Final Comments on Solar Posts

I am going to be offline for a few more days, enjoying some time with the family. In the interim, Tom Standing has sent some detailed replies to some of the comments following his posts Arizona Solar Power Project and Ambitious Solar Plans in France.

——————————

Here is some additional material in response to a few of the comments that were submitted regarding my essays on the solar project in Arizona and the solar plan for France.

First is a general comment about my intent with the two essays. I am merely attempting to contribute some hard-edged reality to many solar proposals that do not seem to have been adequately appraised through the conceptual engineering process. The value and scale of proposals for renewable energy projects will be demonstrated through the laws of conservation of energy and thermodynamics. Rational calculations employing these laws are what I am basing my analysis on. We have at our disposal an immense database of solar insolation data on the NREL website, from which we can estimate how much energy a solar project is capable of delivering, and how the energy would be distributed with respect to time. I have also attempted to describe reasonable assumptions to fill in gaps of data or other information in order to complete the calculations. I fully realize that reasonable people will disagree with some of my assumptions, but I think that the differences will not significantly alter the conclusions.

Someone offered energy consumption by a range of vehicle size: one megajoule per mile at highway speeds for light vehicles, 2 MJ for heavier vehicles, and 10 MJ for 18-wheelers.

May I suggest we convert these numbers into units that we are familiar with, such as miles per gallon? A few key conversion factors can be used, as follows.

• 1 joule/sec is the definition of 1 watt; therefore one kilowatt-hour is 3.6 million joules.
• The heat equivalent of electrical energy is about 3,535 Btu per kWh (100% conversion).
• Therefore, 1 Btu = 1,020 joules.
• The heat value in 1 U.S. gallon of gasoline is 125,000 Btu.
• The heat value in 1 U.S. gallon of diesel fuel is 138,000 Btu.

Working out the numbers, 1 MJ = ~ 1,000 Btu, which is 1/125 gallon of gasoline, which, according to the original comment, light vehicles could travel 125 miles/gal.

At 2 MJ/mile, SUVs would travel ~ 62 miles/gal.

The 10 MJ per mile for 18-wheelers burning diesel fuel calculates out to 13.8 miles/gal. Are these reasonable consumption rates? Most people would expect vehicular fuel consumption to be substantially higher.

The same commenter opined: “if a one square meter heterojunction panel can squeeze out 1.6 kWh = 5 MJ a day…”

Let’s estimate what the conversion of insolation to useful electricity would be for this panel, using NREL insolation data.

California’s Mojave Desert offers the highest annual average insolation of any of the 239 monitored stations in the U.S. – 6.6 kWh/ (m2-day) for unshaded fixed panels facing south, tilted at an angle = local latitude. If the panel yields 1.6 kWh of useful electricity in a day, then the conversion factor = 1.6/6.6 = 24.2%. If that same panel were exposed to insolation in St. Louis, MO where, with the same panel orientation, average annual insolation is 4.8 kWh/ (m2-day), and yields 1.6 kWh/day, the conversion factor = 1.6/4.8 = 33.3%. That would be a pretty good panel!

———————

Here is my response to another comment about the French solar plan. The comment was by Bob Lynch, December 22 at 7:43 PM. He wrote: “The French though DO HAVE areas that bask (Basque?) in cloudless days, week after week. France has a strong infrastructure to deliver power far from where it is generated, so it does not have to be on millions of 17th century homes and hovels that dot the countryside.”

This, then, is my response:

If I interpret Mr. Lynch’s vision accurately, he believes that France could construct a major portion of their solar arrays in their sunniest regions, and then transmit the generated electricity to the populous regions where the climate is less favorable to collecting solar energy.

We can check the validity of such a proposal with the insolation data posted on the NREL website.

http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1961-1990/redbook/sum2/

Click the link “In alphabetical order by state and city.” Then choose any city to obtain the data in spreadsheet format.

The insolation statistics I use here are for flat-plate collectors facing south at a fixed-tilt angle equal to the latitude of the site. This orientation gives the optimum solar exposure for fixed flat plates. Most installations will not match this ideal orientation. Collectors are tilted at varying angles, may not face due south, are not always clean, and may experience shading from nearby buildings or trees. Generally, solar installations generate about 15% less electricity than is calculated from insolation data and the manufacturer’s conversion factor.

Although the NREL data covers 239 stations in the United States, we can closely approximate insolation in France with comparable locations in the U.S. based on equivalent latitude and similarities in climate. The southern-most part of France, which provides the highest insolation, is in the range of latitude 43 to 44 degrees. A comparable location where the climate features “cloudless days, week after week,” is Boise, Idaho, latitude 43.57 degrees, with a semi-arid climate. The NREL data shows powerful insolation during the 6 months April through September of 5.8, 6.2, 6.5, 7.0, 6.8, and 6.5, respectively, in units of kWh/ (m2-day). The 30-year annual average is 5.1 (same units). I think we can say that there are scant areas in France where insolation would exceed that of Boise.

The insolation that I estimated as an average for France is 4.6, which, I think, is a fair representation of the regions where solar is most apt to be developed.

An important fact that we need to keep in mind is that average annual insolation does not vary greatly over wide reaches of the U.S. Similarly, variations in Europe would be narrow. For example, Sioux Falls, South Dakota is 850 miles due east of Boise (identical latitude), but with a humid continental climate. However, the 30-year average insolation is 4.8 (same units). It’s a good bet that across the southern quarter of France, insolation would be in the 4.8 to 5.1 range, hardly a bonanza for solar development.

Some 260 miles north-northwest of Boise is Spokane, Washington, latitude 47.63, the latitude that is about 80 miles south of Paris. Summer insolation in Spokane is generous, but noticeably below that of Boise: the 6 months April – September: 5.2, 5.6, 5.9, 6.5, 6.3, and 5.7, respectively. The 30-year annual average is 4.5. Spokane’s insolation is, therefore, likely to be near that of Paris and across the northern third of France. Thus, the 11 or 12% difference of insolation in France, between the sunniest south and the north, is probably not sufficient to justify transmission of large quantities of electricity. Solar-generated electricity would best be utilized near the source.

Government and Industry Incompetence

I fear that gross incompetence in our federal and state governments – as well as in some of our major industries – is going to make life much more challenging for our children and grandchildren. The list this year alone is long. The financial sector took too many risks that didn’t pay off while showering their executives with huge bonuses, so they needed bailing out. We offered up a $700 billion (and counting) package. The auto industry got caught with big inventories of the wrong kinds of cars when oil prices skyrocketed. Another bailout. Then the SEC failed to act on tips that Bernie Madoff was in the process of frittering away $50 billion – and the taxpayer is going to get stuck with part of that bill as well.

It should come as no surprise then that in this environment the ethanol industry – an industry that the government created – is looking to be bailed out as well:

An Ethanol Bailout?

The commodity bust has clobbered corn ethanol, whose energy inefficiencies require high oil prices to be competitive. The price of ethanol at the pump has fallen nearly in half in recent months to $1.60 from $2.90 per gallon due to lower commodity prices, and that lower price now barely covers production costs even after accounting for federal subsidies. Three major producers are in or near bankruptcy, including giant VeraSun Energy.

So here they go again back to the taxpayer for help. The Renewable Fuels Association, the industry lobby, is seeking $1 billion in short-term credit from the government to help plants stay in business and up to $50 billion in loan guarantees to finance expansion.

Of course, the ethanol industry wouldn’t even exist without the more than $25 billion in taxpayer handouts over the past 20 years.

I have been warning of this for quite some time. Yet there is no end to this mess, as we have created – through government support – an industry that will implode and take down entire Midwest economies without continued government support. As I pointed out back in March, when the ethanol industry finds itself in financial trouble – and it was inevitable – look for the lobbyists to start asking for an increased mandate. The lobbying is underway:

Ethanol Questions Fuel a Pushback Over Regulation Changes

The question of whether cars can safely run on higher blends is a murky one. At the moment, federal law allows gasoline used in regular cars to contain no more than 10 percent ethanol. The ethanol industry says the proportion could go higher—to 15 percent or even 20 percent—without significantly affecting how cars drive or hold up or how their emissions control systems perform. Some industry representatives are asking the Environmental Protection Agency, which has final say in these matters, to quickly approve 12 or 13 percent blends.

Here is an industry that can’t survive even with a combination of mandates and subsidies – and our government couldn’t see any of this coming. So the industry asks for more subsidies, and our kids get the bill.

