SUSTAINABLE ENERGY BLOG
ANTHOLOGY
January 2011
ARTICLES THAT REMAIN RELEVANT AFTER SOME OF THE SMOKE HAS CLEARED
This is a selection of articles that appeared on the Leonardo Energy Sustainable Energy Blog over the past four
years. They are discussions that are as timely today as when first posted. The collection is certainly not an
exhaustive, all-embracing overview. However it does attempt to present a broad spectrum of themes, issues,
and opinions that have been flying around in the world of sustainable energy in recent years.
When writing for the Sustainable Energy Blog, we try to look at all of the many facets of this domain. We try to
discuss the positive as well as the negative issues and to especially look for pioneering or mind-broadening
visions. Our hope is that it will help you to rediscover some of the hot — but as yet unresolved — issues. As
such, this Anthology can be used as a sort of ‘Crash Course’ for professionals who want to gain rapid insight
into the varied topics that make up sustainable energy.
This anthology is not a final conclusion, but rather an evolving document that will be updated from time to
time by adding new relevant content and by removing what has become outdated.
We hope all readers will use the ‘Comments’ function on the LE Sustainable Energy Blog to contribute their
own ideas and thoughts on the articles.
We wish you pleasant, but most of all, informative reading.
Page 1 of 80
CONTENT
Articles that remain relevant after some of the smoke has cleared ...................................................................... 1
Content ................................................................................................................................................................... 2
An integrated, global view on the energy problem ................................................................................................ 5
Sustainable Energy (SE) Without the hot air ...................................................................................................... 5
What are the energy sources of the next generation? ....................................................................................... 6
Studies can prove anything ................................................................................................................................ 8
The need for a Master Plan .............................................................................................................................. 10
Climate change: pay now or ask for credit? ..................................................................................................... 11
The develoment of renewable energy technologies (Wind, PV, CSP, Ocean) ...................................................... 13
New growth factors for wind industry .............................................................................................................. 13
Wind power does not need 100% back-up capacity ........................................................................................ 15
New capacity in the EU: wind in number one .................................................................................................. 16
Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) plants in the desert ...................................................................................... 17
Concentrating Solar Power in California ........................................................................................................... 18
The next generation of PV plants ..................................................................................................................... 18
Quantum-dot solar power ................................................................................................................................ 19
Increasing PV efficiency: R&D breakthrough .................................................................................................... 19
10% solar electricity in the US by 2025? ........................................................................................................... 20
The power of the oceans .................................................................................................................................. 21
Ocean power predicted to increase hundredfold in six years .......................................................................... 22
World’s first tidal stream generating system ................................................................................................... 23
Future cost development of renewable energy ............................................................................................... 24
The cost development of wind energy ............................................................................................................. 25
The cost development of PV energy ................................................................................................................. 26
The cost development of solar thermal energy................................................................................................ 27
Islands powered solely by renewable energy ................................................................................................... 29
Page 2 of 80
A critical view on the renewable energy boom .................................................................................................... 30
Not all renewable power systems are sustainable ........................................................................................... 30
How fast can we move? .................................................................................................................................... 31
The capacity factor of wind power ................................................................................................................... 32
Small wind turbines struggling to gain momentum ......................................................................................... 33
Emissions from photovoltaic manufacturing .................................................................................................... 34
The impact of GHG emission reduction projects connected to the electricity grid ......................................... 36
Different opinions on nuclear and CCS ................................................................................................................. 37
Light neutrons, heavy debate ........................................................................................................................... 37
Nuclear policy: at national or at EU level? ........................................................................................................ 39
Nuclear energy for developing countries? ....................................................................................................... 40
Life expectancy of nuclear power stations ....................................................................................................... 41
The high financial risk of nuclear energy .......................................................................................................... 42
The economic cost of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) ................................................................................ 43
Capturing carbon with enzymes ....................................................................................................................... 44
No more nuclear or coal? ................................................................................................................................. 44
Electrification (EV, electric heating) ..................................................................................................................... 46
Near future cars ................................................................................................................................................ 46
Plug-in electrical vehicles.................................................................................................................................. 49
My car is saving the food in the freezer ........................................................................................................... 50
EEStor’s high performance ultracapacitors ...................................................................................................... 50
Sony City uses waste heat from sewage treatment plant ................................................................................ 51
All new houses to be zero-emission ................................................................................................................. 52
Towards an all-electrical society? ..................................................................................................................... 53
Fuel Cell Trains .................................................................................................................................................. 55
The electricity grid of the future ........................................................................................................................... 56
Nine different Demand Response Programmes ............................................................................................... 56
Creating micro grids for connecting DG units ................................................................................................... 56
Extended microgrids, including storage ........................................................................................................... 57
Page 3 of 80
What is the definition of a ‘smart grid’? ........................................................................................................... 57
Rapid charging of plug-in electric vehicles ....................................................................................................... 58
EE technology ....................................................................................................................................................... 59
Productivity and maintenance benefits of EE ................................................................................................... 59
Is ICT responsible for raising energy demand? ................................................................................................. 60
Energy Efficiency and Peak Demand reduction ................................................................................................ 61
U.S. continues their leading role in motor efficiency ....................................................................................... 62
Science Magazine reports on the efficiency gap .............................................................................................. 62
The vast potential of energy efficiency in India ................................................................................................ 64
EE and REW policies.............................................................................................................................................. 64
Energy efficiency not a priority for EU project funding .................................................................................... 64
America’s leading energy efficiency programmes ............................................................................................ 65
Thailand’s revolving fund to stimulate EE ........................................................................................................ 66
How much energy saving is 1 per cent per year? ............................................................................................. 66
The rebound effect of energy savings .............................................................................................................. 67
Corporate energy efficiency strategies ............................................................................................................. 69
EU struggling with specifying its own targets ................................................................................................... 69
What amount of GHG emission reductions will actually be reached domestically? ........................................ 70
Reverse auction market feed-in tariffs ............................................................................................................. 72
How green is green power? .............................................................................................................................. 73
Are decreasing subsidies a blow to the wind industry? ................................................................................... 74
Harebrained solutions for the energy problem .................................................................................................... 75
Harebrained solutions for the energy problem ................................................................................................ 75
The quest for concentrated wind power .......................................................................................................... 76
Solar highways .................................................................................................................................................. 77
Geo-engineering does not offer an easy way out ............................................................................................ 78
Energy linkages ..................................................................................................................................................... 79
Micro-gardening or solar electricity? ............................................................................................................... 79
Page 4 of 80
AN INTEGRATED, GLOBAL VIEW ON THE ENERGY PROBLEM
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY (SE) WITHOUT THE HOT AIR
A CRYSTAL-CLEAR AND QUANTITATIVE VIEW OF THE ROAD TOWARDS A LOW-CARBON
ECONOMY
The book Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air by David J.C. MacKay is a unique case among all of the
current publications on this topic. If every author and decision maker involved with climate change and energy
issues would take this book as a starting point before making any claims or proposals, the world would be
saved a huge amount of discussion-energy, energy-to-disentangle-confusion, and energy-spent-on-fruitlessefforts.
'What exactly do you mean by "a huge amount"?' David MacKay would ask me at this point. Indeed, one of the
remarkable facts about his book is that it is free of meaningless claims. In his introduction, he cites that most
publications on sustainable energy do not give numbers or examples that are easily compared or put into
perspective. What they do give are data used simply to impress.
MacKay’s book, on the other hand, constructs several numeric examples on how to create a low carbon
economy in the UK. He reduces all figures to the unit of kWh per person per day, making the problem
suddenly very transparent.
FACING THE NUMBERS
The first part of the book is called 'Numbers, not adjectives'. It builds up a red stack enumerating the energy
cost of the main energy-consuming activities within the UK, and a green stack adding up all potential
renewable resources available in the UK. Out of this exercise comes the first main conclusion: 'If economic and
public objections are set aside, it would be possible for the current average energy consumption of 125 kWh per
person per day to be provided from domestic UK renewable sources'. However, the financial cost and the
impact on the British and Northern Ireland countryside and seaside would be so immense, that it is very
unlikable that the public would ever accept such an extreme arrangement. Consequently, an energy plan is
needed to fill the gap.
MAKING THE PLANS
Such energy plans are worked out in the second part of the book, called 'Energy plans that add up'. MacKay
sees four possible contributions to fill the gap: 1) reducing energy consumption by using more efficient
technology, 2) coal fired generation with carbon capture and storage, 3) nuclear energy, and 4) importing
renewable energy from regions that have plenty of sunshine, mainly the Sahara Desert.
Concerning the reduction of energy use, MacKay focuses on two large fossil fuel consuming functions, namely
heating and transport. Each of these functions are responsible for approximately 40 kWh per person per day.
The book proposes to entirely electrify both functions, through the use of electric vehicles and heat pumps.
This has a double advantage: it significantly reduces energy consumption and the energy that is still required
can be produced by carbon free power generation systems.
MEETING THE DEMAND THAT IS LEFT
Page 5 of 80
Meeting the remaining energy demand after switching to high efficiency electrical technology can be
accomplished in various ways. But each has certain drawbacks. Generating all required electricity — after
efficiency improvements — by domestic renewables is not completely impossible, but would still demand a
high price from the countryside and seaside. To complement domestic renewables, coal fired power plants
with CCS can be used, but MacKay points out that they are not really sustainable on two counts. The first is
obviously that the global coal reserve is finite and therefore not truly sustainable. His second point is that
there is also a significant amount of carbon dioxide released during the coal mining process. Importing solar
energy from the Sahara Desert is the most sustainable option from an environmental point of view, but might
raise geopolitical problems. Nuclear energy has the disadvantages of nuclear waste and safety issues, but
MacKay puts those drawbacks into perspective by comparing it to other waste and safety issues around the
world.
By combining the various options in different ways, the book draws six possible plans for a zero-carbon
economy in the UK, without expressing any preference between them. It invites the reader to compose their
own preferred zero-carbon energy plan, which is made easier thanks to the transparent figures that are
provided. The principal message MacKay wants to pass on to the reader is that the energy plans need to 'add
up' before they are worth considering.
The last two chapters of the book are dedicated to a more specialized audience, providing technical details on
energy systems and useful data that back-up the figures provided in the first part of the book.
REFERENCES
You can freely download the book 'Sustainable Energy — Without the Hot Air' by David MacKay at his website
WHAT ARE THE ENERGY SOURCES OF THE NEXT GENERATION?
'SEARCHING FOR A MIRACLE'
Last September, an interesting new analysis was published by two California-based think tanks: Searching for a
miracle / "Net Energy" limits & the fate of industrial society. The report, written by Richard Heinberg, is a joint
initiative by the International Forum on Globalization and the Post Carbon Institute.
As with the book Sustainable energy / Without the hot air by David Mc Kay (on which we reported earlier on
this blog), the report by Heinberg has as its principal merit a comprehensive analysis of the energy problem.
With global warming becoming an increasingly important topic and the all-time peak of global oil production
most probably behind us (July 2008, 87.9 million barrels per day), we can no longer hide behind local solutions.
The world’s energy use will need a radical change in the upcoming decades.
But contrary to David Mc Kay’s book, Heinberg’s study also takes the cost, the reliability, and the potential
transition speed of possible energy resources into account, as well as their physical and technical potential.
However, Heinberg looks at the energy solutions separately and does not propose scenarios in which demand
and production figures are added up and matched, as Mc Kay did.
It is worth noting that both experts put emphasis on the need for energy conservation and on the advantages
of electricity as an energy carrier. Another common viewpoint of both experts is that they see only a very
limited potential for biomass, ethanol, and biodiesel. Both also view wind energy and Concentrated Solar
Power (CSP) as very powerful options for the future.
Page 6 of 80
ASSESSING THE AVAILABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
The report by Heinberg analyses 18 different energy sources. It is notable that all of them are presently
available on the market in a more or less developed form. Heinberg clearly does not pin much hope on new
'magical' solutions that still only exist as concepts or laboratory models. Taking the urgency of the matter into
account, he postulates that we will have to make do with the solutions we already have at hand. It will take
less time to solve the primary issues of existing technologies than it will to develop entirely new energy
solutions from scratch, and we must always bear in mind the risk that the theoretical or hypothetical new
energy solutions may never deliver at all.
The report uses nine criteria to assess the potential future of the 18 available energy sources. Those criteria
can be grouped into six basic categories:







Direct monetary cost
Environmental impact
Renewability
Potential scale of contribution
Reliability
Energy Return On Energy Investment (EROEI).
The importance of 'net energy'
Much emphasis is laid on the EROEI criterion, also called 'net energy'. It is seen as a key figure to understand
the world energy system. The EROEI of US oil was 100:1 in 1930. It fell to 30:1 in 1970, and is currently less
than 20:1. According to Heinberg, the high EROEI that oil formerly enjoyed was directly responsible for the
development of the energy guzzling economy we have today. The drama of his argument lies in his assertion
that it is very unlikely that we will find a new energy resource with such a high EROEI any time soon.
Even though the reserves of oil and natural gas are still significant, the EROEIs of those resources will most
probably continue their steep decrease. This is also the case for coal but to a lesser degree, since today coal
still has an EROEI of around 65:1. Heinberg shatters the illusion that we still have coal available for a few
hundreds of years. He predicts the world coal peak around 2025 and a steep decline in its EROEI after 2040.
The minimum EROEI necessary to sustain a modern industrial society is considered to be 10:1. Carbon Capture
and Storage (CCS) will make the EROEI of coal decline even faster, and for this reason Heinberg does not see
coal with CCS as a sustainable solution.
The report’s general conclusion is that, even without taking climate change and other environmental issues
into account, we will be forced to shift towards a non-fossil-fuel economy in the coming decades.
WHICH TECHNOLOGIES HAVE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL?
What are the cards we have in hand to build a new energy economy? As could be expected, Heinberg does not
foresee any silver bullet. For various reasons, he downplays the possibilities of nuclear energy, hydroelectric
energy, passive solar energy, biomass, biodiesel, and ethanol. Nuclear energy has many drawbacks: uranium is
non-renewable, the initial investments are huge, the environmental impact of the fuel cycle is high, and
nuclear power plants require a great deal of water. Hydroelectric energy is either on too small a scale and thus
does not add up, or too large a scale with local environmental and social impacts that are in most cases too
high to be acceptable. Passive solar energy is certainly a valuable concept, but too limited in scale to
contribute significantly to the world’s energy needs. Biomass, biodiesel, and ethanol have an EROEI below 5:1.
The report sees significant potential for wind energy, solar photovoltaic energy (PV), Concentrated Solar Power
(CSP), wave energy, and tidal energy, but even the potential of this 'energy mix of the future' is limited. PV has
Page 7 of 80
serious drawbacks in its relatively high cost and relatively low EROEI, and the potential of tidal energy is
limited to a few regions of the world. Wave energy will need more research before we know its true potential.
So, most probably, wind energy and CSP will have to make up the largest share in any viable future energy
mix.
ELECTRICITY AS THE PREFERRED ENERGY CARRIER
Apart from the energy source question, there is also the question of which energy carrier is going to take over
the role that is currently performed by liquid fossil fuels. Hydrogen presents problems that are so substantial
we are unlikely to ever see a 'hydrogen economy', says the report. Its energy density per unit of volume is too
low and too much energy is lost in the various conversion steps a hydrogen economy entails. Electricity has
more potential, but if it is chosen as a systematic energy carrier, a few barriers still have to be overcome. The
energy density of electrical batteries needs to be enhanced, and solutions need to be developed to efficiently
transport electricity from remote renewable production centres to distant population centres.
ENERGY CONSERVATION ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL
Given the limited potential of the 'energy mix of the future' as stated in the report, the central message of
Searching for a Miracle is a pessimistic one. This is in contrast with the relatively optimistic point of view of
David Mc Kay in Sustainable Energy / Without the hot air. According to Heinberg, it will be impossible to ever
bring the entire world population up to the current American energy standards. Even bringing the world
population up to European standards seems too ambitious. Maintaining today’s world average energy use per
capita is most probably the only thing we can hope to accomplish, and even that will require sacrifices in terms
of cost, quality, and reliability of the energy.
Heinberg sees energy conservation, mitigating population growth, and limiting economic growth as
indispensible if we are to develop a sustainable energy economy. In the chapter 'The case for conservation', he
lists several possible measures. Those include, among other things, the construction of highly efficient railbased transit systems, the retrofit of building stocks for maximum energy efficiency, the internalisation of the
full costs of energy to reflect its true price, aggressive measures for demand-side management, and intensive
water conservation programmes. That last argument is based on the fact that currently high amounts of
energy are used by pumps for moving water.
A 100 GJ PER PERSON PER YEAR SHOULD SUFFICE
Heinberg concludes his report on a positive note. We should not strive to bring the world up to current
American energy standards. He cites Vaclav Smil, who investigated the relationship between the annual energy
use per capita and the feeling of well-being. According to those statistics, the feeling of well-being expands
proportionally with the per capita energy consumption up to about 100 GJ per capita per year. Above this
figure, the feeling of well-being does not continue to follow the increasing energy consumption and even starts
to go down again.
Consequently, Heinberg takes 100 GJ per capita per year as a general target and not the 325 GJ per capita per
year as currently consumed in the US. Note that David Mc Kay used a similar guiding number, when he
proposed to bring the current rate of 178 GJ/capita/year (125 kWh/capita/day) in the UK down to 105
GJ/capita/year (80 kWh/capita/day) through energy efficiency. The world average in 2008 was 74
GJ/capita/year.
STUDIES CAN PROVE ANYTHING
Page 8 of 80
EVEN THAT A COGENERATION UNIT ON NATURAL GAS CAN COMPETE WITH NUCLEAR
ENERGY IN TERMS OF CO 2 EMISSIONS
It is often difficult to see the wood for the trees on the present day energy landscape. There are probably as
many contradictory studies being carried out on how to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as there are
on how to lose weight. If a study is published today 'proving' that a diet without potatoes is the most effective,
you can be sure that tomorrow someone will launch the Potato Diet, 'losing weight by eating as many potatoes
as you want!'
How green is biomass? How green are photovoltaic cells? What amount of CO 2 emissions is attributable to
nuclear energy? What is the cost of nuclear energy? Is carbon capture and storage a sustainable technology? Is
cogeneration green? How big are the earth’s oil reserves? You can find studies that prove any position you
want take on those subjects.
SOMETIMES YOU NEED TO READ FURTHER DOWN THE TEXT
Recently, the German Federal Department for Environment, Protection of Nature and Nuclear Reactor Safety
(Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit) put out a press release n which they
claimed that 'a cogeneration unit on natural gas can compete with nuclear energy in terms of CO2 emissions'.
Much further down the text, they clarify this statement. If a building or industrial installation requires 2 kWh of
heat and 1 kWh of electricity, a cogeneration unit on natural gas will produce less GHG emissions than the
combination of electricity from nuclear energy and heat from fuel oil. Well yes, of course.
THE PROBLEM IS NOT NECESSARILY IN THE STUDIES
This press release reveals the origin of many contradictory results. In most cases, the problem is not the
credibility of the studies themselves. The differences originate from the points of departure (what exactly are
you comparing?), the interpretation of the results (what do the figures actually mean?), and the way the
results are communicated (what will you tell the reader and what do you withhold or downplay?).
Whether it is 'economically sound to continue with nuclear energy', for instance, depends primarily on your
starting point. Do you mean to continue with existing nuclear power plants, do you want to continue building
new reactors on existing nuclear sites, or do you intend to create brand new nuclear sites? Are you taking the
cost of nuclear waste into account? What about the risk of a nuclear accident? The same sort of situation
arises when you address the question of whether 'cogeneration is green or not'. Will all the heat from the unit
be consumed? And if yes, will it be consumed locally, or will it require heat transport?
SOME GENERAL PRINCIPLES REMAIN
It is usually dangerous to make generalisations about specific situations. The balance can often go in one
direction or another, depending on case-specific conditions.
Does this mean that there are no general statements to make at all on energy and climate change mitigation? I
do not think so. The following general principles remain firm:


By eating less you will lose weight: reducing energy consumption will reduce GHG emissions
A varied diet is good for your health: the optimal energy solution is a mix of various technologies
And, if you dare to cast doubt on those principles, I will provide you with a dozen credible studies that prove
them correct.
Page 9 of 80
THE NEED FOR A MASTER PLAN
GAINING PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION EFFORTS
At present, we do not have a proven tool that quantifies the environmental impact of various electricity
generation systems. And without it, we cannot take well-founded decisions concerning our energy future. That
is one of the conclusions in the paper Environmental Effects of Electricity Generation by The Institution of
Engineering and Technology (IET) . Current discussions about the Severn barrage and the construction of a
wind park on the Isle of Lewis in Scotland (see article in the Sunday Times) illustrate in practice how urgently
such a tool is needed.
These cases also show that such a decision tool alone will not be enough to guarantee that we are taking the
best available measures to mitigate climate change. There is also a need for a European structure in which
such a decision tool can be applied.
EMOTIONAL RESISTANCE
As the IET paper makes clear, the environmental impact of renewable energy is not zero. If we want to apply
renewable energy generation on a scale comparable to fossil fuels, whatever form it takes will have a
significant impact in terms of aesthetics, land use, and the eco-system. Consequently, renewable energy
projects will continue to face increasing ‘Not-In-My-Backyard’ resistance at the same time they are gaining in
their contribution to global energy needs. An undeniable, tangible effect in someone's backyard today will
always have greater personal impact than a global, complex phenomenon that occurs over the course of a
century or more.
Countering such resistance can be accomplished in two ways. The first is elevating the emotional rhetoric ever
higher to dramatise climate change as leading directly to the end of world. The second one is more durable but
also more difficult: use rational arguments that stand like a rock. Make sure that the complex global
phenomenon is very clear to people, and propose a mix of solutions that is undeniably the best we can do. The
former is what Al Gore did in the movie An Inconvenient Truth – at least in its best moments, since the movie
was not completely free of over-dramatisation either. Unfortunately, the movie keeps surprisingly silent about
solutions.
SEARCHING FOR THE BEST AVAILABLE SOLUTIONS
Regarding the Severn barrage, an answer to the following questions might go a long way towards convincing
local populations, bird watchers, and other environmentalists: Have all other measures for reducing CO 2
emissions been considered? Are there no effective measures available at a lower price? Will building the
barrage actually lead to a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions or will it only be used to increase energy
consumption? Presently, there is no clear answer to these questions. The UK government needs to be able to
state unequivocally that ‘We are making maximum efforts to stimulate energy efficiency, since this fourth fuel
has the least environmental impact. We have thoroughly investigated which of the possible measures will have
the least financial, environmental, and social cost in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including the Severn
barrage. With this barrage, we will be able to close down 2,000 MW of coal-fired power plants, leading to a
CO2 reduction of x tons a year.’ In short, building this barrage should be part of a master plan — preferably
pan-European — that can be explained and proven to the general public that it is the best available solution
for mitigating climate change.
COMPLEX MARKET MECHANISMS
Page 10 of 80
The idea of a master plan with executive power, however, contradicts the philosophy of a liberalised market.
If the UK government acted strictly along the lines of the liberalised energy market, it:



