Thursday, November 6, 2014

Can the IPCC synthesis report generate support?

For those of you who did not see it, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its latest “Synthesis Report,” a new report that said that the time is now for action to correct the environmental issues that the global economies currently face.  It was their strongest admonition and one in which they said is already “irreversible” – and if policymakers don’t act, a dangerous 2 degrees Celsius warming threshold will be breached.  In the last several months, I have taken four massive open online courses (MOOC) by renown professors at top-notch universities (see below), each of the courses have echoed the same message, but more subtly. 

Our Energy Future, Prof. Stephen Mayfield et al., University of California, San Diego;
Fundamentals of Global Energy Business, Prof. Michael J. Orlando, University of Colorado, Boulder;
Wheels of Metals: Urban Mining for a Circular Economy, Prof. Ester van der Voet et al., Universiteit Leiden and;
The Age of Sustainable Development, Prof. Jeffrey Sachs, Columbia University.

What is interesting about the messages from a collective perspective, is that they can be traced back to the IPCC reports.  They messages are derived from the sharing of data; whether it is carbon dioxide emissions by OECD countries relative to developing countries; carbon footprints on a per capita basis; energy use, data produced by both the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the International Energy Agency (IEA); and recycling.  What was even more interesting was the same uses of terms and phrases of these threads throughout the video lectures, which were watched by tens of thousands of students from many countries.  For instance, The Our Energy Future course was watched by 15,000 students from 170 countries.  So, these concepts, terms and phrases are being widely and thoroughly disseminated.  This global reach to all of these students will become the new, more educated environmental movement.  They will help deliver the IPCC message.

Another common theme in each of these courses and is that natural resources, which include conventional energy (natural gas and petroleum) and all mining operations (sand and gravel, base metals, coal, uranium, rare earth metals – required in all green technology, and precious metals), deplete and require additional exploration to increase reserves (underground stocks or inventory).  But due to falling metal concentrations (naturally occurring), remoteness and falling reserves (based on economic extraction costs), attempting to increase production to match demand is becoming increasing more difficult and expensive.  From the recycling perspective, the recycling rates around the world will have to increase from current levels, both to meet demand for metals and materials and reduce landfill waste.

To offset these falling trends, changes will need to be made.  We will need to increase our recycling rates for all metals and materials.  We will need to reduce energy consumption or be more thoughtful and efficient with its use.  What is also clear is that metals will still come from primary production (natural resource production coming from earth) and supplemented with secondary production (recycling).  Primary energy production will be supplemented with renewable energy.  Consumption will be more efficient with new LED lighting technology, energy star appliances, higher R-values of homes, water savings technologies and a basic rethink on design in particular.  This will be an impactful next decade.



Saturday, November 1, 2014

Solar Energy - the leap frog technology for global sustainable development

In my continuing research on reducing the carbon footprint and alternative energy; it is clear to me that solar energy is about to explode.  In a recent article (I read as much as possible and adhere to a thought process of mosaic theory – piecing together information from disparate sources and making sense of it), it is projected that grid parity, the point at which an alternative energy source, ie., photovoltaic solar panels, can generate electricity at a levelized cost that is less than or equal to the price of purchasing power from the electric grid or local utility, will occur within the next 18 months in 26 states.  That is when solar energy takes off as a viable and affordable electrical energy source.  There are many exciting developments occurring around the solar industry, such as Solar City providing financing to put solar panels on residential homes, Quantum Materials manufacturing quantum dot solar cells, and again Solar City looking into the GigaFactory, a manufacturing plant to supply lithium-ion batteries to the Tesla electric automobile and the missing link of solar energy – the battery.  These are many companies involved in revolutionizing energy production in the US and the World.  One such company is Solar City, which has the abilty to provide a global sustainable development solution.  Think about it, it can provide low cost financing or subsidized (by issuing bonds – see website, to raise capital to finance solar power installation), batteries would free communities from the expensive distribution model with large energy (and capital expenditure) producing power plants and provide power for both the home and a vehicle (which does not have to be the Roadster, but something more like the Smart Car).  With the leap frogging of cellular communications, the developing countries could see true and rapid growth.  This could be a transformational period in economics and sustainable development.