So what’s the solution? I don’t favor a quick end to the mandates at this point, or the economic fallout will be pretty severe. But the escalating mandates need to stop, or the bailouts are going to keep getting larger. This would also send a message to those thinking about building more ethanol capacity to think twice about it.

Top 10 Energy Stories of 2008

Tis the season for Top 10 stories, and here are what I think were the Top 10 energy stories of the year.

1. Unprecedented volatility in the energy markets

Oil prices raced to nearly $150 a barrel, and then fell to the $30’s by year end. This marks the highest ever prices for oil, followed by the lowest prices in four years. Gasoline, diesel, and natural gas prices demonstrated the same kind of volatility. There are multiple factors behind the volatility. The role of speculation was hotly debated, and the economic collapse – fueled by cash-strapped consumers who had overextended themselves – resulted in a sharp drop in demand. Some even argued that the real reason behind the plunge in prices was closure of the so-called “Enron loophole.”

2. Oil price volatility fallout

A consequence of the incredibly volatility was the economic damage done at both ends of the price spectrum. At the upper end, airlines were going bankrupt and car companies were in deep financial trouble as consumers stopped buying the higher profit margin SUVs. After oil prices plunged, some non-integrated oil companies found themselves in financial trouble, including Flying J who declared bankruptcy.

3. Barack Obama elected

In a normal year, this would have been my #1 story, especially considering that the new administration is likely to attempt a major shift away from fossil fuels. My prediction is that reality is going to collide with enthusiasm, and while gains are likely to be made along several fronts, aggressive renewable energy targets will not be met.

4. Ethanol producers struggle

Despite production mandates and generous federal subsidies, ethanol producers struggled to make a profit. A combination of high corn prices followed by falling fuel prices pushed even some of the largest ethanol producers to bankruptcy. Corn growers fared much better, as higher prices and mandated demand from the ethanol industry provided them with the same sort of windfall seen recently by the oil industry (prompting some to ask whether a windfall profits tax on corn would be good for consumers). Xethanol finally ceased operations, as I had predicted in early 2007.

5. Somali pirates hijack supertanker

Somali pirates, emboldened by recent multi-million dollar ransom payments, hijacked a Saudi supertanker carrying $100 million worth of oil. At the time of this writing, the situation remains unresolved, although the value of the oil at current market prices is now considerably less than $100 million.

6. 2nd generation ethanol is delayed

The story this year was supposed to be “2nd generation ethanol production begins“, but alas the over-promise, under-deliver meme that I have been critical of continues. Range Fuels had initially intended to start producing in 2008, but that was delayed to 2009 and now production isn’t forecast to begin until 2010. Meanwhile, other 2nd generation ethanol companies continue to promise the world, including Coskata who claims they can make ethanol for “under US $1.00 a gallon anywhere in the world.” (I took a good look at those claims here.) Finally, according to this source (another here), of the six cellulosic ethanol projects selected to receive $385 million in federal funding in February 2007, almost two years later only one plant is actually under construction (Range Fuels).

7. Peak oil becomes fashionable, then unfashionable again

High oil prices demanded an explanation, and peak oil was ready to provide that explanation. 2008 was probably the year that the mainstream began to seriously discuss and debate peak oil. However, when prices began to plunge, the peak oil skeptics began to say “I told you so.” Others suggested that this was just a continuation of the normal cycles.

8. Gas stations in the southeast run out of gasoline in the wake of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike

Some major oil refineries that shut down in the face of Hurricane Gustav had to remain shut down with Hurricane Ike following closely behind. Gasoline inventories heading into the hurricanes were low, so it wasn’t long before spot outages began to show up across the southeast. As I predicted during a panel session at this year’s ASPO conference, the outages were likely to be short-lived, and inventories would recover as refineries came back online. This was in response to wide-spread concern, partially fueled by Matt Simmons’ presentation, that the outages were the beginning of something much more widespread. (I think my answer was literally “This situation is temporary. I expect inventories a month from now to be substantially higher.”)

9. “Drill here, drill now”

Momentum for more exploration and production in U.S. waters increased along with oil prices. This became a campaign theme for Republicans, who adopted the slogan “Drill here, drill now.” President Bush lifted a moratorium on offshore drilling. Democrats initially responded with calls for oil companies to be forced to drill on current leases before opening up new ones. However, Congress – facing constituents unhappy with high gas prices – ultimately followed suit and allowed the 25-year moratorium to expire. The response from then candidate Obama was that he wasn’t happy to see the moratorium expire, and that he favored “responsible” drilling as part of a broader energy package. My own proposal was to allow drilling and funnel the lease proceeds to alternative energy, mass transit, and other initiatives designed to reduce oil consumption. This proposal later received quite a lot of attention when Paris Hilton proposed the same thing.

10. Record profits by US energy companies

On the back of high oil prices, the integrated oil companies (those who produce both oil and refined products like gasoline and diesel) once again saw record profits. There was an interesting dichotomy, however, as downstream profits in the refining sector vanished as gasoline consumption fell. Pure refiners like Valero saw their profits crash.

That’s more or less what I think were the Top 10 stories of 2008. There were quite a few in the honorable mention category, such as T. Boone Pickens energy plan, the decision by OPEC to reverse direction and propose big production cuts, falling oil production in Russia and Mexico, and postponed investments in the wake of lower prices.

So, what did I miss? Which stories do you think should be ranked in a significantly different order?

In closing, Happy Holidays to all readers. I am now going offline to spend some good family time. Here’s hoping that you all have the same opportunity.

Loading Up on PBR

A little over a month ago, as a result of the dramatic fall in the market capitalizations of oil companies, I opened up a brokerage account with Ameritrade to take advantage of the fire sale. Besides my ConocoPhillips (COP) stock, most of my investments are diversified in various mutual funds – often diversified into things I don’t know too much about. As I have said many times before, I am a long-term investor. Short-term volatility doesn’t impact me much; my time horizon when I buy a stock is 5-10 years out. Therefore, I see an opportunity.

Do I think oil prices will be hanging around $40 in 10 years? Absolutely not. I think the OPEC cuts will begin to bite, and they are going to be very slow to increase production again. I also think that non-OPEC production will peak soon, if it hasn’t already (and that is in fact a widely held view; the bigger question is whether worldwide production will peak – and I think it will). Right now the December 2009 WTI contract is trading above $52, so the market is expecting prices to go up from here.

So, if I am correct, and I think oil prices are headed back above $100 in the next few years, what is a long-term investor to do? If you can put up with the risk, you could buy oil futures. But I don’t like that kind of risk. Better I think is investing in energy companies, and oil field services companies. But which ones? If I didn’t already own COP, it would have been a no-brainer. The price to earnings ratio (PE) had fallen to below 4 – the lowest of any major oil company – and the dividend yield was right at 4%. It was being priced like a company in dire financial straights, when it was nothing of the sort. But I already own COP, and I don’t want to concentrate my holdings too much.

The other problem with the U.S. based oil companies is that their access to oil is drying up. So, how about a non-U.S. oil company sitting on a bunch of reserves? Saudi Aramco seems like a no-brainer, but I don’t believe there is any way to invest there. There are companies like Statoil (STO) in Norway, ENI (E) in Italy, and Petrobras (PBR) in Brazil. The one that really intrigues me is Petrobras. They are sitting on large reserves, and have made a number of new discoveries in recent years. Consumption in Brazil is very low relative to the U.S., and the EIA forecasts that they will become a net exporter in 2009. Production has been growing in recent years. Access is not a problem, since they still have room to grow even at home. I have also noted my opinion that in a post-peak world, Brazil is poised to continue to grow their energy production for many years.

I had missed the chance to buy PBR at $15 in November, and by the last week in November the price had bounced back to >$20. But with PBR trading at $21, I went ahead and put in a limit order at $17.50, hoping I hadn’t missed the bottom. On December 4th, that trade executed. The PE then was hovering around 5. (I had almost invested some on margin, but the margin rates were much too high for my liking).

Since then, the stock has risen by as much as 48%, until backing off somewhat last week. As I write this, my shares are up 34% in less than 3 weeks. Despite my long-term view, such a quick run-up has provided a great temptation to go ahead and sell. But short term capital gains are taxed at a much higher rate than are long term capital gains, so I plan to go ahead and hold for at least a year. In the interim, if shares fall again to $15, I will put more money down.

