Get Energy Smart! NOW!

The American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) act is going through Congressional mark-up right now. The 932 page draft is filled with good elements, weak items, and bad — plus plenty of confusion and difficulty for understanding.

One of the main “winners” in this bill is the whole Clean Coal movement, with literally billions of dollars (more like, $10s of billions) headed into pursuit of uncertain technology that might not (actually, I would assert is not, but let’s stay with might not) be the best path forward in tackling our intertwined economic, energy, environmental, and climate challenges and opportunities. Within this there is one particular element that confuses me. When it comes to (potential illusion of large-scale) carbon capture and sequestration, the bill seems to dfine sequestration solely within the domain of “geologic sequestration”. That we will capture CO2 at the smokestack, liquify it, and pump it into the ground. While this is a huge potential revenue stream for the oil and natural gas industries (after all, who specializes in drilling and pumping and understanding geologic formations?) and the “leading” path toward sequestration, I’m left wondering where other “S” routes or, even better, “R” (reuse, recycling) routes might fall in this bill and all its revenue stream toward CCS.

Let’s take two examples.

1. Right now, already, carbon is a valued part of the industrial processes. Carbon-fiber bicycles, aircraft, car part, etc. Okay, so we’re talking about a value stream of perhaps $25 per pound, right now, so a few cents per pound of value won’t ‘change the game’ for composites. And, the global total volume of (I believe) well under a million tons per year, but is it irrational to suggest that we might be able to find paths toward “sequestering” at least some carbon in useful paths that add value to modern society other than simply cleaning up the pollution?

2. One of the “recycle” routes that excites many is the potential for large-scale production of algae fuels, thriving on the CO2 coming out the smokestack (and the warmed waters from the smokestack). In an optimal cycle, some of that algae could actually be dried and fed back into the combustion process (while other parts become liquid fuel, food, etc …), creating a near carbon-neutral cycle. Additionally, some of that algae could be made into charcoal for enriching soil and sequestering the carbon via a Bio-Char or Agro-Char process.

Now, perhaps these are fully within the legislative concept and the legislative reality. But the language seems heavily biased toward a “geologic sequestration is the answer” view of the future. Should we truly be closing the door to keeping the playing field level for other, more valuable, approaches to emerge?

UPDATE. Perhaps the door is open. Page 77:  “(2) permanently sequester carbon dioxide at a site that meets all applicable permitting and certification requirements for geologic sequestration, or,  pursuant to such requirements as the Administrator  may prescribe by regulation, convert captured carbon dioxide to a stable form that will safely and permanently sequester such carbon dioxide”

A 932 page bill … with manager’s amendments on top of it … with active committee debate … any single individual with an ability to actually understand the intricacies of the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act has achieved near-super-human capacities. Reading through the bill, time after time, I pause to scratch my head, re-read, and try to figure out the implications of a section.

Lets take a brief example. Section 115, Commercial Deployment of Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies:

Amends Title VII of the Clean Air Act to direct the EPA Administrator to establish an incentive program to distribute allowances to support the commercial deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technologies in both electric power generation and industrial applications. Establishes eligibility requirements for facilities to receive allowances based on the number of tons of carbon dioxide sequestered. The allowance disbursement program is structured to provide greater incentives for facilities to deploy CCS technologies early in the program and for facilities to capture and sequester larger amounts of carbon dioxide.

That is just a summary, the actual text in the 932 Friday bill submission is much longer. Phase 1 includes a subsection to encourage, I believe, early adopters.

This subsection shall apply only to projects at the first 6 gigawatts of electric generating units, measured in cumulative generating 23 capacity of such units.

While I have sought to find it, I see no time limit associated with this special subsection. What does the subsection provide for? Bonus payments based on the percentage of CO2 emissions sequestered, starting with $50 per ton for sequestering at least 50 percent up to $90 for 85 percent or more. Again, only for that first 6 gigawatts and there are controls there, such as reducing payments for the monetary value of CO2 used in enhanced oil recovery.

Now, while I have (TREMENDOUS) problems with how much money is going into the uncertainty of Carbon Capture & Sequestration (CCS), with determination that this uncertain technology and high-cost approach is “the answer” (which I do not believe, with reason), the fiscal implications of this section are rather astounding.

