In your act of reading this, I can make certain assumptions. You have an interest in what might be broadly characterized as ‘not business as usual’. While possible, it is unlikely that your eyeballs got here through a Bing or Google mishap. Most such ‘mishaps’ involve the legal tender. You likely know Craig, or are ‘in circle’ (first three layers) in the six degrees of separation sense made popular by Facebook, et al. Your interest goes beyond the casual, else you would more likely be engaging in such profundities at your favorite watering hole (or equivalent) rather than the blogosphere. (more…)
I made another video using Windows Movie Maker just now, to promote our relationship with SustainableBusiness.com. I take a certain joy in making this videos. I know I’m not Steven Spielberg in film-making, nor James Earl Jones in voice-overs — but it really is fun trying to get this done with reasonably good delivery and no major screw-ups.
I’ve enjoyed getting to know Rona Fried and working with her to co-promote sustainable living products and services. She’s extremely bright, as that Ph.D. after her name suggests, but she’s also very dedicated to the cause. Her website has been a beacon of commitment to environmentalism for 14 years. Impressive stuff.
Continuing my discussion of solar energy from yesterday ….
The intermittent nature of solar energy also raises questions on its feasibility in certain geographies. The Mojave Desert may get a lot of sun, but the same is not true for other parts of the country. Besides, most solar panels convert only 22 percent of the radiations they capture into electric energy. This means that a typical solar farm has to cover a big area to produce electricity in meaningful amounts, such as the one proposed by BrightSource Energy Inc. in Mojave.
The 600,000 acre solar farm never materialized as environmentalists opposed the idea of generating energy inside a national monument.
Even after much research, solar energy cannot solve energy problems singlehandedly. It is necessary to have continuous power supply which in turn means having to store excess energy. Many advances in solar thermal energy technologies are still unable to provide the required supply of strength.
Notwithstanding these issues, supporters claim that the issues aren’t with the technology but the implementation of the solar policies. Lack of a unified national policy is one of them. US has a piecemeal approach for the solar panel installations including different, local incentives on state level. An aggressive stance taken by the Spanish government last year caused a glut in the market. Companies lined up to take advantage of the generous government subsidies in Spain adding 2 GW of electric capacity in just 12 months. However, when the government announced to reduce the subsidies in September 2008, the move caused massive job losses and an eventual bust.
Quite opposite, US hasn’t implemented a unified, central policy. Experts claim that the lack of such a policy isn’t desirable. Instead, a cautious national approach such as the one taken by Germany is the best way to go about the solar equation. The German law requires utility companies to buy energy from solar plants at higher rates and to feed the energy into their grids, ensuring buying guarantees for solar plants. In US, California is one of the states with such a law. The state approved a feed-in tariff policy in October but the need for such a policy at national level is certainly felt in expert circles.
Absence of a national policy has also resulted in solar companies taking advantage of the taxpayer’s money by availing different subsidies from governments for same project. The state of Oregon had to enact new rules last month to make it difficult for companies to qualify for multiple tax credits.
Lately, the performance of solar companies has improved after the financial turmoil. Most of the solar companies have reported improved quarterly financials beating sales and earnings expectations. Although different formats of solar panels are emerging, both crystalline silicon and relatively new thin-film technologies are expected to flourish, crystalline silicon technology is expected to have an upper hand as far as installation on urban rooftops is considered due to higher energy efficiency.
ADRs of the China-based Trina Solar Limited, a monocrystalline PV module manufacturer have run up 46 percent in November. On the other hand, thin-film players might spring a surprise as the technology is blessed with lower cost of production.
In the long run, the emphasis on renewable sources including solar is likely to increase but in the medium term, the popularity of solar energy and other renewable sources is likely to remain a function of the availability of cheaper or easier alternatives.
With the increasing usage of renewable sources for energy generation, solar energy is touted as one of the most readily available renewable sources of energy. It will not be incorrect to say that green energy is in vogue these days as a result of government subsidies. Solar industry has come a long way from being a niche and expensive industry to the one witnessing institutional and retail involvement alike.
Solar energy comes in the form of radiations which are used to produce electricity in addition to heating applications. Silicone based panels are used to collect the radiation. Solar energy is environment friendly because it has virtually zero greenhouse emissions. Primarily, this is the reason that the energy form has been promoted by the government. Barring the initial capital cost, solar energy is maintenance free and doesn’t require any subsequent investment.