Here is how this scenario will unfold:
  • Grid parity is reached in many states within 18 months or so.
  • People begin to make the investment in solar panels – whether leasing the panels from the likes of Solar City or outright purchasing them – this could be explosive nationally.
  • LED lighting will reduce electricity demand more than expected (more on this in the next blog).
  • The local utilities are required to repurchase excess electricity.
  • High-CO2 coal-fired power plants will continue to close and may accelerate due to less power being consumed from the grid.
  • The key is storage.  Elon Musk of Solar City and Tesla announced that he will construct a “giga-factory” in Nevada to produce lithium-ion batteries for the Tesla autos and Solar City photovoltaic solar panel systems.  The Giga factory begins to produce lithium-ion batteries in large quantities; thereby driving storage costs down significantly and igniting another round of solar panel demand, this time globally. I envision that this battery will be interchangeable with the house PV solar panel system and the Tesla car.  The power produced by the house could be stored in the house battery storage system and discharged at night to recharge the Tesla battery for the next day.  Power would then begin to be produced by the panels the next day and consumed internally and stored.  If there was more power consumed in the early evening, for instance for cooking, then the car battery would discharge DC current into the home batteries and to the appliances.  The micro grid of the home may need to be interconnected to other micro-grids in the event of lowered energy production or disruption.  The utility may become the back-up system.
  • Utilities will report lower earning due to reduced demand (yesterday, Xcel Energy announced that 3rd quarter profit rose slightly but were lower than analysts’ expectations due to a milder quarter than expected– the misses will become more frequent).
  • The grid will morph from a utility distribution model to a hybrid – utility distribution and micro grids.  A micro grid is a linkage of homes/small commericial/light manufacturing entities producing renewable energy, through geothermal heating/cooling, solar photovoltaic/thermal and energy saving appliances.  Currently, this model is being developed and analyzed by University of California at San Diego.
  • The model gets adopted globally.
This is not fantasy, this is moving behind the scenes very rapidly.  The next five years could be spectacular, especially when it has been agreed to by the academic and scientific communities to call this the Anthropogenic Era.

Thursday, October 23, 2014

CenterPoint Energy - home energy audit

In “My Carbon Footprint” blog, I made several pledges.  The most obvious pledge to select first was the energy audit with the goal of finding out where am I wasting energy.  So last week, I called CenterPoint Energy to set up an energy audit and was happy to hear that it could be down within a week.  That day is today.  CenterPoint Energy sent Kevin to conduct the energy audit on my house.  Kevin arrived in a small SUV with the cargo space completely filled with equipment and tools.  He unloaded the equipment and tools in my mudroom for use over the next two and one-half hours.  We chatted and I found out that this was his second job, with his primary job being a fireman.  He recounted some of his fire experience and how the some of the equipment was used in search and rescue.  That was incredibly interesting and helpful in understanding how the pieces of equipment measured air flow and heat.  He understood the movement of air, hot or cold, through the house, probably better than anyone.  That was reassuring.

He began his analysis with a series of questions about the size of the house, number of occupants, type of lighting, type of heating, etc.  He went into each room with a digital distance meter to measure the area and volume of the rooms.  This data will be plugged into a program to calculate the volume of air turnover to heat or cool a house.  This data will be coming in the form of a report.

He went outside and toured the perimeter of the house, looking for any cracks in the foundation or other potential egresses (heat escape routes)/ingresses (cold entrance routes) for movement of air.  He checked the siding, door jams, flashing around the windows and doors, and looked for moisture problems.  I, meanwhile, began typing this blog.

When he returned, he went into each bathroom with a box and measuring meter and measured the draw of the fans.  This allowed him to tell whether or not the fans were clogged or efficiency reduced by too much moisture from the steam generated by hot shower water.  The fans checked out as being consistent relative to each other and relative to a new fan, based on their specifications.

