[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0TnJz8HWtA&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&border=1]
Sam Smith, of EV World Associates (an organization of which I’m a part) talks to me about electric vehicles and their history on a recent episode of the 2GreenEnergy Report.
We all share a deep sadness and disgust over the Gulf oil spill. Of course, the pragmatists among us are less interested in affixing blame than we are in resolving the issue, and ultimately containing and cleaning up the mess. To this end, I have to say that I find a few aspects of this particularly troubling:
We seem to have little interest in reaching out to other countries (Norway, The Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, etc.) that have extensive experience in dealing with crises like this.
We are wrapped tight in red tape from the Army Corps of Engineers and OSHA, hobbling our efforts to stop the disaster.
President Obama: I know you’re trying your best to demonstrate leadership in this terrible moment in human history; we all recognize and appreciate that. But I urge you to understand that this is not business as usual, and take bold steps based on the points above. Bypass the deeply entrenched jingoistic and bureaucratic jungle in the federal government, and get the job done.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0Bc1eDlqmI&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1]
Here’s another segment of a recent episode of the 2GreenEnergy Report in which Paul Scott of Plug-in America discusses electric transportation with me. Here, he talks about the environmental trade-offs represented by electric vehicles.
The Ammonia Fuel Network’s Executive Direct John Holbrook was good enough to send me a few DVD’s in which Bill Leighty made presentations on the numbers that surround ammonia a fuel. I was struck by a number of things.
First, Bill is a consummate presenter to an academic audience. He’s measured, rational, and extremely credible – without a hint of bombast – or really any effort to use emotion to convince the audience of anything at all. Even in a subject matter in which the entire survival of our species is at stake, Bill just plows though the material as if he were discussing Hannibal and the Punic Wars. This dispassionate approach carries into the choices he makes to frame the discussion of the imperative to move to renewables. “We only have 200 years of coal left,” he says, choosing an indisputable but fairly unexciting fact. It was as if, if we only had more coal, everything would be just fine. I would have been up there waving my arms and talking about Chernobyl, skyrocketing cancer rates, global climate change, and empowering terrorists. I could almost Bill thinking: I could do that too. But why?
Second, I realize that I’ve been a bit glib about energy storage and transmission. Although there is very little discussion here about concentrated solar power and molten salt energy storage, there is considerable exposition on the cost of electricity transmission – which is considerable. I began to realize how challenging all this HVDC grid build out really is, given the costs, the NIMBY (not in my backyard) effect, and the consequent political and legal difficulties.
An elegant solution here would be one that addressed several different problems in one. And I challenge anyone to review these presentations and not be impressed with the elegance with which liquid ammonia offers a reasonably low-cost answer to the challenges we will ultimately face as the penetration of renewables grows larger and the issue of firming (delivered reliable power, 24 hours per day, 365 days per year) becomes more thorny. We have about 20 GW of wind installed in the US today, representing about 2% of our total capacity. And already the wind industry to running out of places to plug its power into the grid. Without a solution to store and transport that energy, the renewables industry will quickly hit a wall – and ammonia just may be the answer.
If you’re interested in the presentations, please let me know.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTshDVcn214&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1]
Sam Smith explained the mission of EV World Associates on a recent episode of the 2GreenEnergy report. The organization provides consulting services to a wide range of companies in renewable energy and electric transportation.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpF8bG4VPnc&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1]
Sam Smith of EV World Associates spoke with me on the 2GreenEnergy Report recently, and began by explaining how conservatism and environmentalism are compatible.
As I mentioned on Renewable Energy World, I take great pleasure in announcing a victory for the good guys in energy over the bad. California voters – I among them – defeated “Proposition 16” – signifying our outrage at Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E — a utility serving about 20 million people) to attempt to buy further monopolistic control of the state energy marketplace. The attempt was so brazen that voters easily saw the truth: the sole supporter and sole beneficiary of Prop 16 would have been PG&E itself.
“PG&E is a force for evil,” a San Francisco graduate student said. “I bundle up. I wear three sweaters, two hats and do jumping jacks before I will turn on the heat. I hate them. They are awful. And I’m a Buddhist. I don’t usually talk like this.”
Well, my friend, I’m not a Buddhist – in fact, I talk and write like this pretty-much constantly. And you’re right; they really are awful.
But despite the cash, justice has been served – at least this one time.
The chapter of the book Renewable Energy — Facts and Fantasies entitled “The Role of the Media in Clean Energy” is a transcript of the interview with Stephen Lacey on this subject.
