To Tree Hug or not to Tree Hug? That is the question...

Sometimes we run into situations in life where its too late to undo what has been done and the only thing left is to chose between the "lesser evil" option.

If you are at a friends house and accidentally run into a large ceramic vase and the vase breaks. You can't undo what you did, the options left are: 1- to compensate for the loss by buying or paying for a substitute or 2- to piece the vase back together and somehow glue it back into shape. Either choice yields a bad result, but sadly, there is no way to go back in time and undo the damage.

I have talked to people across the "tree hugger" spectrum. People who believe "mother earth" is hurting and "she" needs our love and caring attention. And people who say that climate change is nonsense and that we are not impacting nature in any way by just going on with our lives.

We will only know the reality of today's status when we see the consequences in the future, and by then, it will be too late to change the result.

So let's try to make sense out of what we have today. Does Greentech stand a chance to help us avoid running into a unwanted "point-of-no-return" scenario?

I have said it many times: Greentech has to have economic feasibility. The cost of solar power has to match the cost of coal power. But, who says the cost should only represent materials plus labor. What about cost of public health. What about the cost of losing our bees (read this article Group Sounds Alarm on European Bee Industry)

The other factors we need to take into account when we compare Greentech to existing sources of Energy, Water and Waste Management are (a) the Economies of Scale and (b) the Research & Development amortization.

For example: A coal burning plant has several choices of vendors for their equipment (the risk of building a plant and getting it wrong are minimal); the sources of coal are well established and we know how to exploit them; the electric grid is designed to receive electricity from this type of source, etc. Today's entire world is set-up to generate energy from carbon. On top of all this, the majority of the cost of R&D for coal energy has been already paid for (as well as the cost of R&D for cars that run on oil, classical waste treatment methods, etc.).

Greentech will need a "boost" to achieve a competitive level with the existing technologies. Not only do we need to artificially create Economies of Scale for the replacement of coal plants, but we will also have to find a way to offset the cost R&D. That is why the CEO of Duke Energy agrees that coal is very bad for the environment and we need to substitute it, but he is not taking concrete steps to achieve that. Watch this:

Perhaps we are taking the correct steps to avoid running into a point-of-no-return situation (see Clinton Says U.S. Is Ready to Lead on Climate). I just want to leave you with the following thought: even though many people disagree on what happens after you die, few are willing to take the step to find out.

Here are some interesting comments I received for Who is holding Greentech back?:

"I don't believe it is who but what.
Any investment unless it is an emotional decision comes down to payback. Many green investments don't payback within many financial investor's needed timeframe.
With that said, I believe many are getting close."

"The banks or investors must check the results… that's why, good scientific consultants are required in financial business!!!!"

"So much for the great American Capitalistic system. This kind of environment is no more no less than the same economic mine field that was created around the sub prime mortgage fiasco and no one even wants to discuss it.
What has to happen is that a completely new means of funding has to be created to support viable technologies that are waiting in the wings. This could be done on the same level as what was done in the oil and gas industry with the “Royalty Trust Agreements” or some other financial instrument along those lines that reward the investors based on “PRODUCTION” derived from the process output and the effectiveness of the product in the market place"

"Wow, you really hit the nail on the head. Entrepreneurs like me who have risked so much to create a new technology are being hung out to dry by the more comfortably situated. Real entrepreneurs who risk their own money and careers (not the cushy kind who step right into a paid position with a startup) are treated as irresponsible and reckless"

"Of course oil companies are going to try to stomp out greentech... it is very much hitting them where it hurts...their money. The greentech companies have to infiltrate by really selling themselves with the saving money pitch. I know this may sound like it goes against what greentech is about but you need to speak in the language of big business. If you can go into a hotel chain and tell them your innovation will save them big bucks they will listen and in fact they just might invest in your greentech company"

"Cheap fossil fuels"

"You are correct the decision makers do not have enough information to define what is green or what is brown...they have a lot of hype...and perceptions that are incorrect"

"The Greentech bank is an interesting idea. The US has the resources to become a world leader in the alternative energy space"

"I love it. And it’s even worse if you are not developing a widget. My Energy Credit Card has a business method patent. My customers will be electric utilities and the closer I get to those "decision makers" the more entrenched they are and/or just plain scared of the simplicity of the Energy Credit Card.
For the curious, here is a short video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBDZUQQLRBs"

"It is not just the credit markets that are holding Greentech back. Two other candidates are government and the consulting engineering industry"

"Maybe the answer is to learn to do a better job of educating the current crop of money people about the value of taking risks in such areas and/or doing a better job of demonstrating long-term benefits"

Until next time: SHALOM!