After measuring the fans, Kevin installed the blower test.  Here, the door into the garage (opened) is affixed with an expandable frame, which seals the doorway opening with the blower installed.  All of the doors and windows were checked to make sure that they were closed.  The blower was turned on>  The idea is to create a vacuum or negative pressure within the house.  Kevin then took the thermal imager on a trip around the house with me in tow.  We checked all of the windows, doors, vents, air returns, and lighting plates and outlets for leaks.  We also checked the walls and head joists for insulation quality.  I had two rooms that I was concerned about, but there was nothing. 

Lastly, he checked the hot water heater for CO emissions when the three bathroom fans, cooking fan and dryer were all operating.  As Kevin described it, when the hot water heater is on, the CO moves up into a conical flue above the hot water heater and then is vented out of the house.  When the above fans and dryer are operating, it causes a back draft on the hot water heater venting, thereby allowing the CO to flow back into the house.  Obviously, this is unsafe.  This in unlikely to happen in our household during the weekday, as, at most, do we have two people taking showers and the dryer is on at the same time.  However, on a weekend, we could be showering, frying bacon and doing the laundry, thereby creating trouble.

Conclusion:
This is one of those service calls/visits that you will want to be around for and ask as many questions as you can.  The amount of information that you will pick up is well worth it.  Take it seriously and use it as your starting point to reduce your energy consumption and begin to lower your carbon footprint. 

CenterPoint Energy will be sending a comprehensive energy audit, which will outline what to do to start reducing energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions.  One of the recommendations will be replacing incandescent light bulbs with LED light bulbs, of which I will cover in the next blog.

Hours the energy audit was conducted:
2.5 hours

Cost:

$100

Monday, October 20, 2014

What I have been up to since my last blog

Since my last blog, I have been busy putting together historical data from my household from water usage, sewer usage, and electric usage to natural gas usage (the last two years, of which last year was the coldest in decades and on some days record cold temperatures for Minnesota).  I have been setting up statistical spreadsheets and attempting to set up templates that you could use to replicate what I have done.  Here is a list of completed tasks (see my task list below this):

  • I have counted the number of electrical outlets and light. 
  • I have contacted CenterPoint Energy for a home energy audit – that will occur this Thursday (cost $100).
  • Coincidentally, the day that I called for the energy audit; I received an email from CenterPoint Energy offering customers three free faucet aerators and three free water savings shower heads.  I have ordered them and expect them in 8 weeks (cost $0).  I have also ordered the winterization kit (cost $25).
  • I have purchased a hot water heater insulation kit (cost $25) and called the plumber to disconnect one of the two linked hot water heaters (cost TBA). 
  • I have also replaced six ceiling lights which each had four 40-watt incandescent light bulbs (160 watts per ceiling light) with six 60-watt equivalent LED ceiling lights (cost $260 for 22 LED 60-watt bulbs and 6 LED 60-watt ceiling lights).
  • I have purchased the Nest Thermostat (cost $249).
 
I will be discussing each of these in more detail in ensuing blogs.  My goal is to show how each of us can reduce our energy usage by investing in technology.  I will be re-calculating the carbon footprint after the implementation of each of these changes.  Mind you, that is all theoretical savings in carbon, but I can demonstrate energy savings through the statistics that I am accumulating.


Task List


Thursday, September 25, 2014

My Carbon Footprint - my goal is to significantly reduce it and this is the start of my journey.

In August, I blogged about a MOOC (massive open online course) that UCSD taught entitled, "Our Energy Future."  The course addressed the types of energy sources and their differences.  It also described the different research that was being undertaken at the universities and corporations.  The general thesis was how do we move from a carbon-based energy consumer to a more efficient consumer with a lower carbon footprint.   While some of the solutions are expensive, I am going to discuss less expensive energy savings solutions.  Some of the solutions will be low-tech technology and some high-tech technology.  I will include the cost of the technologies and the payback, as I have calculated to the best of my ability.  I will be describing that over the next number of blogs.

