truthfulenergy

The cost and benefit of solar PV for your home: some blunt talk

2011-10-27T11:58:00.000-07:00

An old friend of mine came up recently from Philadelphia for a visit. He lives in the suburbs outside the city, in a largish and probably old and somewhat leaky colonial home. His utility bills can run into the hundreds of dollars per month in the summer just for air conditioning -- it is definitely hotter and more humid down there than up here in Ithaca. When he saw my roof-mounted solar PV system he became very interested. "Up front it would cost me thousands of dollars, but then those huge air conditioning bills would go away," he reasoned. The reality is not as bountiful, unfortunately. If you front thousands for a 3 KW or 5 kW system, you will get hundreds of dollars PER YEAR in avoided electricity cost (at 10 or 20 cents per kWh, or whatever you are paying), not PER MONTH. This does not mean people should not invest in PV, but we need to be realistic here about what a system can return. In this particular example, improving the performance of the house so it requires less
A/C is definitely important as well.

New York State gives up on Great Lakes Offshore Wind (GLOW) -- for now

2011-09-30T13:49:00.000-07:00

Earlier this week the New York Power Authority announced that it would no longer support the development of offshore windfarms in Lakes Ontario and Erie, effectively ending the prospect of obtaining some wind-generated electricity from turbines in these lakes for the foreseeable future. Given tough economic conditions, the move is understandable. Still, I think at some point down the road the state will need to revisit this decision and reopen the development process. NYS is a large state with concentrated demand in the greater New York City area, it is a state with ambitious renewable energy goals, and the total on-land wind resource within the state is small compared to that found offshore, both in the Atlantic (which is still under consideration) and in the Great Lakes. I won't hazard a guess as to when GLOW might re-emerge, however.

Germany is the China of solar PV, just like China is the Germany of wind

2011-07-12T12:32:00.000-07:00

I last reported on the amazing growth of wind energy in China. Well, in the solar PV arena the dramatic story is Germany. In 2001, Germany had 75 MW of installed PV capacity, or, if you think of a household system as being 3 kW in size, about 25,000 households worth (1 MW = 1,000 kW). At the end of 2010, the figure had absolutely skyrocketed -- to 17,300 MW. That's 231 times more systems -- enough PV for five and a half million homes. 43% of the world's PV is installed in Germany, way ahead of second place Spain, which has 10%. And the sun in Germany, on average, isn't even that good. The USA, by the way, has 7% of the world's installed PV capacity.

Duck sauce all around! China surpasses USA as #1 for installed wind energy capacity

2011-06-28T06:53:00.000-07:00

China is doing infrastructure in a big way these days, and they have just passed another milestone in the wind energy sector. The Global Wind Energy Consortium reports that at the end of 2010, China had 42.5 GW of installed wind capacity (equivalent to about 17,000 turbines each rated at 2.5 MW), compared to 40.3 GW for the US. China got to the number one position by posting two banner years in 2009 and 2010, building 13.8 and 16.5 GW in the two years respectively. The combined 30.3 GW over two years is more than the US had installed cumulatively at the end of 2008 (25.2 GW). The US is still well ahead of #3 Germany, which had a total of 27.3 GW installed at the end of 2010.

Decarbonization and recarbonization: world coal is making a comeback

2011-06-20T13:29:00.000-07:00

Many of us have heard the buzz about the "decarbonization" strategy, where the world first substitutes gas for coal since gas has less carbon and more hydrogen. Then later we substitute hydrogen or electricity for gas, and voila no more carbon problem. With the discussion of the vast new U.S. shale gas reserves, that may be the talk domestically, but at the world level, a different trend is underway: "recarbonization." Coal, which was 23% of the world's primary energy supply in 2000, has jumped to 28%, while petroleum fell from 37% to 33% over the same period -- gas was unchanged at 23% -- according to the US Energy Information Administration. So, the world as a whole is moving in the opposite direction. The effects are already showing up in CO2 emissions. According to the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center (CDIAC) at Oak Ridge National Labs, petroleum had been the leading source of CO2 for years, but in 2005 coal surpassed petroleum to become the biggest source among coal, oil, and gas. This trend is unlikely to change any time soon: economic growth in China and India is massive, and coal is the fossil fuel to which these countries have easiest access.