As a footnote, there was an investment that I carefully considered as an alternative: EWZ, which is a closed-end mutual fund that invests in Brazilian companies. The reason I considered this is that if you look at the low consumption in Brazil, combined with their oil reserves, you can make a very strong case that their economy has a lot of room to grow. But one of EWZ’s major holdings was Petrobras, so I figured I would just go directly with PBR, who stand to benefit quite a lot as Brazil’s economy grows.

Ambitious Solar Plans in France; Solar Capacity Factors

The following guest post was written by Tom Standing, a “semi-retired, part-time civil engineer for the City of San Francisco.” In Part 1, Tom took a critical look at a 280 MW solar thermal plant in Arizona. Here in Part 2, Tom examines France’s ambitious solar plans.

———————

The December 1 issue of the Oil and Gas Journal carried a “Quick Take” article about France’s “national plan for renewable energies” that they unveiled on November 17. Their plan includes all the popular ideas for alternative energy: biomass, wind, hydro, waves and tides, with a major emphasis on solar. For now France has 13 megawatts of installed capacity in solar, but the energy minister wants solar to be a whopping 5,400 MW in 2020! He says that France will change its carbon-based energy model to a completely decarbonized model: each home, company, and community will produce its own energy.

Excuse me, but why is France doing this? They already have the least carbon-intensive energy system of any industrialized nation. They generate 75% of their electricity with nuclear, supported by the most extensive technology to reprocess spent nuclear fuel, than any nation in the world. Practically 100% of their rail system is electrified, packed with people, whether on the Paris Metro or speedy intercity trains. France has already developed the working model of a low-carbon energy system for other nations to emulate.

Let’s do some rational calculations on France’s solar plan, similar to my last email. We can see what surface area of collectors would be needed, and how much electricity would be generated.

Collector Area

As I explained previously, solar panels are rated at their maximum output, when the sun is near its highest altitude for the year under cloudless skies. Under such ideal conditions, insolation is about 1,000 watts per square meter. The most cost-effective panels convert about 10% of insolation into useful electricity, a factor that has remained unchanged for 10 years. Some PVs might convert 15%, but they cost more and are not mass-produced. Thus a typical panel of one square meter is rated at 100 watts.

To estimate the area of PV panels that France wants to install, we simply divide 5,400 MW by 100 W/m² and we get an incomprehensible 54 million m²! It means that one million homes and businesses would have to be covered with 54 m² of panels. A typical home can accommodate only 25-30 m², so more than a million buildings would have to install PV. I do not know the worldwide capacity for manufacturing PV panels, but I would guess that current capacity is a small fraction of 54 million m²/year. Oh sure, capacity will grow, but what about PV for Germany, Spain, UK, the Low Countries, and the US? California alone would suck up a major chunk of that capacity.

Solar Electricity Generated

Let’s say that France actually installs 54 million m² of solar by 2020. (I think it’s fantasy in the extreme, but let’s carry the scenario through.) How much electricity will the fully built-out system generate?

First, we need to estimate the insolation upon the collectors. While I have copious insolation data from NREL for the US, I have no site-specific data for Europe. But I can make a reasonable estimate. Having traveled throughout France at various times for a total of about 3 months (typically in the summer), I can say that France has mild sun conditions. I would compare the French summer sun to that of Cleveland or Minneapolis. However, France is located at somewhat higher latitudes, which tends to reduce midday sun strength and spreads it out over more daylight hours. The northern suburbs of Paris, say around de Gaulle International, is latitude 49o, the northern-most boundary between the US and Canada. The south-most reaches of France, are between latitude 43 and 44, equivalent to Buffalo, NY or Portland, Maine.

I will pick a number on the generous side for annual average insolation in France, equivalent to that of Boston, New York, Chicago, and Minneapolis:

4.6 kWh/ (m²-day).

This level of insolation is for optimum panel orientation: facing due south with no shading, tilted at an angle equal to local latitude. Varying amounts of shading with less than ideal orientation will reduce the insolation on the collectors of most installations.

Now we are ready to calculate the annual energy generated from the fully-built French PV system. As I showed in Section 8 of my previous email, the annual energy generated by a solar installation is the product of four factors:

Insolation, average day during a year = 4.6 kWh/ (m²-day)

10% conversion of insolation into electricity, the industry standard for PV

Area of solar collectors = 54 million m²

365 days/year

Cancelling out units and carefully watching orders of magnitude, we come up with 9 billion kWh of useful electricity generated during the first year of complete build-out. But we need to give this number some perspective.

Energy Generation in Perspective

EIA statistics show that French consumption of electricity grew from 353 billion kWh in 1992 to 415 billion in 2002, or 62 billion kWh in 10 years for an average gain of 6.2 billion kWh/year.

It means then, that this huge solar development would, at best, produce the equivalent of only 1.5 years of gain in France’s electricity consumption. And it would take a 12-year crash program to install that much solar!

Another comparison is with the annual power output of one of France’s 1,000 MW nuclear power reactors. If the reactor operates for a year at 90% capacity (typical for the industry), the three factors to multiply are: 90%, one million kW, and 8,760 hours/year. Multiplying out these factors, we find that a single reactor would produce about 8 billion kWh/year, roughly the equivalent electricity as all the solar panels covering nearly 2 million homes and businesses.

Costs for PV

In the US, homes and businesses that install PV typically receive “rebates,” (another word for “subsidies”) from state or local governments, or the utility, to be paid for by all ratepayers. Rebates usually amount to about half of the total installed cost. The unit cost for solar installations has changed little since 2000, in the range of $600 – $700 per square meter, or in the terms of the industry, $6,000 – $7,000 per rated kW. Thus a homeowner usually qualifies for a rebate of 6 or 7 thousand $ after installing a 2 kW PV system.

I don’t know if French taxpayers and ratepayers will subsidize solar installations, but the unsubsidized cost remains the same and must be paid by somebody. Total installed cost of the solar plan for France, then, would run in the neighborhood of $35 billion. What is the cost of building a single reactor in a nuclear power plant? Considerably less I would say.

Solar Capacity Factors

We can calculate capacity factors for any solar project directly from insolation data. This provides a shortcut to calculating electrical output on an annual or monthly basis when we are given the nameplate capacity. The capacity factor depends only on insolation during the time period in question, and is independent of the conversion factor between insolation and electricity.

The capacity factor is defined as the ratio of actual energy generated, to the energy generated at maximum insolation, i.e. nameplate capacity. Therefore, our ratio is:

actual average isolation/maximum insolation

Maximum insolation, we have seen, is 1,000 W/m².

Actual insolation is given in kWh/ (m²-day). We have to convert this quantity into units of W/m². We cancel out hours and days by dividing actual insolation by 24 h/d. For example, if insolation is 5.0 kWh/ (m²-day), the average power output during one day is 5,000/24 = 208 watts. Average power output divided by maximum insolation (1,000 W/m²) gives a capacity factor of 20.8%.

If you have some time during this busy season to look at this, I would value your input. I would like to take the discussion about “green energy” beyond all the vague generalizations that we hear repeatedly from our leaders about stimulating a green or clean energy future. It’s as if “renewable energy” is a virgin topic, yet to be assessed and waiting to be tapped. But we already have a great amount of information with which to evaluate avant-garde energy proposals. We need to put hard numbers to these generalizations.

Arizona Solar Power Project, Calculations

The following guest post was written by Tom Standing, a “semi-retired, part-time civil engineer for the City of San Francisco.” In Part 1, Tom takes on the calculations for a 280 MW solar thermal plant in Arizona that I looked at back in February. My conclusion from that essay was that the electrical demands of the U.S. could in theory be met on 10,000 square miles of land. Tom peels the onion a few more layers and puts the energy production into perspective.

While solar calculations are by no means second nature to me, I see no obvious errors in Tom’s calculations. But I consider peer review to be a very useful component of my blog, and I know that Tom would appreciate any constructive criticisms. Part II will delve into France’s solar ambitions.

———————–

Hello Robert,

You and I met at the Sacramento Peak Oil conference. Your presentations and discussions were most enlightening. I was heartened by your analysis of cellulosic ethanol. I have always been deeply skeptical of the notion that the U.S. might displace a meaningful portion of transportation fuel with biofuels from cellulose. I could give you some of my thoughts on this subject, but you have already covered the territory thoroughly.

I want to comment on your calculations you posted in TOD in February, regarding the proposed 280 MW solar thermal plant in Arizona. First, a bit about my background. I started my career as a chemical engineer, first in refinery operations, and then chemical processing design. But that was only about 4 years. Most of my career has been as a registered civil engineer in a variety of disciplines for the City and County of San Francisco. Over the years, I have become interested, maybe even fascinated about the prospect of utility-scale generation of electricity from qualified renewable sources.