A good place to start is to measure your family’s carbon footprint.  It is a crude measurement, but it only takes a few minutes and is very insightful.  Here is a calculator that we used in the above mentioned course – click here => carbon footprint calculator.

You will need your monthly utility statements to begin the carbon footprint calculation.  Here is a list of tabs that you will fill out:

House – they have options for electricity, natural gas, heating oil, coal, LPG, propane and wooden pellets.

Flights – number of flights and miles flown during the time period – I used the average number of flights and mileage flown for the year and divided that by 12.

Car – miles driven and miles per gallon, if you know it.

Motorbike – same as above.

Bus & Rail – bus, coach, commuter train, long distance train, tram, subway and taxi, all in miles traveled during the month.

Secondary – this is an interesting one.  It is basically about your lifestyle – what you eat, where, is it imported or local, carnivore or vegan, etc.  They ask about fashion, packaging, furniture and electrics, recycling, recreation, finance and other services.  It attempts to calculate the carbon generated by growing/manufacturing these things, transporting these things, using these things and then recycling these things.  It is a crude attempt at measuring what they do in much more detailed calculations of carbon generated in a Life Cycle Assessment (sort of a more sophisticated cost/benefit analysis).

Here is my footprint.

Your Carbon Footprint:

0.32 metric tons of CO2e
0.00 metric tons of CO2e
0.68 metric tons of CO2e
0.00 metric tons of CO2e
0.00 metric tons of CO2e
0.01 metric tons of CO2e
0.46 metric tons of CO2e

Total = 1.47 metric tons of CO2e

Clearly our big buckets are the house, cars, and lifestyle.  I was particularly surprised by the lifestyle.  We do not go out to restaurants or sporting events (other than my children's).  We do not go on more than one vacation per year.  We are not clothes hounds.  But, I am a bit of a tech geek. 

How did that compare to other people in the US and the World?

   My footprint is 1.47 metric tons, which equates to 18.34 metric tons per year
   The average footprint for people in United States is 20.40 metric tons
   The average for the industrial nations is about 11 metric tons
   The average worldwide carbon footprint is about 4 metric tons
   The worldwide target to combat climate change is 2 metric tons

At the end of the calculation, it asks you to write down your pledge to reduce your carbon footprint.  With what I have planned, this should be a fun experiment. 

FYI - For a family of 4, my starting point is a 4,500 square foot home (circa 1992), with a updated roof, all updated energy efficient windows (both circa 2011), updated natural gas furnace and air conditioner (circa 2010), two hot water heaters, 3 cars (2007-2010), old appliances (1992), too many electronics, a lawn sprinkler system.  We don't travel much.  We don't commute.  We are carnivores, but try to buy local as much as possible.  We recycle as much as is possible.  The carbon footprint of all of this, as noted above, is 18.34 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year.

My pledge is:
  • Lighting – switching from incandescent to LED as the bulbs burn out or not.
  • Energy audit - have an energy audit.
  • Thermostat efficiency – lower temperature in the winter and raise it in the summer.
  • Thermal wrap on my hot water heater, while turning one off.
  • Replace one car with a VW Jetta Hybrid.

I will be reporting my progress on this journey here.  My ultimate goal will be revealed later.

Monday, September 22, 2014

Energy and Food Trade-offs

As an energy and mineral economist and equity analyst, I find that we, as Americans, have become the most hypocritical people on earth.  We want cheap energy and cheap food and to feed the world.  While all outcomes are desirable, they may not be readily attainable due to costs, supply or demand.  I am not implying that we should not attempt to do all of these things simultaneously, what I am saying is that all of the outcomes may not be possible with a given budget, be it, local, state or federal.  There will be trade-offs.

One such set of trade-offs is shipping Bakken and Canadian oil and/or Midwest grain over the same railroad tracks.  With only three economically viable transportation methods – rail for oil and grain (long haul), pipeline for oil (long haul), or truck for oil and grain (short haul); most of the oil in the US has been shipped by pipeline and most of the grain has been shipped by rail.  Until recently, these two modes have been the most efficient transportation methods.  Despite their efficiency though, there is not enough capacity of either to transport surpluses.  Right now we have surpluses in oil production and grain production.  Trade-offs need to be made. 