The government is encouraging the use of solar energy by giving federal aids to the equipment manufacturers and giving rebates to the end consumers through electric utilities. While the stimulus funds by government drives down the price of the solar panels on the manufacturing side, consumer rebates drive the retail market. In addition, solar photo-voltaic (PV) manufacturers are successfully tapping the capital markets to raise money. Two thin film solar technology companies raised more than US$400 million last week.
Electric utilities in the US have been giving rebates to the customers for installing rooftop solar energy systems. Even with a growing market, increasing consumer interest and rebates, the use of solar energy continues to be small compared to other forms of energy. Solar power generates only about 0.02 percent of the world’s energy supply.
A part of the problem lies with the cost. Traditional economics tells that mass production of a commodity leads to lower costs, but the companies involved in solar panel production have not been able to do so. Although, the production cost of solar panels has been decreasing over years, the industry has faced a new setback in the form of economic slump last year. It has become more expensive for a utility or company to raise capital to build solar projects this year than in the previous years. High cost of financing in this high capital investment industry is the proverbial straw which breaks the camel’s back.
Pressure on the margins has compelled the companies to look for the ways to cut corners. As happened with Evergreen Solar, the company started a facility in Devens, Boston (Massachusetts) this summer with much fanfare and promise to create green jobs. The state helped the facility to the tune of US$58 million only to see around 400 of the newly created jobs being shifted to China. While the company can be accused of backstabbing the government aid in light of having tripled its sales last year, the truth remains that the company lost as much as three times last year due to higher cost.
Quite similar was the fate of a planned facility in Auburn (Massachusetts) by Boston Power Inc. The company was seeking federal aid of US$100 million to build a factory creating 600 jobs. Boston Power, which makes advanced batteries to store energy generated by the solar panels, decided not to invest its own money after it failed to garner support from the government.
More on my coversation with John Hugo on solar thermal, who writes:
Craig: I agree, could not have said it better re: nukes.
Re: the capital intensity of solar thermal, I don’t have a cost estimate on the power block from them and turbine procurement appears to be a problem according to them. But the cost of the mirrors etc. is $99 million for 50 MW pls the power block costs. This compares to $4/watt for PV, or $200 million.
Their system also allows for a gas assist that can run after the sun goes down or during low sun periods. That can add another 25% to capacity and which has the fuel costs of gas, but that’s the same as other gas systems in place now. Better than coal or nukes?
To which I replied:
Dr. Mills, Ausra’s founder, declined to talk (to me, at least) about the cost per Watt, even though I fairly well grilled him on the subject. Perhaps he was just being coy, but according to what he said, the price of steel is incredibly important in making this determination, and that this fluctuates greatly.
Personally, here is what I suspect. An extremely important aspect to keep in mind is that, unlike say wind, the efficiencies of solar thermal are improving every month. As you’ll see in my book’s chapter on the subject (scheduled to be published in March), there are four essentially different technologies here. Dr. Mills declined to say too much about exactly what he’s doing, but it was clear that he was pretty excited by it. The only hint he gave me was that it had to do with bringing a high-temperature (thus high-efficiency, per the principles of thermodynamics) solution to a technology that had previously been thought of as low-temperature.
I’m quite confident that Dr. Mills and his colleagues will be continue to be extremely active in the business; his passion for it is obviously sincere. And I, for one, believe he’s barking up the right tree in terms of a true and comprehensive solution for the world’s energy needs.
I’m sure many readers are aware of the incredible development in solar thermal / CSP (concentrated solar power). French energy giant Areva, which has a large nuclear portfolio, bought Ausra, and says it will use the acquisition to become “the world leader in concentrated solar power.” Here is a discussion I just had with my colleague John Hugo:
John writes:
It’s interesting that they were able to sell with little installed base and no real history of operation. The water cooling operation uses quite a bit of water and the dry version still uses water but much less and output is reduced. They have good people but they are not professional salespeople. …. I think it’s a hedge vs. nuclear which I don’t think will cut it due to the storage issue which has not been solved.
But despite recent political support re: nuclear why do it if you can do solar at less cost?