Let us work through some numbers of a coal-fired plant.

• Every Kilowatt Hour (kWh) generated by coal represents roughly 2 pounds of CO2. (Actually more, especially when considering systems-of-systems implications, but this is an easy enough number to work with.)
• Thus, every Megawatt Hour (mWh) is 1 ton (1000 times 2 = …).
• Every Gigawatt Hour (gWh) is thus 1000 tons.
• And, thus, “six gigawatts of electric generation units” represents 6,000 tons of carbon every hour, or 144,000 tons per day, or 52.56 million tons per year assuming 24/7 operations.
• With reasonable capacity calculation of the plants operating 80 percent of the time, this means 42 million tons of CO2 per year with these six gigawatts of generating capacity.

Let us assume that all of these eight gigawatts achieve the desired 85+% sequestration.  Based on my understanding of the legislative language, this would mean $90 of payment to each plant for each ton sequestered.  This would mean about $3.8 billion of payments every year. (To be fair, the direct calculation is $3.78432 billion / year.)

NOTE/UPDATE:  There is an interesting (and unusual?) calculation here.

‘(2) DISTRIBUTION.—The Administrator shall distribute emission allowances allocated under section 782(f) to the owner or operator of each eligible project at an electric generating unit in a quantity equal to the quotient obtained by dividing— ‘‘(A) the product obtained by multiplying— ‘(i) the number of metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions avoided through capture and sequestration of emissions by the project, as determined pursuant to such methodology as the Administrator shall prescribe by regulation; and ‘‘(ii) a bonus allowance value, pursuant to paragraph (3); by ‘‘(B) the average fair market value of an emission allowance during the preceding year.

This is confusing and an odd formula.

It provides a real roller coaster of a ride as to payments and total value:  If CO2 sequestration value is $1, then there would be $90 per ton payments for a total value of $91. If sequestration value is $45, then there would be a $2 payment for a total value of $47.  If $90/ton, then there would be $1 in payments, for a total value of $91. Thus, for these six plants, it seems that the operators would either want extremely low total CO2 sequestration values or extremely high ones, because those two paths return the highest income.

And, again, while it might be there, there doesn’t seem to be a time limit to this subsection. If that is truly the case, these six gigawatts of capacity could cost $3.8 billion per year indefinitely.  Over 25 years, we are talking just under $95 billion.

NOTE/UPDATE:  As per the comments, there is a 10-year time limit to these payments.  Thus, let’s assume that the average price of a sequestered ton is $10 through a 10 year period. That would be $9/ton in benefits which would total the value of these incentive premiums at $4 billion.  If …

And, yes, the legislation specifically states that these payments are to be adjusted for inflation. These are the “real” costs.

This is only one subsection for a demonstration effort of a currently unproven technology that seems quite possible to not be able to work at an affordable cost and for which there already seem to be quite serious alternatives.

Again, this is a complicated bill and this might be a misunderstanding — please correct.  But, if reading the bill correctly, this is a $3.8 billion potential bill … every year … year-in, year-out … indefinitely.  Is this the best use of our resources? Could we be spending that $100 billion, for example, on the deployment of 50 gigawatts of wind power or perhaps 20 gigawatts of nuclear power or …

NOTE / UPDATE:  This looks like a reasonable estimate would be that this might be a $4 billion or so bill over a ten year period, starting sometime in the next decade.  Still a concerning amount of incentive funding, but a far cry from $4 billion/year indefinitely.

NOTE / UPDATE TWO: The EPA has now modeled the changed bill, included in that.

Incentives for Carbon Capture and Storage

Changes to the incentive structure for carbon capture and storage (CCS) increase the deployment of that technology. Both the draft bill and the introduced H.R. 2454 provide incentives for carbon capture and storage. Based on guidance from Committee staff,
EPA analyzed the draft assuming that the first 3 GW of CCS will receive a subsidy of $90/ton captured for 10 years, that the next 3 GW of CCS will receive a subsidy of $70/ton captured for 10 years, and that a significant additional amount of CCS will receive a subsidy of $50/ton for 10 years. H.R. 2454 provides opportunities for greater subsidies. Up to 6 GW of CCS may receive a subsidy of $90/ton captured for 10 years.