Who is holding Greentech back?

"He who is firmly seated in authority soon learns to think security, and not progress, the highest lesson of statecraft" James Russell Lowell

If you want to know what else is wrong about today's economic model, you have to talk to any entrepreneur who is trying to implement a new Greentech initiative in a commercial scale.

The logical general path of a new product or service towards market implementation is the following:(1) An idea is conceived;(2) The concept is proven;(3) The product or service is launched to the market. Generally speaking, almost any new product that addresses a big enough market requires a big capital injection at the time of launch to market. Most of the companies seek this capital from banks and financial institutions.

The problem with this sources of capital is that they are very risk averse (now, even more that before!). Therefore, the decision maker for lending money towards a new Greentech product or service will be intrinsically against taking a risk on a new technology, even if that technology represents higher margins, and more so if that technology "only" represents lower carbon emissions.

Think about a new solar cell that is able to generate 5 times more electricity than classical cells being used nowadays. Lets assume that the product has been tested and proven worthy of initial investment. When this product is proposed for a large solar field to generate electricity for an entire town the project is presented to the banks. The bank's loan committee will look at this loan and will try to asses their risk. Someone will ask "has anyone proven these cells for a lifespan of 20 years, which is the loan period we are considering?". A long silence will follow until someone answers "we are not sure how these cells will behave past their first year of life, which is what was tested so far". What do you think the outcome of the loan committee will be?

A similar problem occurs with regulators. When a new greentech product is trying to get into the market is up to the regulators to provide a permit for this product to be commercially feasible. These regulators are also risk averse, at the end of the day they don't get any reward for approving better technologies, but they get punished for approving faulty ones!

To summarize, the lending committees of the world and the regulators are setting the limits to the type of technology we can access. This severely skews the outcome of the technologies being developed and presented to solve today's energy, water and waste management problems. I PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING: LET'S BUILD THE GREENTECH BANK, hire experts in each field to really asses the possible risks of each technology and let's give financial backing to the technologies that deserve to be launched (and hope regulators will follow suit).

Here are some comments I received from The Good News, the Bad News and the Ugly News:

I am sorry, your point escapes me, even after reading your blog. What are you trying to say here? We need to be thinking in terms of substantial changes in the supply of types of energies and the methods of delivering those supplies that are economic and feasible. Man, that is a life-altering experience. Greentech is still a pipe-dream with wet diapers.

Interesting and relevant news. Consistent with what I am seeing. The economy has certainly slowed (but not stopped)

Provide more capital to small start ups - there are thousands of people out there in garages - we do not need the big to protect the markets and have it their way - at one point there were 200 car companies - same here - protect the small and help them grow

Comments from The obstacles to Alternative Energy implementation are in our heads. Are they?:

That's only part of the problem. The other problem is that we are too rich, so we don't give a damn, and can throw away hundreds of dollars per month without even knowing it. The conscious people are satisfied with talking the talk and walking the walk for themselves

The barriers to entry in the Energy Market are in your mind in this respect -- Don't allow anyone person, company & entity to impede your progress. If you provide smart business answers, the volume will follow

I do not think you are wrong, but is the green or alternative energy infrastructure large enough to be part of the mainstream?