… and I reply
John:
Yes, this is quite a development, for sure. Here’s my take for what it’s worth:
CSP is extremely capital intensive. Projects require huge piles of cash, and happen only when the underwriting company is strong enough to present a meaningful warranty. I happen to know (based on my interview with the company’s founder David Mills) that Ausra was hungry to partner with (or, apparently, sell to) a company that could make all this happen.
Everything else you write about CSP is correct, if perhaps overstated. It DOES use water for cooling, and there IS a storage issue. There’s also a transmission issue, as the power is generated in the desert. But IMO, these are challenges that can be — and are being — overcome. First and most obviously, there is a good correlation between the sun’s shining and human activity. But more importantly, advancements that are being made constantly in smart grid, high voltage DC, and molten salt energy storage, in my mind at least, make CSP the top bet for our energy future.
On the other hand, I believe that there is no future whatsoever for the nuclear industry. I know there are people who disagree (and that I’ll be hearing from them any minute). But to me, no amount of money and the lobbying, subterfuge, and disinformation it buys will get that industry past the incredible dangers, outrageous costs overruns, and decade-long delays that are intrinsic to the very nature of what they do.
With all their financial (and thus political) strength, I don’t doubt that you’ll continue to hear claptrap about supporting nuclear. There is a word for this: corruption; it’s a regrettable but deeply entrenched part of our daily lives — whether we recognize it or not. But having said this, I very much doubt that you’ll live to see another new nuke actually put into operation in the US.
As promised, here is a description of various technologies and will they be able to support the objective.
Compressed Air
Compressed air is an old technology which consumes off peak energy from a power plant or renewable energy to run air compressors. The air compressor pumps-in air into an underground container where it is stored under pressure. In order to generate electricity, the air is released and it powers a turbine. The advantage of underground compressed air storage is that it can be cheaper than batteries and can store many hours worth of energy.
Whether this option would be able to provide full fledged support for energy remains a question. There are only limited compressed air energy storage projects in the world, including one in Alabama and Germany. This alone clarifies that this way of energy storage is not efficient enough or cannot work for a large project.
Even though it is one of the lowest cost and simplest way to energy storage, there are certain concerns about this technology, as pumping compressed air into underground container has certain environmental and safety concerns due to which not many companies are showing interest in this form of energy storage.
Pumped Water
It is the one of the most common energy storage technology used worldwide. This technology makes use of the potential energy of water to spin a turbine to generate electricity. There are about 90 GW of pumped storages in operation, which contribute about 3 percent of worldwide power generation capacity.
If designed efficiently, they are cost effective in long run and hence widespread especially at high altitude geographies such as hills or plateaus. Moreover, it is a way of power generation and storage with the convenience to generate electricity as and when required. This can be compared with modern hydro power plants.
Its use is limited by geography and other availability of adequate amount of water. When people are having less water to drink, use of recycled water for such projects could be a good option.
Ultra Capacitors
Capacitors have been used to store and produce quick energy, rather than for continued existence, the designers need to be overcome the low discharge times of capacitors. There had been some of the new ultra-capacitors which are getting better in the area of storage but it will take some time before this technology becomes main stream of energy storage.
Flywheels
Flywheels are large discs that function on the principle of inertia. They spin in a vacuum and are used as backup power for an uninterrupted power supply (UPS). Flywheels have to face some bottlenecks in reaching mainstream commercialization including technology development, difficulty finding the right market and competition with batteries and other modes of energy storage. Still, flywheels are getting more attention because they are a non-polluting replacement to the natural-gas plants now used to smooth out short-term fluctuations in grid frequency.
Sodium Sulfur (NAS) Batteries
Sodium Sulfur or “NAS” batteries use simple ingredients — liquid sulfur and salt — and have been used in Japan’s power grid for years. There are over 190 sites and 270 MW of stored energy from NAS batteries in Japan. The technology has found a champion in GE which has over 30 patents in this field. The company plans to manufacture sodium based batteries at its plant. However, usage of sulfur in these batteries has raised a concern as the sulfur stored in the battery explodes when it comes in contact with water.