Throughout North America and Europe, many people have focused on renewable energy as a means of reducing dependence on Middle East oil and reducing CO₂ emissions. They see renewable energy as an important element to achieve emissions targets of the Kyoto Protocol. In the U.S., renewable energy from wind, solar, and biofuels appears to be a keystone for energy policy in the Obama Administration. In Texas, T. Boone Pickens is campaigning for a new American energy policy centered on major input from wind-generated energy to displace electricity generated from gas-fired power plants. Natural gas would then be redirected as CNG to power autos and trucks. In California, Governor Schwarzenegger sees his “Million Solar Roofs” program as leading other states to do likewise, thereby reducing CO₂ emissions. California utilities are mandated to supply 20% of electricity from qualified renewable sources (wind, solar, bio/waste, geothermal, and small hydro) by 2015. Contributions from these sources have been stuck in the range of 10-11% since 2000. The 20% mandate appears to be a major challenge, maybe unrealistic.

Many questions come to mind in looking at the proposed Arizona plant. What precisely does the 280 MW refer to? Is it the plant’s output at capacity? Is it an annual average output? How much electricity will it generate annually? How will output vary during the day, or by season? How will output be affected by clouds?

There is important data available and a few fundamental design features that will answer these questions. Costs for construction, however, are not my strong suit. Other analysts will have much better information on costs. Cost of the plant will not change the results of my analysis.

1. Insolation Data

Reliable data for site-specific solar radiation (insolation) is critical to estimating solar capabilities. Fortunately, a massive database for insolation is posted on the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) website. In 2000, an engineer who designed solar facilities directed me to the site; I was utterly amazed at what was there. I had to be extremely selective to get the most useful data. I settled on 30-year (1961-1990) average insolation for 239 U.S. cities: monthly and annual average insolation in kWh per square meter per day. Readings for all 239 stations are given for all possible orientations of solar collectors, either fixed or tracking systems. Amazingly, insolation data is also tabulated for averages of each hour during the 30 years for all 239 stations (kW/m²), enough data to make your head spin! Data is also tabulated for insolation of all collector orientations at 239 locations above Earth’s atmosphere! For reference, I eventually copied pages that filled a binder weighing 10 lbs.

2. Site Coverage with Solar Collectors

A rough approximation for coverage of the 1,900-acre site with solar collectors is 50%. Space is needed for maintenance and control centers, electrical converter units, towers for power lines, and maybe a backup power facility fired by gas or oil. Proposed facilities to store electricity for release at night will also consume land.

In 2001, I toured a solar thermal plant at Kramer Junction in California’s Mojave Desert.

http://www.solargenix.com/pdf/CSPDOEJUNE2003.pdf

At one square mile, it is about 1/3 the size of the Arizona plant. I would say that close to half of the site is taken up by gravel roads for maintenance vehicles. At least weekly, wash trucks at night clean the collectors of dust that frequently blows around. The roads also provide necessary space between rows of collectors to prevent shading. Collectors tilted upward to gather more sunlight cast shadows at low sun angles. If the designers in Arizona are really stingy with land use, they may be able to cover 50% of the site with collectors, including facilities for power storage.

As with Kramer Junction, the entire site will be dedicated to industrial use, fenced off and completely secure. Areas covered by collectors are denuded of vegetation, graded, and compacted. There is hardly space for a rodent or a bird to live. Collectors are supported by steel columns embedded in reinforced concrete foundations designed to resist maximum wind forces upon the considerable surfaces of the collectors. These are real-world features that solar advocates overlook when they envision hundreds of square miles devoted to solar power.

3. Calculate Collector Area

We calculate the area of solar collectors in square meters to utilize NREL insolation data.

The 1,900 acres converts to 7.7 million sq m. With 50% for collectors, 3.8 million sq m are on the site.

4. Model the Collection Array

The Arizona plant is to be a concentrating system that tracks the sun. Surprisingly, NREL data shows that concentrating systems collect less sunlight per sq m than systems consisting of flat plates, one-axis tracking, tilted at an angle = to latitude of site. Thus to be generous, I will calculate the output based on flat plates, 1-axis tracking, tilt = latitude.

For Phoenix, NREL data gives average annual insolation for our model as 8.6 kWh per sq m per day (i.e. all days averaged for 30 years). For Tucson, insolation under our model is 8.7, with slight differences for each month.

5. Calculate Insolation Striking the Collectors

Here we convert solar energy striking collectors during one day, to the average rate during the day. Thus, for Phoenix (the nearest station with NREL data to the plant):

The average annual rate of solar power striking collectors

= [8.6 kWh/ (m²-day)] [one day/24 h]

= 358 watts/m², say 360 watts/m²

Scaling up this power for the entire plant, average daily solar power striking all collectors

= (360 W/m²) (3.8 million m²)

= 1,370 megawatts

6. Assume 15% Conversion of Insolation to Useful Electricity

The solar thermal plant at Kramer Junction converts about 15% of insolation striking the collectors into electricity. Therefore, a decent assumption for the Arizona plant that would be consistent with our other assumptions is 15% conversion.

Average electrical power generated by the plant over the entire year

= (0.15) (1,370 MW)

= 205 MW

This power output is, of course, highly variable, depending on time of day, season, and cloud cover. To get an idea for seasonal changes, the NREL data tells us that plant output would average 257 MW for an average day in June, to 138 MW for an average day in December.

7. Maximum Electrical Power Output

What might be the maximum electrical power output of the plant? It would correspond to maximum insolation, which is roughly 1,000 watts/m². Fifteen percent conversion gives a plant output of 150 W/m², times 3.8 million m², so maximum electricity generation = 570 MW.

According to NREL data for the desert, maximum insolation duration is about two hours a day under cloudless skies from late spring through early summer. The duration of maximum shortens with increasing time away from June 21. In early spring and late summer, maximum insolation slips below 1,000 W/m².

Clouds have a widely variable effect, from a 10 or 15% reduction from thin cirrus clouds, to a 50-70% reduction from dense cumulus clouds (thunderheads). At Kramer Junction, operators adjust flows of the heat transfer fluid whenever a cloud drifts over the array. I seem to remember that operators engage small electric pumps to keep the fluid flowing in portions of the array that experience cooling. The Arizona array, with three times more area, will experience more frequent effects of cloud shadows.

8. Annual Energy Generated

One final simple calculation gives us the average annual electrical energy that the Arizona plant will generate. It is the product of four factors:

Insolation, average day (NREL data) = 8.6 kWh/ (m²-day)

15% conversion of insolation to electricity

Area of solar collectors = 3.8 million m²

365 days/year

Thus the 1,900-acre Arizona plant will generate roughly 1.8 billion kWh per year.

Let’s give this quantity some perspective. EIA statistics for renewable energy in 2007 show that wind-generated energy in Texas was 8.1 billion kWh. Thus it would take four and one-half plants the size of the Arizona plant to match Texas wind energy for 2007.

A more telling comparison is with the recent growth of electrical consumption in the U.S. EIA statistics show that the U.S. consumed 2,885 billion kWh of electricity in 1992; in 2002 consumption was 3,660 kWh. Average growth, then, was 77 billion kWh per year over the 10 years. Thus the electrical energy that would be generated by the Arizona plant would supply only 2.3% (1.8/77) of one year’s growth of U.S. electrical consumption. I do not have electrical consumption broken down by state, but I would guess that Arizona could build a solar plant of equal size every year, and they would barely cover their own growth in electrical consumption.

PV Potential

I have not touched on PV, but there is much to discuss. NREL data is so extensive that there is almost no limit to analyses that could be done. For now, I should only refer you to an article that I published in the Oil and Gas Journal, June 25, 2001 issue. I graphically displayed annual insolation curves for a wide range of locations. At a glance the reader can see how insolation varies with latitude, longitude, and collector orientations. I also ran through sample calculations to see how much energy can be generated. An important finding is that insolation for most of the eastern half of the U.S. stays within a narrow range: 4.6 to 5.2 kWh/ (m²-day), with fixed collectors facing south, tilted at latitude for maximal exposure.

The above calculations are purely rational, using insolation data and general assumptions in design. Actual practice shows that solar installations typically generate 10 to 15% less energy than what the calculations show.