Could force the market to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Should leave it completely up to the market how to achieve these reductions
Should not grant a permit to build the Severn barrage, since that would affect state-protected nature
reserves
In short, it would ask the impossible of the various market players and stakeholders, since the dilemma of local
versus global impact would not be solved.
The third way is to design a master plan that indicates the measures with the least financial, environmental,
social cost, but to leave its execution to the market. That is to set up market mechanisms that work in such a
way that the least cost for the market players coincides with the least cost for society. Those mechanisms
however are virtually guaranteed to be highly complex, so complex in fact that it will be difficult to gain the
support of a broad public. Have you ever tried to explain the Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) or the green
certificates system to laymen? Moreover, there is no guarantee that those mechanisms will function as
desired, as proved by the failure of the ETS (see blog post EU emissions trading scrutinized). As the Severn case
illustrates, it is very difficult to incorporate all required considerations (up to and including eco-diversity and
local tourism) into such market mechanisms.
MAKING THE SOLUTIONS AS CLEAR AS THE PROBLEM
Thanks to missionaries like Al Gore, the broad public is today convinced that climate change is real. But before
people will be willing to undertake the efforts necessary to mitigate the effects, they will need the assurance
that those efforts are part of a clear, generally acknowledged master plan, for which all available measures
have been investigated and the options with the least cost to society clearly identified. As long as there is no
such plan implemented, some people will keep on reasoning that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush,
and decisions like the one on the Severn barrage will be impossible to take in a satisfying manner for all parties
concerned.
CLIMATE CHANGE: PAY NOW OR ASK FOR CREDIT?
AN ETHICAL AS WELL AS AN ECONOMIC QUESTION
If we continue business-as-usual, climate change — according to both the worst prognoses and the more
optimistic ones — will confront humanity with serious consequences and a high price tag. However, the cost to
society of mitigating climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions is also high. So inevitably, the
question arises: what we should do? Pay today for mitigating climate change or pay later to deal with its
consequences?
This question is most often presented as a mere economic problem. Not so, says John Broom in the Scientific
American article ‘The ethics of climate change’. The answer, he maintains, also entails ethical decisions.
John Broom refers to the ‘Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change’ by Nicolas Stern and the UK
Treasury, and to the studies of William Nordhaus at Yale University. While Stern concludes that urgent action
to control Greenhouse Gas emissions is required, Nordhaus’s position is that the need to act is not acute.
Broom identifies and explains the premises at the basis of this contradictory outcome.
Page 11 of 80
THE PROBLEM OF THE DISCOUNT FACTOR
The difference between the conclusions of Stern and Nordhaus primarily derives from fact that each
economist uses a different discount rate for future goods. The economic value of goods diminishes when they
only become available at a certain point in the future. Therefore, the value of future goods is discounted when
they are compared with present day goods. Stern uses a discount rate of 1.4% while Nordhaus is using 6%. The
latter figure is also the one that is used by the money market.
The discount rate is a consequence of three elements:

Economic growth: the more goods people have, the less they value new goods

The idea that people in the future can make a lower claim on goods, because they will be richer than
we are (= prioritism)

The idea that people in the future can make a lower claim on goods or simply because of their
temporal distance from us allows us to care less about them than we do about our own generation (=
temporal impartiality)
The first element is a non-ethical parameter, based solely on economic prediction. However, the degree to
which the second and the third element should be incorporated in the discount factor, if at all, is a purely
ethical decision.
Nicolas Stern does not accept temporal impartiality, William Nordhaus does. Nordhaus substantiates his
choice by saying that the average behaviour of people on the money market includes temporal impartiality. So
he sees ‘temporal impartial thinking’ as a democratic fact that we must accept, and not as an ethical choice.
He accused Stern of basing his calculations on his personal ethical premises.
John Broom disagrees with the Nordhaus choice:
1)
Goods on the money market are of a different kind than those that are at stake due to climate
change, so this market cannot reveal ethical judgements about the value of future well-being.
2)
A democratic standpoint is not the average of individual opinions. Most individuals tend to be
impatient, but it is the power of a democratic society that it can surpass this short-sighted way of
thinking by debate and deliberation. The Stern standpoint is one of many valuable contributions to
this democratic debate.
So regardless of which discount factor is used in these kinds of calculations, its choice will always be an ethical
one.
MINIMIZING THE RISK AT ANY COST?
It is remarkable that Stern, Nordhaus, and Broom all accept economic growth as an absolute fact.
Nevertheless, Broom points out that there exists a small but real chance that climate change could lead to a
worldwide catastrophe. Will the global economy keep on growing in times of such a catastrophe? Economic
growth is not a foregone conclusion nor is it a natural law. Consequently, there is a certain degree of risk that
people in the future will not be richer than we and would therefore result in an inverse discount factor.
This idea can be incorporated into the arithmetic by conventional risk calculation. But is that the end of it? I
don’t know. Maybe there is another ethical question arising here, at the risk of sounding naïve. If something
seems to be threatening the peaceful continued existence of our civilization and we are technically capable of
removing this threat, should we not always try to do that, whatever the cost? If we are not heading towards
such a catastrophe, it might turn out cheaper to pay for the consequences later instead of acting now. But do
Page 12 of 80
we want to rely on ‘if’ for such a serious matter? In other words, to what degree are we willing to put the
future at risk and which cost are we willing to pay to remove this risk?
I don’t know the answers to these questions, but I think these kinds of problems require a wide global debate.
It is time that the topic on the global public forums shifts from whether climate change is real or not, to how
and when we prefer to pay the cost, a decision that should be based on both economic and ethical
considerations.
REFERENCES
Article ‘The Ethics of Climate Change: Pay Now or Pay More Later’ by John Broome in Scientific American
(http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-ethics-of-climate-change)
THE DEVELOMENT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES (WIND, PV, CSP, OCEAN)
NEW GROWTH FACTORS FOR WIND INDUSTRY
IMPROVING TECHNOLOGY, EXPANSION OFF-SHORE, AND EXPLORING THE BUILDING
SECTOR POTENTIAL
The wind sector has been growing spectacularly over the past decade. However, to sustain these impressive
growth figures over the next twenty years in Europe and North America, business-as-usual will not be enough.
In several European countries, the number of remaining onshore sites for building new wind farms is already
declining. Maintaining current growth will require going off-shore, or at least off the beaten track.

Some offshore wind farms are already in operation but there is still a huge potential — if the
technology can overcome some of its current teething problems (see blog post ‘How fast can we
move?’)

Further expansion of the onshore potential is possible by scaling up existing wind farms in both size
and efficiency; radical new design proposals are being put forward

Building-integrated wind turbines have both advocates and sceptics in regards to their potential to
open up a completely new market
DEVELOPING OFFSHORE WIND
Given its target of 20% renewables by 2020, the EU sees offshore wind as a major power source for the future.
EU Energy Commissioner Andrès Piebalgs declared at the European Wind Energy Conference in March that he
is counting on the potential of offshore wind energy to ‘ensure that the growth trend in wind energy
continues’. He indicated that he would develop an Action Plan by the end of this year outlining the means by
which the EU can facilitate the development of offshore wind energy.
Piebalgs also clearly stated that ‘a maritime grid infrastructure is needed for the development of offshore
wind energy. […] As this is not yet in place, it must be developed fairly quickly and a central question is how it
should be financed.’
In the meantime, the US has yet to see its first offshore wind project even begin construction. Surprisingly
enough, it could very well be a group of commercial fishermen and dock operators who will lead the way. I
say surprisingly because the commercial fishing industry has almost universally opposed offshore
Page 13 of 80
developments as a duel threat to fishing grounds and navigation. The state of New Jersey wants to become the
home of the first offshore wind farm in the US and is providing a grant for the best project proposal. One of
the leading contenders is the Fishermen’s Energy of New Jersey group. This group has apparently concluded
that offshore wind farms are inevitable and that its members will be in a much more powerful position by
joining rather than fighting it. If wind turbines are going to limit access to some of their traditional trawling
grounds, they want to make sure that they can at least harvest the wind instead.
The active participation of commercial fishermen will enhance the chances of overall success. They are
intimately familiar with the local weather, ocean currents, and continental shelf topography. Faced with everdeclining fish stocks worldwide, they are a group of experienced people ready and willing to work offshore.
Fishermen’s Energy of New Jersey hopes to install its first pilot of 20 MW by 2011 and to expand it to 320 MW
by 2013.
Another group equally well acquainted with working offshore is the Norwegian oil and gas company
StatOilHydro. In May of this year they decided to build the world’s first full scale floating wind turbine. The
2.3 MW wind turbine will be attached to the top of a spar-buoy, a design already being used for some oil and
gas production platforms and for various oceanographic instrumentation systems. It will be located
approximately 10 kilometres from the coast near the city of Stavanger, Norway. The floating element of this
pilot installation will have a draft at some 100 meters below sea level providing it with the required stability in
the often-turbulent North Sea storms.
Floating wind turbines, if they are able to reach technical and economic maturity, have the potential to give a
significant boost to the wind sector. It would enable the location of wind farms not only in shallow nearcoastal waters but also at locations with sea depths of 120 to 700 metres where wind speeds are favourable
and the visual impact minimal.
RADICAL NEW CONCEPTS
The StatOilHydro project combines known technology in an innovative way. The California-based Selsam
SuperTurbine company, on the contrary, has developed a radical new concept for offshore floating wind
turbines. It consists of a long shaft bending in the wind like a reed and containing several rotors at different
heights. The shaft connects to a buoy carrying the generator. The SuperTurbine website enumerates many
potential advantages of this concept:

Lower cost by eliminating unnecessary material and components

High yield per unit since it contains several rotors at different heights which affect each other
favourable

Limited visual impact

Can be installed in both deep and shallow water without foundations at the sea bottom

Can be laid down and even submerged to withstand extreme storms
This is, of course, strictly the current promotional position of the company as they try to sell the concept. The
bottom line will be the cost per kWh that this new type of turbine will be able to produce. Moreover, the
technology will first have to prove itself in rigorous field tests before it can be regarded as a viable option for
the future. On the Physics Forum, Fred Garvin fears that the rotor dynamics of this concept could be a
nightmare.
Probably closer to realization are the Jet Engine wind turbines by FloDesign, a Massachusetts-based company.
The Jet Engine channels the wind into a vortex that spins the small, high speed rotor blades. This makes them
at least twice as efficient as traditional rotor blade turbines. Moreover, they are capable of operating both at
Page 14 of 80
lower and at higher wind speeds than traditional turbines, enhancing the capacity factor of the unit (see blog
post ‘The capacity factor of wind power’). FloDesign turbines are easier to install since they have much smaller
blades — they fit into a single standard size long haul truck — and are inherently safer. A no less important
advantage is that they can be placed closer together on a site, optimizing land use. If all those arguments
prove out and this technology is cost-efficient, it could boost the yield of onshore wind farms.
BUILDING-INTEGRATED WIND SYSTEMS
A new domain for expanding wind energy is building-integrated wind turbines. Like any new idea, it has its
sceptics. They point out that wind passing around buildings generally shows a high level of turbulence that
can affect the efficiency of the turbines. Nevertheless, proponents can point to the Bahrain World Trade
Center in Manama, Bahrain, inaugurated last April, to prove that this barrier can be overcome. It is the first
building integrating utility-scale wind turbines into its design. The turbines are mounted on the three bridges
that span the gap between two sail-shaped buildings, and not on the rooftop. The architecture of the building
shape is designed to funnel wind through the gap between the two buildings to provide the maximum amount
of wind passing through the turbines. The turbines have a capacity of 225 kWp each and provide 11 to 15% of
the buildings energy needs. They are expected to operate 50% of the time.
Will we all have our own personal wind turbine on our house one day? I have my doubts and, frankly, I hope
we will not. Many can still recall the sea of television aerials that once created an urban visual pollution all of it
own before the advent of cable. Nevertheless, it appears that residential wind turbines are getting cheaper.
The E2D Windmaster of the California-based company Freetricity’s is probably the first affordable roofmounted residential wind turbine. It is small enough to be used in residential areas and powerful enough to
provide 25% to 50% of the electricity needed by the average household. The system connects via an inverter,
rather like a photovoltaic system. A unique feature is that it comes with a battery and can be used as a backup
system during electrical blackouts. It is probably also an appropriate solution for off-grid houses in remote,
windy regions.
REFERENCES

Article ‘Brussels to push for development of offshore wind energy’ on euobserver.com
(http://euobserver.com/9/25893?rss_rk=1)

Article ‘Fish Juice: N.J. Fisherman Angling To Develop Offshore Wind’ in The Wall Street Journal
(http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/06/03/fish-juice-nj-fisherman-angling-to-developoffshore-wind/)

Article ‘StatoilHydro to build first full scale offshore floating wind turbine’ on the StatoilHydro
Website
(http://www.statoilhydro.com/en/NewsAndMedia/News/2008/Pages/hywind_fullscale.aspx)

Article ‘Ten Times the Turbine’ on PopSci.com (http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-05/tentimes-turbine)

Article ‘Wind Turbine Concept Inspired by Jet Engines’ on Alternative Energy
( http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/wind-turbine-concept-jet-engines/)

Article ‘First Large Building-Integrated Wind Turbines Spin in Bahrain’ on the EERE News Website
(http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=11712)

Article ‘Inexpensive residential wind turbine’ on Environmental News Network
(http://www.enn.com/energy/article/34768)
WIND POWER DOES NOT NEED 100% BACK-UP CAPACITY
Page 15 of 80
A DETAILED ANALYSIS BY THE TECHNICAL RESEARCH CENTRE OF FINLAND
One of the major drawbacks of wind energy is that it requires extra reserve capacity to compensate for the
intermittency of its power output. Opponents of wind energy even contend that it requires a 100% back up:
they claim each megawatt of wind power would require a megawatt from a combined cycle power plant as a
standby. A study by the Technical Research Centre of Finland has now demonstrated this last claim to be
incorrect.
SIZE MATTERS
The study “Design and operation of power systems with large amounts of wind power” was commissioned by
the International Energy Agency (IEA) for its Wind Implementing Agreement, and resulted in a state-of-the-art
report. It shows that the amount of back up needed for wind energy varies greatly according to the systems’
characteristics. The size of the system and the correlation of wind production with peak demand are two
major and decisive factors. In systems that cover a large area, wind-forces vary from region to region, leading
to an aggregation benefit. Large systems are also more stable, making it easier to compensate the
intermittency of wind power. Moreover, the increased regulation efforts associated with wind energy are
implemented more cost-effectively in large systems.
LIMITING THE IMPACT OF INTERMITTENCY
The impact of intermittency and the need for back-up capacity can be controlled and limited. Useful actions
are:

Creating appropriate grid connection requirements

Extending and enforcing transmission networks

Integrating wind power production and production forecasts into system and market operations
60% BACK UP
The conclusion of this study is clear. Though a large part of wind capacity does indeed require another plant to
be on stand-by, this back-up requirement never reaches 100%. In areas where wind production is high during
peak demand and the share of wind is no more than 30% of production, a mere 60% back up would be
sufficient. In other cases, larger back-up capacities might be required, up to 95% at worst.
Finally, the influence of wind power on the systems management does not need to be purely negative. Recent
wind power technology makes it possible for wind power plants to participate in voltage regulation and to
support the grid in the event of faults such as significant voltage drops.
REFERENCES

Article “Wind Power Need Not Be Backed Up By An Equal Amount of Reserve Power” on ScienceDaily
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071207000819.htm)

Publication “Design and operation of power systems with large amounts of wind power” by the
Technical Research Centre of Finland
(http://www.vtt.fi/vtt_show_record.jsp?target=julk&form=sdefe&search=57725)
NEW CAPACITY IN THE EU: WIND IN NUMBER ONE
Page 16 of 80
TREND CHANGE OR COINCIDENCE?
In 2008, wind energy was the preferred technology for new generation capacity in the EU. According to the
Planet 2025 NewsNetwork, 43% of all the new power capacity commissioned in the EU last year was wind
power. This compares to 35% for natural gas, 13% for oil, 4% for coal, and 2% hydroelectric power.
After years of natural gas dominance, this sounds like a real trend change. Has the era of renewable energy
begun? That may be, but nevertheless, a few observations are in order.
Firstly, one has to wonder whether this surge in wind power construction is caused by a particularly weak year
for conventional power plants, rather than by the attraction of the wind power sector itself.
Secondly, the EU presently has approximately 160,000 individuals directly and indirectly employed in the
manufacture and installation of wind power. More than €10 billion a year is being invested to install more than
8,000 MW of new capacity each year. Yet despite this extensive building activity, wind still does not produce
much more than 4% of the EU’s electricity demands.
This shows again just how massive the electricity generation system actually is. Despite the seemingly huge
effort on the part of its proponents, the share of wind energy in the European energy mix still seems to grow
at a snail’s pace. The European and North American electricity systems — built up over several decades — are
so enormous, that they have a huge inertia when faced with change. This inertia is something to keep at the
back of our mind when conceiving the energy systems of the future; wrong choices can last out long.
CONCENTRATED SOLAR POWER (CSP) PLANTS IN THE DESERT
A HUGE POTENTIAL FROM A PROVEN TECHNOLOGY
In the photovoltaic industry boom, another solar power technology has somehow been overshadowed:
Concentrated Solar Power (CSP). CSP uses mirrors to concentrate the sun rays on a pipe or vessel. These
contain a gas or liquid that is heated to around 400° C and is then used to power conventional steam turbines.
The technology is proven — a CSP plant in the California desert has been functioning very effectively for fifteen
years. One major advantage of CSP is that the medium heated during the day can be stored in vessels to keep
the turbines running at night.
One of the principal advocates for CSP is the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (TREC), an
initiative in conjunction with the Club of Rome. TREC suggests building large CSP power plants in the NorthAfrican and Middle East deserts and transporting the electrical energy to Europe via a High Voltage Direct
Current (HVDC) grid.
They have calculated that it would be feasible to build a total of fifty square kilometres of facilities in the
desert capable of generating 100 GW (about 10% of the total EU-25 generation capacity). The project would
include a HVDC transmission grid to transport the energy to Europe. It could be built up gradually, to be
completed by 2050. The financial investments would be large (around 400 billion Euros) but not impossible,
and the output competitive with fossil fuel and nuclear energy.
Greenpeace executed another study concluding that CSP has the potential to generate 37 GW worldwide by
2025, and 600 GW or 5% of the worldwide electricity demand by 2040.
Page 17 of 80
CONCENTRATING SOLAR POWER IN CALIFORNIA
ECONOMIC, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS INVESTIGATED
The US National Renewable Energy Laboratory conducted a study to assess the effect of deploying
Concentrating Solar Power Plants (CSP) in California. It investigated the economic return, the impact on the
energy supply, as well as the environmental benefits. The final paper of the study can be downloaded from
TroughNet.
The NREL chose a 100 MW parabolic trough plant with six hours of storage as the representative CSP plant to
focus the results of the study. Cumulative deployment scenarios of 2,100 MW and 4,000 MW between 2008
and 2020 were assumed. California has certainly enough potential CSP sites to realize such scenarios.
COMPARISON WITH NATURAL GAS PLANTS
CSP was compared with natural gas power plants, since these are currently the most frequent choice in
California (simple cycle gas plants for peak duty and combined cycle gas plants of intermediate duty). CSP
plants are of the same order of magnitude as natural gas power plants. If they include six hours of storage
capacity, they can combine the peak duty of simple cycle natural gas plants with the intermediate duty of
combined cycle gas plants.
A HIGHER COST, EXPECTED TO GRADUALLY DECREASE
The Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) of a CSP plant in the first deployment phase is estimated to be
$148/MWh, which is higher than a combined cycle gas plant ($104/MWh), but lower than a simple cycle
natural gas plant ($168/MWh). For plants installed in later stages of the development scenarios, CSP cost is
expected to fall and the technology to become a competitive choice for both peaking and intermediate duties.
ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
The proposed CSP deployment scenarios would create the following benefits:

Each dollar spent on CSP would contribute approximately $1.40 to California’s GDP, compared to
$0.90 up to $1.00 for a dollar spent on natural gas plants

CSP is expected to create 94 jobs for each 100 MW, compared to 56 jobs for a simple cycle natural gas
plant and 13 jobs for a combined cycle natural gas plant

CSP plants could reduce the impact of natural gas price increases and volatility on the price of
electricity

The 4,000 MW scenario would result in an annual reduction of 300 tons NOx emissions, 180 tons of
CO emissions, and 7.6 million tons of CO2 emissions
THE NEXT GENERATION OF PV PLANTS
GROWING FROM 10 MW TO MORE THAN 100 MW
Worldwide, various photovoltaic (PV) solar plants of five up to fifteen megawatts are in full operation.
Page 18 of 80
In the meantime, a new generation of PV plants capable of producing up to ten times more electricity is
coming on line.