Additional allowances are available through a reverse auction, allowing much of the additional, eligible CCS to receive subsides greater than $50/ton. The reverse auction ensures that CCS projects are neither over- nor under-subsidized, and that the bonus allowances will be distributed in a way that maximizes the amount of CCS deployed in response to the bonus allowances.

Those changes are likely to result in greater penetration of CCS in 2020 and 2025 than EPA saw in its analysis of the draft bill. That will likely result in somewhat higher use of coal in 2020 and 2025 than EPA saw in its analysis of the draft. Beyond 2025, the use of the reverse auction has the potential to extend the use of CCS bonus allowances to a greater number of projects than shown in EPA’s preliminary modeling of the draft.

PS: Thank you for comments below and email notes.

When deciding on acquisitions or on investments, there is a basic term: to delay a decision or action is to “move it to the right” and to accelerate something is to “move it to the left”.

Tomorrow, the Obama Administration will formerly announce a decision to “move to the left” auto efficiency standards to help get more efficient automobiles as the norm that much faster.

From a background teleconference earlier this evening with the White House the opening by a “Senior Administration Official”:

Tomorrow the administration is proposing tough new fuel economy standards and the first ever greenhouse gas pollution standards for cars. The program will begin in model year 2012. By 2016 the fleet average will be 35.5 miles per gallon, that is four years earlier than the CAFE law requires. The CAFE law required a 35 miles per gallon in model year 2020.

[Read more →]

Student science fairs, especially ‘high end’ prize technology fairs, can provide interesting windows on the passions of tomorrow’s scientists and visions of possible advances to come. The annual University of Texas at San Antonio (USTA) Texas Science and Engineering Fair (sadly sponsored by (with naming rights) ExxonMobil) is one such event that highlighted a wind power system reminiscent of Shawn Frayne’s Wind Belt from Humdinger Wind. In short, a winner of a 2007 Popular Mechanics Breakthrough award, the Wind Belt promises a very low cost path (several dollars of material per generator) toward wind-power generation via

a taut membrane fitted with a pair of magnets that oscillate between metal coils. Prototypes have generated 40 milliwatts in 10-mph slivers of wind, making his device 10 to 30 times as efficient as the best microturbines. Frayne envisions the Windbelt costing a few dollars and replacing kerosene lamps in Haitian homes.

The target is that very low power market requirement in the developing world that obviate the need for polluting lamps while enabling all the values associated with access to reliable (and extremely cost-effective) lighting. (See here for a 50-minute wind belt video.)

At the Texas Science and Engineering Fair, one of the entries seems an interesting echo of the Wind Belt concept.

Energy was on the minds of several students, including Ryan Alexander, a sophomore from Plano, Texas. (Alexander will be skipping the next two grades and heading right to college in the fall). He developed a simple windmill that can be made out of bamboo or other plant materials and about one dollar’s worth of magnets, copper wire and alligator clips.

The description of 10th grader Ryan Alexander’s project Gone with the Windmills: An Analysis of the Effectiveness of an Oscillating Wind Energy Generator

Can a windmill for developing countries be created using local materials, such as bamboo, and can a windmill be created using aeroelastic flutter that can gather energy more efficiently in the developed world? In the project, models were created of the actual windmills: the turbine, an lattice tubular design, the oscillators- a natural version constructed from bamboo and a normal wooden one, a four-oscillator model, a high altitude oscillator, and a Darius oscillator. The models were tested in different environments and with varying wind speeds. It was hypothesized that the field of normal oscillators, which use aeroelastic flutter and do not have to contend with much friction, would produce the most electricity and the results confirmed that hypothesis. Both the natural and the normal oscillator produced around 240% more power that current turbine designs. The Darius design produced around 400% more power and the High Altitude Oscillator, 582% more power. The field of oscillators produced an outstanding 819% more power whereas the lattice windmill produced about 180% more power that the conventional windmill. This experiment is evidence that these technologies can advance the efficiency and capabilities of wind-driven energy generation. This data is very accurate with a statistical confidence level of 99.9% and its findings can be directly applied to the real world. With the use of an electric “kit’ containing the copper wire and magnets and local materials such as bamboo and leaves, developing countries will have access to clean, dependable, and cheap electricity.