Why don't we spend time and money coming up with ideas to use wisely the energy supplied by renewable energies. If we do not have electricity for one hour or a couple of hours, do we die? No, so many millions in the world do not have and they live every day. Mr Shiro is completely right. It is our own brain, which is creating the problem

Really big obstacles exist, I am currently making suggestions to my local Politician to asses and draw up protective outlines to govern the hapless new wave of installers and dealers of this new technology. Residential involvement seems to want more guidelines on how new dealers with almost no experience can suddenly appear out of nowhere and work on your home or office for a high dollar price. Where will this lead? Homeowners dealing with a nightmare of no set rules and guidelines orchestrating the professional as these newbies call themselves without getting proper identification, certification, licensing and insurance to facilitate these constituents of our local, state, or even federal areas. New dealers are not the only problem; New manufacturers are also popping up and claiming remarkable and physical science impossibility with these products. These New Manufacturers also need to make sure that they express that there systems only work at these outputs, and that the material has been reviewed by either DOE or NREL and certified by UL or consumer reports. We set up rules and guidelines to safe guard our peoples vehicles they ride in in the United States. If you build a car that does not meet the DOT crash standards for instance; it will not be sold to the people. This same concept is what I am proposing to the renewable energy field

Until next time: SHALOM!

The Good News, the Bad News and the Ugly News

As I flip the pages of the New York times in days past I have encountered the following articles:

Article #1

Not So Green After All (Oil Giants Loath to Follow Obama’s Green Lead)

The Obama administration wants to reduce oil consumption, increase renewable energy supplies and cut carbon dioxide emissions in the most ambitious transformation of energy policy in a generation.

But the world’s oil giants are not convinced that it will work. Even as Washington goes into a frenzy over energy, many of the oil companies are staying on the sidelines, balking at investing in new technologies favored by the president, or even straying from commitments they had already made.

Comment

The UGLY NEWS: is that greentech is finding it's toughest obstacles. Traditional businesses are protecting their ground and many big players are reducing their exposure to new technologies. It is only logical that many companies, having to reduce costs and to concentrate on their existing operations lose sight of potential opportunities in the future.

Article #2

Cost Works Against Alternative and Renewable Energy Sources in Time of Recession

Windmills and solar panel arrays have become symbols of America’s growing interest in alternative energy. Yet as Congress begins debating new rules to restrict carbon dioxide emissions and promote electricity produced from renewable sources, an underlying question is how much more Americans will be willing to pay to harness the wind and the sun.

Comment

The BAD NEWS: is that Greentech will have to become more cost competitive in the near future. Declining world consumption and energy prices will act as a much stronger filter of Greentech products and services. Only the very competitive and the ones that have the soundest commercialization plans will be able to survive in this economy.

Article #3

A Tiny Camcorder Has a Big Payday

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — Pure Digital Technologies thought small and simple, and it paid off big time.

The tiny, eight-year-old start-up famed for its inexpensive and easy to use Flip video cameras has defeated a down economy. On Thursday, the 100-person company was bought by Cisco Systems, a technology infrastructure giant, for $590 million in stock. The deal caps off a bumpy and unpredictable rise for Pure Digital, which bested the Asian companies that dominate the camera industry from an office located above the Gump’s department store in the heart of San Francisco.

“At a time when everybody has just been hammered with stories of misery, this is a really fabulous tale of what is possible against all odds,” said Michael Moritz, a venture capitalist at Sequoia Capital, which invested in Pure Digital.

Comment

The GOOD NEWS: There are still winners out there! If Pure Digital can make it big so can others in the Greentech sector. The path towards greentech implementation has become steeper, but the finish line is still achievable.

Article #4

At U.N. Talks on Climate, Plans by U.S. Raise Qualms

BONN, Germany — At the start of the United Nations climate talks here 12 days ago, the Obama administration’s chief climate negotiator, Todd Stern, received a round of rowdy applause. It was the first appearance of the new negotiating team at any global meeting.

But by Wednesday, as the meetings drew to a close, some delegates — and even some United Nations officials — were grumbling that the United States was not moving fast enough to take action on global warming.

Comment

More GOOD NEWS: Unlike the experience of the 80's when price of Oil went back down (after a tremendous increase) and all greentech initiatives were thrown out the window, this time around there is a strong commitment towards climate change and clean technologies. The conversation has turned from "are we doing something?" into "are we doing enough?"