In Spain, two plants of more than 50 MW have been commissioned (Olmedilla and Puertollano)

In Germany, 5 plants of more than 40 MW and are in use (Strasskirchen, Turnow-Preilack, Köthen,
Finsterwalde and Brandis)

The Spanish company Acciona has built 46 MW plant in Moura, Portugal
The Chinese company Zhonghao New Energy Investment plans a 100 MW plant in Dunhuang City (China), to be
commissioned in 2011. Firm plans also exist for a 100 MW plant in the Negev Desert, Israel, for a 116 MW
plant in Beja, Portugal and for a 300 MW plant in New Mexico, USA.
QUANTUM-DOT SOLAR POWER
ONE OF THE TEN “EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES 2007” OF THE MIT TECHNOLOGY REVIEW
Quantum-dots are tiny crystals of semiconductors just a few nanometres wide. Due to their unique ability to
interact with light, they have the potential of significantly increasing the efficiency and lower the price of
photovoltaic cells.
Currently, the most efficient photovoltaic cells are made out of crystalline silicon. In silicon, one photon of light
frees one electron from its atomic orbit. In quantum-dots made out of particular materials, up to seven
electrons are freed per photon when exposed to high-energy ultraviolet light. Moreover, quantum-dots can be
produced by simple chemical reactions, while crystalline silicon wafers are relatively expensive to
manufacture.
To date however, the extra-electron effect has been observed only in isolated quantum dots. In a working
quantum-dot solar cell, most electrons are swallowed up before they leave the semiconductor dot. A
commercial application of this technology is presumably still many years away.
But the potential is already real enough for Moser Baer PhotoVoltaic Ltd to acquire a significant minority stake
in Stion Corporation, one of the main R&D companies studying nanostructures technology. Moser Baer
PhotoVoltaic Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of Moser Baer India Ltd.
INCREASING PV EFFICIENCY: R&D BREAKTHROUGH
AMERICAN SCIENTISTS CAPTURE LOST ENERGY
The solar energy falling onto the earth is incredibly abundant but the majority gets lost anyway. So what is the
big deal about improving the efficiency of solar cells? Well for starters, highly efficient PV cells could create a
complete sea change on the cost, material use, and the amount of land presently employed in harvesting the
sun’s energy.
Today, the efficiency limit of photovoltaic cells is approximately 31 percent. For a long time this was thought to
be a physical border, as certain high-energy photons in sunlight exceed the band-gap energy in a PV cell. That
energy, in the form of so-called ‘hot electrons,’ is too high to be turned into usable electricity and is lost as
heat in conventional solar cells.
Page 19 of 80
Well, it seems we had better start referring to that physical border in the past tense. The ‘hot electrons’ could
not be captured — until now. According to the peer reviewed weekly Journal, Science, published on 18 June by
the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a team of material chemists at the University of
Texas at Austin and the University of Minnesota have demonstrated that this lost energy can indeed be
salvaged and transferred to an adjacent electron-conducting layer. Their experiment, carried out using a
system consisting of quantum dots coupled with a titanium dioxide layer, was the first time that this ‘hotelectron transfer’ has been achieved directly.
Making use of this concept could potentially increase the efficiency of a PV cell to more than 65 percent. A
great deal of science and engineering needs to be carried out yet so this does not mean that such highly
efficient PV cells are likely to be on the market soon. There are still many barriers to overcome, for instance,
how to channel the recovered energy for practical use. However, at the very least, this news provides strong
evidence that improving the efficiency of PV cells is not yet even close to its limit.
REFERENCES
IEEE Spectrum: Breakthrough in Capturing Lost Energy in Solar Cells
(http://www.diigo.com/annotated/d6fcef473022580ace50ccb74769827a)
Article Science/AAAS: ‘Hot-Electron Transfer from Semiconductor Nanocrystals’, free abstract
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5985/1543
10% SOLAR ELECTRICITY IN THE US BY 2025?
FEASIBLE IF ALL STAKEHOLDERS ACTIVELY CO-OPERATE
A new study by Clean Edge concludes that generating 10% of the electricity consumed in the US with solar
energy by 2025 is a feasible target. The Utility Solar Assessment (USA) Study has presented utilities, solar
companies, and regulators a roadmap of how to reach this target.
Today, solar energy in the US contributes a mere 0.06% of all power generated. Reaching 10% by 2025 would
require an active and co-ordinated effort on the part of all stakeholders. The following are the main action
points mentioned in the report:

Utilities should take advantage of solar energy’s ability to generate peak power, and they should
implement solar energy as a key element in the build-out of the smart grid

Solar companies need to bring the cost of a solar installation down to $3 per watt peak by 2018

Regulators and policy makers should continue the current system of tax credits for solar energy for
the foreseeable future
MASSIVE INVESTMENTS REQUIRED
Such a coordinated effort would have to be combined with massive investments. Clean Edge has calculated
the required investment to be between $26 and $33 billion annually from now until 2025. To put these
figures into perspective: the total investment in new power plants, transmission lines, and distribution lines in
the US in 2007 was $70 billion.
Page 20 of 80
An investment of this magnitude is not as high a risk as it may at first appear, since solar energy is expected to
achieve grid parity soon. When that point is reached, solar energy will become inherently profitable, even
without tax credits. Clean Edge estimates that for large parts of the US, grid parity will arrive around 2015.
Grid parity has already been reached in some parts of California.
REFERENCES

Introduction to the report ‘Utility Solar Assessment (USA) Study’ on the Clean Edge Web site
(http://www.cleanedge.com/reports/reports-solarUSA2008.php)
THE POWER OF THE OCEANS
POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE ENERGY MIX STILL UNKNOWN
There is a growing consensus as to the degree renewable energy sources will be able to contribute to the
energy mix in the next 20 years. However there is one element that may be underestimated; the power of the
oceans.
Approximately two-thirds of the earth is covered by oceans and seas. This large surface area captures a huge
amount of solar heat naturally. This results in a thermal gradient between the top and the bottom of the
oceans which can be harvested in a variety of different ways for the generation of electricity. Local variations
in sunlight lead to the geographical temperature differences that power ocean currents and the displacement
of air. Those can be harvested by marine current power stations and off-shore wind farms. The wind also
creates waves which can be used to generate electricity. Finally, the gravity of the moon moves the sea
causing tidal variances; movements that can be harvested by tidal power stations.
The combined potential of all those generation systems in the coming decades is still largely unknown.
OFF-SHORE WIND POWER
Off-shore wind farms are already big business around the world. If Europe is to maintain its present pattern of
continuous growth in wind energy over the coming decades, it will have to rely mainly on off-shore wind
farms. Many off-shore wind farms are already operational and an even larger number of projects are under
construction, in the design phase, or under consideration.
TIDAL POWER
The commissioning of the first commercial tidal power plant, at La Rance in France, dates back to 1968.
Although the technology is easy and proven, the hoped for breakthrough did not occur. This was primarily due
to its high capital cost and long pay-back period. But given today’s energy context, the long delayed
breakthrough could very well happen quite soon. Large-scale projects are being considered (see table) in
Argentina, Canada, India, Russia, the UK, and USA. Some novel technologies are being suggested in order to
reduce the high capital costs. Those include compressed air to drive air turbines instead of conventional hydro
turbines; using magneto-hydrodynamic generators for direct conversion of the energy of a tidal current into
electricity; and replacing a conventional rigid dam with a flexible barrier to concentrate the tidal current
utilized by the two previous possibilities.
OCEAN WAVE POWER
Page 21 of 80
Various technological concepts to harvest wave power exist. Some of them are being proved in operational
prototypes; others are still in a research or development phase. This year, the first commercial wave power
plant will go in operation in northern Portugal. It makes use of the Pelamis power generating device built by
Ocean Power Systems in Scotland.
The technologies to harvest wave power can be grouped as follows:

Tapered channel or reservoir systems. These are shoreline devices that drive the waves into an
elevated reservoir. Water flow out of this reservoir is used to generate electricity, using a standard
hydroelectric turbine.

Oscillating column systems, using air pressure generated by the wave movement to drive turbines.
This must be used on or near the shore.

Fixed or semi-fixed offshore devices which make use of the pressure differential in the water column
that occurs at some particular submerged point as the wave passes over that point. The pressure
differential is used by a variety of means to cause a fluid to flow in a circuit, which is then used to
drive a turbine and generator.

Offshore devices which utilize their buoyancy to cause movement in a part of the device as it moves
up and down in the wave. This movement can then be used directly in a linear generator, or indirectly
through a hydraulic system and a turbine such as in the Pelamis device.

Piezoelectric systems
MARINE CURRENT POWER
Harvesting the energy of marine currents is still at an early stage of development. There are no commercial
grid-connected turbines currently operating, and only a small number of prototypes and demonstration units
have been tested. The most likely type to be commercially developed is submerged water turbines similar to
wind turbines, though various alternative designs have been proposed as well.
OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION (OTEC)
OTEC makes use of the temperature difference between the warm surface water and the cold deep water to
drive a heat engine. For the system to be efficient, a minimum temperature difference of 20°C is required,
which restricts the technology to use in tropical oceans. OTEC is particularly promising as an alternative energy
resource for tropical island communities that rely heavily on imported fuel. The Sea Solar Power Company has
designed an OTEC system that is said to be economically efficient. A prototype of this system has been
installed in Hawaii.
OCEAN POWER PREDICTED TO INCREASE HUNDREDFOLD IN SIX YEARS
$4 BILLION INVESTMENT REQUIRED
Ocean power is still a minor in the renewable energy sector. It consists mainly of wave power and tidal stream
power, and both technologies have only just embarked on their first commercial projects. Today, less than 10
MW of ocean power capacity has been installed. However, according to a report by Greentech Media and the
Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development, this technology could reach 1 GW of installed capacity and
grid parity within six years from now.
Such progression would require $2 billion of investment in research, design and development and another $2
billion in commercial production and installation. Compare those figures with the $500 million investment
made between 2001 and 2007.
Page 22 of 80
How this technology will develop in the next few years depends greatly on the investment climate and the
willingness of the power sector to buy in to these type of projects. These, in turn, depend on the readiness of
governments to create dedicated policies and incentives for this sector.
NO TECHNOLOGICAL BREAKTHROUGH REQUIRED
One of the main reasons for the fast-growing potential of ocean power is the well-understood principles of
mechanical and electrical engineering its technology is based on. So, unlike some other types of renewable
energy, we are not waiting for a technological breakthrough. In addition, there is an abundance of ocean
energy available and it’s denser than, for instance, wind energy. Another significant advantage is its
predictability, making it much easier to dispatch. Wave power can be predicted fairly precisely three to five
days in advance, and tidal power can be perfectly predicted an impressive 100 years in advance.
Of course, the disadvantage of ocean power is its geographical limits; the technology is limited to coastal
areas. This is, however, only a minor disadvantage, since nearly 50 per cent of the world’s population lives
within 100 kilometres of the coast. Wave power is readily available along most coasts, although tidal energy
has the additional disadvantage that the number of coastal sites that are suited to it is restricted.
It is not surprising that the ocean power industry has been developing mainly in locations with the greatest
market potential, namely the U.K and Canada. The U.K could generate close to 20 per cent of its electricity
from ocean power resources, Canada more than 25 per cent. In the U.S., the ocean electricity potential is a
little under 9 per cent.
GRID PARITY IN REMOTE ISLAND COMMUNITIES
As with most renewable energy technologies, the biggest cost of ocean power is the system’s infrastructure. A
large part of this cost would go on the connection to the grid. Its remote location in the ocean also has a
significant bearing on cost; the systems must be robust enough to avoid high maintenance expenditure.
Consequently, to obtain grid parity, the infrastructure’s costs have to be reduced. Having said that, grid parity
also depends on the cost of grid electricity. For this reason, grid parity for wave power could come soon in
remote island communities where the cost of electricity is very high.
REFERENCES
Article ‘Forecasting the Future of Ocean Power’ on Greentech Media
(http://www.greentechmedia.com/GreentechMedia/Report/ForecastingtheFutureofOceanPower.html)
WORLD’S FIRST TIDAL STREAM GENERATING SYSTEM
1.2 MW PLANT INSTALLED OFF THE NORTHERN IRELAND COAST
A new type of renewable energy has been connected to the European grid: tidal energy turbines. The SeaGen
Tidal System has been installed in the Strangford Narrows, about 400 metres off the coast of Northern
Ireland, by Marine Current Turbines Ltd (MCT). The installation was completed last April and the generators
were successfully connected to the grid on 17 July. It produces 1.2 MW of power, operating 18 to 20 hours a
day. The total manufacturing and installation cost was nearly £10 million.
LIKE A WIND TURBINE, BUT MORE PREDICTABLE
Page 23 of 80
The Seagen Tidal System consists of a fixed structure bearing two 16 m diameter axial flow rotors, each
connected to a generator via a gearbox. In contrast with other existing tidal power plants — such as the one
on the Rance in France — this system does not require a barrage closing in an estuary. It is sited offshore on a
large piling.
The technology is similar in many respects to a wind turbine. However, its principle advantage compared to
most other renewable sources is that tidal energy is entirely predictable. In addition, its visual impact is much
smaller since it is almost entirely submerged. The slow rotation speed (10 to 15 revolutions per minute) is
unlikely to pose a threat to either fish or marine mammals.
POTENTIAL SITES IDENTIFIED
The manufacturer MCT aims at developing a 10.5 MW tidal energy farm of the same type off the coast of the
Welsh Island of Anglesey within the next three years. The main barrier to a large-scale development of this
technology is likely to be the limited number of suitable sites.
Nevertheless, other potential sites have already been identified in the UK, as well as in Australia, Canada,
Chile, France, Indonesia, New-Zealand, Turkey, and the US. ‘With the right funding and regulatory framework,
we believe we can realistically achieve up to 500 MW of tidal capacity by 2015 based on this new SeaGen
technology,’ says Martin Wright, Managing Director of MCT.
REFERENCES

Article on the Energy Blog (http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2008/04/largest-tidals.html)

Article ‘Tidal Power now online feeding Irish grid’ on Mendo Coast Current
(http://mendocoastcurrent.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/tidal-power-now-online-feeding-irish-grid/)

Website Marine Current Turbines Ltd (http://www.marineturbines.com/)
FUTURE COST DEVELOPMENT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY
How will the cost of the various renewable energy systems evolve in the future? That is a question a great
many people are concerned about. To make the transition to a sustainable energy economy, the development
and deployment of renewable energy systems will be indispensable. While all of these technologies presently
have a higher cost than traditional energy systems, it is generally believed that they will become cheaper once
they have gone through their learning curve. Predicting those cost development curves is crucial for the
accuracy of decision support tools.
THE NEEDS PROJECT: PREDICTING THE LEARNING CURVES
The NEEDS project (New Energy Externalities Development for Sustainability) aims at predicting the cost
development curves of all low carbon electricity generation technologies. This provides investors and policy
makers alike with knowledge as to what degree investing in a particular renewable technology is likely to be
worthwhile.
EXTRAPOLATING THE FUTURE FROM THE PAST
Page 24 of 80
How do you predict the future if you don’t happen to be Nostradamus? One way is to look at historical cost
development curves and extrapolate from them. This can be done for a complete system, but the results will
become more accurate when predictions are made that include various subsystems and are then aggregated.
For example, the learning curve of wind power should include the learning curves of wind turbine
components, site cost, wind capture, and maintenance costs.
A key figure characterizing the experience curve is the ‘experience ratio’ or ‘progress ratio’. This ratio
expresses the evolution of the cost for each doubling of the cumulative production. An experience ratio of 80%
means that the cost is reduced to 80% for each doubling of the cumulative production.
BOTTOM-UP ANALYSIS AND EXPERT ASSESSMENTS
The future is never an exact repetition of the past, so predictions based solely on extrapolation risk being far
off the mark. The NEEDS project therefore added two additional input channels to adjust their prediction. One
is a bottom-up approach analysing the evolutions that are happening in the field. The second are expert
assessments about possible future development within their domain.
In three upcoming articles, we will summarize the conclusions of the NEEDS paper as well as a few other
sources on the cost development of wind energy, photovoltaic energy, and solar thermal energy.
THE COST DEVELOPMENT OF WIND ENERGY
DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS PROVIDE THE MAIN POTENTIAL; MATERIAL COSTS THE MAIN
BARRIER
When predicting the learning curve of wind energy, a distinction should be made between on-shore and offshore wind. While the former started to develop in the mid 1970s, the latter only took off around the year
2000 and is consequently still lacking extensive historical data. As the figures of the NEEDS study show, today’s
off-shore wind and on-shore wind electricity prices are of the same order of magnitude.
COST OF SYSTEM DROPS FASTER THAN COST OF TURBINE
Historical cost development curves of on-shore wind show large differences that depend mainly on the
timeframe, the system boundaries, and the geographical area. As a general rule one can say that the
experience ratio is higher for the complete system than for the turbine alone. This is confirmed by the bottomup study of NEEDS, which shows that the relative share of the turbine cost in the complete wind energy cost
increased in the past decades.
COST REDUCTIONS MAINLY THROUGH DESIGN CHANGES
The bottom-up study also shows that cost reductions for wind turbines are mainly achieved through design
changes, and not through cheaper manufacturing of the same pieces. Those design changes can range from
incremental changes improving the electricity output of an existing model, to the design of a new and bigger
type of turbine with higher capacity and efficiency.
Cost reductions in the future are expected to be based on such incremental design changes. Turbines are also
expected to be increasingly designed to be site specific, i.e. to achieve maximum efficiency on a specific
landscape location.
Page 25 of 80
MATERIAL PRICES ARE DECISIVE FACTOR
The expert assessment in the NEEDS study added two additional insights to the case. First, the price of
materials is a decisive factor in the wind turbine cost. The market prices of steel and fibre glass account for
more than half of the turbine cost. This limits the potential of cost reductions through improving
manufacturing efficiency. A second important remark is that a distinction should be made between production
cost and contract price. The latter is determined by market supply and demand. For example, the experts
noted that contract prices for off-shore wind are currently rising due to heavy demand accompanied by high
risks.
STABLE POLICY REQUIR ED FOR SUPPLY TO FOLLOW DEMAND
This last remark shows once again the importance of stable political support measures for renewable energy.
High demand caused by government support will only result in a fundamental increase in supply capacity if the
likelihood is high that this support will be continued in the following years. Temporary support measures will
lead to temporary boosts in demand, resulting in a price increase instead of in a growth of supply capacity.
ENCOURAGING PROGRESS RATIOS
The conclusion of the NEEDS study predicts a progress ratio of 88 to 92% for wind turbines. Regarding
electricity from wind energy, the study predicts a higher progress ratio: 85% for less windy regions and 80% for
off-shore wind and windy on-shore areas.
THE COST DEVELOPMENT OF PV ENERGY
DIVERSIFICATION COMPLICATES PRICE PREDICTIONS
In regards to PV energy, we will focus on grid connected systems only, since they represent the large majority
of the market. The cost of a grid connected PV system is composed of the PV module cost and the ‘BOS’ cost
(Balance of System). The BOS consists of the structures for mounting the PV modules and of the powerconditioning equipment that converts the DC power of the modules into the AC grid power.
PREDICTION NOT STRAIGHTFORWARD
Three difficulties arise when trying to predict the future cost development of PV energy starting from existing
experience curves.
1) The cost decrease over the past four decades was not at all linear. It alternated periods of sharp
decline with periods in which it stayed more or less constant. As a result, experience cost curves that
do not represent large time spans can result in a distorted perspective.
2) Various PV technologies exist and are difficult to represent with a single experience curve. New types
of PV systems may break through in the near future that completely change the average cost of PV
modules.
3) Even if the future cost of individual PV modules can be predicted, this does not mean the cost of
electricity generated by those PV systems can be easily determined. Factors such as geographical
location, local support mechanisms, and the size of systems will have a major influence on the
average PV electricity cost.
THE COST DEVELOPMENT OF SILICON PV MODULES
Page 26 of 80
Experience curves for crystalline silicon show that the progress ratio has been around 80% over the past
decades. This ratio is likely to stay more or less the same on the medium term. The main cost reduction
potential for PV modules lies in PV cell efficiency improvement, a decrease in the price of silicon, and in the
building of bigger manufacturing facilities. According to the expert assessments of the NEEDS study, the share
of the material price in the total cost of the module is likely to grow in the upcoming years.
The expected progress ratio of the BOS is also predicted to be around 80%. The bottom-up analysis shows that
the cost reduction of the PV mounting structures is reaching its limit. However, a significant cost reduction
potential is still present in the inverter. Current inverter costs of 0.5 euro/Wp (large system) to 0.8 euro/Wp
(small system) can evolve to 0.2 — 0.4 euro/Wp in the foreseeable future.
Concerning the cost of electricity from silicon PV modules, the NEEDS study predicts it will drop below €
0.2/kWh within the next five years in the sunny regions of the world (Spain, the US south-west, India,
Australia, and southern China). The same could happen in the more temperate regions of North America and
Europe within ten to fifteen years. A study by the University of Jaén (Spain) predicts that for Concentrated
Photovoltaic power (CPV), the average level of electricity cost will decrease to 0.119 — 0.148 €/kWh in sunny
regions by 2015.
WHICH INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES WILL BREAK THROUGH?
Once the thin film technology and all the other technologies currently under development are taken into
account, predictions for the PV cost development become much harder to make. The expert assessments of
the NEEDS study show that the efficiency of thin film PV modules could make a big leap forward in the coming
decades. Also, modules with a combination of thin film and silicon technology, combining the small material
use of the former with the high efficiency of the latter, can lead to significant cost reductions. Moreover, more
innovative alternatives are under development such as dye-sensitized photochemical solar cells, conducting
polymer cells, quantum solar cells, and modular organic solar cells. It is very difficult to predict which of these
technologies — if any — will break through, and if they do, when this breakthrough will occur, and above all,
how its learning curve will look.
THE COST DEVELOPMENT OF SOLAR THERMAL ENERGY
INCREMENTAL CHANGES CAN RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL COST REDUCTIONS
The technologies for producing electricity from solar thermal energy can be divided into three main categories:

Parabolic trough and Fresnel systems

Central receiver systems, including the solar updraft tower

Parabolic dish systems, usually combined with a Stirling heat engine
The first commercial CSP plant, which was built in California in the 1980s, used the parabolic trough concept. It
has a total capacity of 354 MW. For many years, this was the only large scale CSP plant in the world.
Elsewhere, only small demonstration plants were built. The high investment cost hampered further
deployment. In 2006, a new commercial 1 MW parabolic trough CSP plant was built in Tucson, Arizona. Since
then, the development of CSP as a commercial electricity generating technology has taken off. Many CSP
projects are currently being built, the majority of which are in Spain and the USA. It is very likely that because
of this market boom, investment costs for CSP will go down. The question is how much and how quickly.
DEDUCING EXPERIENCE RATIOS
Page 27 of 80
Since experience with CSP is still very limited, it very difficult to draw experience curves that are useful in
making reasonably accurate predictions. The parabolic trough system is still the only CSP technology to be
considered commercially viable, and even this technology has only seen three doublings in capacity since its
entry into the market.
One way to refine predictions is by aggregating the experience curves for various subsystems (collectors,
storage system, power block, etc.). The NEEDS study employed this approach in calculating a progress ratio
ranging between 85% and 92%.
A few of the price estimations that have been published recently implicitly assume a positive relationship
between capacity growth and energy price reduction, creating an experience ratio.