Fighting to protect the climate -- with one hand reaching out to work together

2011-04-21T12:20:00.000-07:00

The debate about climate change has become incredibly divisive of late, so I have a suggestion for those of us on the side of taking strong action to protect the climate: fight hard for our cause, but keep one hand extended to those on the other side of the debate, in willingness to work with them when they are ready to change their mind.

The problem with a 'scorched earth, take no prisoners' approach to opposing those who oppose climate legislation is that they represent perhaps tens of millions of Americans, they are pulling in exactly the wrong direction (develop even more fossil fuel resources, with no carbon cap or tax, and leading to higher CO2 emissions per unit of useful energy due to all the complexities) -- and ultimately if we are going to succeed in dramatically bringing down carbon emission, we need everyone to help.

Case in point: the other day I saw a clip of journalist Mark Hertsgaard confronting Senator James Inhofe about his stand on climate change. Sen. Inhofe states that "the science on climate change is mixed." Response: "Senator, show us one example of a peer-reviewed scientific paper that refutes the connection between human caused carbon emissions and global climate change." That's the 'fight hard' part. (For the record, the last one I saw is Richard Lindzen of MIT's "Some coolness about global warming" but that came out in the early 1990s and the science has become much more clear since then.) But the hand extended to work together part says, on a regular basis, to those like Jim Inhofe on the other side: 'we need you to do the right, patriotic thing and change your mind, we need you to join us and work with us.'

Unrealistic? It may not work overnight, but ultimately there are many people in the climate movement who started out skeptical, and eventually came over to the other side. It can work. In any case, I think it is more realistic than solving America's greenhouse gas problem with a quarter or a third of the country pulling in the exact opposite direction. I am reminded of Gov. George Wallace of Alabama, who stood on the steps of the state house in Birmingham in the 60s and declared: "segregation now. Segregation forever!" In the 1990s, he came back to the national African-American leadership and declared that he had been wrong, and pledged himself to support the cause of integration and civil rights.

Happy Earth Day everyone. -- FV

Fossil fuel accidents 2010: the larger meaning

2010-06-14T11:21:00.001-07:00

Coal mine disaster in the Upper Big Branch mine of Massey Energy in West Virginia. Multiple gas field and pipeline accidents in Pennsylvania. The BP Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico. What is the larger meaning? The more we go down the road of relying on fossil fuels for 85% of our energy (and don't make a substantial effort to cut energy use per person, not just the 2 to 3 percent of the last 10-20 years) we are going to be pushed into riskier and riskier sources and extraction processes. Sure, we can get smarter about reducing those risks -- but it will get harder and harder. We need to move away from an economy that is so energy intensive per person (Don't forget that our population is supposed to grow to 450 million in the U.S. by mid-century) and toward an economy that does not rely so much on fossil fuels.

Sutainable energy strategy: "Build one of 'em"

2010-01-19T11:18:00.000-08:00

Our gilded-tongued president has sung the praises of high-speed rail ("imagine yourself speeding along from city to city on the high-speed rail system of the future" or something to that effect, he said in introducing the $8 billion for upgrading railroads). Yet when everyone is clamoring for what turns out to be a relatively small amount of money compared to the task, it is not clear to me that we will get a single from-the-ground-up, truly high speed train link between any two U.S. cities. Similarly, we have been in the midst of a so-called nuclear energy renaissance since 2002, yet not only is there not a single new plant on line (and our aging existing plants are wearing out), but there is no clear timetable for when a single new reactor will be completed and brought on line.

So, I have a simple strategy suggestion: "build one of 'em." Build ONE all-new high speed rail line somewhere in the lower 48 states, from the ground up, that can travel at speeds similar to the TGV or Japanese bullet train. Also, build ONE nuclear reactor (either in a new location, or on the site of an existing nuclear power plant) to see what happens, to work out the kinks. Similarly for any other large, novel, sustainable energy system: build one of them to make sure we can. Once we have built one, we will know what it takes to build more. The opposite is also true: in the future we might get into a situation where we really need to build one or more quickly, and if we don't have the experience of building ONE of them under our belt, we may be in tough shape.