Note that the ability to adapt any number of “local” (local around the world) products into the Alexander’s concept provides a path toward the low-cost Wind Belt approach.

Note that Alexander seems to have arrived at his approach independent of Frayne’s Wind Belt.

While playing the violin, Alexander noticed that the strings vibrated quite a bit without much energy input. Inventor and engineer Nikola Tesla noticed this “aeroelastic flutter,” Alexander said, which “could take down an entire building.” So Alexander’s windmill doesn’t bother with blades. Instead it is shaped like a long narrow box with four sides but no top or bottom. A thin material that will flutter in a breeze (such as a long, stiff leaf or a thin plastic strip) “floats” in the center of the box, attached at the ends to magnets and coils. When the thin material oscillates in the wind, the magnets move, generating an electric field. Alexander built a small, standard turbine windmill with blades and also built five oscillator models. In tests with various wind speeds, the oscillator-based models produced between 180 and 819 percent more power than the turbine model. He also created a kit with the basic materials and a pictorial instruction manual that could be used in developing regions to create electricity. “The true breakthrough was using bamboo and leaves,” he said. “It’s the world’s first natural and cheapest windmill that can be made.”

Mr. President: The time has come. You have spoken, eloquently and frequently and powerfully, about clean energy, energy efficiency, about climate change. You have stated the necessity and opportunity before us, as individuals and nation and global community, with addressing Climate Change.

In the House of Representatives, two Committee chairs, Representatives Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, have been leading the struggle to develop meaningful energy and climate legislation. The Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act began with high hopes. These legislators understand the serious threats to our nation from dependency on oil and global warming. Waxman and Markey understand the very real opportunities that energy efficiency and renewable energy offer this nation on economic, security, health, pollution, and other grounds. They “get it”. But, looking at the path that ACES is taking, it seems clear that not enough of their colleagues understand the opportunities, the threats, the necessities of action.

When introduced, ACES was a good start that required strengthening. As it has gone through the negotiating process within the House Energy & Commerce Committee, ACES has moved from being an extremely good energy and energy efficiency bill with an uncertain (both good and bad elements) climate section, to a potentially good energy efficiency, rather uncertain energy, and weakened (and too weak) climate bill.

There are three basic principles against which we should judge climate legislation:

1. Scientifically Sound
2. Polluters Pay
3. Improves Social Equity

Sadly, it looks as if ACES might well fail on all accounts.

Let us be quite clear: if there is any intention of serious action to avert catastrophic climate change, the ACES must be significantly strengthened.

SIGNIFICANTLY … STRENGTHENED …

If this does not occur, all should acknowledge that passing ACES, as it stands, will be a failure to mold “political reality” to meet what actual reality tells us is required.

Mr. President, you are in the cat birds’ seat. You can make the call. You are the only one who holds the lever to bend “political reality” closer to real-world necessity.

You understand the challenge and opportunity before us. You speak eloquently and powerfully to this. While the efforts to achieve a bipartisan, cross-economy, cross-ideology bill might merit praise, the resulting bill is not as stupendous as listeners to, as per your Saturday address 16 May will believe:

Chairman Henry Waxman and members of the Energy and Commerce Committee brought together stakeholders from all corners of the country – and every sector of our economy – to reach an historic agreement on comprehensive energy legislation. It’s another promising sign of progress, as longtime opponents are sitting together, at the same table, to help solve one of America’s most serious challenges.

For the first time, utility companies and corporate leaders are joining, not opposing, environmental advocates and labor leaders to create a new system of clean energy initiatives that will help unleash a new era of growth and prosperity.

It’s a plan that will finally reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and cap the carbon pollution that threatens our health and our climate. Most important, it’s a plan that will trigger the creation of millions of new jobs for Americans, who will produce the wind turbines and solar panels and develop the alternative fuels to power the future. Because this we know: the nation that leads in 21st century clean energy is the nation that will lead the 21st century global economy. America can and must be that nation – and this agreement is a major step toward this goal.