The Spanish Plan de Energías Renovables includes 500 MW of new CSP capacity and projects a cost
decline of 20% during the construction of those plants. This additional 500 MW would represent an
approximate doubling of the present global CSP capacity. Consequently, the Plan de Energías
Renovables figure converts to a progress ratio of 80%

The CSP Today market association predicts that the cost of electricity from CSP will have dropped
from the current 20 €c/kWh to 8€c/kWh when the global CSP capacity reaches 4 GW — three
doublings of the capacity. This CSP Today figure converts to a progress ratio of 75%.
SCALING-UP IS KEY TO REDUCING INVESTMENT COSTS
Many studies have been conducted on how various technical developments could lead to cost reductions for
CSP. One comprehensive source of data is the ECOSTAR study, whose conclusions were integrated into the EU
Paper ‘Renewable Energy Technologies/Long-Term Research in the 6th Framework Programme 2002-2006.’
Regarding the parabolic trough, the ECOSTAR study relies heavily on incremental technology innovations for
achieving cost reductions, including:

Cheaper concentrator fluids

A lower TCO for storage systems

Increased unit size of the power block

Volume production effects
ECOSTAR predicts an investment cost reduction in parabolic troughs of 55 to 65% over the next 15 years.
Concerning central receiver technologies, ECOSTAR identifies the following as the main sources of cost
reductions:

Use of molten salt as a heat transfer fluid (molten salt is currently used for thermal storage)

Use of saturated steam as a heat transfer fluid

Scaling-up the size of the plants

Integration of the solar module with a gas turbines system

Volume production effects
In general, ECOSTAR considers the scaling-up of plant size as the principal source of future cost reductions.
ECOSTAR predicts that the cost of CSP electricity will come down to 6 €c/kWh by 2020 in Southern Spain, and
even to 4.5 €c/kWh in areas with high solar irradiation.
Page 28 of 80
Thermal storage increases the investment costs of CSP plants, but according to ECOSTAR, it will most likely
ultimately lead to a lower cost of electricity generated from CSP.
AN EXPERIENCE RATIO OF 88%
The NEEDS study concludes that the impact of each individual improvement in technology and efficiency in
CSP is small, but taken all together the incremental changes that are currently in the pipeline show a
considerable potential for cost decreases.
By taking the input from experience curves, bottom-up analysis, and expert assessments into account, NEEDS
suggests an experience ratio of 88%. It does however underline the huge uncertainty of this value by setting a
lower sensitivity value at 83% and an upper sensitivity value at 93%.
ISLANDS POWERED SOLELY BY RENEWABLE ENERGY
SITES INCLUDE SAMSO, IN DENMARK, EL HIERRO IN SPAIN, AND DONGTAN IN CHINA
In the midst of the discussion on how large the share of renewable energy in the energy mix could grow, three
islands have taken a more radical course. They are aiming at nothing less than 100 per cent renewable energy.
And no, these are not islands with one or two inhabitants, perhaps a lighthouse, and a few sheep. Samso has a
population of 4,300 people. In El Hierro there are 10,500, and the city of Dongtan is planning for a population
of 50,000 inhabitants.
SAMSO, AN ECOLOGICAL WONDERLAND
In 1997 Samso won a national contest to select the island with the best plan for becoming 100 per cent
energy-sustainable within a ten year frame. Today, 100 per cent of their electricity comes from wind power.
The excess wind power is sold to the mainland. To heat their homes and buildings, they installed a district
heating system powered by solar power and biomass (wood pellets and straw). Samso farm tractors and the
ferry boats serving the island are powered by locally grown rapeseed oil. Only private cars still consume nonrenewable energy, but given the excess of wind power generated on the island, they are easily carbon neutral.
The next energy project will be to develop a hydrogen plant powered by wind energy to supply the car fleet
with renewable energy.
EL HIERRO RELYING ON RENEWABLE ELECTRICIT Y
El Hierro in Spain’s Canary Islands will receive 100 per cent of its electricity supply from renewable sources by
2009. It will rely on a combination of wind power and hydroelectricity. A pumping station will be used for
storage and to balance supply and demand. Excess wind energy will be used to power two desalination plants.
An existing diesel-powered plant on the island will be maintained for emergencies.
THE NEW ECO-CITY OF DONGTAN NEAR SHANGHAI
In China, the Dongtan Eco City is being constructed on the marshes of Chongming Island, at the mouth of the
Yangtze and opposite of Shanghai. Dongtan will have a population of 50,000 people by 2010, rising to 500,000
people by 2040. It will generate 100 per cent of its electricity needs through solar, wind, biomass, and waste
power stations. Hydrogen filling stations will supply lightweight fuel cell cars. Traditional motorbikes will be
Page 29 of 80
forbidden, replaced by electric scooters or bicycles. A Dongtan inhabitant will have an ecological footprint of
about two hectares, three times less than an inhabitant in Shanghai.
Building Dongtan will cost US2$ billion for the first phase alone and probably a multiple of that for the
complete project. According to the Chinese authorities, this sum is sensible since Dongtan was designed to
serve as a prototype for the entire country. Critics however question the logic of such a project when you have
a city like Shanghai (20 million people) just across the river. Shanghai has virtually no buildings with lagging in
the roofs, energy efficient and draught-free window frames, or any other simple and cost-effective energy
saving measures. Moreover, planning is underway to build ten NON-eco-friendly suburbs of a million
inhabitants each simultaneously with Dongtan.
REFERENCES
Article ‘How Denmark is leading the way in renewable energy’ on MoneyWeek
(http://www.moneyweek.com/file/10587/how-denmark-is-leading-the-way-in-renewable-energy.html)
Article ‘Danish Island is Energy Self-Sufficient’ on CBS News
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/08/eveningnews/main2549273.shtml)
Article ‘Island powered solely by renewables’ on Development Crossing
(http://www.developmentcrossing.com/development_crossing/2007/03/island_powered_.html)
Article ‘China to build First Eco-City’ on CRIEnglish.com
(http://english.cri.cn/811/2006/05/07/301@85444.htm)
Article ‘Dongtan Eco-Village, model of sustainability or simply green-washing?’ on China Travel Industry Blog
(http://www.ccontact.com/Blog/2007/04/19/dongtan-eco-village-model-of-sustainability-or-simply-greenwashing/)
A CRITICAL VIEW ON THE RENEWABLE ENERGY BOOM
NOT ALL RENEWABLE POWER SYSTEMS ARE SUSTAINABLE
RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS SHOULD NOT RELY ON SCARCE RESOURCES
In the quest for alternatives to fossil fuels, renewable energy systems are being rapidly developed across a
wide spectrum. However, the fact that these new systems replace depletable fossil fuels with renewable
sources is in itself not a guarantee of high sustainability. The article Why sustainable power is unsustainable
in New Scientist draws attention to this often under-appreciated fact. In our growing focus on energy and
climate change, we have a tendency to applaud every renewable energy technology that is being developed
and without considering its other sustainability aspects.
The New Scientist cites three examples of ‘unsustainable sustainable power systems’:
1) Multiple-junction PV cells, which have promising performance in so far as efficiency goes, but use the
relatively rare metal Indium
2) Hydrogen fuel cells, which use the very scarce metal Platinum as a catalyst (but then again: is
hydrogen really a source of renewable energy, or only an alternative energy carrier?)
3) Bio-fuels, which make use of large areas of scarce arable land
Page 30 of 80
Renewable energy systems that rely on rare metals such as indium or platinum do not have the potential to
take us towards a global zero carbon emission economy. That said, the conclusion that all renewable energy
systems make use of materials available in a (more or less) limited supply does not mean that their negative
impact is as great as that of fossil fuel systems. Life Cycle Analyses clearly show that energy use has in general
a far greater environmental impact than material use.
And even the development of those renewable energy systems which make use of very scarce materials is not
necessarily a wasted effort. Such systems can be quite useful during a transition period and the technical
developments that were realized designing them can be the starting point for further development towards
more sustainable alternatives.
HOW FAST CAN WE MOVE?
TECHNICAL AND SOCIAL BARRIERS FOR IMPLEMENTING SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
When reading the news one sometimes gets the impression that evolving towards sustainable power
production is only a question of politics and economics. It is often forgotten that, once the political decision
has been taken and the systems have become profitable, everything still has to start.
Implementing renewable energy systems on a large scale is not simply pulling a switch. There are numerous
technical and social barriers that have to be taken into account. And each of these barriers put a finite limit on
the speed at which growth can take place.
It might be frustrating in times when climate mitigation and energy security require urgent actions, but
denying those barriers and forcing things forward without due consideration and diligence can turn out to be
counterproductive in the long run.
NEW TECHNOLOGY REQUIRES EXTENSIVE TESTING
Taken in this perspective, one could wonder if the wind market isn’t running too fast for its own good. In the
early nineties, with relatively small scale production of onshore turbines of up to 500 kW, technical problems
on wind turbines were rare. Between 2000 and 2006, the installed capacity more than quadrupled from 17.4
GW to 74.2 GW and turbine sizes were rising to several MW. During the same period, an increasing number of
newly installed wind turbines were facing technical problems with gearboxes (bearings, alignment, housing,
etc.).
According to Jan van Egmond, Managing Director of the consultancy firm Quality in Wind, those problems:
‘…can at least partly be explained by a continuous market pressure to increase the size and capacity of
turbines. In some cases inadequate built-in safety factors may be chosen, or too little time taken
between prototype stage and mature commercial product to solve unavoidable teething problems.’
Most of the early mechanical gearbox problems now seem to be under control. However, in the meantime the
wind industry has had to face a major new problem: excessive corrosion on offshore wind turbines is causing
large wind farms like Horns Rev in Denmark to be taken out of service.
It is a dangerous game to try to cope with teething problems only after massive production and
implementation is already underway. Recalls are extremely costly on several counts. They can easily bankrupt
young companies and ultimately damage the reputation of the entire technology. Such setbacks can require
decades to recover. If the wind industry is to be truly sustainable, it will have to withstand market pressure
Page 31 of 80
and execute all of the laboratory and prototype testing normally required for the successful launch of new
product types.
SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE IS KEY
Along with technical barriers, there are social barriers that limit the rate of growth of sustainable energy
systems. Energy infrastructure is deeply embedded in the fabric of society, so before a successful move
forward can accomplished, all stakeholders need to be on board. This has been aptly proven by the tribulations
of the Cape Wind Project, a 420 MW offshore project on the coast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts in the U.S.
Despite public opinion surveys showing that a majority of the people in the region support the project, it has
been stalled by opposition from local residents and some environmental groups.
An approach like that used in the Spanish region of Navarre could have avoided such problems. Spain has
about the same wind energy capacity as the U.S. and seventy per cent of it is located in the small province of
Navarre. This region has very good wind conditions, but the real secret of their success might lie in their
integration program giving each stakeholder a voice in the process. A public/private company was
established whose shareholders include the government, the regional electricity supply company, local
industry, and the regional bank. Residents, businesses, and environmental groups were offered project buyins. By being involved in the process, residents have realized that environmental and socio-economic benefits
of wind energy outweigh the disadvantages.
Creating structures that involve all stakeholders in the development process right from the start takes time,
but makes the development more secure. It avoids the situation where one day the whistle blows on the
project and everything goes back to zero.
Clearly, the rate of growth of sustainable energy systems is limited by both technical and social barriers. It is of
no use to try to pretend that these barriers do not exist. They must be accommodated because they cannot be
ignored.
REFERENCES

Article ‘Gearbox failures and design solutions’ on Renewable Energy World (http://www.renewableenergy-world.com/display_article/272844/121/ARTCL/none/WINDR/1/Trouble-spots--/)

Article ‘Tall orders/Wind turbines need better gear oils’, on the Web site of Lubrizol
(http://www.lubrizol.com/press-room/news/2007/LnG_WindTurbines.pdf)

Article ‘Lessons in RE Development from Navarre, Spain’ on Renewable Energy Access
(http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/ate/story?id=50281)
THE CAPACITY FACTOR OF WIND POWER
GLOBAL AVERAGE AROUND 20%
The success of wind power is usually measured by the growth in installed capacity. This capacity however is
peak power: the maximum power at optimum wind speed. The average output of a wind turbine is always
lower.
The capacity factor of a wind turbine expresses the ratio of average power output to peak power. Many
national and European targets assume a capacity factor of 30%, while the world’s average capacity factor in
2005 was only 19.6%.
Page 32 of 80
WIND SPEED MAIN QUALIFYING FACTOR
The capacity factor of a wind turbine is determined by:
1)
Operation at less than maximum output. Most wind turbines have their maximum output power at
wind speeds between 12-15 m/s and 25 m/s. Below that range, the power output decreases by the
third power of the wind velocity. In other words, at half the optimal wind speed (7.5 m/s), power
output is only one eighth of peak power.
2)
Shut down due to excessive or inadequate wind velocity. In general, wind turbines shut down when
wind speeds drop below 3-4 m/s or rise above 25 m/s.
3)
Other shut downs. These may occur due to scheduled maintenance, equipment failure, or for safety
reasons during a grid incident. These same events also determine the capacity factor of conventional
fossil fuel power plants, which varies roughly between 50% and 90%.
THE GREATER THE NUMBER OF WIND FARMS, THE LOWER THE CAPACITY FACTOR
The average capacity factor differs significantly between countries. Countries with well exploited wind
resources tend to have a lower capacity factor. Germany for instance has a capacity factor of only 16.9%. That
is because the best sites get developed first, and subsequent development goes onto sites with poorer wind
characteristics, thus reducing the average capacity factor. The U.S. have a large installed capacity, but a high
capacity factor (28.8%), meaning that it still has a large wind development potential left to exploit.
Given this perspective, the target of the European Wind Association seems rather unrealistic. It aims to reach
the figure of 180 GW installed capacity in Europe with an average capacity factor of 31.7% by 2010. It is
argued that a large part of the growth in the European wind sector in the upcoming two years will be achieved
by off-shore wind parks, which are believed to have higher capacity factors. However, figures from the UK
from 2005 indicate that this is not necessarily true. The UK on-shore wind park (1,651 MW) has an average
capacity factor of 27.4% and the off-shore wind park (304 MW) a capacity factor of 27.2%. Wind characteristics
tend to be better for off-shore turbines but off-shore wind turbines also require more maintenance. This can
explain why the UK capacity factor turns out to be similar than that of the on-shore turbines.
REFERENCES

Briefing sheet ‘Wind Turbine Technology’ by British Wind Energy Association
(2005)(http://www.bwea.com/pdf/briefings/technology05_small.pdf)

‘EWEC 2007 Review’ by the European Wind Energy Association
(http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publications/WD/2007_June/wdjune-review.pdf)

Website ‘Wind Web Tutorial’ by the American Wind Energy Association
(http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_statistics.html#How%20much%20wind%20generating%20capacity%
20currently%20exists%20in%20the%20U.S.%20How%20much%20will%20be%20added%20over%20th
e%20next%20several%20years)

Report ‘Renewables and Waste in World in 2005’ by the International Energy Agency
(http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/renewdata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=29&Submit=Submit)

Blog post ‘The capacity factor of wind power’ on Lightbucket
(http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2008/03/13/the-capacity-factor-of-wind-power/)

Blog post ‘Finding good sites for wind turbines is not so easy’ on Leonardo Energy
(http://www.leonardo-energy.org/drupal/node/1346)
SMALL WIND TURBINES STRUGGLING TO GAIN MOMENTUM
Page 33 of 80
MARKET TRENDS AND POTENTIAL ENERGY PRODUCTION
Compared to the traditional wind market, the market for small wind turbines has been growing at a slow
speed. But according to Miamari Siitoinen, Marketing Director of Eagle Windpower Oy, ‘the wind is turning’
and small wind turbines are currently witnessing a strong increase in demand (see article Energy & Enviro
Finland).
To what extent is that good news? What is the potential share of small wind turbines in the renewable energy
mix? Sander Mertens of the Technical University Delft in the Netherlands conducted a research project (see
webcast) comparing various quality parameters of small wind turbines presently on the market. The study
shows that the potential of small wind production is overrated. Most small wind turbines are expensive and
yield less than the manufacturer’s claim, concluded Sander Mertens. He supports the introduction of quality
certificates indicating the actual efficiency of residential wind turbines.
That said, some types of small wind turbines show good results. The Finnish technology company Eagle
Windpower Oy developed a small wind turbine making use of nanotechnology. It possesses lighter and
stronger blades, enabling the doubling of the wing size. According to Juha Siitonane of Eagle Windpower Oy,
this results in ‘an increase in power production of 30 per cent compared to traditional small wind power
stations’.
According to Mertens’ study, it is mainly the very small systems used in residential environments that have the
poorest efficiency. Most of the Eagle Windpower systems, on the contrary, are bigger and mounted on a tower
of 7 to 20 metres high. The company mainly targets emerging economies. In those countries, small wind
turbines can be used to improve the reliability of the electricity supply at residential or commercial sites, or to
power water supply in remote regions.
EMISSIONS FROM PHOTOVOLTAIC MANUFACTURING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE COMPLETE PV LIFE-CYCLE
All means of electricity generation, including photovoltaic (PV) systems, create polluting emissions when the
entire life-cycle is taken into account. In the case of PV systems, those emissions are concentrated in the
manufacturing stage. PV manufacturing is energy intensive, resulting in the emissions that accompany the use
of standard grid electricity. The energy balance of a PV system is expressed by the Energy Pay-Back Time
(EPBT), which is the time it takes for the PV system to generate the amount of energy equal to that used in its
production.
A new paper by M. Vasilis, V. Fthenakis, H.C. Kim and E. Alsema, published in the January 2008 Environmental
Science & Technology, finds yet again that PV technologies generate far less life-cycle atmospheric emissions
per GWh than conventional fossil-fuel generation technologies. It states that at least 89% of the harmful
emissions into the atmosphere could be prevented if conventional grid electricity was to be replaced by
photovoltaic electricity. According to this paper, the EPBT of a PV system varies between 1 and 6 years. Two
years ago, a comparable literature study by the Energy Bulletin reported EPBTs between 2 and 8 years (see
blog post).
EPBT VARIES ACCORDING TO SITE
The first part of the Environmental Science & Technology paper tackled the question of EPBT and Greenhouse
Gas (GHG) emissions of PV systems. The larger the energy yield of the PV system, the faster the energy
consumed during its manufacturing phase is gained back, so obviously the EPBT depends heavily upon the
Page 34 of 80
average insolation at a particular manufacturing site. The paper refers to four studies conducted on
monochrystaline silicon PV panels in four different geographic regions:

In the Netherlands, with an insolation of 1,000 kWh/m2/yr, an average EPBT of 3.5 years was
reported (A. Meijer, M.A.J. Huijbregts, J.J. Schermer, 2003)

In Switzerland, with an average insolation of 1,100 kWh/m2/yr, EPBT was found to vary between 3
and 6 years (N. Jungbluth, 2005)

For a rooftop installation in Southern Europe, enjoying an insolation of 1,700 kWh/m2/yr, a study
calculated EPBT to be 1.7 to 2.7 years (E; Alsema, M. de Wild-Scholten, 2004)

For ground-mounted installations in the U.S., subjected to an insolation of 1,800 kWh/m2/yr, EPBT
was calculated to be only 1.1 years (V.M. Fthenakis, H.C. Kim, 2005)
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN PV LIFE-CYCLE
The GHG emissions over the life-cycle of a PV panel are strongly related to the EPBT. They can mainly be
allocated to the use of electrical energy during the manufacture of PV panels. Consequently, those emissions
differ for the same PV panel according to the energy mix that is used for generating electricity in that particular
location.
The findings in the Environmental Science & Technology paper were calculated with three different energy
mixes and for four different types of PV panels: multichrystaline silicon (Multi-Si), monochrystaline silicon
(mono-Si), ribbon silicon (ribbon-Si) and thin film cadmium telluride (CdTe). In the UCTE energy mix, the CO2
emissions vary between 21 g CO2-eq/kWh for the thin film CdTe to 43 g CO2-eq/kWh for Mono-Si.
The Thin Film CdTe panel clearly demonstrates the best results, but differences between PV systems are small
in comparison with the difference of PV systems and conventional fossil-fuel based generation. The UCTE
average CO2 emission for power generation is 470 g CO 2-eq/kWh.
HEAVY METAL EMISSIONS IN PV LIFE-CYCLE
The study not only takes GHG emissions over the life-cycle into account, but heavy metal emissions as well.
Heavy metals are emitted directly during the manufacturing process of PV systems, or via the use of grid
electricity during the manufacturing process. Here again thin-film CdTe PV panels present the best results,
even for cadmium emissions. This type of PV cell requires much less electrical energy for its manufacture, so it
produces fewer heavy metal emissions attributed to the use of grid electricity. This lower energy consumption
more than compensates for the higher direct cadmium emissions occurring during its manufacturing process.
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
The above conclusions describe the picture with state-of-technology over the last five years, but should not be
interpreted as final. The trend in the environmental impact of PV manufacturing is decreasing even further and
the energy efficiencies are increasing. As a result, the EPBT and the life-cycle environmental profile of PV
panels can be expected to continue to improve in the upcoming years.
The paper also considered the future possibility of a ‘PV breeder’ scenario, in which a large part of the
electrical energy used in PV manufacturing is generated by PV panels. Such a scenario would cut the current
GHG emissions of PV life-cycles more or less in half.
A last consideration in the paper is that a future high penetration of PV energy on the grid would require
altering the grid concept and structure. It is difficult to predict whether these changes would have a positive or
Page 35 of 80
a negative impact on the emissions, but it would in each case have to be taken into account in future life-cycle
analyses of PV systems.
REFERENCES

Paper ‘Emissions from Photovoltaic Life Cycles’ by Environmental Science & Technology, January
2008, published on ACS Publications (http://pubs.acs.org/cgibin/abstract.cgi/esthag/2008/42/i06/abs/es071763q.html)

²Leonardo Energy blog article ‘PV Systems: the energy to produce them versus the energy they
produce’ (http://www.leonardo-energy.org/drupal/node/895)

Article ‘Greenhouse gas emissions from energy systems: comparison and overview’, Paul Scherrer
Institute, 2003 (http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pdfs/Annex_IV_Dones_et_al_2003.pdf)
THE IMPACT OF GHG EMISSION REDUCTION PROJECTS CONNECTED TO THE ELECTRICITY
GRID
HOW MUCH WILL GHG EMISSIONS OF THE COMPLETE SYSTEM BE REDUCED BY
IMPLEMENTING THE PROJECT?
How do you calculate the final GHG emission reductions resulting from an energy efficiency or renewable
energy project? One of the complexities of this task is that the applications are in most cases connected to the
grid. As a result, not only the local effects need to be calculated, but also the effect on the entire grid
including all of its power plants.
A joint project of the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD) has drawn up some excellent guidelines for executing this challenging task. The
Guidelines, while designed to be used by governments and business leaders, are also interesting reading for
anyone eager to gain more insight into the electricity grid as a system with all its intricate interactions and
decision factors.
WHAT’S THE BASELINE SCENARIO?
The GHG emission reductions by the activity should be calculated relative to a baseline. One of the
complexities is to determine these baseline emissions.
They can be defined as the GHG emissions from the sources of electricity that are avoided by the project.
These can be of two kinds:
1)
Avoided emissions of the operation of existing power plants on the grid, called the Operational
Margin OM
2)
Avoided emissions of the construction and operation of new power plants on the grid, called the
Built Margin BM
Each project has baseline emissions consisting of a weighted sum of Built Margin and Operational Margin
emissions.
The Built Margin emissions can be estimated from the GHG emission rates of recent capacity additions, or in
some cases, from planned capacity and capacity currently under construction.
Page 36 of 80
Estimating the Operational Margin emissions requires identifying which power plants are operating within the
margin (last to be switched on-line, first to be switched off-line) during times when the project activity is
operating. This can be a complex and data intensive task.
DOES IT MEET DEMAND FOR NEW CAPACITY?
Another difficult task is to determine to which degree the project has an effect on the Built Margin and to
which degree on the Operational Margin. Or in other words: to what extent does the project’s activity meet
the demand for new capacity, and therefore avoid the building of other new capacity units.
There are three questions to consider in this regard:
1)
Does demand for new capacity exist? This will almost always be the case.
2)
Is the project activity considered as a source of new capacity? Some projects may be implemented
which have nothing to do with the need for new capacity, for instance, energy efficiency projects.
3)
What is the project’s activity capacity value? The capacity value is the amount of capacity a power
plant can be statistically relied upon to provide during times of greatest demand. A single wind
turbine will have a capacity value close to zero. By bundling several wind turbines, this can raise to,
for instance, 10 per cent (‘the wind will always be blowing somewhere’). The capacity value of a coalfired plant on the other hand will approach 100 per cent (not 100 per cent, since the plant will
experience outages at some point).
WHAT ARE THE GRID BOUNDARIES?
A last complexity for making the baseline calculation is how to define the grid boundaries. The Guidelines
suggest defining them by the grid that is under control of a single grid operator. This is a simplification though,
since the project activity may also affect generation on neighbouring grids.
But when all the estimates are completed and the intended change in GHG emissions caused by the project
activity is calculated, the work is still not done. There can also be ‘secondary effects’ from unintended changes.
Examples include the GHG emissions caused by the production, refining, and transportation of biomass, or the
methane emissions caused by organic decomposition in hydro reservoirs.
In short, calculating the real GHG emission reductions caused by grid coupled systems is much more complex
than you would expect. The paper did a good job in throwing light on this complex matter and in creating
realistic and practical guidelines.
REFERENCES
Paper ‘Guidelines for Quantifying GHG Reductions from Grid-Connected Electricity Projects’ by the WRI and
WBCSD
DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON NUCLEAR AND CCS
LIGHT NEUTRONS, HEAVY DEBATE
ON THE NUCLEAR ENERGY DISCOURSE
Page 37 of 80
Am I pro or am I con regarding nuclear energy? I honestly do not know. I cannot answer the question without
putting in caveats. Or maybe I just don’t want to answer it. I feel a fierce resistance to answering it with an
unequivocal yes or no, because the question is simply too heavy!
I realized this when reading the essay ‘Paradoxes on death penalty’ by Gerrit Krol. Krol is a Dutch writer,
thinker, and computer scientist. In 1992 he published ‘For who wants evil / Reflections on death penalty’. In
this book, he does not take a position in favour of nor against the death penalty; it only brainstorms freely on
the subject and considers both pro and con arguments. But that was enough to cause him to be publicly
denounced. Krol reacted with a new essay, ‘Paradoxes on death penalty’. This text contains the following apt
analysis:
‘Death penalty seems to be a political problem with such a heavy weight, that just like natural gravity,
it pulls to it everything that is coming near, no matter of which kind. If there are no exceptions, a man
stops thinking. Whoever has never seen an apple not fall when released, hasn’t got the slightest clue
on what is gravity. He does not see what is happening, when the apple falls. Only when two apples,
when released, keep on turning around each other, one starts to imagine what gravity could be.
You would wish that a problem that risks crushing human judgement by its weight, could be made a
little lighter, so that in its less threatening form, leaves intact our ability to judge.’
That’s it. That is what is hampering a real public debate on nuclear energy. Both supporters and opponents are
too blind to see the exceptions in their arguments. The subject is so heavy, so overly-symbolic, that it has
become a black hole that sucks up every attempt to think on it with an open mind.
THE BURDEN OF ITS MILITARY ORIGIN
It is not too difficult to explain how nuclear technology got loaded with such a heavy symbolic value. We all
know its military origin, we know the history of Los Alamos and we all have seen pictures of Hiroshima after
the bomb. Nuclear energy is both the height of human achievement and the height of human horror. It is the
perfect real-world example for both the people who believe that technology leads us to heaven, and those
who believe technology leads us to hell. Consequently, the debate being fought out under the flag of nuclear
energy is a debate that reaches much further than the actual subject, far into the realm of Weltanschauung.
One would have expected that with the end of the Cold War and its seemingly permanent state of nuclear
peril, the debate would have grown less sharp. Indeed, this has happened but only relatively. Under the
pressure of rising concern over climate change, a few rare individual green thinkers have recently even dared
to express the heretical opinion that not everything to do with nuclear power is evil and placed themselves in
favour of nuclear energy. But in general the debate stays in a constant state of trench warfare in which nobody
dares to leave his trench for a free wander into the open field of rational and emotion-free debate.
EXAMPLES OF TWISTED REASONING
The following are a few examples of how prejudices can prevent sound argumentation:

Greenpeace made up a ranking of the available electricity supply packages in Belgium according to
their environmental performance. The package ‘Electrabel Groen’ is set into the last, red category,
although it only makes use of renewable energy. The argument: ‘Because the investments [Electrabel]
made in nuclear energy and their interest to keep on investing in nuclear energy, Electrabel Groen is
given the minimum score in the category investments (- 1).’ So suddenly the whole company of
Electrabel is judged, and not merely the product Electrabel Groen. Moreover, despite this disputable
low score, Electrabel Groen still gets 25 points. It is nevertheless ranked below Essent, which received
Page 38 of 80


0 points but is allowed into the middle, brown category. That is very strange reasoning: first setting up
a scoring system and then saying that this system is not valid for the ranking. For Greenpeace, nuclear
energy seems to be infinitely heavy, not able to fit into any scoring system.
The arguments on the other side are often not any better. In their study ‘The role of electricity’,
Eurelectric investigated the impact of energy policies and technologies up to the year 2050. Four
scenarios were developed using the PRIMES and PROMETHEUS models. In all of these scenarios,
nuclear energy is coupled to the development of Carbon Capture and Storage at fossil fuel power
plants. The individual influence of nuclear energy can therefore not be assessed. But the policy
recommendations contain the following threatening sentence: ‘Any policy that tends to exclude
specific elements of this balanced portfolio will fail to build a robust and economically-sound lowcarbon electricity system.’ In other words, an ill-disguised defence of nuclear energy rather than a
sound conclusion based on the simulated scenarios.
See my Sustainable Energy blog post ‘Studies can prove whatever you want them to’ of 7 July 2007. It
contains another striking example.
LIGHTENING THE DEBATE TO ENLIGHTEN THE QUESTION
In order to develop a genuine and honest debate and an enlightened vision of nuclear energy, the subject
should first be liberated from its heaviness and its symbolic baggage.
A good start would be to put the importance of the issue into perspective. Whether we continue with nuclear
energy or not is just one of the many questions on our energy future.

Worldwide, nuclear energy accounts for only 6 per cent of the total energy consumed. This figure is
not likely to change drastically in the coming years.

Whatever policy will be followed, nuclear technology on its own does not have the potential to
ensure a worldwide security of energy supply, nor can it be a complete solution for climate change.

Is nuclear waste a major problem? Certainly. It is a serious ethical issue whether we may produce
something that requires safeguarding for thousands of years. But today it’s too late; the nuclear
waste is already there. We will have to find a solution for it anyway, whether or not we continue with
nuclear energy. This debate should have been held in 1950.
So in the end, am I pro or am I con regarding nuclear energy? Maybe it is not that important to be either. What
is important though is that we keep on thinking and debating with a free and open mind using arguments
based on factual data and not just emotional opinions.
REFERENCES
http://www.greenpeace.org/belgium/nl/groene_stroom/ranking
http://www.ce2030.be/finalrep_publ.htm#summary
NUCLEAR POLICY: AT NATIONAL OR AT EU LEVEL?
COOPERATION ON NUCLEAR SAFETY AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
The new EU High Level Group on nuclear safety and waste management held its first meeting on October 12.
Whether or not one supports nuclear energy, the Group is an initiative that can only be welcomed. Nuclear
waste is a clear and present problem and urgently needs a solution. It is certainly preferable that countries
developing new nuclear plants, such as Bulgaria, Finland, France, and Romania, do so under agreed safety
Page 39 of 80
conditions. Since safety concerns don’t stop at national borders, it is helpful that the High Level Group contains
representatives from both member states that operate nuclear plants and member states that don’t.
EU DIVIDED ON NUCLEAR FUTURE
At the press conference following the first meeting of the Group, EU Energy Commissioner Piebalgs told
reporters that ‘a lively debate’ characterized the meeting. This is no surprise, given the diametrically opposed
positions of countries like France and Finland on one side and Denmark and Austria on the other. It is these
differences of opinion (see previous blog post ‘Incarnation of evil or saviour of the planet?’) that make a
common EU standpoint on the future of nuclear energy highly unlikely anytime in the next ten years. Piebalgs
confirmed this by declaring that nuclear energy is ‘clearly in the competence that lies with the member states’
although he also stated that ‘nuclear [energy] is here to stay’.
ITALY HAVING FOREIGN AFFAIRS
The lack of common EU position doesn’t necessarily need to be a problem. But since the energy market and
the energy grid are united, the differences in nuclear policies between countries can lead to strange
situations.
Take Italy, for instance. Following a referendum in 1987, shortly after the Tsjernobyl accident, Italy shut down
all of its reactors and placed a moratorium on new plants. This moratorium will not be cancelled any time
soon. Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi recently confirmed that ‘the political conditions for rediscussing
nuclear power do not exist’.
But on the other hand, Italy is very active in international research groups studying generation III and IV
nuclear reactors. Italy also imports about 15,000 GWh of nuclear energy from France annually. And Italy’s
former state-owned power company ENEL is very active in nuclear energy outside Italy’s borders. After taking
over of 67 per cent of the shares of the Spanish company ENDESA, ENEL now controls about 3,000 MW of
nuclear reactors in Spain. ENEL also has a 66 per cent ownership in Slovakia’s Slovenske Elektrarne, which
operates 2,400 MW of nuclear capacity and is building two new 440 MW reactors. Moreover, ENEL has
expressed interest in building new nuclear capacity in Bulgaria (2,000 MW) and Romania (1,400 MW).
When it comes to nuclear energy, it seems that Italy has only foreign affairs, which is hardly the same as saying
that it has no affairs at all.
NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES?
NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY IMPEDES WIDESPREAD USE OF GENERATION III NUCLEAR
REACTORS
One example of a generation III nuclear reactor is the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR). The
ESBWR rectifies a few important disadvantages of previous reactor generations. It incorporates improved fuel
technology as well as passive safety systems. The reactor shuts down safely in any emergency without
operator action or electronic feedback.
The ESBWR design reduces capital cost by 25 to 40 percent, a vitally important consideration in cash-strapped
developing countries. This cost reduction has been made possible by simpler design of the circuits to
Page 40 of 80
incorporate natural circulatory forces and to modern computer-aided manufacturing technologies. The latter
enables a modular approach to the nuclear plant construction.
PROLIFERATION THREADS
The primary impediment to the use of generation III reactors in developing countries is the Non-Proliferation
Treaty. Much of the material and knowledge employed in civilian nuclear programmes can indeed be used to
develop nuclear weapons. In the MIT Technology Review, Per Peterson (UC Berkeley professor of nuclear
engineering) sums up the five main proliferation thread categories and how we could cope with them:
1)
Clandestine diversion of materials from state facilities operated within the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
2)
The production of materials in clandestine state facilities.
3)
The abrogation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty by a country, overtly misusing facilities and materials.
4)
Terrorist theft of materials for nuclear explosives.
5)
Terrorists attacking a nuclear facility with the aim of generating a deliberate release of radioactivity.
According to Peterson, these threads could be countered by:
1)
More comprehensive IAEA safeguards at nuclear facilities.
2)
A stringent export control for dual-use equipment.
3)
Effective international action to make it highly unattractive for countries to abrogate the NonProliferation Treaty.
4)
Ensuring adequate physical protection of nuclear facilities and that all links in the nuclear chain are
safe.
5)
Making it so difficult for terrorists to attack nuclear power plants that they give up and go elsewhere.
However those remedies also come at a price and none of them can guarantee a 100 percent safety. So the
question is whether it is worth taking the risks.
LIFE EXPECTANCY OF NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS
SURVEILLANCE CAPSULES MEASURE REACTOR VESSEL DEGRADATION
In countries where there is an ongoing public discussion about a nuclear power phase-out, you often hear the
phrase ‘the life expectancy of the nuclear power plant’. Strictly speaking however, nuclear power stations do
not have a fixed life expectancy.
The initial design lifespan is usually 30 to 40 years. This is the figure used for the financial depreciation of the
investment in the plant. However, nearly all elements in a nuclear power plant can be replaced except for the
reactor vessel. This is consequently the crucial element in determining the true life expectancy of the plant.
The safe and useful life of a reactor vessel depends on the degree to which it is neutron leak proof. This factor
is monitored by surveillance capsules.
RE-EVALUATION EVERY TEN YEARS
Nuclear power plants are required to renew their exploitation licence every ten years. A safety commission is
assembled when the date for renewal of the licence approaches and they make an assessment regarding
Page 41 of 80
whether or not the plant can operate safely for another ten years. One of the means used to make this
assessment is by verifying the results of the surveillance capsules.
Consequently, apart from political decisions, the life expectancy of a nuclear power plant is re-evaluated every
ten years for an additional decade of operation. Operations will continue if:

The surveillance capsules prove that the reactor vessel can continue to operate in absolute safety

All replacement and maintenance investments necessary to guarantee a safe and reliable operation
are economically justified
REFERENCE
Speech by Eric van Walle, director-general of the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre SCK-CEN, on the Strategic
Forum on Energy Supply in the 21st Century (Brussels, 18 December 2006)
http://www3.sckcen.be/sckcen_en/
THE HIGH FINANCIAL RISK OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
HAS SOLAR PV BECOME CHEAPER THAN NUCLEAR?
In August 2010, both The New York Times and CleanTechnica.com reported on a paper from Duke University in
North Carolina claiming that the costs of solar energy and nuclear energy have passed an historical crossover
point at 16 dollar cents per kilowatthour. Solar photovoltaics are now supposed to be a lower-cost alternative
to new nuclear plants. How accurate is this claim? Why are the figures on the cost of nuclear energy so
divergent? And to what extent are solar photovoltaic energy and nuclear energy competitors?
FIGURES MIGHT BE STRETCHED, BUT TRENDS ARE CLEAR
In The New York Times, an editor’s note was added one week after publication admitting that the article gave
an ‘imbalanced presentation’ of the issue, since the concerned study was prepared for an environmental
advocacy group and therefore did not take into account other points of view and did not contact the Nuclear
Energy Institute. Personally I also have my doubts concerning the extent to which the figures of this study
represent hard facts. You can make these kinds of studies prove anything you want them to.
Nevertheless, it is certainly a fact that the cost of photovoltaic energy, after a period of stagnation, has been
decreasing rather sharply in the past two or three years. And it is also true that PV energy is one of the
cleanest market-ripe energy solutions available today, even if you take the material and energy use during the
manufacturing of the panels into account.
The cost of projected nuclear power plants is much more difficult to assess, as it incorporates a multitude of
risk factors. The high uncertainty associated with the construction cost and time frame is one of the main
disadvantages of this technology. Because of this, private investors are not very keen on investing in new
nuclear power plants. Without increased government support (tax credits, loan guarantees...), it will be
difficult for new nuclear power plants to be built in the near future.
NUCLEAR POWER: FINANCIAL RISK VERSUS SAFETY RISK
Page 42 of 80
The high uncertainty that is involved in nuclear constructions is inherent to projects that have a total
commitment to safety. 99% safe is not enough for a nuclear power station; the risk should be ‘ALARA’, as they
say in nuclear jargon, ‘As Low As Reasonably Acceptable’. One cannot take ‘calculated risks’ on nuclear safety,
and what is not calculated, is uncertain. Or to put it another way: the financial risk and the nuclear safety risk
have an inverse relationship, and since the latter is kept as low as possible, the financial risk is inevitably high.
12 YEARS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
If this high risk is combined with Murphy’s law, that everything that can go wrong does go wrong, you get the
example of the struggling Olkiluoto III power plant in Finland, one of the few nuclear plants that are currently
under construction in Europe. Licensed in December 2000, the commissioning date for this unit was first set to
May 2009. After postponing this deadline several times, it has now been set to 2013. After Siemens has
withdrawn, the remaining contractor Areva is in a dispute with the utility company over who will bear the cost
overruns. This example will certainly not stimulate investors and contractors to step into similar projects.
Because of the high risk that is involved in these kinds of projects, the nuclear industry in the US has proposed
a financing system that requires electricity users to pay for the cost of new reactors during their construction
phase. In other words, the financial uncertainty is passed on to the consumer. With construction periods such
as that of Olkiluoto, that would make electricity users start pay higher prices 12 years before the plant is
actually commissioned. It is hard to imagine broad public support for such a measure.
NO REAL COMPETITION BETWEEN PV AND NUCLEAR
So has photovoltaic power become cheaper than nuclear power? In fact, the question itself maybe starts from
a false premise. Photovoltaic energy and nuclear energy can hardly be seen as competitors. Perhaps the
competition for nuclear power lies rather in other types of carbon free, large-scale centralized power plants,
such as coal fired power plants with carbon capture and storage and concentrated thermal solar power plants.
These are the technologies that we have on hand to fill the gap between distributed renewables and the high
quantity, availability, and reliability of power supply that is demanded. Maybe in the future, highly efficient
cells will bring solar PV power to the scale of nuclear power, but today, cost is not the only obstacle to large
scale commercialization of solar PV.
REFERENCES
CleanTechnica.com: ‘Historic Report: Solar Energy Costs Now Lower than Nuclear Energy’
NYTimes: ‘Nuclear Energy Losing Cost Advantage’
THE ECONOMIC COST OF CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE (CCS)
IPCC FIGURES
Capturing the carbon of fossil fuel power generation plants and storing it underground sounds a great idea for
mitigating climate change. It would allow for continued fossil fuel use in the coming decades. But along with
several major technical issues that still need to be solved, one must also wonder whether Carbon Capture and
Storage (CCS) will ever be economically feasible.
Page 43 of 80
The Oil Drum posted an article on this subject, based on a special report by the Intergovernmental Panel for
Climate Change (IPCC). It estimates that for a pulverized coal plant, the additional cost of CCS would amount to
20 to 30 per cent on top of the industrial base price. The consequence would be an increase in the general
electricity generation cost of US$0.01 to 0.05 per kWh. By using carbon storage for ‘Enhanced Oil Recovery’
(EOR), this additional electricity production cost would be reduced to US$0.01 to 0.02 per kWh.
POLITICAL SUPPORT IS INDISPENSABLE
This leads the Oil Drum to the following conclusion: ‘Only with continued political support will this
technological mitigation option for climate change become viable. The best option is full support of carbon
dioxide capture and storage in the European emissions trading scheme, to make pioneering projects […] viable.
For larger application beyond a few projects, the price of a ton of carbon needs to increase, or the costs of
capture and storage will need to come down significantly.’
COMBINING CCS WITH ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
One reader of the Oil Drum remarks that this extra cost of 20 to 30 per cent is not insurmountable, and
suggests compensating for the extra electricity cost by realizing energy savings of 20 to 30 per cent. This would
be technically feasible and politically acceptable. However, if CCS is to be combined with far-reaching energy
efficiency measures, this would require an even larger amount of initial capital investment from the economy.
REFERENCES
Article on the Oil Drum Web site: ‘CO2 capture and storage: The economic costs’
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/2802#comments
IPCC ‘Special Report on Carbon dioxide and Storage’ http://arch.rivm.nl/env/int/ipcc/pages_media/SRCCSfinal/IPCCSpecialReportonCarbondioxideCaptureandStorage.htm
CAPTURING CARBON WITH ENZYMES
A PROMISING TECHNIQUE BY CO2 SOLUTION
The research company CO2 Solution of Quebec City, Canada, has developed a new way to capture carbon
dioxide from smokestacks. It has genetically engineered E. coli bacteria to produce an enzyme that converts
carbon dioxide into bicarbonate, a raw material that can be sequestered underground or used to produce
substances such as baking soda, chalk, or limestone. The main advantage of a bioreactor containing this
enzyme, compared to other systems, is that it does not require separation of the carbon dioxide. It can be
used for any gaseous effluent containing carbon dioxide.
CO2 Solution has already tested its process on a small municipal incinerator and on an aluminium smelter. It is
now working with power plant equipment manufacturer Babcock and Wilcox on ways to adapt the technology
to power stations. The biggest challenge will be to produce enough of the enzymes to process the enormous
quantity of carbon dioxide that is emitted from coal- or gas-fired power plants.
NO MORE NUCLEAR OR COAL?
Page 44 of 80
A SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ARTICLE PROVOKES A LOT OF REACTION
An article in the recent April edition of Scientific American, discusses the statement of Jon Wellinghoff that the
U.S. will never need to build another coal or nuclear power plant. He claims that all of the new capacity that
is required could be delivered by new wind, solar, and biomass plants and — in a transition period — by new
natural gas plants. ‘Nuclear and coal plants are too expensive,’ he claims.
Jon Wellinghoff is the new chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. With this statement he
goes beyond those of other Obama administration officials, who have strongly endorsed renewables and
energy efficiency, but also say nuclear and fossil energies will continue to play a major role.
Scientific American noted that Wellinghof’s statement generated some sceptical reactions from leading
experts at universities, research institutes, and energy associations. A lively debate on this topic has also taken
off on the Power Globe expert forum.
IS BASELOAD AN ANACHRONISM?
Jay Apt, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, reacted to Wellinghoff by saying renewables are not
suitable for delivering baseload because of their intermittent character. This provoked Wellinghoff to respond
that ‘Baseload is an anachronism’. According to Wellinghoff, the claim that ‘We need baseload’ is like saying
‘We need mainframes’ for computing. He maintains that the ‘baseload’ concept comes from the time when we
had cheap but inflexible nuclear and coal plants, and flexible but expensive natural gas plants. But when wind
is the cheapest source, it will be dispatched first, and that requires a completely different approach. We will
have ‘distributed generation’ just like we have ‘distributed computing’. According to Wellinghoff, ‘The
technology for renewable energies has come far enough to allow this vision to move forward.’
THE ‘WE NEED ALL TECHNOLOGIES’ ADAGE
Another reaction comes from James Owens of the Edison Electric Institute. ‘As we intensify the transition to a
low-carbon future, we need to have all generation options on the table,’ he says, ‘including advanced nuclear,
advanced clean coal with carbon capture and storage, as well as natural gas.’
This is the ‘We need all technologies’ adage that has become more or less a consensus in the electrical energy
world. But again Wellinghoff does not agree. He reminds us that we need to go for the cheapest solution, and
that is certainly not nuclear, he claims. According to his figures, a new nuclear power plant costs $7,000 a
kilowatt, which is more than solar energy. ‘Coal plants are sort of in the same boat, although they are not quite
as expensive,’ he observes.
EXTERNALITIES DUE TO INTERMITTENCY?
The discussion has continued on Power Globe. On that forum, the conversation quickly moved towards the
question of what degree the intermittency of wind energy is an issue and how large the share of wind in the
energy mix can be. One forum participant stated that the intermittency of wind energy is in fact an externality
which should be internalized by a kind of ‘intermittency tax’. Another participant reacted to this with the
statement that big nuclear and coal plants require more ‘back up’ than wind farms. The spinning reserve on
the grid must indeed be tuned to the size of the biggest single generator. If that generator unexpectedly drops
out, back-up should still be provided. If wind farms are spread over a large enough geographical area, they are
less likely to drop out all at once and thus require less back-up.
Page 45 of 80
This clearly is at loggerheads with the claim of the James Schlesinger and Robert Hirsch column in The
Washington Post. ‘Why are we ignoring things we know?’ they ask. ‘Solar and wind electricity systems must be
backed-up 100 percent by other forms of energy to ensure against blackouts.’
SPAIN AND DENMARK AS POSITIVE EXAMPLES?
All of these claims resulted in an extensive discussion on Power Globe on the dispatchability of wind energy.
European experts tried to convince their American counterparts with the positive examples of Spain and
Denmark. Both of those examples are being countered by contradictory arguments. Spain is not comparable
with the U.S. one participant claims, since the Iberian Peninsula is virtually an island in the electrical grid.
Because of that, they need a large percentage of back-up generation capacity anyway, which makes the
connection of a large number of wind farms easier. The case of Denmark is refuted as an example for the U.S.
for exactly the opposite reason. Because of its strong connection with the German grid, it can and does import
large amounts of electrical energy from abroad to compensate for shortages on days with little wind.
MAYBE WE UNDERSTAND LESS THAN WE THINK
Discussions like this quickly demonstrates how easy it is to forget how extremely complex the electrical system
really is. Can we do without coal or nuclear? It is easy to make a statement on this topic based on what you
believe and to cite a few pro or con factual arguments in answer to this question. But it is extremely difficult to
give a well-founded answer that takes all aspects into account. Revis James, director of the Electric Power
Institute, has probably provided the most insightful reaction. He states that ‘It is just not clear yet how fast
renewables can be added without creating reliability issues. No one knows what the magic number is. There
is a lot that is not still understood about the implications of a large share of renewables.’
ELECTRIFICATION (EV, ELECTRIC HEATING)
NEAR FUTURE CARS
HOW FAR AWAY IS MASS MARKETING OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES?
Electric vehicles are being taken more seriously than ever before. And not just by environmentalists and
electrical engineers. Some of the world’s biggest car companies are finally seeing the writing on the wall.
Is this a positive evolution? In my opinion, it certainly is. Even if the electricity is produced with coal-fired
power stations without carbon capture, a plug-in hybrid car will still emit about 25 per cent less CO2 over its
life cycle than a standard gasoline car [1]. Moreover, electricity generation is evolving towards an increasing
share of carbon free renewables in its energy mix.
Does the current interest mean that mass production of electrical vehicles is on the horizon? Yes, but it is not
likely to be tomorrow. First of all, the current hype is based more on promises and prospects than any hard
facts and proven hardware. The inescapable truth is that there are still no true electrically powered standard
cars available on the mass market. Secondly, what will be achieved in the market as a whole in the next few
years depends largely on progress in battery technology, and more specifically, lithium-ion battery technology
[2].
Page 46 of 80
THE TOYOTA PRIUS — GOOD BUT NOT GREAT
What about the Toyota Prius? I don’t think you can call the Prius an electric vehicle even with a generous
definition of what qualifies as an electric car. It is a gasoline powered vehicle with an oversized battery and
regenerative breaking to improve efficiency. Moreover, its environmental performance is overrated. George
Monbiot even accused Toyota of greenwashing (‘Greenwash Exposed – Toyota’ on Celsias [3]). He points out
that back in 1983, a standard Peugeot 205 managed to get 72 miles per gallon on highways. The Toyota Prius,
on the other hand, does only 51 miles per gallon. George Monbiot’s conclusion is that efficiency improvements
on cars in the past quarter century were merely used to improve performance, not to reduce fuel
consumption.
ELECTRIC MICROCARS FOR COMMUTER TRAFFIC
The fully electric powered vehicles available today are microcars like the Smart EV [4], the REVA-NXG [5] and
the Tango [6]. These city cars are still expensive, built in small series, and not available in all countries. The
one-seat Tango by Commuter Cars is an interesting concept. It has half the width of a standard car, allowing it
to pass through traffic jams almost like a motor cycle. It can use either lead-acid batteries giving it a driving
range of 40-80 miles, or the more expensive NiMH batteries that extend the range to 60-160 miles. The leadacid batteries can charge to 80 per cent in just 10 minutes from a 200 amp charging station, with a full charge
taking no more than 3 hours.
WHEN WILL THE FIRST PLUG-IN HYBRIDS BE RELEASED?
In the meantime we are still waiting on the first plug-in hybrids to arrive on the mass market. And we will
probably still be waiting for three or more years. The first Tesla Roadsters (see previous blog post) are
scheduled to hit the road in the first quarter of 2008, but this car is an exclusive and expensive sports car. GM
has announced that the Chevrolet Volt and the Opel Flextrum will be available on the market around 2010.
The Chevrolet Volt [7] will have a single full charge electric-only driving range of 40 miles. A full charge will take
6.5 hours from a standard North American 120-volt, 20-Amp outlet. Unlike the Toyota Prius, it will be a series
hybrid, meaning that its internal combustion engine is not directly connected to the wheels but is hooked to a
generator that can resupply the batteries. This combustion motor increases the vehicle's driving range to 640
miles. The Chevrolet Volt is expected to cost $20,000 to $30,000.
Toyota and Ford are also working on an affordable plug-in hybrid vehicle, but have yet to announce a possible
year of release.
IT ALL DEPENDS ON BATTERY TECHNOLOGY
The reason why the year of release for the plug-in vehicles appears so uncertain is that lithium-ion battery
technology is not yet fully mature. Cost, cell life, and safety remain unresolved concerns.
Today, a small 12V Lithium-ion battery costs about $450/kWh or ten times the price of a traditional lead-acid
battery. Moreover, the cost of the longer-life, more robust version suitable for use in electric vehicles rises to
about $700/kWh, still more than double the $300 target.
The lifespan of even the most advanced types of lithium-ion batteries are only marginally acceptable for use in
the automotive industry. The most recent lithium-ion battery packs are designed to last for about 10 years and
5,000 full-discharge cycles. That is quite an achievement but still not good enough.
Page 47 of 80
The biggest concern in the development of lithium-ion batteries is safety. Lithium-ion batteries can catch on
fire and even explode. John Voelcker in the IEEE Spectrum article ‘Lithium Batteries Take to the Road’[2]:
‘These catastrophes happen when a cell shorts out, gets hot, and starts an exothermic oxidizing reaction that
kicks the temperature to hundreds of degrees Celsius in a fraction of a second. The heat then shorts out
adjacent cells to produce a runaway thermal reaction that can be spectacular (…). And, unlike a gasoline fire,
the conflagration can’t be smothered, because it gets oxygen from the cell’s intrinsic chemistry.’
There are several ways to avoid such catastrophic failures. The Tesla designers chose to link a large number of
small battery cells in networks, to ensure that a problem in one cell cannot propagate into others. But this is
an expensive option. A123 Systems [8] and some other start-ups are focusing on adapting the fundamental
reactions in the cell itself to improve safety.
GOING TOO FAST FOR THEIR OWN GOOD?
The chief danger in the current electric vehicles hype is that pushed by climate change concerns and high fuel
prices, car companies will be forced to go faster than safe progress allows. Controlling battery technology
under laboratory conditions is one thing. Mass production and use in the car industry is quite another. Ideally,
the new battery designs should be rigorously tested for at least half their lifespan before going into mass
production and use. But that seems to be a luxury automotive industry battery developers can’t afford.
The risk of going too fast is that battery technology will be installed prematurely in mass market cars. One
battery explosion causing fatalities is all it will take to generate enough bad publicity to set the entire electric
vehicle industry back a decade or more.
These are indeed exciting and challenging times for battery and electric car developers. I’m very curious to see
where the technology and market will be in three or four years.
REFERENCES
[1] CEIC Working Paper ‘For energy security and greenhouse gas reductions, plug-in hybrids a more sensible
pathway than coal to liquids gasoline’, by Paulina Jaramillo and Constantine Samaras
http://www.lowcvp.org.uk/assets/reports/CEIC_07_04.pdf
[2] Article ‘Lithium Batteries Take to the Road’ by John Voelcker on IEEE Spectrum
http://spectrum.ieee.org/sep07/5490
[3] Article ‘Greenwash Exposed — Toyota’ by George Monbiot on Celsias
http://www.celsias.com/2007/09/19/greenwash-exposed-toyota/
[4] Article ‘Hybrid Technologies to Produce Electric Smart Car’, by Michael Graham Richard in Treehugger
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/09/hybrid_technolo_1.php
[5] REVA Web site http://www.revaindia.com/
[6] Commuter Cars Web site http://www.commutercars.com/
[7] GM Chevrolet Web site for the Chevrolet Volt http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/
[8] A123 Systems Web site http://www.a123systems.com/newsite/index.php#
Page 48 of 80
PLUG-IN ELECTRICAL VEHICLES
TAKING THE EDGE OFF OF FOUR CLASSICAL COUNTER-ARGUMENTS
All over the years, electrical vehicles have been the object of much scepticism, even outright slander. The
battle between believers and non-believers has been intense. Today plug-in electrical vehicles are close to a
commercial breakthrough. The all electrical Tesla Roadster is planned for launch on the market later this year.
GMs Chevrolet Volt and Toyota’s FT-HS (Future Toyota Hybrid Sport), which are both plug-in hybrids, are in
development phase.
And suddenly it looks like the edge has been taken off the four major counter-arguments:

The power and capacity of the batteries will be too small

The high voltage battery will present safety problems

Electrical vehicles only transpose the emissions to power stations

The electrical network will not be able to meet demand
1) THE POWER AND CAPACITY OF THE BATTERIES WILL BE TOO SMALL?
The Tesla Roadster is proving the opposite. Its lithium-ion battery delivers up to 200 kW of electrical power
and can store about 56 kWh of electrical energy. The electrical driving range of the Tesla Roadster will be
about 200 miles without recharging. And as the battery technology gets better, this mileage will almost
certainly continue to increase.
2) THE HIGH VOLTAGE BATTERY WILL PRESENT SAFETY PROBLEMS?
The battery pack of the Tesla Roadster will work at 375 volts. During its design, particular attention has been
spent on the multiple safety systems. Everything has been done to assure safety. It is expected that the Tesla
Roadster will easily pass all U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Standards required tests. This involves crashing of
complete cars with fully charged battery packs.
3) ELECTRICAL VEHICLES ONLY TRANSPOSE THE EMISSIONS TO POWER STATIONS?
Power stations are still far from emission free, but the average power station is much less CO2 intensive than
the average internal combustion motor. Two recent studies by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and
the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC) confirm this fact. They show that widespread use of plug-in
electrical vehicles in the U.S. would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Different scenarios for the
year 2050 were calculated:

A high CO2 intensity for the electricity sector (25 per cent increase by 2050), a medium CO2 intensity
(4 per cent decrease) and a low CO2 intensity (85 per cent decrease)

A low penetration of electrical vehicles on the market (20 per cent), a medium penetration (62 per
cent) and a high penetration (80 per cent)
The results show that even in the scenario with a low market penetration and a high CO2 intensity of power
stations, electrical vehicles would still save 163 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually.
Page 49 of 80
4) THE ELECTRICAL NETWORK WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MEET DEMAND?
A recent study by the University of Leuven (KU Leuven) in Belgium shows that the impact of plug-in electrical
vehicles on the electrical grid would not be as large as commonly assumed. A market penetration of about 30
per cent by 2030 would raise electricity demand in Belgium by 5.1 per cent. That is certainly not a negligible
figure and it has to be added to other expected increases in demand for electricity. It would require some
additional infrastructure. But on the other hand, this figure is certainly not beyond reach of the electrical
power sector. The study ‘The Consumption of Electrical Energy of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle in Belgium’
was presented at the European Ele-Drive Conference in Brussels (May 30 – June 1, 2007).
REFERENCES

Article ‘EPRI-NRDC Studies Highlight GHG and Air Quality Benefits of Plug-in Hybrids’ on the website
of Green Car Congress (http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/07/epri-nrdc-studi.html)

The EPRI report ‘Environmental Assessment of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles’ (http://www.eprireports.org/)

The Web site of Tesla Motors (http://www.teslamotors.com/)
MY CAR IS SAVING THE FOOD IN THE FREEZER
A CAR AND EMERGENCY POWER SUPPLY ALL IN ONE
The more we rely on electric power, the more vulnerable we become when there is a grid power outage. Is
that an argument against the development of electric cars? ‘We won’t even be able to recharge our car
batteries during a power outage,’ critics say.
A small California-based company, AC Propulsion, has turned this potential disadvantage into an advantage. It
has developed battery systems for cars that can be charged by plugging into the house mains as well as
delivering electricity back to the house. That would make it possible to run lights, the freezer and even electric
heaters off the energy stored in the car.
And if these battery systems are used in a plug-in hybrid vehicle, they can be paired with the car’s gasoline
engine to recharge the batteries. So you will still be able to drive if necessary during, or immediately after, a
power outage.
EESTOR’S HIGH PERFORMANCE ULTRACAPACITORS
GAME-CHANGING TECHNOLOGY OR MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING?
There has been a lot of rumour flying around the energy sector lately about EEStor, a secretive Texas start-up.
True: if EEStor can reach its ambitious goal of replacing the electrochemical battery with high performance
ultracapacitors, that would indeed be a major breakthrough in the energy sector. The technology has the
potential to radically change transport systems, offset the intermittency problem of some renewable energy
power generators, and improve the stability of power grids.
Page 50 of 80
But we’re not that far yet. Most specialists are very sceptical, warning that what EEStor aims at is too good to
be true. They have not proven anything yet and some of the technical difficulties seem insurmountable at this
point.
CAPACITOR WITH HIGH SPECIFIC ENERGY
The major advantage of ultracapacitors compared to electrochemical batteries is that they can absorb and
release power in a very short time and in a virtually endless cycle with little degradation. Their big drawback up
to now is that the energy they can store is 25 times less per kilogram than electrochemical batteries. EEStor
now claims that it can make a ceramic ultracapacitor with a barium-titanate dielectric that can store 280 watt
hours per kilogram. If true, this is more than double the 120 watt hours per kilogram of a lithium-ion battery.
DIFFICULTIES TO OVERCOME
It has been known for years that barium-titanate powder, if very pure, can have an extremely high permittivity
— EEStor cites a permittivity of 18,500 (compared to 20 or 30 for a traditional ultracapacitor dielectric). But
before barium-titanate ultracapacitors can be used in cars or devices, a few critical difficulties are still waiting
to be solved:
1.
Purity. The barium-titanate powder needs to be extremely pure. How will this be done on a massproduction scale?
2.
Temperature. The performance of the barium-titanate dielectric is dependent on temperature; it
won’t work at low temperatures.
3.
Mechanical strength. The ceramic structure is brittle by nature, and will quickly develop
microfractures caused by the thermal stress. This will lead to premature failure.
4.
Leakage. The system requires a high voltage (3,500 V), however high-voltage capacitors self-discharge
quickly. That means that the cars or devices would need to be recharged regularly even if they are not
used.
5.
Safety. What happens if a car with a 3,500 V energy system crashes?
EEStor has not stated how they propose to overcome these difficulties. But they are claiming to be on track for
producing an energy-storage system for electric vehicles, weighing less than 50 kilograms, allowing a 300kilometers driving range, and able to recharge in less than 10 minutes.
If true, it would not be the first time in history that a seemingly impossible technological breakthrough
becomes reality. But it also would not be the first time that there has been Much Ado About Nothing for
attracting investors to a technological start-up. We will just have to wait and see.
SONY CITY USES WASTE HEAT FROM SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
HEAT PUMP REDUCES ENERGY AND WATER CONSUMPTION DRAMATICALLY
When talking about a heat pump, most people will think of a system taking heat at low temperature from the
ground, the air, or a water reservoir. However, other configurations are possible. Sony City, the new Sony
headquarters in Tokyo, receives heating and cooling from a heat pump connected to a nearby sewage water
treatment plant.
Page 51 of 80
By recycling the heat from the sewage plant, the system achieves a Coefficient of Performance (COP) of 5.19,
which is exceptionally high. It means that the building receives 5.19 units of energy for each unit of primary
energy that is consumed.
A CO2 EMISSION REDUCTION OF 70 PER CENT
This unique system is described in a case story by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development
(WBCSD). The system supplies hot water at 43 °C in wintertime, while in summer, a centrifugal chiller
connected to the system supplies cold water at 7 °C. Both hot and cold water systems contain a large buffer
reservoir. Compared to a conventional system with a natural gas boiler and an absorption chiller, this heat
pump saves 70 per cent of CO2 emissions (3,500 tons of CO2/year) and 92 per cent of clean water (107,800
m3/year). To reduce electricity peak demand during the day, the heat pump is coupled to a sodium-sulphur
(NAS) electric battery with an output capacity of 2.5 MW. It stores electricity at night and discharges the
stored electricity during the day.
PRACTICAL AND FINANCIAL BARRIERS
It is a pity that the case story by the WBCSD contains so few technical details about the system, since it seems
to be a truly unique concept. What the WBCSD case does describe are the barriers encountered while
developing this project. Apparently, ‘developing a procedure to use public facilities for private use took up
much of the project’s time’ and ‘the plan had to be submitted to the Tokyo Metropolitan Government for
approval, which proved to be a big challenge’. Apart from that, the high construction cost of such a facility will
represent another hurdle for other potential users, even if the Internal Rate of Return of the installation is
high.
PARTNERSHIP WITH A UTILITY COMPANY
Sony has developed this project in cooperation with the local utility Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO).
The two companies have been working together in a partnership since 1992, which has been a key factor in
Sony’s energy savings campaign. Since 2002, TEPCO has developed several heat pump systems for Sony’s
technological centres throughout Japan. The coefficient of performance of those heat pumps has been
increasing steadily, culminating in this recent project for Sony City.
REFERENCES

Article ‘High-efficiency Heat Pumps: TEPCO’ on the WBCSD Website
(http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&ObjectId=MzA2OTA)

Case study ‘High-efficiency Heat Pumps’ in the WBCSD Website
(http://www.wbcsd.org/DocRoot/uPWCuUSDaI94LEFd7Gr7/TEPCOSonyCity.pdf)

Sustainability Report Tepco 2005 (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/envcom/environment/report/2005/pdf/003-e.pdf)
ALL NEW HOUSES TO BE ZERO-EMISSION
UK SETS EXAMPLE, WILL CALIFORNIA BE NEXT?
The UK is taking the lead in sustainable building. In 2007, new housing regulations were agreed upon and go
into full force in stages over the upcoming years. The regulations stipulate that from 2016 on, all new homes
Page 52 of 80
in the UK will have to be zero-emission for heating, hot water, cooling, ventilation, and lighting. This
corresponds to level 5 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.
The Code for Sustainable Homes is a new standard that gives new homes a 0 to 6 rating based on their
performance against 9 sustainability criteria. Level 0 is the base level and means the house meets current
regulations; level 1 includes a 10 per cent energy efficiency improvement over current regulations; level 6
means a zero-carbon emission house for all energy use. The code was introduced as a voluntary standard in
April 2007 and will become a mandatory label in April 2008.
The new regulations impose level 3 for all new built homes by 2010, meaning a 25 per cent energy efficiency
improvement. Level 4 or a 44 per cent energy efficiency improvement will be mandatory by 2013. By 2016, all
new houses will have to comply with level 5.
CALIFORNIAN HOUSES SELF-SUFFICIENT BY 2020?
The California Public Utilities Commission suggested introducing a ‘zero-net-energy’ regulation for all new
housing developments in the state by 2020. By making the houses much more energy efficient, all the energy a
housing development needs could be generated locally with solar panels, windmills or small generators.
Mandating energy self-sufficiency is thus perfectly possible, according to the Utilities Commission.
However, the Utilities Commission has no legal authority over the construction industry. The California Energy
Commission, which does have the power to set energy-efficiency standards for new buildings, is investigating
the proposal from their intergovernmental colleagues.
According to Severin Borenstein, director of the University of California Energy Institute, the goal of increasing
energy efficiency of new houses is a very reasonable one. He cautioned, however, that zero-energy does not
necessarily mean zero-carbon emissions. There should be no increased emphasis on on-site generation, since
some small-scale electricity generation systems produce more carbon emissions than large centralized power
plants.
REFERENCES

The Code for Sustainable Homes on the Planning Portal, UK Government's online planning and
building regulations Web Site (http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/code_for_sust_homes.pdf)

Article ‘Zero-emissions UK homes by 2016’ on BeyondZeroEmissions.org
(http://beyondzeroemissions.org/media/2007/05/17/03/zero-emissions-uk-homes-2016-how-longaustralia)

Article ‘State regulators propose developing energy self-sufficiency by 2020’ on SFGate.com
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/18/BUMKS7VTF.DTL)
TOWARDS AN ALL-ELECTRICAL SOCIETY?
ELECTRIC DRIVES FOR SHIPS AND PLANES
Trains are increasingly electrified, electric motorbikes are booming in Asia, and the all-electric car might be
close to mass production. Some people are openly suggesting that water and air transport can become
electric powered as well and complete the move to an ‘all electric society’. What are the chances of this
vision becoming a reality? Ships with electric propulsion systems already existed at the beginning of the 20 th
Page 53 of 80
century and are currently ready for a (limited) revival. However, development in powering large aircraft by
electric propulsion is much less in evidence.
THE NEW ELECTRICALLY POWERED SHIPS ARE COMING OUR WAY
For ship propulsion, diesel engines and gas turbines are currently considered the conventional power systems.
They drive the ship propeller via a large gearbox. It has not always been like that however. At the beginning of
the 20th century, turbo-electric systems were competing with mechanical drives. The American navy even had
a class of electric powered battleships that served in the Second World War. After World War II, the idea of
electric ship propulsion was completely abandoned as being too large and too heavy.
Recently, following the development of power electronics and smaller, more powerful electric motors, the
idea of turbo-electric ship propulsion has been brought to the attention of ship designers and builders again.
In turbo-electric ship propulsion, the power isn’t supplied by battery packs as in electric vehicles, but by a gas
turbine or diesel engine. Compared to conventional ship propulsion, it is basically an electric generator and
motor replacing the gearbox. This is introducing an extra energy conversion step, decreasing inherent
efficiency. The extra conversion step is also present in electric cars, but there it allows the small and inefficient
fuel engine to be replaced by an electric motor running on power generated in highly efficient or renewable
energy power stations. Consequently, it doesn’t come as a surprise that at maximum load, a turbo-electric ship
propulsion system has a lower efficiency than a Diesel engine.
However, the efficiency of a Diesel engine or a gas turbine drops steeply when working at less than maximum
output. An electric drive on the contrary, could be composed of a series of electric motors which can be
employed individually as needed and each run at their most economical setting. For ships that run most of the
time at less than full power, such a modular electric drive becomes more efficient than any other propulsion
system. Spare electrical power could be stored in battery packs or used for other appliances on board. Ships
need electricity on board anyway for radar, navigation, lighting, and several kinds of appliances. By using an
electric drive, all the power can be delivered by a single system, making power infrastructure simpler and
easier to maintain.
Considering these advantages, it doesn’t come as a surprise that electric propulsion is being mainly
reconsidered for naval military vessels and cruise ships. These types of ships typically run most of the time at
less than full power and require a great deal of electricity for other uses. A class of electrically driven warships
is currently being developed for the British Navy. It will be the first series of vessels to be powered entirely by
an electrical system since World War II.
ELECTRICITY IN AIRPLANES BUT NOT FOR PROPULSION
While the first commercial electrically driven ships are on their way, electric propulsion for large airplanes is
still very much in the future. Electrically driven planes do exist already today, namely gliders with small electric
motors for auxiliary propulsion. A few small experimental aircraft with electric propellers have also been built,
utilizing high discharge lithium-ion batteries as those being used in some electric cars, or even photovoltaic
cells. But large airplanes with electric motors are not a viable option at present. This is because the size and
power-to-weight ratio of a battery or fuel cell powered electric system cannot compete with that of a
kerosene powered jet engine.
However, aeronautical engineers are working on constructing designs such as a ‘blended wing’, a flat, tail-less
structure resembling a giant wing. This shape would allow much more space for electric batteries or
generators. Such planes could be driven by ‘superconducting motors’, an electric engine that can generate
three times the torque of a conventional motor of the same weight and power input. But then again, if those
Page 54 of 80
would be powered by hydrogen fuel cells, an extra energy conversion step is introduced reducing the intrinsic
efficiency. Moreover, having hydrogen on board creates an additional safety issue. On the other hand, if
aircraft motors are to be powered by battery packs, a significant breakthrough in battery technology
development would have to take place.
The ‘blended wing’ aircrafts still seem to be in the realm of science fiction at present, but this does not mean
that electricity has no major role to play in air transport systems. An increasing number of electrically
powered devices such as landing gears and flaps are being added to aircraft. Those electric systems are
lighter and can be made more reliable than their hydraulic and mechanical counterparts.
INCREASINGLY ELECTRIC, BUT NOT ALL ELECTRIC
The cases above demonstrate that in many fields, electricity is gaining ground compared to other energy
carriers. In most cases this has positive effect on efficiency, emission reduction, and flexibility. However, the
‘all-electric-economy’ may well remain the eternal science-fiction dream. And so what? After all, the real goal
is efficiency, not mere consistency. Ralph Waldo Emerson probably said it best: ‘A foolish consistency is the
hobgoblin of little minds.’
REFERENCES

Article ‘Making waves / Maritime engineers are already embracing electric propulsion for ships — and
electric planes could be next’ in the Economist
(http://www.economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10202790)

Article ‘Electric Drives for Battle ships’ by Nicolas Tesla, New York Herald, February 25, 1917
(http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1917-02-25.htm)