Cellulosic Ethanol Targets Slipping

For those who read this blog, this story will come as no surprise. I have been warning for a couple of years that the cellulosic ethanol proponents have been getting ahead of themselves with predictions of how quickly the industry will scale up. In fact, not only have I said that they were vastly overpromising (see this essay challenging Vinod Khosla’s claims; he had the U.S. at 50 billion gallons of ethanol by 2020) but that enzymatic cellulosic processes would ultimately lose out to biomass gasification processes.

I think if I told people that we would cure cancer within 5 years – or better yet mandated that we cure cancer within 5 years or pay penalties as a result – people would generally think I was daft. In this case, they understand that technology can’t be mandated. But commercial cellulosic ethanol is a problem that we have been working on for just as long as we have been trying to cure cancer, and commercial success has proven elusive. Yet these same people don’t bat an eye when proponents casually assure everyone that commercial success is just around the corner.

This week, there have been two separate reports that indicate that the targets are indeed slipping:

Consumers to Pick Up Tab for Off-Target Cellulosic Ethanol Industry

Cellulosic ethanol is turning out to be an underachiever so far.

The 2008 Energy Independence and Security Act set a goal of producing 100 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol in the U.S. by 2010 and 250 million gallons by 2011, but a survey conducted by David Woodburn of ThinkEquity strongly indicates that the industry is likely to miss its mark.

Woodburn expects only 28.5 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol to be produced in the U.S. in 2010, leaving a 71.5 million gallon gap.

“Congress put this 100 million figure out there and I’m not sure they had any idea about the capacity in the industry,” he said.

28.5 million gallons works out to be almost 2,000 barrels a day. With that in mind, I will go one step further and say that we won’t even produce 28.5 million gallons in 2010. I also expect that the producers with announced plans to produce cellulosic ethanol in 2010 will do so at a loss on every gallon.

The article goes on to explain that consumers will be penalized as a result – that retailers must effectively pay “$2 for every gallon of cellulosic ethanol they couldn’t find.” Keep in mind, this comes about directly because people have overpromised – causing expectations to rise to high – and they are going to underdeliver. These are big pet peeves of mine.

The second report on the pending shortfall came from the Energy Information Administration (EIA). In their Annual Energy Outlook 2009, the EIA suggests that cellulosic ethanol will fall far short of the mandated levels. More on that story from CNN:

As Obama Picks Cellulosic Advocates, EIA Predicts Shortfall

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. won’t be able to meet its mandate to produce 36 billion barrels of biofuel by 2022, according to the government’s top energy forecaster.

The EIA forecasts ethanol supply from cellulosic feedstocks reaching 12.6 billion gallons (including both domestic and imported production) in 2030, while biodiesel and biomass-to-liquid diesel fuel use rise significantly, reaching nearly 2 billion gallons and 5 billion gallons, respectively, in 2030.

The Renewable Fuels Standard of a year ago mandates 36 billion gallons of ethanol usage by 2022, with 16 billion gallons coming from cellulosic ethanol. As I said at the time, those numbers didn’t appear to be remotely credible. The EIA report indicates that we won’t have reached that level by 2030. I do note that this is a very big increase in the EIA projections, however, which previously projected less than 1 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol being produced in 2030 (see comments on Guy Caruso’s Senate testimony in 2007 here). Maybe they believe at least some level of technology can be mandated.

The Next Secretary of Energy: Will He Flinch & Cave to the Fossil Fuel Culture?

The following guest submission is from a poster who wishes to be identified as ‘Silverthorne-Cebes’, and describes himself as: “Economist, retired; passionate about; ocean energy, development of eco-batteries for transportation, global debt repudiation, and research on oil culture created environmental disasters.”

The bulk of this essay was initially posted as a comment following one of my essays, but I felt that it was extensive enough that it warranted a stand alone post. There are some very controverserial and debatable points in the essay, so let the debate begin. Actually, I will let the rest of you begin the debate, because if all goes according to plan I should be somewhere over the Atlantic Ocean – heading West – when this posts.

————————————-

The Next Secretary of Energy: Will He Flinch & Cave to the Fossil Fuel Culture?

Robert, I share most of your views regarding Obama’s Energy Plan, there is, in my view however, a glaring absence of any sense of National urgency. This planet faces a critical need to implement alternatives that force the shutdown of technologies that produce CO2 emissions, period!

The objective to achieve energy efficiency is clear, given what is known about global warming and its negative impact on everything. There are alternatives to cheap oil, coal and natural gas as well as nuclear. The 65 year old constraint on fixing the energy system has been the suppression of information by the fossil fuel, nuclear industries and the government it controls. It has been and continues to be the Federal government’s refusal to fund demonstration and deployment programs for ocean kinetics/hydrology (not dams) which are the more efficient energy producing alternatives, because they pose serious threats to fossil fuel and nuclear profits.

You stated in your blog, “Thus I believe a sound energy policy should focus on: 1). Minimizing per capita energy usage; 2). Finding sustainable, affordable alternatives; 3). Managing the down side of the production peak such that severe shortages are avoided. 4). Communicating to the public the nature of the problem, and explaining why sacrifice is needed.”

These are all on the mark. I would only add, 5). A Presidential mandate which requires the allocation of resources to the most efficient technologies, i.e. those that eliminate CO2 emissions the most per dollar of public funding.

Absent that mandate, politicians will have free reign to support their special interests. Moreover, if there is no statement of “urgency” based upon irrefutable scientific evidence, there will only emerge a continuation of the “Oil Cultures” —- “In Due Time” approach to energy efficiency.

What drives the emergency/urgency to eliminate CO2 emissions is the following:

1. Oil drilling and Enhanced Oil Recovery EOR reduces water available for agriculture and household use. When we ask, where did all the water go, it’s mostly in the wells, polluted and acidic eating away the sandstone and any basalt.

2. Increases the instability of geologic formations due to the “soup” injected into wells. Look at what’s happening in the Maldives, and the explosions in the Arctic.

3. Spurs the formation of “Mud Volcanoes” which when destabilized explode, destroying vast areas of the ocean’s floor.

4. Increases atmospheric methane which contributes to global warming because it is 20 times more dense than CO2 and holds more heat.

The oil and gas industry have been drilling for oil using fresh water, carbonated, fresh water- to pressurize their wells, since the mid 1800’s; they also use phosphoric acid, the ingredient needed for RNA and DNA formation. They only use fresh water. Salt water will not do; if you see it mentioned it is the rare case of desalinization.

As a consequence, they have used up as much fresh water from our planet as they have produced oil (approx. barrel for barrel) since the beginning, which is now a little over 150 years ago. Unlike other industrial use of H2O, the depth they put the water means it is never coming back to the water table, and it is polluted, because the acid brew has been dissolving the crust of the earth slowly -but surely, chewing up metals dissolving them into their sulfides and even forming methane gas, a simple chemical reaction when you have CO2 and H2O way down there in the earth where there is a lot of fully decayed carbon. We are a closed system. We are not making any new water at this point in our planet’s history. What they are making is volatile methane hydrate.

Methane gas likes water; with fresh water, and fresh water only, it can form its hydrate. It does this by compressing itself about 170 times into an ice lattice. Methane in all but one case on Earth needs low temperature and high pressure to form as it does deep in the earth where the industry finds oil and gas.

The one exception to the rule is the Arctic; it is the only place that methane can form its hydrate at atmospheric pressure, because it gets cold enough to put it in the hydrate stability zone without high pressure. In fact, that is where methane hydrates were first discovered on modern day Earth, in the late 1930’s, and they were discovered by the oil and gas industry forming in their pipe line, which was only buried a few feet deep in the Arctic permafrost, and which the industry had built from Norman Wells in Canada’s North West Territories to Alaska’s Pacific coat to serve the needs of World War II for the allies.

Now you would think that it would have made the cover of Time magazine, something new- never seen on earth before, and you would think that the oil and gas industry might have figured out, or at least had a passing thought that what they were doing in the Arctic, draining all the summer permafrost lakes, ponds and puddles and the Mackenzie river to use for oil well pressurization, had something to do with this new “thing.”

You will see online when you research the Canol pipeline (at least the last time I looked), that they say they had to shut the pipe line down, because it had problems, but they do not say what the problems were. The oil and gas industry grabbed Groucho Marx’s flying duck, and had it fly away with this new secret phrase, “methane hydrate.”