Until next time: SHALOM! (for those of you who celebrate: Happy Passover)

The obstacles to Alternative Energy implementation are in our heads. Are they?

Everybody is talking about how the economy is affecting the inertia of Greentech by (a) limiting investment and (b) having to compete with lower fuel costs

I believe that we are closer to implementable solutions than what most people think and I will try to make the calculations to prove this point. Please feel free to correct me wherever you think I might be wrong (I am no expert on this specific subject).

The average home in the US consumed 936 kWh per month in 2007 (according to the US Department of Energy), that represents $99.70 spent per month in electricity ($1,196.40 per year).

If we were to buy an alternative energy technology we could spend in that technology the equivalent capital for which annual payments equal $1,196.40 (for interest and principal – mortgage style)

Let’s assume we can get a loan at 4% for 20 years. The capital for annual payments of $1,196.40 at 4% over 20 years is $16,259.47 (at the end of 20 years the debt will be zero).

Now, let's see what we can afford with this money!

Perhaps we could buy a wind turbine. In order to calculate the capacity (and the cost) of a turbine able to cover 100% of our energy needs we need to bring the monthly kWh into a 10 hour day wind energy production. Therefore, 936 kWh divided by 30 days gives us 31.2 kWh per day. We then divide by 10 hours and obtain 3.12 kWh (per hour). In short, we need to generate 3.12 kWh for 10 hours every day to cover 100% of our electricity needs (this is achievable in almost any state with wind turbines that have a 5 m/s or 11MPH minimum wind capacity)

After a lot of web searching I found that the cost of a 3.5 kW wind turbine runs around the $12,000 mark (installed). There are additional charges for maintenance, but the "extra" $4,259.47 (remember we had $16,259.47 as total capital available) should more than suffice for those expenses.

An alternative for the wind turbine is solar power. In this case we need to convert the 31.2 kWh per day into 5 hour days of sun. Therefore, we need 6.24 kW solar panels tied to the grid (31.2 kWh per day divided by 5). According to my research these will run for around $40,000 ($23,740.53 over our budget)

But wait! We have not counted the rebates and incentives we could get from state and federal entities. I do not have enough time or energy to calculate the applicable rebates, because each county and each state and each technology has a different rebate quantity and procedure. I will risk saying that the available rebates range between 20% to 50% (perhaps making the solar panels affordable!)

Can the same principle be applied to water? Could we start by calculating the cost of water and sewer in a typical house and then find technologies that could replace either the water sourcing or the waste water removal service? The answer: I don’t know (perhaps I will explore this in a future article)

Some of the comments I got from last week's Energy Storage:

"I believe pumped-storage hydroelectric has and is being used. I remember Northfield Mountain in Massachusetts being the first that I had ever seen. Here's a Wikipedia link describing the technology and current sites using it: click"

"The gravity part is the easy part, I suspect. You will need to either find a natural land formation where you can store the water, OR, you will have to build a vessel. Perhaps that is the hidden cost. Also, you have to consider the efficiency of the system... First the primary renewable energy source cost and efficiency, then the pumping uphill efficiency, and finally, your hydro-electric generator efficiency -- that is a lot of steps and the overall efficiency, which is multiplicative, perhaps turns out to be dishearteningly low."

"This approach was implemented in Bath County, Virginia back in the 70's. It apparently worked quite well. However, it was implemented to utilize the electricity produced by coal fired turbine plants who produce a steady stream of power by day and by night, but where consumption was lower at night. So, they kept the plant at the same production level at night and used the electricity to pump the water back up the mountain above the hydro electric plant."

"The pumped hydro system suffers when you increase the scale. As the volume of water increases, the system becomes more expensive"

"That is what is being planned for Norway where there is a large hydro power industry - they are looking at having offshore wind turbines working continuously to drive pumps to release the power for peak shaving in Europe thru interconnectors."