DIY Climate Change Bill

2009-11-05T14:26:00.000-08:00

As the Copenhagen summit approaches, why wait for the US Congress? Take action right away yourself.

Do you have any of the following things around your home?

-- A roof or lawn with unobstructed solar access
-- A place where the wind blows often and strong (maybe on top of a tower)
-- A stream that runs year round and that has a measurable drop in it
-- Space to dig a geothermal trench system or well

Along with these things, you'll need some upfront money -- thousands of dollars, in fact -- I know the recession is terrible, but some of you can afford to do this: invest in a household-size renewable energy system. You'll eliminate carbon emissions, help a fledgling industry to grow, put money into your community (much of it goes to the folks who design and install these systems, and they live in your region), and know your energy costs for years to come. Once the system is in place, the renewable energy output and dollar value is very predictable, compared to the ups and downs of the cost of oil, gas, or electricity.

Slipping commitment to energy: not America at our best

2009-09-18T13:48:00.000-07:00

As a country, we have not abandoned our commitment to transforming our energy system, but our commitment is slipping a bit. First came the news in July that the plan for the world's biggest wind farm had been put on hold in the Texas panhandle due to capital flow problems and the relatively low price of gas. More recently it is looking like it won't be possible to get an energy bill out of the senate this year, which means it will need to wait for next year for Pres. Obama's desk.

I can understand why these things happened, but I think we need to rise to the next level, where, when the going gets difficult, do what needs to be done to stay on track. After all, we're supposed to be doubling renewable energy output between 2009 and 2012, right? The Texas wind project was a private undertaking aimed at producing electricity for private electricity markets, but with bold government leadership, the problems might have been worked out to hold the project together, since it would have provide a big step toward the 2012 target. Same with the energy bill: yes, there is a huge debate going on around health care right now, but the energy transition will take sustained commitment over many years. Who is to say what 'showstopper' issues will trump energy in the future, if we don't get in the habit of making progress toward sustainable energy at every opportunity?

A better "cash for clunkers" program?

2009-08-24T08:17:00.000-07:00

The Cash for Clunkers program will shortly be ending after a whirlwind history of stimulating many new car sales in just a few weeks (and also running out of money). But, as Michael Gerrard from Columbia University's Center for Climate Change Law points out, for the amount of money spent, the government saved relatively few tons of carbon. Could this program have been run more effectively, from an ecological perspective? One way to get more bang for the clunker buck would have been a higher standard on the minimum improvement in mpg needed to qualify for the program. Admittedly, it would have not led to the same economic shot in the arm, but there are probably enough buyers out there who would come forward for say, a 15 to 20 mpg improvement between the clunker going in and the fuel-efficient green car coming out, that eventually the government would have found outlets for the billions of dollars made available. Maybe not in just a few weeks, but over the course of 6 to 12 months, the fund would have been used up, and then the total amount of CO2 reduced from the program would have been much greater.

House passes energy/climate bill: to celebrate or not?

2009-06-29T14:42:00.000-07:00

So the house narrowly passed the energy and climate bill last Friday, which, among other things, would put a cap on CO2 emissions for the first time and allow trading of credits. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and say yes, celebrate whatever wins we can get on behalf of our climate. This is the first step in turning the corner, and I believe eventually we are going to turn that corner. But realistically, there are several "mitigating factors":

1. The opposition seems as intransigent as ever. All I ever heard out of (mainly Republican) opponents is that the bill was in effect a tax and that it would kill jobs. No mention of the seriousness of climate change, no offer of an alternative. I'm amazed these folks seem to be pushing the same old policies, they seem to be oblivious of the threat from rising global temperatures. For me personally, it was a good lesson in how dug in they are in their position, I had underestimated it.

