spend recklessly while waiting to hit the lottery. It might happen someday. Maybe not. Even if it does, who knows when.
In the meantime, we have such a simple solution…….and it is us. Simply by taking very basic steps, we can reduce our energy consumption by 20% or more without altering our lifestyles or business practices. And we can do that today with existing technologies that have very short paybacks.
So, please, a little focus on efficiency.
John Howley
Hong Kong
Just to be clear, the first slide in my presentation said: “Focus on Efficiency.” Then I ended with the same slide: “Focus on Efficiency.”
What happened during the Q&A session? No one asked about energy efficiency. Instead, every one asked about alternative energy. What about electric cars? What about fuel cells? What about biofuels? What about cellulose? What about solar? What about wind?
Why were they asking about alternative energy? Because we all want to find the magic new technology that will make energy both environmentally friendly and inexpensive. Then we won’t have to do anything ourselves.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m no Luddite. In fact, I firmly believe that over time very smart scientists and engineers will make major breakthroughs that will eliminate our dependence on carbon-based fuels. Just in my lifetime, the microprocessor has revolutionized communications, media, data processing, medical diagnostics, and virtually every aspect of our lives. Once discovered, similar types of breakthroughs in energy and power generation will relegate carbon to the same dustbin of history as the rotary telephone.
But continuing to waste energy while waiting for alternative energy breakthroughs is a bit like continuing to spend recklessly while waiting to hit the lottery. It might happen someday. Maybe not. Even if it does, who knows when.
In the meantime, we have such a simple solution…….and it is us. Simply by taking very basic steps, we can reduce our energy consumption by 20% or more without altering our lifestyles or business practices. And we can do that today with existing technologies that have very short paybacks.
So, please, a little focus on efficiency.
John Howley
Hong Kong
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)