This bill does not achieve what is necessary and, perhaps more critically, might undermine and prevent future efforts to achieve what is required.

It is time to step out and declare it time to strengthen the Waxman-Markey Bill, to find a path toward legislation that offers the potential for dampening catastrophic climate change while seizing the economic potentials of a clean energy economy.

Mr. President, while a bipartisan path forward is desired, should physical reality bow before political reality, or do we need to shift political reality to enable us (the US) to do what is necessary?

[Read more →]

The Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy & Security (ACES) Act has moved from draft to a 900+ page submitted bill. To be clear, the ACES is far from a perfect bill, having been weakened from what was originally introduced.

Sadly, the Committee Republicans evidently are not interested in a serious “No Regrets” strategy, with introduction of serious amendments enabling discussion of how to make this bill better for the nation today and into the future. Rather than offering substantive amendments that would offer a tangible basis for discussing different philosophies about solving problems, the committee Republicans plan to introduce 450 Amendments that are almost entirely political gamesmanship, seeking to embarrass Democratic Representatives, when they aren’t simply fossil foolish.

For example, when it comes to poison pill:

Suspends the Act should 1,000 jobs in California be lost due to implementation of this Act

Oh, and there are eight identical amendments for California, with the only difference being the number of jobs going up to 1,000,000 jobs.

Of course, the Committee Republicans don’t want to have a discussion about the impact of unchecked catastrophic climate change on employment in California with extended (and worsened) droughts, wild fires, higher temperatures, etc …

And, there is pretty much the same for every other state (although they are wily enough not to have a 1 million job loss option for Alaska).

There are also numerous ‘screw the environment’ non-starter items:

Ends restriction on incremental hydropower construction on wild and scenic waterways

There are even retributional elements, seeking to take away tax free status from organizations involved in climate work and hitting businesses that are part of USCAP.

“Just say NO!” Obstructionism seems to be the Republican standard for doing the people’s business. From E&E reporting,

Republicans are flirting with the idea of employing a committee rule that would force the Democratic clerk to read the entire bill. “If that’s the case, you’ve got close to a 1,000-page bill, you’re probably talking about 12 to 14 hours of reading,” Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) told reporters today. A Republican committee aide said no decisions have been made on that strategy.

UPDATE: Politico: GOP plans climate bill stall in committee:

Republicans know they can’t stop Henry Waxman’s ambitious climate change bill from clearing the Energy and Commerce Committee, but they’re promising to make the ride as bumpy as possible.

“This is not going to be one of gentlemanly, pro forma markups,” said Texas Rep. Joe Barton, the top Republican on the committee. “We’re prepared for it to take weeks or months.”

And, even Blue Dog Democratic politicians are beginning to question the value and relevance of listening to Republicans as long as they seek to act like this:

Some of those skeptical Democrats doubt the sincerity of the Republican approach. Republicans won’t vote for the bill, even if Democrats adopt some of their amendments, they argue.

“I think some amendments would be very attractive, but they don’t serve a purpose,” said Gonzalez. “The purpose of that is to accomplish something and frustrate what was a good faith effort by leadership.”

UPDATE 2: See Joe Romm’s discussion, Contempt of Congress: House GOP reveals disdain for clean energy, livable climate with 450 planned amendments to Waxman-Markey and a more-of-the-same rehash of Cheney energy plan

Worldwatch Institute merits respect and their work, sadly, merist far more attention than sometimes seems to be the case. Worldwatch is regularly engaged in thought-provoking research and publication of valuable works. Sigh, Vital Signs 2009 simply fails to meet the high standards that the Institute has set for itself.

Subtitled “The Trends That Are Shaping Our Future”, this April 2009 publication has one simple (yet glaring) problem: most chapters have data cut-offs of 2007 or, at most, spring 2008. Thus, missing from the discussion are the spike and collapse of oil prices, the economic collapse, and Barack Obama’s election. While one year does not a trend make, these events and other 2008 factors could represent enough of a break from the past to change the trends.