2. In order to pass, many of the ambitious objectives of the original bill were scaled back. The path for reducing CO2 and ramping up renewable energy is not as steep. Gone is the 100% auction of carbon credits. I suspect that if this bill becomes law, in the coming years as climate change continues to play out we will find that the targets are too low and we will need to pass another bill to increase them.

3. The operative word is "IF this bill becomes law." We are told that the Senate is less ambitious than the house about energy and climate change, so their eventual bill in the fall will need to be reconciled with the House bill, and then sent to the president, all before Christmas in a very busy legislative year.

So yes, if you can stomach all those ifs and buts, then please join me in cheering for HR 2998 "American Clean Energy and Security Act."

Two thoughts on new Obama fuel economy standards

2009-06-01T12:07:00.000-07:00

Two thoughts on the new proposed fuel economy standards announced May 19th:

1. Beware of newscasters getting sloppy with the language and saying this will reduce CO2 emissions 30% by 2016. First this is a laboratory standard, and usually there is some "slip" between what happens in the lab and what happens on the road. Second, it applies only to new vehicle sales: it will take some time for the new standard to work its way through the national vehicle fleet as new cars replace old. Third, it says nothing about how much people will drive the new cars, if the amount of driving continues to grow, that will undercut the technological improvements.

2. About the added cost of meeting the standards: if it costs an extra $1,300 or whatever to buy the same car that meets the standard, why don't we all go out and buy a slightly smaller car for $1,300 less? The costs cancel out, and, all other things equal, the slightly smaller/cheaper car cuts even more CO2.

Buying a home renewable energy system? Get an estimate.

2009-05-15T11:20:00.000-07:00

No, not an estimate of what it will cost you to buy, although if you are buying on the basis of time and materials, rather than fixed contract price, a cost estimate is a good idea. What I mean is an OUTPUT estimate: how much electricity, or hot water, or whatever, is this thing going to make in a calendar year?

Having an output estimate is really helpful for a number of reasons. First, it is a litmus test for installers, to see if they know what they are doing. If you have someone who comes with many positive recommendations, that's one thing, but if the installer is new to the technology, you can test to see whether they understand that they are installing a dynamic system, not a piece of lawn furniture. Secondly, once the system is installed and up and running, IF there are malfunctions in the early going -- bugs that need to be worked out -- you and the installer both have a basis for figuring out how far you are from the target.

The estimate may come out of a software package for the purpose. But it does not need to: the installer may be able to show you their own way in which the estimate was calculated.

Happy purchasing!

Do's and Don'ts of DIY home renewable energy

2009-05-04T10:17:00.000-07:00

Are you interested in building your own renewable energy system for your home to cut your costs and reduce pollution? Here are my picks for do's and don'ts.

Solar hot water, solar hot air, solar cooking: My preferred DIY technologies. These systems take some time to build well, and will cost something in materials, but they can be built without super-specialized skills and you can get yourself an effective and reliable system while saving compared to the cost of buying a commercial system. Of course, if you don't have the time, maybe a commercial version is the way to go...

Solar PV: I'm not sure. It is possible to scrounge together the cells and wire your own array -- I know of a group in Nicaragua that gathers cast-off cells from the US PV industry and wires them into arrays for use in the Nicaraguan countryside. For a country that is very tight for money and where even a small source of electricity in rural areas where there is none can make a big difference in quality of life, this makes sense. But for us in the USA, the wiring may take so long that it may be easier to leave it to a factory.

Home-made wind: be careful! As small wind expert Paul Gipe puts it in his book "Wind Power: Renewable Energy for Home, Farm, and Business", the first question to ask yourself is "why would you do this?" If you have enough wind in a location to make it worthwhile, then there are going to be at least a few times each year when it really is going to blow hard. So maybe you are cruising along making lots of electricity, and one day a gale blows through and tears your homemade system apart. Now you're back to square one. So, unless you view this as a hobby or are really up for a tough technical challenge, it is best to leave this technology to the experts, and buy a system from the professionals, even if it costs more up front.

Is the USA capable of thinking about short-term and long-term issues at the same time?

2009-02-24T11:46:00.000-08:00

I sure would like to think so, but sometimes I wonder.