"Last weekend I heared about a Spanish project were they haul up on a slope an 80 ton heavy concrete block when the wind was blowing, letting it make electricity when there was no wind! It is like the old clocks were you wind up the weight every day"

" It only makes sense when there are significant elevation changes, and most solar and wind farms are in the flat lands"

"1 cubic meter at the top of a 100 meter tower has a potential energy of about 0.272 kW·h for example lead-acid has power density around 100W/liter"

"A number of companies are looking at this, as well as compressed gas storage, flow batteries, etc. It looks like the maximum efficiency for pumped hydro is between 70% and 80%. Initial capital outlay for building the facility is high. It all depends on the price of fossil fuels and carbon credits..."

"Pumped hydro is severely limited in further deployment (we already have 20 GW of it in the US alone). Here's why: *Locations that have the requisite topography are very rare. *Safety issues regarding the construction of an upper aquifer at height are very real and, for the most part, insurmountable. *The politics of water make it almost completely impossible for new projects to launch. *The efficiency of pumped hydro is, at best, 78%. Batteries can achieve 85% efficiency. Right now the capital costs of batteries are far higher than pumped hydro. But placing a bet on battery prices falling due to economies of scale is smarter than placing a bet that some community somewhere will allow its water system to be interfered with."

"When I worked for an electric utility we had two pumped storage facilities that worked well but had the many of the problems indicated in previous posts. Another promising storage medium is compressed air energy storage (CAES) where air is pumped into an old salt mine (like the ones under several Great Lakes cities) and released to generate power. Like pumped hydro, the pumps turn into turbines and the motors turn into generators"

"Moving water from one place to the other in the wild raises all sorts of environmental questions. Better not done"

Until next week: SHALOM!

Energy storage

The best way to store energy is gravity.

You heard right! The best way to store energy is perhaps by pumping water upstream (or up to a large container) and letting Potential Energy take over.

If this is the case then, why are we not setting up renewable energy plants next to water sources and pumping water upstream? to then have hydro-electric generation to recuperate the stored energy?

Is it that we are not yet producing enough renewable energy to have to store it? or perhaps its the fact that no one has been able to coordinate power source, high storage and water source?

I have heard a million times that the biggest obstacle to renewable energy was power storage. Everyone points to the battery to be the "next big thing" in clean energy. Why is gravity and potential energy left in the dark?

In the previous weeks I wrote about the electric grid, one of the biggest dilemmas on power generation is weather to have local or centralized power. Many people responded to my post and the more I heard the more I am leaning towards distributed power generation. With distributed power it will be more feasible to have a "full renewable system" in place.

In a "full renewable system" energy generation is not a stand alone solution. We could have power generated from wind (for a small group of houses) and a reservoir to pump water up when the wind provides more than the necessary power. In change, we could use the water reservoir to generate power in low wind conditions and also as a receptacle of recycled water from the same community. This way we will link water recycling with power generation: True Sustainability!

 

Perhaps this is not the right combination of green technologies, perhaps there is a better formula using solar power and water heating solutions. The point is that we are very limited if with think of solutions in a one dimensional aspect (e.g. power generation) versus thinking on multi dimensional levels (e.g. the "full renewable system").

Here are some interesting comments from last week's question regarding the power grid:

"The growth of micro-wind turbines built as vertical axis turbines and mounted onto roof tops of commercial office blocks will do a lot for distributed power"

"Interestingly there have been some recent developments in high voltage dc systems - to ship power between different countries - but so far it's still not a proven technology as far as I can tell."

"The driver for sizing a power plant is the historic consumption and projected consumption for the future. Really it is based on the power markets in the area and pricing. Another large driver is transmission availability"

"I think that the crux of the problem is that you can't have a generator without a load, you can't put power into the grid that no one is going to consume, you must have always a load, that is the reason for having a smart grid that switch on more generators when the power requested from the grid increase and switch off the generators when the requested power decrease."