Article ‘Sonex Aircraft and AeroConversions Show Electric Propulsion System for Sport Aircraft’ on
Green Car Congress (http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/07/sonex-aircraft-.html)
FUEL CELL TRAINS
A 100 kW fuel cell train has been successfully tested in Japan recently. It is the Japanese Railway Technical
Research Institute, RTRI, who is behind this achievement. They have an extensive list of interesting objects on
their Research agenda of which fuel cell technology is one. The concept of the present development includes
making full use of the energy in a system that also saves the energy from braking.
The tested object is said to be a one-carriage prototype able to reach speeds of 100km/hr. The technology is
expected be ready for use in Nagano and Yamanashi prefectures, a mountainous region that lies just to the
west of Tokyo, by the summer of 2007.
There is a change from a Diesel Hybrid to a Fuel Cell Hybrid, as shown in the image.
Page 55 of 80
http://www.jreast.co.jp/e/press/20060401/index.html
http://www.rtri.or.jp/rtri/research2005/index_e.html
THE ELECTRICITY GRID OF THE FUTURE
NINE DIFFERENT DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAMMES
BY THE PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
Demand Side Management (DSM) programs aim at reducing peak demand and improving energy efficiency of
electrical consumers. This can serve several goals, but the principal reasons are postponing the need for new
generation capacity and reducing GHG emissions.
DSM can be made a reality in various ways. In general, DSM programs provide financial benefits to customers
that reduce their energy usage during times of peak demand. The Pacific Gas and Electricity Company (U.S.A.)
offer nine different Demand Response Programs to its customers (see PC&EC Web site,
http://www.pge.com/biz/demand_response/ ). Those nine programs provide a broad expression of formulas
in which DSM can be executed.
CREATING MICRO GRIDS FOR CONNECTING DG UNITS
MAKING USE OF ALL THE BENEFITS OF DISTRIBUTED GENERATION (DG)
Distributed Generation (DG) technologies like photovoltaic cells, wind-power, micro-turbines, and fuel cells
have the potential to significantly reduce emissions and ultimately perhaps the production cost as well.
Connecting them to the distribution grid however is a subject of major concern.
One way of dealing with this could be to take a systems approach, viewing the generator and the associated
loads as a subsystem or ‘micro grid’ that can be separated from the main grid. Such a micro grid would operate
in parallel with the grid (when connected) or in island mode (when disconnected). It will disconnect from the
grid during significant events (faults, voltage collapses), providing UPS services to its loads. If desired, it may
also disconnect when the quality of power from the grid falls below certain standards.
ENABLING A HIGH PENETRATION OF DG
Such a micro grid approach allows for local control of the DG unit, thereby reducing or eliminating the need for
central dispatch. It also has the potential to provide a higher local reliability than provided by the power
system as a whole. The objective is to provide the features of micro grids without a complex control system
requiring detailed engineering for each application.
In this way, micro grids could enable a high penetration of DG without requiring re-design or re-engineering of
the entire distribution system.
A STUDY BY THE IEEE
IEEE published an interesting study on micro grids. It discusses the concept, investigates the requirements for
control systems, and works out a theoretical case study.
Page 56 of 80
The design and construction of a full scale micro grid is currently in progress with the support of the California
Energy Commission.
REFERENCES
Article in PSERC (Power Systems Engineering Research Center, U.S.A.)
(http://www.pserc.org/ecow/get/publicatio/2007public/lasseter_asceg2-colum_2007.pdf
EXTENDED MICROGRIDS, INCLUDING STORAGE
A GENUINE PEER-TO-PEER, PLUG-AND-PLAY SUBGRID
As described in a recent post (‘Creating microgrids for connecting DG units’), microgrids can be a way to enable
high penetration of Distributed Generation (DG) without the need to completely re-design the distribution
grid. Microgrids can even enhance the local level of power quality thanks to DG units.
Another study by IEEE focuses on ‘extended microgrids’. An extended microgrid consists of a group of radial
feeders, each of which include not only loads and a generation unit, but also a storage device.
The extended microgrid is peer-to-peer; the system can continue operating with the loss of any component or
generator. It is also plug-and-play; the unit can be placed at any point on the distribution grid without reengineering.
The following load diagram shows how an extended microgrid can operate. The load has a typical 24 hour
profile with peak demand at 2.5 MW. The dispatched flow from the grid is constant at 1.5 MW. The storage
device will charge at night (slanted lines). During daytime, the first 2 MW is provided by the local DG unit, the
remaining power required to follow the load will be supplied by the discharging storage device.
REFERENCES
Article on PSERC (Power Systems Engineering Research Center, U.S.A.): ‘Extended Microgrid Using (DER)
Distributed Energy Resources’ http://www.pserc.org/ecow/get/publicatio/2007public/lasseter_panelv3_2007.pdf
WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A ‘SMART GRID’?
A CONCEPT OFTEN CAUSING CONFUSION
The ‘smart grid’ is commonly presented as an indispensable part of the future power system. It is claimed that
a true liberalized electricity market with a high penetration of distributed generation will only be able to
supply a high degree of power reliability if grids are made smart.
But what exactly is a ‘smart grid’? Reading through some literature on the subject, one quickly discovers that it
can mean many different things to many different people, often leading discussions to end in confusion.
A smart grid is neither a clearly defined single concept nor a single technology. Rather it is like a basket
containing various combinations of balls. The context and the interpretation depend upon the user. Carnegie
Mellon University recently published an article describing all of the various balls typically found in this
Page 57 of 80
metaphorical basket. Some of them represent innovations that are still in the development phase, while
others stand for technologies which have already been applied for years.
Some of the balls found in the smart grid basket include:
AT CUSTOMER LEVEL

Meters that can be read automatically: this avoids sending out meter readers and can facilitate a fast
and exact billing of consumption. It is already widely adopted by many power companies.

Time-of-day and time-of-use meters: the former are meters that change the electricity price
depending on the time of the day, the latter are meters that integrate the actual electricity price at
any given moment in time.

Meters that can communicate with the customers: a display shows the customers their current rate
of electricity use, allowing them to adjust their consumption level in real time.

Control of customer’s load: control systems that react to time-of-day or time-of-use meters to
automatically switch certain circuits on or off.
AT DISTRIBUTION GRID LEVEL

Distribution system automation: A first step is the operating of the distribution grid from a central
control room, avoiding the need to send people into the field for switching actions. Such systems have
already been installed in several places around the world. A second step is to change the tree layout
of the grid into a meshed layout. By also adding sensors and remote control switches, incidents can
be isolated and cut off, minimizing problems for electricity consumers

Selective load control: selectively switching off customers to avoid a complete black out. A step
further is the ability to turn individual loads on or off within customer’s premises.

‘Islanding’ of micro-grids supplied by distributed generation units. This concept can, in its turn, have
several different meanings. The basic idea is that local DGs locally increase the reliability of supply.
AT TRANSMISSION GRID LEVEL

Phase measurements: the efficiency and stability of power system operation could be improved with
the addition of phase measurement at various key locations on the transmission grid and combined
with advanced communication and control systems.

FACTS: Flexible AC Transmission Control Devices or FACTS are advanced systems that can change the
flow of power in transmission lines. A phase shift transformer is an example of a FACT.

Distributed and autonomous control: models demonstrate that advanced automatic control systems
that cooperate with each other could in some cases do a better job than a centralized human
operation of the system.
REFERENCE

Article ‘The many meanings of ‘Smart Grid’’ by Carnegie Mellon University
(https://wpweb2.tepper.cmu.edu/ceic/pdfs_other/Smart_Grid_July_09.pdf)
RAPID CHARGING OF PLUG-IN ELECTRIC VEHICLES
TECHNOLOGICAL DEAD END OR A CHALLENGE TO BE OVERCOME?
Page 58 of 80
When screening the data sheets of prototypes electric vehicles and electric vehicle batteries, you often come
across some spectacular recharging speeds. The 35 kWh lithium-ion batteries of Altair Nanotechnologies for
instance are said to fully charge in a mere ten minutes.
What the data sheets don’t say is that the electric connection must be capable of supplying sufficient power
for this rapid recharging. Only ten minutes for 35 kWh? That would require a 250 kW connection. This is about
20 times the maximum power of a residential connection. Consequently, rapid charging would be impossible
at home. Moreover, it would create a serious challenge for any grid connections for electric recharging stations
located along the road.
Several studies have asserted that a large penetration of plug-in electric vehicles is feasible without massive
investments in new power generation and transmission infrastructure. But that is only true if those vehicles
recharge at slow speed during the night, when there is sufficient idle generation and transmission capacity.
Imagine a scenario where recharging stations are built along the highway and can simultaneously recharge
twenty vehicles with 35 kWh batteries in ten minutes time. A single such station would require a 5,000 kW
connection. If those stations need to be built at regular intervals along all of our roads, it will require an
entirely new dedicated electricity grid.
That is why some experts, like Andrew Burke, an electric vehicle engineering pioneer at the University of
California, see the rapid charging of plug-ins as a technological dead end. Others, like Alan Gotcher, CEO of
Altair Nanotechnologies, see those barriers merely as challenges that need to be overcome. Watch this space
to see which of these two visions prove right.
REFERENCES

Article ‘Can plug-in hybrid electric vehicles keep the electric grid stable’ on IEEE Spectrum
(http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/oct07/5630)

Article ‘Electric-Car Maker Touts 10-Minute Fill-up’ on IEEE Spectrum
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/nov07/5685)

Article ‘California to rule on fate of EVs’ and a comment by Jeff Sutter
(http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/nov07/5657)
(http://blogs.spectrum.ieee.org/articles/2007/10/california_to_rule_on_fate_of.html)

Study 'The Consumption of Electrical Energy of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle in Belgium' by KU
Leuven, presented at the European Ele-Drive Conference in Brussels (May 30 – June 1, 2007)
(http://www.esat.kuleuven.be/electa/publications/fulltexts/pub_1670.pdf) (http://www.eledrive.com/)
EE TECHNOLOGY
PRODUCTIVITY AND MAINTENANCE BENEFITS OF EE
ENERGY EFFICIENCY (EE) MEASURES HAVE SHORTER PAY-BACK PERIODS THAN
GENERALLY ASSUMED
Many energy efficiency (EE) measures in industry consist of improving purchasing and maintenance practices
and procedures. These measures often have other positive implications than just energy savings. They can also
reduce maintenance costs and increase the productivity of the site. These ancillary savings are often
forgotten when calculating the pay-back rate of EE measures. In reality, EE measures often have significantly
Page 59 of 80
shorter pay-back periods than previously assumed. This is the principal conclusion of a recent study by the
U.S. DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE).
EE POTENTIAL TWICE AS LARGE AS GENERALLY ASSUMED
The conclusion by the U.S. DOE confirms an earlier finding made in the paper ‘Productivity Benefits of
Industrial Energy Efficiency Measures’, published in Energy 11 in 2003. This paper demonstrated a strong
correlation between EE measures and productivity. Systematically taking into account the productivity benefits
when calculating the pay-back period would actually double the potential of cost-efficient EE improvements,
according to this paper.
LCC IS BEST PRACTICE
The strong correlation between EE, maintenance, and productivity is another excellent reason to make use of
Life Cycle Costing (LCC). Using LCC when making purchasing and maintenance decisions ensures that all
benefits are taken into account. This results in a more realistic, integrated, and accurate view of the potential
optimization of a production line. Unfortunately, LCC can often involve rather complex calculations to execute
and as a result have discouraged far too many potential beneficiaries from making them standard or even
common practice.
REFERENCE

Paper ‘Ancillary Savings and Production Benefits in the Evaluation of Industrial Energy Efficiency
Measures’ by DOE’s Office of EERE (http://industrial-energy.lbl.gov/node/157)

Paper ‘Productivity Benefits of Industrial Energy Efficiency Measures’, published in Energy 11
(2003)(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2S-48SBVBS4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_url
Version=0&_userid=10&md5=31e7242ef87cbe11f60a198253bddcc8)
IS ICT RESPONSIBLE FOR RAISING ENERGY DEMAND?
OR IS IT A TOOL USED FOR GENERATING ENERGY SAVINGS?
In the eighties and the nineties, the energy consumption of ICT appliances was not an issue. At that time, it
appeared to be miniscule in comparison to other energy consumption. In recent years however, this has
changed dramatically. The ICT sector has matured and today’s huge server rooms can hardly be called minor
energy users. Moreover, rising energy prices and climate change concerns have raised awareness over small
consumers such as the stand by losses of communication appliances and PCs. As a result of this, the ICT sector
is increasingly criticized for its steeply rising energy consumption.
It is a fact that the carbon footprint of the ICT sector has been rising and is now estimated to be 2% of global
emissions. But the ICT sector can’t be viewed separately from the rest of the economy. The American Council
for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) has recently published a study (‘Information and Communication
Technologies: The Power of Productivity’) stating that the innovative effects of ICT have contributed to an
economy-wide reduction of the energy intensity in the U.S.
ICT AS A LEVERAGE FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Page 60 of 80
ICT has indeed not only been the engine of economic growth in recent decades, it has also been an important
factor in improving the energy productivity of industry and business. ICT has enabled the design of new and
more energy efficient appliances, it has played an important role in optimizing production processes, and it has
replaced several energy-intense physical products and services with on-line services. The 3D design of turbine
blades, computerized ‘virtual power plants’ to optimize efficiency, smart metering techniques… it are just
three out of many examples that would not exist today without the ICT innovations of recent years.
SAVING MORE ENERGY THAN IT CONSUMES
U.S. energy intensity decreased an average of 1.8% between 1970 and 1996 and an average of 2.4 between
1996 and 2006. According to the ACEEE, this improvement can be attributed to the ICT sector, with 1996 as a
watershed year in the expansion of ICT in Internet-based and other electronic applications. This is said to have
brought about the accelerated energy intensity reduction in the last few years. The ACEEE assessment also
points out that about ten kilowatt-hours are saved today through increased energy efficiency for every
kilowatt-hour of electricity demanded by ICT.
Those claims have to be taken with a grain of salt, though. It is not so hard to believe that such correlations
exist to a certain extent, but proving them with these kinds of figures seems close to guesswork. There are also
many other factors influencing the energy intensity of any economy. Sometimes it seems as if the same energy
savings are being claimed several times; energy efficiency programmes, higher energy prices, ICT expansion, et
cetera all claim paternity.
Fortunately the ACEEE doesn’t simply sit back and rely on these claims to contend that the ICT sector is doing
fine and can rest on its laurels. ICT’s efforts to bring down its own energy consumption continue to be of
paramount importance for the sustainability of the sector.
STILL A LARGE UNTAPP ED POTENTIAL
And what about the future? According to John Laitner, ACEEE Director of Economic Policy Analysis and coauthor of the study, the ICT sector will continue to play its important role as a catalyst for improving energy
efficiency. He still sees a large untapped potential of productivity and efficiency gains due to adoption of ICT in
households, businesses, and industry.
REFERENCES

Article ‘ICT Helps Energy Efficiency and Productivity: Report’ on
GreenBiz.com(http://www.greenbiz.com/news/news_third.cfm?NewsID=55559)

Article on ScienceGuide (http://www.scienceguide.nl/print.asp?articleid=105225)
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND PEAK DEMAND REDUCTION
A NEW REPORT FROM THE ACEEE
There are obvious overlaps between the results of energy efficiency programmes and peak load management.
This is the case in spite of historically different objectives of both disciplines.
Energy efficiency programs primarily seek to reduce customer energy use on a permanent basis through the
installation of energy-efficient technologies. That will, in most cases, have the positive side effect of reducing
peak demand. This is especially the case if it concerns the energy efficiency of appliances that are typically
Page 61 of 80
used during periods of peak demand. A good example is the effect of energy efficient air conditioners on peak
demand on a hot summer day.
At the other side, load management programs generally focus on either curtailing or shifting demand away
from high cost, peak demand periods. Curtailing demand in most cases means improving energy efficiency.
As a result of these different focuses, the true relationship between these programmes is poorly understood.
In which peak demand reductions result the energy efficiency programmes? And what are the energy savings
resulting of load management?
The lack of understanding of this relationship is one of the conclusions of a new study by the American Council
for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), entitled ‘Examining the Peak Demand Impacts of Energy Efficiency: A
Review of Program Experience and Industry Practices’. The study investigates the overlap of Energy Efficiency
and Peak Demand control. It argues for utility companies and regulators to engage in more integration
between both types of programmes.
U.S. CONTINUES THEIR LEADING ROLE IN MOTOR EFFICIENCY
PROPOSAL TO RAISE MINIMUM EFFICIENCY LEVEL
While Europe keeps on discussing how motor efficiency should be monitored, the U.S. is about to take yet
another step further in their motor efficiency programme.
Under the driving force of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) and the National
Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), the U.S. has succeeded in significantly transforming their motor
marketplace over the past 20 years. In 1992, the Energy Policy Act (EPACT-92) set a minimum efficiency
performance standard (MEPS) for certain types of motors. This was followed by the NEMA Premium voluntary
labelling programme to encourage companies that want go further than the obligatory standard.
Last month, ACEEE, NEMA, and two utility companies proposed a plan to Congressional leaders to increase the
existing MEPS-values and to expand the MEPS coverage to many other types of motors. They calculated that
such a stricter standard would save 9,781 GWh per year, would reduce peak demand by 1,341 MW, and would
reduce CO2 emissions by 2 million metric tons.
ACEEE emphasized that the job will not be finished if this new standard is approved. Motor efficiency
programmes must also ensure that correctly-sized motor systems are installed and optimized to meet the
required load.
REFERENCE
ACEEE study ‘Impact of Proposed Increases to Motor Efficiency Performance Standards, Proposed Federal
Motor Tax Incentives and Suggested New Directions Forward’
http://www.aceee.org/Motors/MEPS_ImpactsWP_07.pdf
SCIENCE MAGAZINE REPORTS ON THE EFFICIENCY GAP
Page 62 of 80
HOW TO DO MORE WITH OFF-THE-SHELF ENERGY EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGY
The August edition of Science Magazine dedicated an eight page long focus article on how to leap the
efficiency gap. This gap consists of the imbalance between the wide range of energy efficient technology that
is readily available on the market and the rather small share this technology represents in the daily practice of
industry, buildings, and transport.
A DISCUSSION GOING BACK TO THE FIRST ENERGY CRISIS
The article goes back to the seventies, when physicist Arthur Rosenfeld abandoned his focus on particle
physics to shift his work at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) on energy efficiency research. In
the eighties, human ecologist Edward Vine joined the laboratory, which marked the start of an ongoing —
albeit friendly — argument between the two thinkers. While Rosenfeld always trusted that new technologies
would bring the solution, Vine did not cease to emphasise that a change in behaviour and decision making is
required for spurring energy efficiency forward.
THE FRUIT IS LYING ON THE GROUND
Science Magazine suggests that today, the tide is turning concerning this discussion: ‘For the most part,
energy-efficiency programs around the world have followed Rosenfeld’s line. They offer financial incentives for
adopting energy-saving, cost-effective technology, and trust that consumers will follow their self-interest. Yet
many researchers are now coming to Vine’s point of view. Consumers don’t seem to act like fully informed,
rational decision-makers when they make energy choices.’
Steven Chu, Nobel Prize winning physicist and now the U.S. Secretary of Energy, believes that the technology is
readily available and only needs to be implemented: ‘Energy efficiency isn’t just low hanging fruit’, he has
declared, ‘it’s fruit lying on the ground.’
REVEALING MARKET FAILURES
So why is this fruit not being picked up? Science Magazine cites David Goldstein of the Natural Resources
Defence Council (NRDC). He believes it is not the human psyche that prevents efficient technology from being
picked up, but rather ‘market failures’. The latter term groups several market barriers, of which the most
important is the ‘principal-agent problem’: the purchaser of the energy using technology is not the same as the
purchaser of the energy itself. This not only happens in business-to-business environments, it also occurs in
everyday consumer life. Think for example about hotel guests who don’t have to pay for their energy
consumption, or landlords who buy cheap, inefficient technology because the tenants pay the utility bills.
IS ENERGY TOO CHEAP?
The Science article also tackles the question whether energy should be made more expensive to stimulate
efficiency. Both followers and opponents of this thesis were asked for their vision. According to Lee Schipper of
the Precourt Energy Efficiency Centre (PEEC) at Stanford University ‘The single most important step in that
direction [of conserving energy], is to make energy more expensive’. This vision is at odds with that of David
Goldstein, who is convinced that ‘low energy prices and efficiency can coexist’.
REFERENCE
Page 63 of 80
Science Magazine article ‘Leaping the Efficiency Gap’
(http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/325/5942/804)
THE VAST POTENTIAL OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN INDIA
FIVE TIMES CHEAPER THAN NUCLEAR POWER
A recent study by the World Resources Institute (WRI) calculated that India could reduce its annual electricity
usage by 183.5 billion kWh by investing US$ 10 billion in energy efficiency improvements.
India’s energy demand is expected to more than double by 2030. The country is consequently in need of a
huge amount of new power generation capacity. Considering the figures of the WRI, the cheapest generating
capacity for India will no doubt be energy savings.
An annual production of 183.5 billion kWh corresponds more or less to 25 nuclear power stations of 1,000 MW
(producing 7,500 GWh/y each). According to nuclearinfo.net, the construction of third generation nuclear
power stations in Japan cost around US$ 2 billion for a single 1,000 MW plant. This means 25 nuclear power
plants would cost US$ 50 billion, making nuclear power 5 times more expensive than the calculated cost of
energy savings.
However, the biggest barrier for energy efficiency improvement in India is not cost, but the availability of
qualified technology, products, and people. According to Robin Murphy, WRI vice president of external
relations, India is desperately in need of energy efficiency technology providers, equipment manufacturers,
and — above all — energy service providers (ESCOs). Despite the rapid growth rate of the ESCO sector in India
(an annual growth rate of 62% in 2008), this sector is still far too small for the country to aspire to effectively
harvesting its huge energy savings potential.
REFERENCES

Article Renewable Energy World: ‘Energy Efficiency Could Save India 183.5 Billion kWh’
(http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/04/canadas-first-green-provincialreport-card-released)

nuclearinfo.net: http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower
EE AND REW POLICIES
ENERGY EFFICIENCY NOT A PRIORITY FOR EU PROJECT FUNDING
MONEY GOES TO GAS PIPELINE AND CCS
Despite EU commissioner Piebalgs recent declarations that energy efficiency is the number one priority, the
recently approved EU economic recovery funds for energy projects virtually completely overlooks energy
efficiency. The allocation for renewable energy projects is also rather poor.
Of the total budget of €3.98 billion, €1.44 billion goes to natural gas infrastructure projects such as a new
pipeline from Azerbaijan to Germany. In addition, €1.05 billion goes to Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
projects, €0.91 billion to electricity infrastructure projects, and €0.565 billion to off-shore wind projects.
Page 64 of 80
Following criticism from members of the European Parliament, it was decided that any unspent funds at the
end of 2010 will go to energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.
The poor endowment of energy efficiency from these funds is not that surprising. Such funds are principally
created to support very large infrastructure works that would otherwise never find the required capital
investment. Energy efficiency projects on the contrary are much smaller and more dispersed throughout the
market. The question remains: where can energy efficiency receive financial support to help this critical
matter along in these times of economic crisis.
REFERENCES

Article ‘EU energy project funding overlooks energy efficiency’ on Energy Efficiency News
(http://www.energyefficiencynews.com/i/2245/)
AMERICA’S LEADING ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMMES
A NEW ‘COMPENDIUM OF CHAMPIONS’ BY THE ACEEE
The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) recently published a compendium of exemplary
energy efficiency programmes. It is the second report of this kind; the first being completed in 2003. The
Compendium contains the profiles of 90 of America’s leading energy efficiency programmes sponsored by the
utility sector (electricity and natural gas). They are either funded by utility rates, public benefits charges, or
other similar utility revenue mechanisms. The 90 programmes were selected from a large number of
nominations.
Together, the selected programmes achieved annual savings of 2,400 GWh of electricity, 400 MW of peak
demand, and 125 million therms of natural gas (= 13.185 TJ or 3.663 GWh).
COVERING THE ENTIRE SPECTRUM
The report is available for free on the ACEEE website, including brief summary profiles of the 90 programmes
selected. The programmes cover the entire spectrum of customers, including residential, small business,
schools, offices, industries, and agriculture. They cover programmes for all types of energy appliances, from
industrial processes to residential lighting. Also included are individual customers—tailored programmes that
lead to comprehensive packages of energy efficiency measures at a single company or site.
ADVOCATING A GREATER ROLE FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY
According to ACEEE, the 90 selected programmes prove that energy efficiency works. The organization
advocates ‘a greater role for energy efficiency in the energy resource portfolios of today and tomorrow’. It
strongly regrets the fact that there are still large parts in the U.S. with little or no access to energy efficiency
programmes such as those selected in the compendium.
REFERENCE
Introduction to the Compendium on the ACEEE website (http://www.aceee.org/pubs/u081.htm)
Page 65 of 80
THAILAND’S REVOLVING FUND TO STIMULATE EE
TEETHING PROBLEMS NEED TO BE REMOVED BEFORE COPYING IT IN OTHER COUNTRIES
Thailand established its Energy Efficiency Revolving Fund in January 2003. The system aims at stimulating the
financial sector’s involvement in energy efficiency projects. It provides capital at no cost to Thai banks, which
in turn use this money to provide low cost loans for energy efficiency projects.
The government allocated the initial pool of capital and provided a small number of staff to establish the
financing model. The government carries no other risk since the main work of assessing the loan applications,
administering the loans, and promoting the Fund is carried out by the banks.
AN EVALUATION BY APEC
After two years of operation, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) assessed the Fund. It concluded
that the system certainly has some valuable ideas, but that some major issues need to be tackled before
copying it in other countries.
SOME MAJOR ADVANTAGES THAT WERE POINTED OUT:

The repaid loans become available for recycling into new loans, hence the term ‘revolving fund’. Once
the system is at cruising speed, no new capital needs to be injected.