Carbon tax. Cap-and-trade system. 80% fewer carbon emissions in 45 years. All of these issues came up during the recent presidential campaign. You may love them or hate them, but you can hardly disagree with one thing: if we as a country are going to get them up and running, we need to be able to articulate a long-term plan and then stick with it, year in and year out.

In the meantime, of course, we have entered a nasty recession, so the airwaves are dominated with talk of foreclosures, job losses, state budget deficits, and the like. The “green energy economy” does get some play in the middle of this recession coverage – but almost entirely as a short-term way of creating new jobs.

I agree that the public needs to be informed about what is going on with the recession, both to make their own financial decisions and to be able to participate in the national debate – call up talk show hosts, petition their legislators, you name it. But I have heard and read very little on NPR, on national news websites, or anywhere else about the long-term aspects of our energy problems. New energy secretary Dr. Stephen Chu says, “if the American people knew how serious the climate change problem was, they would not stand for this level of inaction.” My point exactly. They don’t know, so they stand for it.

But I am not writing this entry to complain – I am writing this entry to hold out hope. The American public is entirely capable of focusing most of their attention on the recession and some of their attention on climate change and long-term energy security. And so are the President and the Congress. It is essential that they start doing this.

The OTHER "hockey stick curve"

2009-01-06T12:12:00.000-08:00

Many readers will be familiar with the concept of a "hockey stick curve", in which over the course of centuries global temperature and CO2 fluctuated within a certain range, then suddenly curve upward starting in around 1950. Recently looking at some international energy consumption data, it occurred to me that there is another hockey stick curve going on at present. If you graph the energy consumption of China starting in the 20th century, it increases gradually over time. Then starting in the year 2000 it curves upwards and grows dramatically (Data are available from the US Energy Information Agency). In just 6 years to 2006 it increases from roughly 40 Quads to 80 Quads (40 to 80 ExaJoules).

Astonishing. This amount of growth, 40 Quads or ExaJoules, is more than the entire energy consumption of all but two of the world's countries, the US and Russia. I repeat what I and many others have continually called for, namely an aggressive effort to improve efficiency and develop alternatives to fossil fuels. I think we need to add one more component, namely that the rich countries support countries like China in developing access to sustainable energy alternatives so that they can improve access to energy for all their people without drastically increasing CO2 emissions.

Orders of magnitude in energy systems

2008-11-18T17:38:00.000-08:00

A solar photovoltaic system at the Ecovillage at Ithaca, where I live (www.ecovillage.ithaca.ny.us), consists of 14 households each with a PV system, for a total of 32 kW of rated capacity. These 14 arrays together produce about 30,000 kWh of electricity per year.

This amount is less than 1/100th of the electricity produced by one wind turbine with rated capacity of 1.5 MW at the Fenner wind farm near Syracuse, NY. Fenner’s 20 turbines produce between 80 and 90 million kWh per year.

The total output of Fenner is, however, only about one twentieth of the output of the AES Cayuga coal-fired power plant on Cayuga Lake, also near Syracuse (rated at 240 MW, with an annual output of roughly 1.5 billion kWh – my rough estimate).

Lastly, AES Cayuga has only about one fifth of the output of one of the three 1000 MW nuclear power plants located along the shores of Lake Ontario near Oswego, NY. Again using my rough estimate, each of these plants produces on the order of 7.5 billion kWh per year. There are approximately 100 nuclear power plants and 1000 fossil-fuel fired power plants in the U.S. So, from top to bottom, it takes on the order of 10,000 neighborhood-size PV systems to make as much electricity as one nuclear power plant.

I do not in any way intend this calculation as an argument against renewable energy. On the contrary, I am in favor of getting to 25% or 30% of our primary energy from renewables as quickly as we can. But I don’t think we should have any illusions: we will need to greatly accelerate the pace at which renewables are built and installed, and maintain this pace over many years or decades, if we want to see this milestone achieved in your or my lifetime.