The media has reported extensively about railroad transportation, pipeline transportation, horizontal hydro fracturing and agribusiness.  Several technologies have created the perfect storm for efficient production.  However, transportation infrastructure is woefully behind.  Let’s address the issues.  The combination of horizontal drilling and hydro fracturing has significantly increased the productive capabilities of well bores.  When I drilled oil wells, they were vertical and depending upon the porosity, effective porosity, permeability and pressure of the formation, a single well bore in the Williston Basin (located in the states of Montana, North Dakota and the province of Alberta) could drain, on average, 160 acres.  With the advent of horizontal hydro fracturing, a single well bore, ceteris paribus, can now drain more than 640 acres.  This technology resulted in at least three fewer wells of being drilled (thus lower overall costs), resulting in less surface area disturbance – a huge benefit.  With the number of vertical wells falling and horizontal wells increasing and the number of stages (horizontal section lengths) increasing; oil and gas production has increased.  Production from the North Dakota’s/Montana’s Williston Basin and Alberta’s Williston Basin and their Athabasca oil sands has increased so much that it exceeds pipeline capacities.  Hence, the oil and gas companies had to find other modes of transportation – railroads. 

Traditionally, most if not all, grains have been shipped by rail.  But three years ago, we had a drought in the Midwest and capacity on the unit trains (100-110 cars per train) became available for oil companies.  The rail companies scoured the US for oil tank cars and moved them up north.  This was partially made possible by an increase in capacity and bidirectional capability of the Henry Hub storage and pipeline terminus.

Over the past 15 years, farmers have been able to significantly increase crop yields through two technologies that took off in the last 10 years – global positioning systems (GPS) and genetic modification (GM).  The sophistication of GPS systems allowed the farmer to leave less uncultivated land behind through precision farming.  When other new technologies were added like moisture and chemical sensors, seed counters and planters, etc., the farmer could tailor the planting, watering, insecticide and pesticide applications.  This increased the yield per acre and reduced the overspray of the chemicals.  A win-win.  A coincidental technological explosion took place in seed germination.  Several biotechnology companies developed GM techniques, which expedited the traditional plant grafting techniques.  They incorporated pesticide and insecticide traits and drought resistance traits (more recent).  The advent of these technologies allowed the farmer to crank up the yields.  Thus, the government was able to encourage corn ethanol production (though this is being challenged for energy efficiency issues and food for fuel issues).   With the last two years having above average moisture, yields have increased significantly off the bottom of three years ago, reversing the shortage to a surplus.  Now, the farmers have to decide to cut back on production for next season or build storage – trade-offs.

Here we are then, at crossroads (literally and figuratively).  We, Americans, on the one hand do not want to build new pipelines to carry this increased oil, which has dropped the pump price and reduced dependency on the Mideast (though horizontal hydro fracturing will not make us energy independent – that is another discussion for another day).  That decision would have freed up the rail cars to carry grain from fields to export for the hungry.  Instead we opted for stalling on the pipeline construction, which resulted in numerous oil tank car rail accidents (and forty-two confirmed deaths and five missing and presumed dead in the Lac-Megantic, Quebec oil car derailment) over the past 18 months and grain piling up in silos with no place to go.  This has resulted in corn prices plummeting and putting farmers back into financial distress.


The politics of all of this have been brewing in Minnesota for the past 12 months or so.  A recent study shows that Minnesota grain farmers lost $109 million in revenue from March through May in 2014 alone, while ethanol producers have profited from the cheap corn prices.  Pipelines are still the most efficient and cost effective modes of transportation for oil.  While trains are the most efficient and cost effective modes of transportation for grain.  Let’s drop the hypocrisy and get back to providing good paying jobs, renewing and rebuilding our aging infrastructure and getting the commodities to market.