"Electric grid operators and power plants try to meet the demand of a given region but the real factor is cost and time to bring on new power plants and resources"

"Perhaps DC is the answer to all who are concerned with the fact that you can generate wind power, but you cannot get it to where the heavy electric load is located"

"There is actually a high-voltage, high-power DC line running from the Bonneville Power Authority in the Columbia Gorge to California"

"Generally, there are two types of power plants. Baseload and Peaking. Baseload plants, as you would expect, tend to run at full or nearly full capacity all the time. They tend to be designed for steady efficient power output, like a diesel truck engine. The peakers tend to be less efficient, sometimes much less, but can start up quickly and operate over a wide range of output levels. The respective capacities reflect the somewhat local needs for each type of power. Big transmission can modify that, but only within limits unless you go to.... DC transmission. This IS in use around the world, including the US. The limitations tend to be in the costs of converting from AC to DC and back to AC for final delivery so you only want to use it (generally) for long haul applications"

"Capacity of a power plant to produce power is defined by the total of the MCR (Maximum Continuous Rating) of each of the generators installed at specific conditions. The capacity needs of the power plant in the old regulated days was the capacity required to exceed the predicted load plus an allowance for the shutdown of one or more of the largest generators. This typically meant that 5 to 10 % of reserve capacity was to be available on the peak day to meet the peak load. This peak load is much smaller than the total of all potential loads installed by the various users including homes, businesses, and industry. For example a typical home will only use 10 to 15 % of all the capacity installed within the home on average. The peak demand might be larger and will coincide with other users peak demands on very hot days in the summer. The challenge with matching the electrical production with demand is that the transportation system does not store the electrical energy. Fossil fuel transport systems including natural gas pipelines or even the fuel tank in your car have considerable capacity to buffer difference in production and demand"

"The amount of power generated must exactly match the amount of power being consumed (used or wasted) or the mismatch will increase or decrease the system frequency. The frequency difference is usually very very small but still everyone tries very hard to prevent it. The utility or Independent System Operators (ISO) power dispatchers have a good idea (from historical data and from weather forecasts, etc.) how much power they will need and the time of day they will need it. Then they go to great lengths to measure how much power is going into their bulk power stations, how much is flowing in or out of their interconnection lines and how much is being generated at each plant and by each generator connected to their part of the grid. All of this is fed into a system modeling program in a computer which determines how much power should be generated for the next few seconds and which generator in which plant can generate it most economically"

"Actually, there are quite a few DC grids in the world. Most are found in Europe. On the distribution loss side, DC does not suffer skin effect loss so it does have an advantage there. With the advent of modern DC conversion technology, the argument that it is "harder" to convert DC levels has lost some of it's basis. Finally, after all of the conversion, distributions, and storage - the critical loads are always DC."

Well, I believe this is enough reading for one week. Until next week: SHALOM!

The Electric Grid. Answering question #2: What determines the capacity of power plants and #3: Why not a DC grid?

Again this week I would like to thank everyone for responding to my Electric Grid Questions. This week I will address the other two questions:

2- What determines the capacity needs of the power plant? Is it the installed capacity in the network (each appliance and circuit in each house, office and factory) or is it the historic average consumption of electricity?

3- Why can’t we have a direct current (DC) grid? Many alternative energy technologies struggle with the conversion from DC to AC (alternative current). Why do we need to use AC everywhere?

First of all, about the capacity. This question was difficult to formulate and it was also misunderstood on several responses. The reason for this question is to find out if there is something that can be done regarding Watts and Amperes of new appliances and alternative power sources to minimize the required capacity of new power generation.

At the end of the day my understanding is that even with the most efficient appliances in the grid, power generation and distribution is still a statistical game, and this is EXACTLY where the so called "smart" grid will contribute to energy savings. Power plants generate at constant preset levels and additional capacity is turned on or off based on "peak demand"

Regarding DC vs AC I gather that the big problem of DC is the inefficiency of transporting this current from the source to the user. But, I definitely see an opportunity in generating locally DC power and using it in DC appliances without wasting electricity in DC to AC conversion.

The other problem of the DC power is that many appliances relay on the frequency of the AC electricity to work properly. Many people also mentioned the fact that DC components are much more expensive than AC components. I believe the answer to both this issues relies on the fact that AC has been mainstream while DC has been kept in the dark. If we inject new force in the DC solution then we will find that the market will generate new ideas and better pricing for DC applications.