High oil prices are no substitute for a comprehensive CO2 policy

2008-11-18T17:11:00.000-08:00

Back in July of this year (2008) oil prices peaked on the world market at $147/barrel. It appeared that a new age of permanently high prices for oil, and eventually gas and coal as well, was at hand, which would allow renewable options to compete more effectively on the basis of price alone. Without any further intervention, the world would shift steadily away from CO2-emitting technology.

Now, in 4 months, they are back down below $54/barrel. Furthermore, with the tightening of credit, renewable energy systems that depend on capital investment to get off the ground are less financially attractive -- in the absence of policies such as cap-and-trade or a carbon tax -- and also less able to win financial backing. Everything is up in the air. On the one hand, the U.S. consumer, having seen how $4 per gallon gas can lead to a $100 fillup at gas stations, is wary of buying a large energy-intensive vehicle, for fear that high gas prices may return. On the other hand, the surge in renewable energy projects has been dealt a blow.

The whole experience points to the need for policies that deliberately and directly deal with phasing out CO2 emissions, rather than leaving it up to the price of fossil fuels. During the election, the last three candidates left standing -- Clinton, McCain, and Obama -- all talked about 60 to 80 percent reductions in CO2 by the year 2050. Whether it's cap-and-trade, a carbon tax, efficiency standards, or some other approach, we need to institute such policies starting very soon, and then stick with them through all the ups and downs in energy prices that are to come.

Financial crisis and energy crisis: solve both at once?

2008-10-15T17:32:00.000-07:00

When climate change became a bigger concern in the last few years, and especially when gasoline prices soared during the summer of 2008, we began to hear more in the news about a willingness to invest in energy solutions so as to avoid high prices and declining availability. Then came the financial crisis. All of a sudden vast amounts of money are unleashed -- $700 billion one week in a congressional bill, $250 billion the next week from the Treasury to major US banks. Makes you wish that kind of money were available to invest in energy solutions!

There is a danger that we will adopt a mentality of "we need to take a break from solving the energy crisis so that we can solve the financial crisis first." Sure, in the immediate future some steps are necessary to make sure the movement of money in our current system does not freeze up. But this approach can go too far: the government might back off regulations to ensure higher efficiency standards, or investing in energy research. Much better to couple the two things together: let's use the economic opportunity created by the need for new sustainable energy systems to promote economic growth.

Welcome to my new blog

2008-10-10T18:26:00.000-07:00

Hello and welcome to my blog!

My name is Francis Vanek and I am an educator, researcher, consultant, writer, speaker, and tinkerer in the area of energy systems -- both large and small.

I chose the name "truthful energy" because, as an educator and writer, my goal is to present good and bad points about energy options as truthfully and accurately as I can (and also because someone else got to my first pick, "honest energy", before I did!). A blog could easily be used to sing the praises of such-and-such technology, and maybe even put down its competitors, but that is not what I am trying to do here.

So let me see if I can put my truthful approach into practice: in my house, I have a solar PV system, a solar water heating system for domestic hot water (DHW), a solar oven, and the house has lots of south-facing windows for passive solar gain. I do not have a compact nuclear or combined-cycle power plant in my backyard for electricity -- although I do have natural gas backup heat for the passive solar with hot water radiators, and an indirect-fire water heater. Plus, I am very curious about the up and coming home-sized combined heat and power (CHP) systems that delivery both electricity and steam or hot water for home use. In any case, from experience I won't exaggerate the position of solar PV and other new renewable technologies (meaning sources besides large hydroelectric dams). These technologies are vital for our future, but they are only a small fraction of the energy at present, many of them are relatively expensive, and it will take years of hard work to make them into major contributors to our overall energy supply. Good work, but hard work nonetheless.

One of my biggest projects in the energy field has been the publication of a book entitled "Energy Systems Engineering: Evaluation and Implementation". My colleague Lou Albright is the coauthor. The book covers advanced fossil, nuclear, renewable, and transportation energy options, with the goal of putting each technology in the context of the big energy problems of our time (climate change, a changing resource base, and sustainable development). I hope you'll check it out at Amazon or at the publisher's, McGraw-Hill.

More coming soon!

Yours in sustainability,
Francis