Flow Batteries
Flow batteries are an old technology that helps to convert chemical energy into electricity. Major advantage of a flow battery is the fast recharge time. The technology is an old one but some entrepreneurs see it as an opportunity. Deeya Energy is an example of a new flow battery startup that recently received funding from DOE.
Fuel cells are the best examples of Flow batteries. Though we are yet unable to take the maximum advantage of Fuel cells, they may become good option for energy storage provided designers and engineers are able to overcome its limitations.
Lead Acid Batteries
Lead acid batteries are a mature form of batteries for energy storage. The technology is relatively cheap and widely available. But the chemistry has its barriers, including lower energy density and heavier weight and often high maintenance.
Lithium ion Batteries
It is one of the most advanced forms of batteries. In comparison with the prevalent lead acid technology, lithium allows for faster charging, lighter weight, and higher energy density and is considered to be the moneymaker of the world battery materials market for years to come. But low comparative availability of lithium and expected rising demands due to use in electric cars have forced manufacturers to look for other options like hydrogen cells and recycling of older lithium ion cells to procure lithium.
According to some reports, utilities will need to generate about 40 GW of energy by 2030. In order to provide power to customers, a total investment of as much as US$2 trillion into transmission and distribution networks will be required. This is just the additional power. There will be even more investment in the software, hardware, and wireless networks to facilitate the power grid to manage all the additional capacity.
Generally speaking, energy storage is economical when the marginal cost of electricity generation becomes more than the costs of storing and retrieving the energy plus the price of energy lost in the process. The designers and manufacturers will have to keep in mind how to get the economies of scale with their way of storage of electricity.
It is important to see under the envelope of smart grid projects. The government is distributing the billions in stimulus funds for the project but the entire issue has over-shadowed the need of a smart grid. Do we really need a smart grid?
Is the current grid which has been operating for more than 100 years so dumb to be replaced without being given a fair chance of survival? Let’s think about it!
The Obama administration declared year 2009 as the one dedicated to ‘Smart Grids.’ There has been lot of hue and cry turning the electrical grids into a modern network that runs with the help of microprocessors and software to work efficiently. While almost every product mankind is using has undergone a technological overhaul, electric grids continue to be based on a more than 100 year old technology. Energy experts claim that substantial energy saving can be achieved if customers have micro level details about the energy consumption. Add to it, renewable energy sources can also provide additional energy to the grid.
The Department of Energy (DOE) awarded millions in stimulus funds to companies to demonstrate ‘smart’ electric grid systems and energy storage projects. DOE is encouraging battery makers among other players to demonstrate that power grids may store energy for the ‘right’ time.
Within the discussion about Smart Grid, energy storage is often ignored. Recently, in a conference, the issue came up that finding entrepreneurs with lasting focus and innovative ideas in grid energy storage is a difficult task. A small number of battery makers in US have been emphasizing on the market of electric and hybrid vehicles. The energy storage for grids has been an issue and by deriving idea from these battery makers in US, it was decided that stimulus funds should be given to battery makers in a hope to find the solution for energy storage for grids as well.
This leads to the perennial question – is installing batteries a feasible solution for storing energy at grid scale? While the technology might work effectively in some cases including electric and hybrid vehicles, experts point that grid scale energy storage is a different ballgame with requirements of high energy density of the storage material.
DOE has announced US$620 million in stimulus funding for 32 smart grid programs, which will be coupled with another US$1 billion in private money. A total of US$770 million from government and industry sources in the next few years will go to energy storage, giving a number of storage technologies a chance to prove their worth.
Out of the total 32 projects, 16 are related to demonstration of energy storage technologies and to add digital intelligence to the grid that will help to integrate various power grids and storages. It is surprising that the list of various energy storage technologies includes compressed air and flow batteries which had been rarely discussed. It is unlikely that all the DOE-aided projects will prove to be commercially viable. A number of start-ups are developing technologies they hope can address a specific storage application.
Tomorrow, I’ll post something to describe various technologies and offer my opinion on their ability to support the objective.
We’ve all had that feeling of exultation as we realize we’re in the home stretch of something that’s been a true odyssey in our lives — perhaps the end of final exams or the last few points of a marathon sports content. That’s certainly the way I feel about this book I’m finishing up on renewables. With every interview transcript I edit, I’m that much closer to having this project — and this phase of my life — behind me.