You may have seen the duck recently, without fanfare, dropping in and quickly out again with this now decades old cloistered phrase; most recently on the top left hand corner of page three in big newspapers in a story about this thing called gas hydrate. The duck uses the Associated Press for its delivery, and the duck is fibbing. It says that there may be some new technology that will allow the hydrates on the North Slope of Alaska to be harvested; the duck then tells us that the oil companies are skeptical. Of course the duck really knows just what the oil men know: You cannot harvest an explosion. So this story is really a prelude to either the implosion or the explosion of Alaska’s North Slope because:

Methane gas likes its hydrate bride better than anything else and when it gets threatened by something say like the Arctic summer heat and thinks it is going to have to return to its gaseous form( destabilize), it counters this with a cleaver little attribute; It takes up heat into its methane molecule, a lot of heat, a very lot of heat; it can hold up to 400 degree F- in every molecule of methane – without – and I repeat – without melting the ice that encircles it. Pretty nifty, huh?

Well alas at some point in time it cannot hold on to its water bride any longer, and it destabilizes, first fizzling and then exploding, and it releases the gas and the heat. That is why for the first time, in 1941, after two years of geared up production for the war you had a 101 degree F day in the Sub Arctic. All winds originate from the Arctic. You cannot normally get Palm Springs weather in the Sub Arctic, without an artificial stimulus, and the coldest places on earth cannot warm faster than the hottest places – without a outside stimulus also.

So you see the reason the Arctic ice is melting faster than everyone thought is because it is warm enough now to start chain reactions every summer and leak tons of released hydrate (gas), into the atmosphere and the Beaufort Sea, and it is chock full of heat, tremendous heat from up to 85 Arctic summers.

Smoke and Mirrors

Irrespective of what the oil companies would love to have everyone believe, [that carbon sequestration is the best way to remove billions of tons of CO2 from the atmosphere], sequestration promotes the production of more CO2 by giving coal, oil and ethanol producers an excuse to produce dirty energy. The first drilling of these wells extracts ten percent of the oil.

The second infusion/extraction involves high pressurization with water and CO2 and recovers 2/3 of the remainder. The third infusion/extraction with H2O, phosphoric acid and CO2 and/or carbonated water flushes the last of the oil residing in deep pockets, etc. However the H2O remains in the well. There is no profit in retrieving polluted water. Oil industry efforts to use Enhanced Oil Recovery methods like these only exacerbates Global Warming.

There is nothing wrong in drilling for methane; it is when they use EOR and actually make methane gas which forms hydrate with the fresh water in the deep Earth- that we get a disaster scenario. Methane gas holds up the earth until, it destabilizes. You cannot harvest an explosion, and why they (DOE) took five years to figure out that logic, I do not know.

What the fossil fuel industry is trying to do is retain the very lucrative refueling option at the expense of true progress toward reducing carbon which would stop more hydrates from forming. The industry is so confident in its power that it makes remarks like saying to the DOE when they wanted them to pay for studies on how to harvest hydrates,… “…that there were now, more methane in hydrates than all the methane that had ever existed on earth . . .” a big clue to the fact they knew they had made them.

The thing that does us in, is human nature- when it comes to money and power. I am sure the oil and gas industry did not intend to destroy Earth, but they have managed to do so in a very short time, 160 years, and I assure you they have destroyed it, it is just playing out- like our depression. They did not know the full extent of methane gas’s characteristics in hydrate form until 2006, although they knew enough to have been a lot more cautious. I think they are thinking that global cooling from the hydrates in the permafrost is going to save us. But you are talking about global cooling in the northern half of earth to the point that we will be in the same category as Mars- to cold to sustain life.

Hydrate can suck up to 400 degrees F into every molecule to maintain its stability once it gets going without melting the ice around it and I do not think we have 50 years before it happens and meanwhile in non polar regions it is getting hotter and hotter in the summer as hydrates dump heat in the poles and CO2 makes it warmer everywhere else and that breaks hydrates which break mostly in the water and are making it very acidic because it ultimately degrades to CO2, killing sea life that the Dinoflagellates do not eat.

Urgent National Priority

FDR told the auto industry, “…look you are going to produce tanks and other military transport, not cars.” He told the scientific community to build the atomic bomb, not play with theories of their choice.

I continue to believe that a Manhattan type project for distributive renewable energy based on ocean energy, solar and wind, not oil, coal, and nuclear, can be placed on a “War Time” footing, along with the emergency production and deployment of, turbines to capture wind and water energy, solar cells, and biofuels not ethanol in three years or less. We need as you say to eliminate coal as a source of energy. It would take enormous political awareness and will power to achieve, but so did the war effort when it was clear that money could be made to lift us out of the depression. We are on our way there now. Deja vue all over again.

A powerful and persuasive argument needs to be presented by the President with priority emphasis on the exploitation of tidal, wave and ocean currents rather than passing through the ocean’s energy to retrieve oil and gas. There’s something terribly stupid about the latter process.

The Technology Exists and is Proven

We have the technology but not the wisdom or fortitude to employ it. Alexander Gorlov’s technology Gorlov Helical Turbine, along with Verdant’s rotors and government financed tidal barges in five or six locations around the East and West coast could create the spark for a serious effort to reduce coal fired plants in the East and Pacific Northwest. These technologies could be in place by the middle of 2010. Experts have calculated that 1% of the energy from the oceans can power the entire planet. And, 1% of the energy from the Gulf Stream can power the Northern Hemisphere.

There is no doubt that CO2 is the enemy, we need to find solutions that will not take five to ten years to implement. Nor can we afford a shotgun approach in the allocation of resources in an effort to please all of the energy alternatives.

Knowing the dangers of methane hydrate disassociation, and an overly acidic ocean is critical to initiating immediate actions designed to stem and reverse the chemical dissolution of the planet.

Thoughts on the New Energy Team

In case you are just venturing out of your cave for the first time in a week, you are probably aware that President-elect Obama has announced his new energy team:

Obama names energy team

The team includes Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy, former EPA head Carol Browner to fill the newly-created job of Energy Czar, and Lisa Jackson to head the EPA. The focus of this essay will be on Dr. Chu, but I will comment briefly on the others.

Lisa Jackson is trained as a chemical engineer (as was the outgoing Secretary of Energy Samual Bodman). It should go without saying that I like to see technical people in roles like this, where understanding science and data are both critical. Carol Browner, while not trained as a technical person, has a lot of administrative experience within the EPA. Incidentally, I once met Mrs. Browner, as she was the person who presented my research group with the 1996 Green Chemistry Challenge Award at the National Academy of Sciences.

While I don’t know nearly as much about Browner and Jackson, Dr. Chu has a very long public record. I have been searching through his various publications, speeches, and presentations to get a really good view of the man. Here is what President-elect Obama had to say about Dr. Chu:

“His appointment should send a signal to all that my administration will value science. We will make decisions based on the facts, and we understand that facts demand bold action.”

If you asked me for a few characteristics that would top my list of desirables for the spot of Energy Secretary, I would want someone who is 1). Knowledgeable about a broad range of energy technologies; 2). Someone who is passionate about the subject; 3). Someone who isn’t highly partisan, and can work with diverse groups.

Dr. Chu’s record indicates to me that he easily fills these three criteria. Dr. Chu is currently director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Among his accomplishments there was to secure a $500 million partnership with BP to do alternative energy research. (See this story from Salon for more details.) This suggests someone who can work with industry on next generation energy technologies. I am not sure how quickly he feels we can transition away from oil, and therefore whether we need additional exploration and drilling. However, he has been outspoken over his opposition to coal, and his concerns about global warming. Some quotes on these topics from Dr. Chu. First, his position on coal is pretty clear:

“Coal is my worst nightmare.”

He favors nuclear energy over coal (it should come as no suprise that a physicist like Dr. Chu is pro-nuclear):

“The fear of radiation shouldn’t even enter into this.”

“Coal is very, very bad. Nuclear has to be a necessary part of the portfolio.”

Chu, who also is professor of physics and molecular and cell biology at UC Berkeley, said nuclear is the preferred choice to coal, pointing out that coal releases 50 percent more radioactivity than nuclear power plants.

His concerns over global warming have been well-publicized:

Consider this. There’s about a 50 percent chance, the climate experts tell us, that in this century we will go up in temperature by three degrees Centigrade. Now, three degrees Centigrade doesn’t seem a lot to you, that’s 11° F. Chicago changes by 30° F in half a day. But 5° C means that … it’s the difference between where we are today and where we were in the last ice age. What did that mean? Canada, the United States down to Ohio and Pennsylvania, was covered in ice year round.