There is the chapter “Global Economic Growth Continues” which seems so at odds with economic turmoil in much of the world. And, there is “Oil Consumption Continues Slow Growth” which misses the fall in oil demand (both from increased prices and then economic collapse). The oil chapter misses most of 2008’s drama in oil prices with the research cut off, evidently, in early March as “On March 3rd, prices closed at $102.42, having set a new inflation-adusted record high earlier during intra-day trading.” If that had only been the 2008 peak …

This failure results, it seems, from Worldwatch’s transition to what might be a more valuable resource: Vital Signs online. This will be a subscription service (materials available for free for the moment) with added ‘vital signs’ trend analysis being posted throughout the year, rather than an updated volume. Vital Signs 2009 looks to be, primarily, reprinting of 2008 on-line publications. The problems with the oil chapter result as the original publication was Oil Consumption Continues Slow Growth published 28 March 2008. Vital Signs 2009 might have been somewhat less frustrating if these original publication dates had been put with each chapter.

Even with the frustrations, there are interesting elements and items within the publication in part because of the breadth of subjects coverered, which means that there will be new information and perspectives for virtually anyone who cracks open the book. Even so: take the time to check out Vital Signs online but Vital Signs 2009 isn’t so vital for your bookshelf.

Since diving into the deep end when it comes to energy issues, almost every day sees new fascinating concepts, approaches, and technologies. Fascinating … exciting … even hope inspiring at times. And, as well, as the passion builds, so many of these are truly Energy COOL.

In true EcoGeek fashion, meandering among the booths at trade shows and conferences often provide moments of excitement and thoughts as to possibilities looking out into the future. Yesterday, the Environmental and Energy Study Institute held 12th Annual Congressional Congressional Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency EXPO + Forum, combination of conference and ‘trade show’ (“EXPO”) with some 20 or so booths from organizations and coalitions, businesses, and government agencies. As with getting some good VIBEs from talking with the NREL staff, there were several “Energy COOL” moments in the EXPO that made the trip to the EESI session worth the time.

After the fold, a discussion of one of these: Energy Hub.

[Read more →]

Since diving into the deep end when it comes to energy issues, almost every day sees new fascinating concepts, approaches, and technologies. Fascinating … exciting … even hope inspiring at times. And, as well, as the passion builds, so many of these are truly Energy COOL.

In true EcoGeek fashion, meandering among the booths at trade shows and conferences often provide moments of excitement and thoughts as to possibilities looking out into the future. Yesterday, the Environmental and Energy Study Institute held 12th Annual Congressional Congressional Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency EXPO + Forum, combination of conference and ‘trade show’ (“EXPO”) with some 20 or so booths from organizations and coalitions (such as the AWEA, Gridwise Alliance, Demand Response and Smart Grid Coalition, SEIA, Business Council for Sustainable Energy, Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition — remember, this was a Hill event), businesses (Qteros (biofuels (cellulosic ethanol)), Solana Solar, ORPC, Konarka, Skystream, etc) and government agencies (such as the National Renewable Energy Laboratory). As with getting some good VIBEs from talking with the NREL staff, there were several “Energy COOL” moments in the EXPO that made the trip to the EESI session worth the time.

After the fold, a discussion of one of these: Solyndra solar.

[Read more →]

Since diving into the deep end when it comes to energy issues, almost every day sees new fascinating concepts, approaches, and technologies.  Fascinating … exciting … even hope inspiring at times.  And, as well, as the passion builds, so many of these are truly Energy COOL.

Today, courtesy of the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, I’ve encountered an Energy Cool way of looking at, researching, organizing, and learning from information on energy systems, developments.  Currently in Beta Form, the Virtual Information Bridge to Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (or, VIBE) is

a new portal that gets users to a wealth of energy efficiency and renewable energy (EERE) information, data, and analysis tools.

Starting off with two arenas (markets & investments, transportation), the NREL VIBE team is seeking to build an open source portal, enabling access to verified (verifiable) data and analyses from around the government (and around the world) on energy issues. Not just open source, but also customizable for individuals, organizations, and communities to meet their own needs and interests … and to evolve with them in face of a changing world and changing needs.

[Read more →]