Quote:
I’m a renewable energy pragmatist.
Bio:
Stephen Lacey is an editor with RenewableEnergyWorld.com. He produces and hosts the Inside Renewable Energy podcast, a weekly news program that gets over 60,000 downloads each month. Covering new technologies, international markets and business trends, Inside Renewable Energy gives a comprehensive overview of the latest developments in clean energy. The podcast was a finalist in the “best webcast” category for the 2009 NEAL awards — considered the “pulitzer prize of business journalism.” Stephen also writes features, posts blogs and produces multi-media stories for RenewableEnergyWorld.com and contributes articles to various magazines.
About Renewable Energy World:
RenewableEnergyWorld.com was started in 1998 by a group of Renewable Energy professionals who wanted their work to relate to their passion for renewable energy. With this passion and the desire to create a long term sustainable business, we have created perhaps the single most recognized and trusted source for Renewable Energy News and Information on the Internet.
At RenewableEnergyWorld.com we do our best to provide you with access to Renewable Energy-focused services, including: news, products, events, jobs and brand building.
By offering extraordinary services via the Internet, our foremost mission is to inform our readers about the use of Renewable Energy worldwide and, in the process, assist you with decision making when it comes to anything related to Renewable Energy.
A “Must-Read”
Here’s a really good critique on how journalists cover climate change.
Other Links:
Here are a few links where those interested can lean more:
Podcast: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/podcast
Video: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/video
Stephen’s personal page at Renewable Energy World:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/u/StephenLacey
As I noted in today’s Writer’s Almanac by Garrison Keillor, it’s the birthday of the biologist E. O. Wilson, who reminds us: “Destroying rainforest for economic gain is like burning a Renaissance painting to cook a meal.”
Ask and ye shall receive. I happened to mention that I’d like a bit more information on ammonia as fuel – and moments later I got that information in spades. In particular, I had been wondering why more people weren’t studying this subject, given its potential to resolve so many of our energy problems — and the floodgates opened.
The nature of the opportunity is coming into focus — but so is the scope of the challenges: the clean energy “triumvirate” as I call them – the technology, the economics, and the politics surrounding the migration to renewables. It’s clear that ammonia must find its way across significant hurdles in all three.
Helping me come to a better understanding of all this was John Holbrook, a man who wears many hats when it comes to this fascinating subject, including his role as the executive director of the non-profit Ammonia Fuel Network. Though John is acutely aware of the challenges presented by big money and big politics, his main focus is the technology – in particular, the development of Solid State Ammonia Synthesis or SSAS – a process of creating ammonia out of water and atmospheric nitrogen such that no expensive, energy-intensive electrolyzers or high pressures are required.
But the clean and inexpensive formulation of ammonia is just one of a few important chasms to be crossed. What about distribution and consumption? There are thousands of miles of ammonia pipeline already in place — and there are 800 NH3 “fueling stations” (fertilizer outlets) in Iowa alone — but, like hydrogen or EV charging stations, we’re not exactly right around the corner from having safe and ubiquitous dispensers to fill up our cars with liquid ammonia.
And let’s not ignore the political challenges. Imagine for a moment that John and the other high-level minds working on this problem are successful, that the technology is fully in place, and that we could, if we wanted to, formulate huge supplies of safe and inexpensive ammonia. Now, realize that this fuel you will be producing is regarded by neither the US Department of Energy nor the Environmental Protection Agency as a fuel at all. DOE recognizes NH3 as a hydrogen carrier — not a direct fuel. But, since DOE has discouraged the idea of on-board vehicle generation of H2 (“on-board reforming), DOE has no use for NH3, which is the universe’s best hydrogen carrier — all punctuated by DOE’s dismissive white paper of 2006.
Bottom line: You have a product with no demand. Your breakthrough — even when you make it happen — is like launching the I-Pad — in 1958. You have a world in which there is very little capital — financial or political — behind ammonia as fuel — in both the public and private sectors.
But John remains upbeat: “I’ve learned to be patient. And hey, we’re making progress. Matt Simmons is a great example.”
Though he’s right, what we have here in essence is a huge educational challenge. My fondest hope is that John and his people align themselves with someone with a proven track-record in marketing, which I define as “the ability to communicate value.” We can formulate and deliver ammonia. But can we formulate and deliver the story that will make this breakthrough meaningful? We’ll have to wait and see.