So think about what 5° C will mean going the other way. A very different world. So if you’d want that for your kids and grandkids, we can continue what we’re doing. Climate change of that scale will cause enormous resource wars, over water, arable land, and massive population displacements. We’re not talking about ten thousand people. We’re not talking about ten million people, we’re talking about hundreds of millions to billions of people being flooded out, permanently.

He is no fan of corn ethanol:

We can indeed make fuel out of crops. Corn is not the right crop. The reason it’s not the right crop is because the amount of energy you put into making a fuel and growing the corn and fertilizing the corn fields and plowing the fields is within ten or 20 percent of the amount of energy you get by making it into the ethanol that you can put in your car.

Also, the amount of CO2 you create by growing corn is again within 20 percent of the amount of carbon dioxide you make by drilling and refining oil and putting into your car.

He favors higher gas taxes:

“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” Source.

From that same article:

Lee Schipper, a project scientist with the Global Metropolitan Studies program at U.C. Berkeley, hailed Obama’s nomination of Chu as Energy Secretary and praised his colleague’s support for higher gasoline taxes.

Schipper thinks Obama’s concerns about not placing additional burdens on America’s families can be addressed by agreeing to rebate all — or close to all — of the money raised by higher fuel taxes. “The answer is: raise the price of gasoline and give all the money back,” said Schipper.

Hmm. Where have I heard that before?

He appreciates the need for greater energy efficiency (and like me, wants to be emperor of the world):

“I cannot impress upon you enough how important energy efficiency is.”

“Just refrigerator efficiency — bigger refrigerators by the way — saves more energy than all we’re generating from renewables [today], excluding hydroelectric power.”

“If I were emperor of the world, I would put the pedal to the floor on energy efficiency and conservation for the next decade.”

And finally recognizes that the U.S. can be a leader in new energy technologies, but are starting to fall behind in some areas.

“We have an option to be a leader in energy technologies, but we are not because our support system for that is on again off again. The future wealth of the United States will come from our ability to invent new technologies.”

“Americans take for granted that the United States leads the world in science. But we’ve lost many of these leads, especially when it comes to energy.”

“The U.S. is making it easier for other countries to catch up and pass us.”

So, let’s see. He has had a career devoted to energy, is clearly passionate about the subject, doesn’t favor making ethanol from corn, thinks we need higher gas taxes, favors nuclear power, favors alternative energy funding, is pro-science, and favors higher energy efficiency. That’s exactly how I would describe myself, so from my perspective he is a very good choice. I like his priorities. He has also been involved in research on cellulosic ethanol, and will likely send more research dollars flowing in that direction.

I think the issue that will generate some controversy is his very strong position on global warming. Not since Al Gore was Vice-President will there be such a staunch proponent of reducing greenhouse gas emissions at the highest levels of government. Global warming activists will love him. Skeptics probably won’t be quite so enthusiastic.

——————

Here are the quick bios of the rest of the energy/environment team, courtesy of Wired:

Lisa Jackson, EPA head

Quick bio: Trained as a chemical engineer at Princeton, she has spent her entire career with government environmental agencies. She worked her way up through the EPA from 1987-2002, then moved to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, eventually becoming its head in 2006. She was appointed as New Jersey Governor John Corzine’s chief-of-staff less than a month ago.

Carol Browner, energy czar

Quick bio: The longest-serving EPA administrator in the history of the agency, Browner is the non-scientist on the team. She came up through politics, working as Al Gore’s legislative director in the late 1980s, before heading the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. She was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993 to helm the EPA and left in 2001. Since then, she’s been a consultant with The Albright Group.

Her position: The new “energy czar” will coordinate (and politically shepherd) the President-elect’s various proposals around energy and the environment.

Carbon Sequestration in Practice

First of its Kind: Sequestered Carbon in Sneek, the Netherlands

Back in March, I left my job with ConocoPhillips to become the Engineering Director for London-based Accsys Technologies, PLC (but my work is focused within the wholly-owned Titan Wood subsidiaries). I explained the circumstances behind my decision to switch employers here. I stated at that time that I would continue to focus my writing on energy and the environment, and not use my platform to start promoting my new company – even though it is focused on environmental technologies. I think it’s fair to say that I have kept to my word. However, I did say that at some point I would write a more extensive article on exactly what it is that my new company is doing. This is that article, with ties into energy, the environment, sustainability, and carbon capture.

A Brief Chemical Tutorial

In a nutshell, Titan Wood chemically modifies fast growing softwood species like (but not limited to) Radiata pine in a way that results in their performance characteristics being superior to some of the best tropical hardwoods such as teak. It is important to note that the modification we make is at the molecular level; we do not impregnate the wood with chemical preservatives that can leach out into the environment. Wood treatment processes like Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA) fall into this latter category. Further, disposal of treated wood can be a nightmare, as many treatment processes result in the wood being classified as hazardous waste.

Following is a brief explanation of the science behind our process, in mostly layman’s terms. Wood is a very complex material, composed of many complex organic polymers (very long-chain carbon compounds). There are also numerous hydroxyl groups (OH) within wood. Think of a hydroxyl as 2/3rds of a water molecule (HOH, or H₂O). Hydroxyl groups are very prone to attracting and releasing water, which is the primary mechanism by which wood shrinks and swells (and this of course makes paint crack and peel). Wood also naturally contains acetyl groups. An acetyl group is essentially an attached acetic acid molecule. Most of you are familiar with acetic acid, because you sometimes put it on your salad in the form of vinegar.

The Chemistry behind Accoya^® wood

What we do in our process is remove a large fraction of those hydroxyl groups and replace them with acetyl groups. We call this wood ‘Accoya^® wood’, and the properties are remarkably different than the unmodified wood we started out with. Dimensional stability, durability, and UV light resistance are all dramatically improved. Because Accoya absorbs less moisture, thermal insulating properties are also better. Further, Accoya is resistant to attack by termites, microbes, and fungi. Accoya is virtually rot-proof, and yet non-toxic.

Consider the implications. Instead of deforesting tropical rainforests for the highest quality hardwoods, we can essentially make them from trees that grow in northern climates. Wood that is grown via sustainable forestry practices and modified with our acetylation process provides a far more sustainable model for producing high-performance lumber. If the wood is both grown and used locally, so much the better.

How Accoya Sequesters Carbon

That alone is a pretty good story, but there’s more. As we all know, greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. The recently released World Energy Outlook from the IEA forecast that carbon dioxide emissions from coal combustion would rise from 11.7 billion metric tons in 2006 to 18.6 billion metric tons in 2030. The IEA further predicted that carbon sequestration applications will have limited potential to influence carbon dioxide emissions by 2030.

If we are to slow or halt our carbon dioxide emissions, we need a combination of lower reliance on fossil fuels, coupled with commercially viable carbon sequestration, or carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. But the problem with carbon sequestration technologies is that either 1). People can’t figure out how to make money with them, so they aren’t commercialized; or 2). The carbon sequestration is fleeting.

For example, carbon dioxide can certainly be captured from the stacks of coal-fired power plants. A number of technologies will suffice, but they will all add to the cost of electricity. Estimates are that carbon capture would add 25% to the cost of producing electricity from coal. Unless large numbers of consumers are willing to pay this cost – or unless governments mandate it (and therefore mandate that consumers will pay the additional costs), adoption of these sorts of CCS technologies will face strong headwinds.

What about the use of CO₂ in enhanced crude oil recovery operations? There are some applications for this, but they are limited. You must still capture and compress the CO₂, and then you have to get it to the oil field. Further, that CO₂ is being used to produce more oil, which will subsequently produce more CO₂. A similar situation applies to the schemes for using algae to capture carbon dioxide from power plants, and then turning that algae into biodiesel. While one could certainly argue that additional energy was produced for each CO₂ molecule that was emitted (presuming the energy return is >1.0), at the end of the cycle the CO₂ originating from the coal still ends up in the atmosphere.

However, I believe Titan Wood has a truly commercial carbon sequestration application. To my knowledge it is the best (only?) commercial solution in existence. Here is why I believe that.

You know that when a tree grows, it extracts carbon dioxide from the air, converts it via photosynthesis into various biopolymers, and stores the carbon as wood, leaves, etc. Left alone, a tree will uptake carbon dioxide as it grows, but it will eventually die and decompose, returning the carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere. If you could instead take the tree and just bury it deep within the earth, the carbon would be sequestered. This is in fact similar to how all of the carbon in oil, coal, and gas got sequestered in the first place. Ancient plants and animals died and were buried, and the heat and pressure of the earth turned them into fossil fuels.