I have to say that reading over each interview provides me with a new opportunity to learn from the speaker. And if I’ve done anything right on this project, it was certainly choosing people to interview who had something to offer: Nobel prize laureates, great authors, industrialists, humanitarians, researchers, educators, and presidential appointees. By the way, let me again thank 2GreenEnergy readers for the wonderful suggestions they made along these lines. I’ve learned a great deal from every single one of these talks.
In a way, I’ll miss this project when it’s gone — just like, as a reader, coming to the end of a great novel. In a way you’re somewhat relieved to have your life back, but in a way, you’re sorry to see the journey come to an end.
More comments from Anil on “clean coal” companies ….
Arch Coal
The company is the second largest coal dealer in the US. Arch performed well in the third quarter than in the second quarter because of increased demand for metallurgical coal in Central part of the US. The performance was boosted by the company’s successful cost control measures. The US government wants power plants to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by nearly 60 percent below the year 2003 level by the year 2015. Arch is contributing in this initiative by helping in reduction of mining and clean burning of low sulfur coal for generation of electricity.
Massey Energy
In terms of revenue the company is the fourth largest producer of coal. The company is a large coal extractor in the US with substantial operations in West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky and Virginia. The company, with the help of subsidiaries produces and sells bituminous coal majorly in the US. Massey produces high quality and low sulfur coal as the trend is moving towards clean coal for both metallurgical and industrial purposes.
CONSOL Energy
The company is the fifth largest producer of coal. The CNX’s coal has the advantage of burning faster than other coal but it contains higher percentage of sulfur. The clean coal movement became a disadvantage for the company. The company is charging higher price for clean coal.
Yanzhou Coal Mining Company
The company is primarily owned by Yankuang Group. The company is a coal mining company in Mainland of China. Yanzhou is engaged in the underground coal mining as well as preparation, processing, sale and railway transportation of coal. The company’s coal is low on sulfur which is quite suitable for a big power plant. The low content of sulfur helps them to produce cleaner coal.
Acorn Energy
The company is quite a low profile company. Acorn works through the subsidiaries and operates as an energy infrastructure company. The company offers cleaning, rejuvenation and regeneration technologies that acts as a catalyst. The company offers services to coal fired power plants that are using systems to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from coal. The company as well as subsidiary, Coalogix technology shares are doing very well in the market and will continue to do so.
There are many other companies that are directly or indirectly been benefitted by clean coal. The Chevron Corporation is the second largest energy company and among the top oil companies in the US. Sensing the need of the hour, the company has entered in the market of clean coal partnering with Penn State University Institutes of Energy and Environment with a motive to develop clean coal power. The companies that are associated with coal will also benefit from the initiative. These companies own infrastructure ranging from mining machinery to railway transportation, and include companies such as Joy Mining Machines, Union Pacific, and Burlington Northern Santa Fe.
The coal is also used in majority of steel production and many companies use coal power, such as Corus Group, US Steel and Nucor. Although short term cost will increase as clean coal technology is expensive, still in the long run clean coal will help the coal industry to stand a chance in the rat race of clean energy sources.
Alternative energy companies will be at a disadvantage with the advent of clean coal. Solar companies such as Suntech and many other may lose their market share. Not only solar companies but other companies working on alternative sources of energy such as Suzlon, BP, Exelon, and Siemens will be affected.
There has been lot written about and talked about clean coal technology but it is still a matter of debate that “cleaner coal” is a reality or is it just to mitigate the threat which was overshadowing the coal industry. There are a lot of risks are involved with the technology, may it be a technological risk or capital cost burden. Despite of clean coal technology, coal will continue to attract environmental opposition. It is imperative to assess the industry properly before investing for the long term as the companies are doing well to reap the short term benefits.
Continuing my discussion of solar energy from yesterday ….
More on my coversation with John Hugo on solar thermal, who writes:
As promised, here is a description of various technologies and will they be able to support the objective.
We’ve all had that feeling of exultation as we realize we’re in the home stretch of something that’s been a true odyssey in our lives — perhaps the end of final exams or the last few points of a marathon sports content. That’s certainly the way I feel about this book I’m finishing up on renewables. With every interview transcript I edit, I’m that much closer to having this project — and this phase of my life — behind me. 