Some of the answers received:

"2. The capacity needs of the power plant should be based on total load installed [maximum consumption] + some allowance for VAR correction + anticipated or estimated future augmentation [load additions]
3. DC generation & distribution equipments are far more expensive than the AC equipments like generator, transformers, safety devices etc. Its comparatively cheaper to convert it at user end [the converter modules with the chord would not be more than $30 each"

"Dumb Grid allows double digit percentages of electricity to escape and a new Smart Grid would not.
The U.S. will need to install a new Smart Grid system if there is any chance of going to electric cars.
AC vs DC: AC technology is much more flexible and has a strong economic advantage as DC requires very thick copper."

"...why is there no DC? First, there are increasing uses of DC power in parts of the grid that consumers don't see. DC power can be used now for relatively long distance power transmission. But to switch the entire grid and each and every device that uses electricity from AC to DC would clearly be impossible. There may be room for DC in some applications; but not on a widespread basis."

"#2 - I think plant size is governed by politics, dollars available and demand.
#3 DC does not travel well. over distances the voltage drops. not true with ac. ac losses are in current - not volts."

"We could have a DC grid, and yes it would be much more efficient, but it is highly unlikely to happen in our lifetime because no one will accept going without power long enough to switch the system around and highly unlikely investors or the government would pay to do it."

"2) Make the consumer more mindful of their power usage by forcing them to look at the data in the power distribution console/display or connected smart appliances designed to take advantage of data communications technologies built into both appliances, devices and the smart meter interface"

"2)There are additional needs to consider, including extra reserve capacity, based on rules from NERC/FERC. No one wants to experience a blackout or brownout, so the generators/systems/transmission lines all have extra capacity designed in

3)There are several examples of HVDC in North America. When it is most economically feasible, HVDC is used"

"2.There are no ideal figures for per capita electricity consumption as the same can be open ended.At the household level,one could consume as much electricity as one wants depending on availability.At the industry level,one could keep setting up newer manufacturing units once again depending upon availability of electricity.The best way is to link it to nominal and per capita GDP growth rate which the government plans to achieve.Growth in electricity generation must lead GDP growth by a factor of about 1.4 to 1.5.
3.This goes back to epic debate of AC vc DC between Nikola Tesla and Edison.AC won over DC and hence AC grids were set up.A DC grid needs inversion equipment which adds to the cost. However there is a realization that DC is more economical with lesser losses than AC over distances longer than 800 kms.There are now quite a few HVDC grids being set up."

"I believe that as alternative energy evolves, as more and more end users are using solar power, as LED lighting becomes the norm, that AC will eventually become extinct. The "grid" concept will be redundant"

"Transmission losses are the big dirty secret of centralized power."

Until next week... SHALOM!

The Electric Grid. Answering question #1: Centralized vs Distributed power

First of all I would like to thank everyone for responding to my Electric Grid Questions and throwing light into this subject which I find fascinating. Here is the compiled version of the answers I received for the first of the three questions plus some research of my own (the other two questions I hope to address in the upcoming weeks):

1- What is the best strategy for the future of power? Is it to generate electricity in each home, or neighborhood, or community; or to maintain the current system where a series of big power plants inject their product into a complex network that distributes the electricity to large geographic areas?

To help me answer this question I turned to Amory B. Lovins' newest article "Does a Big Economy Need Big Power Plants?" (it turns out we both wrote about this particular subject at the same time, therefore proving that great minds think alike!)
Amory is 100% for distributed power: “Central thermal stations have become like Victorian steam locomotives: magnificent technological achievements that served us well until something better came along.”