Of course one can’t make money by growing trees and burying them. So, what else can you do? You could build with wood, and that also sequesters carbon during the lifetime of the application. Because Accoya is modified to resist rot, the carbon can be sequestered for much longer. That’s appealing, but it isn’t the most compelling argument. In fact, you could make that same argument about wood that is treated with toxic treatments – it can sequester carbon for a long period of time (with the obvious negative of the chemicals leeching into the environment).

No, the really compelling aspect about Accoya is that the improved characteristics make it a viable replacement for metals, plastics, and even concrete in certain applications. You can take a very fast growing tree like pine, and modify it so that it can not only replace tropical hardwoods, but it can in some instances replace the steel in a bridge. That’s where the carbon sequestration potential comes into play.

Imagine that instead of making window frames out of plastic (which comes from a fossil fuel) or aluminum (which requires a lot of electricity to produce), you made them out of Accoya. Not only have you avoided carbon emissions, but you have sequestered carbon in a long-lasting application.

Imagine that instead of constructing a bridge out of steel and concrete (both very fossil-fuel intensive), you made it out of Accoya. Again, you have avoided carbon emissions, and you have sequestered carbon. Note that neither of these scenarios is hypothetical. Accoya is currently being used in window frames, and a pair of heavy-traffic bridges is under construction right now in Sneek, the Netherlands. Kudos to the Dutch government for their foresight. The first bridge has been completed and is shown in the opening picture. (See this article for more information). Bear in mind that this bridge is certified to support 60 tons, making it the only wooden bridge in the world certified to support such a heavy load. That makes it the first of its kind.

(As an aside, in 1988 the U.S. Congress passed the Timber Bridge Initiative, to promote the use of timber in bridges. This initiative currently resides at the Forest Products Lab of the U.S. Forestry Service, but we have not yet been in contact with them regarding the possibility of building Accoya bridges in the U.S.)

What is the potential for carbon sequestration? I have done some calculations on that, shown below.

Carbon Sequestration Potential of Accoya

Per this reference:

According to analysis by JATO Dynamics, CO₂ emissions in the top five markets dropped by 0.3 g/km in through the first seven months of 2007 compared to the same time last year. A volume-weighted average of new cars sold in the period yielded an average of 160.5 g/km for the fleet.

That means that the average European car emits (160.5/44 g CO₂/mol) = 3.65 moles CO₂ per km traveled.

The density of Radiata pine is roughly 500 kg/m³. According to University of Wisconsin Professor Emeritus Roger Rowell (and from other sources I have checked), carbon represents about 50% of that, or 250 kg/m³. In chemistry speak, that is (250,000 g/12 g mol) = 20,833 moles of carbon per m³ of wood, which is equal to the number of moles of carbon dioxide that were removed from the atmosphere.

Our Arnhem plant has a nameplate capacity of 30,000 m³/year of finished wood (and the next plant will be much larger). Then the carbon sequestration potential from the Arnhem plant is 20,833* 30,000 = 625 million moles of carbon per year.

Put in terms of the average European car, that means that the output of our relatively small Arnhem plant could sequester the carbon emissions of 625 million moles/(3.65 moles per km) = 171 million km of driving. The average European drives around 11,000 km/yr according to this chart. This translates to sequestration of the carbon emissions of 171 million/11,000 = 15,545 cars per year.

I am not aware of any other technology that can make this claim.

Conclusion

I believe we have a good story in Accoya. I barely scratched the surface of the advantages, which extend to painted surfaces lasting much longer (more avoided emissions, and less fossil fuels for paint manufacture). Our plans at present are to continue to manufacture Accoya in the Netherlands, and to license the technology. The second Accoya plant is being built by our licensee, Diamond Wood, in China. The third plant will be built by our licensee Al Rajhi in the Middle East. Serious discussions are taking places with other prospective licensees around the world, including several in North America.

The nameplate capacity of our first plant in Arnhem, the Netherlands, is 30,000 m³ of wood/year. This output can potentially sequester the carbon emissions of over 15,000 cars per year in Europe. The total offset is equivalent to an annual distance driven of 171 million km. Note that this presumes that we have used Accoya in an application that normally uses metal/plastics/concrete, etc. It does not take into consideration the fact that our life-cycle-assessment (LCA) shows that the energy inputs into producing concrete, steel, etc. are also higher than for producing Accoya – nor that we are avoiding the harvesting of tropical hardwoods. In other words, I believe this should be a conservative estimate.

While I have given you the technical spiel, I am not the guy to answer questions about licensing, sales, etc. If you want some information along those lines, please contact Starla Middlebrooks (Starla ‘dot’ Middlebrooks ‘at’ titanwood ‘dot’ com) at our Dallas offices.

Questions and (My) Answers to Various Inquiries

People have asked me lots of interesting questions around the company and the product. One sort of funny story related to this is that at this year’s ASPO conference in Sacramento, I escaped the talks a bit early to have a quick bite, as I was on an evening panel session. A few minutes later, Bob Hirsch walked in and asked if he could join me. I was delighted, and thought I would get to quiz him about The Hirsch Report. Instead, he spent the next half hour asking me all sorts of questions about Accoya. We were joined by Kjell Aleklett, and he also wanted to talk about wood. After we finished talking, I reflected on how funny it was to have the three of us sitting there, all passionate about oil depletion and energy in general, and all we talked about was wood.

Anyway, here are a few of the sorts of questions that seem to come up most frequently.

Q. Doesn’t the process itself use a lot of energy? A lot more than say, planting a tree and waiting a few years.

A. No. When you grow a tree, like a fast-growing softwood, what happens? It either grows to maturity, eventually dies, and releases its carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere. Or, it is cut down and used in an application that results in it releasing its carbon back to the atmosphere in much less than 100 years.

What happens with Accoya is that you can make a harvest every 20 years and put it into a long-term application. When you put it into an application that is typically aluminum or steel, you have a dual-win: It takes less energy to make Accoya, and you have sequestered carbon where you would have placed steel.

Of course you also have a big benefit by using it for applications typically reserved for tropical timber in that you displace tropical timber with softwoods.

Q. Can Accoya eventually be cost-competitive with other treated woods?

A. That depends on what you mean by cost-competitive. Is it as cheap as arsenic-treated wood? No, but arsenic-treated wood is toxic and disposal is problematic. Likewise, there are similar issues with other cheap wood treatments like pentachlorophenol, creosote, borate, etc. Accoya is no more toxic than regular wood. There is no toxic residue from the treatment.

Q. Seems ironic. Other treated wood is less likely to be burned at the end of its structural life, so the toxic wood is actually more likely to sequester carbon for more than 100 years than is the Accoya, even if the toxic wood is otherwise worse for the environment.

A. No, as that misses two key points. You touched on one in your last sentence. The reason toxic wood eventually fails is because it has leached its components out into the environment. So it continues to decompose at the landfill, albeit at a slower rate than normal wood.

But the key point is this: The acetylation treatment not only makes the wood resistance to biological attack (as do toxic treatments), but it also imparts other beneficial characteristics to the wood, which is the real bonus.

Toxic treated wood doesn’t become more dimensionally stable. A toxic-treated pine is still a softwood. An acetylated pine becomes comparable to a tropical hardwood. The durability and dimensional stability of Accoya exceeds that of teak. See here and here. Now you can go build bridges out of it, something you can’t do with the toxic treated woods. Thus, the acetylation opens up new applications, so there is much greater carbon sequestration potential.

Q. OK, I give. What’s the catch?

A. The ‘catch’ is pretty straightforward. Accoya is obviously more expensive than untreated softwood. And unless customers understand the whole story, they may opt for a cheaper, but inferior option. My job as Engineering Director is to make sure we are running our process in the most efficient manner, and therefore keeping our costs at a minimum.

The other catch is that the market for building materials is presently pretty poor, as a result of the overall economic crisis. So we are swimming upstream against that current.

Q. So are you saying that this is the solution to rising carbon dioxide emissions?

A. It can be a tool in the arsenal. It may be the only tool in the arsenal at present. (If you believe there to be other practical carbon sequestration applications, please let me know and I will amend this). To make a bigger dent in carbon emissions, we would need to start replacing more metals and plastics with Accoya (wooden refrigerators, anyone?).

You can find answers to lots of other questions in our FAQ. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming (even though I think the subject matter here is topical).

Note: As always, if you spot any errors, please call them to my attention.