Some interesting facts mentioned in Amory's article: "The U.S. lags with only about 6 percent micropower: its special rules favor incumbents and gigantism. Yet micropower provides from one-sixth to more than half of all electricity in a dozen other industrial countries. Micropower in 2006 (the last full data available) delivered a sixth of the world’s total electricity (more than nuclear power) and a third of the world’s new electricity. Micropower plus “negawatts” — electricity saved by more efficient or timely use — now provide upwards of half the world’s new electrical services. The supposedly indispensable central thermal plants provide only the minority, because they cost too much and bear too much financial risk to win much private investment, whereas distributed renewables got $91 billion of new private capital in 2007 alone"

Even though I would also prefer to see a distributed power system I am not as optimistic as Mr Lovins (and neither were some of the people who responded). There are some important efficiency and market issues with distributed energy generation that we have to face right now. Take wind power for example: the newer generation of wind farms has more and bigger turbines than their predecessors. I credit this to several factors:

• Turbines become more efficient as they grow in size - bigger turbines (this is true up to certain limits)
• Wind farms benefit from economies of scale as they become larger (more turbines)
• As wind farm owners become more comfortable with the investment, higher capacity plants are being proposed and funded.
• Most important of all: Selling and installing ONE wind farm that produces a Mega Watt per hour is easier (and more commercially viable) than selling thousands of smaller kilo watt turbines. This point in particular affects the whole chain of development of power plants:
• 1. Developers of new technologies aim towards bigger pockets (centralized plants). Therefore, creating newer and more efficient generators for the centralized system and neglecting the distributed option.
• 2. Investors, distributors and installers aim to reduce their risk by concentrating their investment and effort into more focused and less mass market trend-changing technologies. When we talk about creating a new wind power plant, we understand the limits and the risks better than if we would talk about selling wind turbines door to door.

The same efficiency and market issues hold true for other renewable energy generation methods (with perhaps the exception of solar PV, being the one with the most distributed systems to date). Furthermore we are leaving hydro and nuclear out of the equation. Forget the impossibility of having distributed hydro power and the danger of having distributed nuclear power!

Finally, I am including some answers I received via email or LinkedIn (I am reserving the names of the authors awaiting for their approval):

· "we need to break away from centralized power...and as it happens - while that's not a common opinion with the big power companies - it is the common opinion of electrical generation engineers"

· "technology and wisdom will dictate the answers...Now that science is finally focusing on the problem of sustainability and innovation, breakthroughs will be coming within a few years based on existing "future-tech" inventions and unimagined ones"

· "With the move to wind and solar power it will be necessary to maintain a large grid system because of the instability of the energy production"

· “I think the "smart grid" has the potential in the 2010s to duplicate the same type of transformation of our everyday lives as did the Internet in the 1990s… New technologies are making small generating facilities (solar, wind, biomass, even natural gas) sufficiently economic that they can compete with the large central station generators… The smart grid can help here also. It will be able to control the micro generating device you install at your house. When you are away or not otherwise using your full capacity for your own house, the smart grid will pump your electricity into the grid for others to use. This lets your system operate on a useful basis closer to 100% of the time with the resulting efficiency gain”

· “the best strategy isn't a single approach. By combining efficiency at the demand end of the grid (homes, business, etc) and allow the demand to sell the ability to reduce further during peak periods we can avoid building some amount of new generation. This alone isn't enough. Technology on the supply side with newer more efficient means of generation also play a role”

· “Imagine rental properties or tightly packed suburban neighborhoods. These folks would find it difficult if not impossible to erect a wind turbine or solar panel. Also, many consumers would not be able to generate enough alternate source power individually to run their homes and most businesses would not either”

· “Think how consumption is accomplished - locally in homes and local businesses, and there are some large energy intensive industries that require huge amounts of energy, like metal foundries and smelting, and they need the massive generation power of wind farms and solar farms and hydro dams (for overnight storage, and base load power)”

· “Part of the problem with local generation is that no one wants to live next to a power plant”

· “Electricity tends to be a natural monopoly. Established industrial groups especially the utilities owning and operating generating stations on fossil fuels and large dumb grids and super highways supplying energy at low tariffs were hitherto getting away with murder by not paying for externalities (carbon footprint increase).”

· “for most sources local generation is impractical, and you still need a grid to even out supply and demand even for solar”

· “The moving of energy from point A to B, and often back again, is a huge drain on efficiency. Keeping it all close by to where it was generated and will be used would be great. However are there good options for the consumer and/or the business that want to store the power? I've read about some custom hydrogen fuel cell methods. There is always batteries I guess”

Until next week…SHALOM!