The cheap loans often leverage significant additional investments in the project by non-government
sources.
AND SOME MAJOR POINTS OF CRITICISM:

Promotional activities have been too low key. Responsibility for promoting the fund has been split
between the banks and the Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency (DEDE).
The latter has no budget specifically allocated for this task.

Applicants lacking adequate collateral have difficulties receiving a loan.

The financing model does creates the possibility that low risk projects are financed via the Fund,
projects that would have received financing anyway (= ‘free rides’).
Another important remark is that these kinds of incentives only stimulate technologies which are already costefficient or close to it. This removes the investment barrier for certain technologies, but does not open up the
market for new technologies.
REFERENCE
Paper ‘Thailand’s Energy Efficiency Revolving Fund: A Case Study’ by the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC) Energy Working Group
(http://www.ewg.apec.org/index.cfm?event=object.showContent&objectID=7AFA640A-65BF-4956B8F7911BE1292BA4)
HOW MUCH ENERGY SAVING IS 1 PER CENT PER YEAR?
A STANDARDIZED DEFINITION IS LACKING
Page 66 of 80
Last year, the EU approved the ‘Directive on Energy End-use Efficiency and Energy Services’. It includes the
target of 9 per cent additional energy savings within the coming 9 years, or 1 per cent a year. But what does
this target really mean? The problem is that there is no clear, widely accepted definition of ‘1 per cent energy
saving per year’. What is the reference base? What is 0 per cent and what is 100 per cent?
Expressing the efficiency improvement that is accomplished by replacing one electric motor with a more
efficient one is a fairly straightforward process. But calculating the real effect of energy efficiency stimulation
policies and incorporating all free rider, multiplier, and rebound effects is a completely different story. And it
becomes even more complicated when looking several years ahead. For example, will you take the same
reference base for 2008 as for 2016?
In November 2006 the EU initiated a project to solve this definition problem: ‘Evaluation and Monitoring for
the EU Directive on Energy End-Use and Energy Services (EMEEES)’. Hopefully it will be ready by the first of
January 2008, when the Directive timeline starts running. And hopefully their solution will be pragmatic
enough to minimize the administrative burden and the cost of monitoring.
REFERENCE
The ECEEE 2007 Summer Study “How much energy saving is 1% per year?”
THE REBOUND EFFECT OF ENERGY SAVINGS
HOW SHOULD WE COPE WITH THIS COMPLEX PHENOMENON?
‘What is the use of supporting energy efficient appliances, when rebound effects cancel out all net energy
savings?’ This kind of scepticism regarding energy efficiency is being heard more and more in public debates.
The rebound effect occurs when energy efficiency of products improves, but then people just use more of
these products. The net effect is thus cancelling out any overall savings. The rebound effect can be both direct
and indirect. For instance, a direct effect can occur when consumers buy a fuel efficient car, but then discover
that they can drive much more for the same cost and alter their previous driving habits. The rebound effect
can also be indirect as when people use the money they save by driving more efficiently for other energy
services, such as an extra holiday by air to Spain.
While this rebound effect certainly exists, it is being overused ‘as another reason to do nothing’, argues Bill
Thompson in a post on WattWatt. Jumping to the conclusion that the rebound effect makes all energy
efficiency measures useless is indeed an oversimplification that cannot be justified.
THE PRICE ELASTICITY OF ENERGY
The rebound effect is directly linked to what economists call price elasticity: that is, the degree to which a
given population will buy less or more of something as the price goes up or down.
If the price is elastic, it means that people do not immediately change their buying behaviour when the price
changes. The rebound effect of energy savings supposes that the energy price is non-elastic: if the energy cost
for an appliance goes down because of higher efficiency, people will use it more. If the cost of energy were to
be non-elastic in all conditions, people would proportionally lower their consumption as the energy price goes
up. This is clearly not happening. However, such a different behaviour when price goes up as when price goes
down is not necessarily contradictory. Downward and upward price elasticity is not always similar.
Page 67 of 80
The degree to which the energy price is elastic has been the subject of seemingly everlasting debate among
economists since the late 19th century.
NOT CANCELLING OUT ALL ENERGY SAVINGS
Concerning energy savings measures, one can say with relatively high confidence that a rebound effect is
occurring to some degree, but that it is not cancelling out all savings.
A study by the UK Energy Research Centre calculated that the long term rebound effect for personal transport,
space heating, and space cooling is less than 30 per cent. In general, most studies estimate the rebound effect
for improved energy efficiency in electric appliances to be 20 to 30 per cent.
One way to reduce the rebound effect is to set up extensive education campaigns on the importance of
energy savings before more energy efficient technologies become widely available on the market. Even though
such campaigns do not have the potential to reach everybody, they can increase the social responsibility factor
in the general population and in this way initiate at least a limited behavioural change.
Another reaction could be to increase energy taxes. As the energy consumption of appliances decreases,
energy taxes could be increased without affecting the purse of consumers. In this way, the externalities of
energy will be charged through to a higher degree and consumers will be stimulated to actually use the
increased efficiency to reduce their consumption. The degree to which this mechanism is effective depends
upon upward price elasticity.
GAINS OTHER THAN REDUCED ENERGY CONSUMPTION
It is also important to note that reducing energy consumption is not everyone’s sole social and environmental
preoccupation. The fact that increased energy efficiency is not used to reduce total energy consumption
should not automatically be interpreted as making energy efficiency completely useless. It can enable new
energy services.
For instance, many of the energy efficiency improvements that have been realized for cars in the past 25 years
were used to produce safer and thus heavier, more energy hungry cars. The higher efficiency did not
necessarily lower the external costs of energy consumption, but it did lower the external costs of road traffic.
Another example is that higher energy efficiency can also be used to reduce poverty in developing countries. It
can make certain energy services available to people that would not otherwise be able to enjoy them.
MUST BE MORE ACCURATELY INCORPORATED IN PREDICTIONS
Obviously the rebound effect of energy efficiency is a very complex, far-reaching subject. It is certainly not a
valid argument to completely dismiss the usefulness of energy efficiency campaigns. While it is true that it
should be taken into account when predicting the results of those campaigns. In the past some of those
predictions have been far too optimistic because they did not take adequate account of the rebound effect.
REFERENCES

Article ‘Definition and Implications of the Rebound Effect’ on The Encyclopedia of Earth
(http://www.eoearth.org/article/Rebound_effect)

Post ‘“Energy Rebound” – or another reason to do nothing’ by Bill Thompson on WattWatt
(http://wattwatt.com/pulses/150/energy-rebound-or-another-reason-to-do-nothing/)

‘The Rebound Effect Report’ by the UK Energy Research Centre
Page 68 of 80
(http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/ResearchProgrammes/TechnologyandPolicyAssessment/ReboundEffect.asp
x)
CORPORATE ENERGY EFFICIENCY STRATEGIES
SOME BIG PLAYERS SET AN EXAMPLE
If there is any measure for mitigating climate change and ensuring energy security that enjoys a corporate
consensus, it is energy efficiency. Since it is both the cheapest and the fastest way to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, it obviously should get number one priority. Yet there is the nagging impression that this fact is still
having too little influence on actual daily energy practices. That impression may soon be changing.
Several leading companies in the electricity manufacturing and service sector have made energy efficiency a
top priority. Siemens, Schneider Electric, and ABB each published a dedicated energy efficiency report:

Siemens: ‘Energy Efficiency — Achieving More with Less/Creating sustainable societies’

Schneider Electric: ‘How much is inefficiency costing you?/Creating a climate for change’

ABB: ‘Energy Efficiency — The other alternative fuel’
Publishing such reports is, of course, no guarantee that these ideas are being fully integrated into everyday
practice. But at least the reports show that these companies have made the strategic decision to give energy
efficiency a higher profile and to ‘sell’ it to their customers. Given the weight of these companies on the
market, that just might be enough to create the momentum that is needed for a sea change in the energy
efficiency mentality.
REFERENCES
ABB:http://www.abb.com/cawp/abbzh252/1e61c6abed230ba6c12571bf0058af8a.aspx
EU STRUGGLING WITH SPECIFYING ITS OWN TARGETS
HOW SHOULD THE 20 PER CENT RENEWABLES TARGET BE DIVIDED AMONG THE
MEMBER STATES?
The EU has set two remarkable targets to be reached by 2020: 20 per cent energy saving and 20 per cent
renewables in the energy mix. Those targets are remarkable because they were set without specifying in
detail what the numbers meant or how they should be achieved. This resulted in two post factum discussions:
how much does 1 per cent energy saving mean (see previous blog post), and how should the 20 per cent
renewables target be divided among the member states?
The latter is currently the subject of a heated debate in which all governments are running for cover. The
debate failed to reach a conclusion in December and is postponed to the Commission meeting of 23 January
2008.
TWO DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO REACHING A GOAL
Has the approach of the European Commission failed? It looks like it has, but it’s easy to be critical after the
fact.
Page 69 of 80
A more logical approach would have been to set a qualitative goal first. For example: ‘the energy sector has to
do all that is technologically and economically sound to abate climate change.’ In a next step, a qualified
technical commission should then define realistic target values to reach this goal, in consultation with all
stakeholders. The risk of such an approach however is that the technical commission is not forced to leave the
beaten track and will work towards a compromise. The concept ‘all that is sound’ risks rapid degradation.
By first setting a rather arbitrary chosen far-reaching target without specifying the means to reach it, one can
hope that the stakeholders will be forced to leave their business-as-usual positions.
However, in the approach the EU is now following, there is again a discussion phase in which the goal can be
degraded and a little ambitious compromise sought. The consequences of the 20 per cent energy savings
target can vary a great deal according to how the percentages are defined. It is a very questionable approach
to specify this definition only after the target has been set. The 20 per cent renewables target on the other
hand risks degradation during the discussion on the partition among the Member States.
COUNTRY GOVERNMENTS TRYING TO GET AROUND COMMITMENTS
It is strange that some of the same governments that approved the general target are now arguing that this 20
per cent for their country is not realistic. More specifically, the UK government is trying everything to get
around and away from all commitments. It is devoting itself to the creation of another trading scheme so that
member nations who cannot comply with the target might be able to purchase renewable certificates. Such a
trading scheme is not stimulating the buying and selling of real renewable power across borders, but only the
buying and selling of virtual certificates. It would leave the entire system with little transparency and end up
almost certainly in degrading results in the field.
Fortunately, the EU Commission is not giving in easily. They worked out a partition mechanism that is
partially based on GDP. Renewable sources currently account for 8.5 per cent of the EU energy consumption,
meaning that an 11.5 percentage point increase is required to reach the 2020 goal. The Commission proposed
that all member states would make an across-the-board increase of 5.75 per cent, and that the further 5.75
per cent would be divided up using a calculation based on GDP. I’m curious to see if this simple and fair
proposition will stand the opposition from certain Member States. We will know more after the meeting of
the Commission on January 23.
REFERENCES

Article ‘EU on target for Renewable Goal’ on Matter Network
(http://featured.matternetwork.com/2007/11/eu-target-renewable-goal.cfm)

Article ‘New EU renewables law takes shape’ on Euractive (http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy/neweu-renewables-law-takes-shape/article-168998)

Article ‘EU to Propose Renewable Energy Goal Based on GDP’ on Planet Ark
(http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/45501/story.htm)

Article ‘Energy: the fundamental unseriousness of Gordon Brown’ on The Oil Drum
(http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3126)
WHAT AMOUNT OF GHG EMISSION REDUCTIONS WILL ACTUALLY BE REACHED
DOMESTICALLY?
KYOTO AND KYOTO MECHANISMS (KMS)
Page 70 of 80
The Kyoto protocol, signed in 1997, included three flexible mechanisms to lower the overall cost of
implementation: Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), Joint Implementation (JI), and Emission Trading (ET).
They are also called ‘the Kyoto Mechanisms’ (KMs). KMs allow countries to reach their domestic Kyoto target
by taking actions abroad, in countries where the cost of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is lower.
The protocol stipulates that this should only be ‘supplemental to domestic action’, but it does not quantify this
statement.
So let’s take a look at how European countries plan to use these KMs to reach their 2012 emission targets.
THE USE OF KMS IN EUROPE

The Netherlands and Luxemburg are planning to bridge the gap between their current emission rate
and their 2012 target entirely with KMs. That is, to say the least, a very flexible interpretation of the
word ‘supplemental’. However it does speak in their favour that they are planning to go further than
their compulsory contribution.

Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, and Spain are planning to reach a substantial part of their
2008-2012 emission reductions using KMs. Portugal will probably also join this list. For most of those
countries, the emission projections are such that despite their abundant use of KMs, they are likely to
miss their targets by a substantial margin. Those countries appear to have a structural problem with
reaching their Kyoto contribution and KMs were clearly not conceived to solve such problems.

Of all the EU-15 countries, only Sweden and the UK look like they will easily achieve their 2012 target
without making any use of KMs. Germany will most probably get close to it. Finland, France, and
Greece could achieve their target if they are willing to take some additional domestic measures. But
they too might still decide to make use of KMs to some degree.
THE PROBLEM WITH CDM
But what is really wrong with the KMs? Well, nothing. In theory these are valuable systems to optimize the
global cost-efficiency of the Kyoto implementation. But in practice, they have been the target of much
criticism, in particular CDM and ET (see yesterday’s post by Hans Nilsson).
The CDM gives industrialized countries the opportunity to invest in GHG reduction actions in developing
countries. The main problem is that the additionality of such actions should be proven. In other words, CDM
should not promote ‘free rides’ — actions that would have been executed anyway.
Statistics from CD4CDM show that until now, about half of the CDM actions were aiming at reducing the HFC23 emissions of Asian chemical plants manufacturing HCFC-22 (a refrigerant). But China and other developing
countries have the obligation to stabilize their HCFC-22 production by 2016 and phase it out completely by
2040. This phase-out programme could now be under pressure because of the CDM. Since they represent
cheap CDM opportunities, industrialized countries are indirectly stimulating the construction of new HCFC-22
production plants in Asia.
The Carbon Finance Unit of the World Bank has recently suggested that CDM projects should also help in
financing Efficient Lighting Programmes (see recent blog post). It is hoped that some European countries will
act upon this advice when searching for CDM projects. And hopefully other types of energy efficiency
programmes will receive some CDM attention as well.
REFERENCES
Page 71 of 80

The report ‘Greenhouse gas emission trends and projections in Europe 2006’, by the European
Environment Agency (graphs pages 21, 60, 61 and 62)
(http://reports.eea.europa.eu/eea_report_2006_9/en)

CD4CDM (http://www.cd4cdm.org/publications.htm)
REVERSE AUCTION MARKET FEED-IN TARIFFS
CALIFORNIA STIMULATING MIDDLE-SCALE RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS
California regulators have designed a new market system for stimulating middle-scale renewable energy
projects in a competitive way. The main idea is to create a reverse auction market where renewable energy
companies can offer their services for green energy projects. The company that offers to sell electricity at the
lowest rate wins a particular purchase agreement. Subsequently, the state will pay the developers the feed-in
tariff that is sufficient to bring that particular project online.
The system covers installations between 1 and 20 megawatts that can be built within 18 months. For
installations between 1 and 10 MW, the local utility company is obliged to accept the new installations. But
approval from the utility company is required for plants between 10 and 20 MW.
Up to now, California has lacked genuine incentives for middle-scale solar energy projects. Solar energy in the
Golden State is currently dominated by rooftop solar panels and large-scale solar power plants in the desert.
CREATING A STABLE AND COMPETITIVE RENEWABLE ENERGY MARKET
The new system has several advantages over conventional feed-in tariffs. It ensures that only companies that
take good business decisions are going to get the contracts. Windfall profits at ratepayers’ expense are thus
avoided. The new system will also create a much larger pool of valid data about the cost structure of
renewable energy plants, which up to now was mostly hidden or merely theoretical or conjecture. And lastly, it
will most probably create a more stable renewable energy market than that found in countries providing
conventional feed-in tariffs. In the latter countries, including Spain and Germany, the creation, modification,
and abrogation of feed-in tariffs have been provoking disturbing market shocks.
The new system still has to be approved by a few stakeholders. If that occurs soon, the system could be up and
running early next year. So far, the only critical comment regarding the system has come from the Chinese
solar giant SunTech America. It expressed its concern over the potential for a few large solar developers to
dominate the auctions and skew the results in favour of bigger projects.
HYBRID SYSTEMS FOR GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES
This new system proposed in California confirms once again that government stimulation of renewable energy
is not a choice between ‘state controlled feed-in tariffs’ and ‘market controlled green certificates’. Many
hybrid systems are possible. A feed-in tariff system can stimulate market competition just as much as a
renewable energy certificate system, as this Californian example proves. And in earlier articles on LE, we have
already reported that green certificates allow for market correction just as efficiently as feed-in tariffs.
INCENTIVES ARE NOT E VERYTHING
Page 72 of 80
The debate over which government stimulation system for renewables is the most efficient also needs to be
put into perspective. Government incentives, whether feed-in tariffs or certificates, are no guarantee of the
creation of a blooming renewable energy market. As Christian Kjaer, Chief Executive of the European Wind
Energy Association declares, ‘You can have the highest feed-in tariff in the world. If you have other barriers,
nothing will get you off the ground’. Those other barriers can be, among other things, an unnecessarily
complicated procedure to receive building permits or the manner in which renewable energy projects receive
access to the grid. Some countries have a well-designed system of green certificates (Belgium and Italy) or
feed-in tariffs (Greece), but still have rather disappointing results in terms of the growth of renewable energy
capacity.
REFERENCE

The New York Times article ‘A “Reverse Auction Market” Proposed to Spur California Renewables’
(http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/a-reverse-auction-market-proposed-to-spurcalifornia-renewables/)

The New York Times article ‘Words of Caution on a Renewable Energy Financing Idea’
(http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/words-of-caution-on-a-renewable-energy-financingscheme/)
HOW GREEN IS GREEN POWER?
THE PROBLEM OF ADDITIONALITY
Green electricity sold by utility companies is a peculiar product. It guarantees the origin of your power, just like
an ethical investment fund guarantees the origin of your profit. But what’s the solid evidence for such a
guarantee?
Guarantees of Origin (GoO) provide official proof that a certain amount of electricity has been generated by
renewable sources. However, this system of accreditation was created before various kinds of state incentives
for renewable energy came into being and complicated the situation with the problem of additionality.
The question of additionality is basically a question of whether the green power would have been produced
anyway if the sale had not taken place. In most cases, additionality exists when the supply of electricity is
generated over and above the requirement to meet existing legal obligations, or does not receive any state
subsidies.
According to the website of Eugene Standard, most green power labels in Europe still do not include criteria
for additionality – a system they view as ‘greenwashing’. And even if additionality seems to be ensured in
principle, there are still ways to escape it in practice.
A SURPLUS OF GREEN POWER
A good example of dubious additionality can be found with the green power is that produced by large hydroplants in France, Switzerland, and Norway. In mountainous regions, hydro-plants are an economic way of
power production and consequently do not depend on state subsidies. In Switzerland, feed-in tariffs for hydro
power are only given up to hydro comprises 50% of the renewable portfolio of an electricity producer. In
France no feed-in tariffs are given for large hydro, and in Norway there is no subsidy for hydro power at all,
since it provides nearly 100 per cent of Norway’s power generation.
Consequently, there is a large surplus of hydro power in those countries that is not used to meet legal
obligations and does not receive state subsidies. Hence it fulfils the criteria for ‘additionality’ and is given
Page 73 of 80
Guarantees of Origin. But in fact it is not newly constructed either, most of those power plants have already
been producing for decades. The electric energy will be produced regardless, and can still be sold abroad as
green electricity.
Some governments, such as those in the Belgian regions, give tax reductions for this kind of imported green
power. At the end of the day, it means they are supporting the profits of hydro power producers in Norway,
Switzerland and France.
The Belgian utility company Electrabel has recognized this issue and created the product ‘AlpEnergy’.
AlpEnergy makes use of hydro energy from the French Alps but guarantees that part of the profit is reinvested
in the construction of new renewable energy plants. But then again, who guarantees the additionality of those
new projects?
REFERENCES

Web Site of Green Energy Standard Eugene (http://www.eugenestandard.org/?inc=news&id=104)
ARE DECREASING SUBSIDIES A BLOW TO THE WIND INDUSTRY?
SUBSIDIES UNDER DISCUSSION IN THE NETHERLANDS, THE UK, AND SPAIN
On one hand, subsidies for renewable energy are meant to be a temporary measure to stimulate market
integration. On the other however, such regulations require a minimum of predictability to win over investor
confidence. It is no wonder then that any discussion of subsidy reforms provokes lively discussions on timing,
the way it should be carried out, and what should come in its place.
SPAIN CUTTING FEED-IN TARIFFS FOR WIND
Spain plans to cut feed-in tariffs for wind power by 15 to 30% and use the difference to boost support for
other technologies such as solar. Analysts are divided on what impact this will have on the market. According
to Ben Warren of Ernst & Young, the proposed subsidy reduction will have an adverse effect on investments,
but not to such a degree that market growth will come to an end. He warns however that a more balanced
portfolio of renewable techniques could lead to a reduction in the total contribution of renewables. He also
predicts that if subsidy reforms are applied retroactively, it will have a negative impact on the investment
climate.
RENEWABLE OBLIGATION CERTIFICATES UNDER DISCUSSION IN THE UK
Diversification is also the main reason for proposing subsidy reforms in the UK. The current Renewable
Obligation Certificates (ROCs) have spurred investments in on-shore wind generation, but have been criticized
for failing to support other technologies, since utilities usually opt for the cheapest way to meet their targets.
But isn’t that what market mechanisms are all about? Analysts could have a point however when they state
that the current certificates system has not primed the pump of tomorrow’s technologies in the way it was
meant to.
DUTCH INVESTORS IN RENEWABLES AWAIT THE SEQUEL TO MEP
Page 74 of 80
The Dutch government abolished the MEP (Miliekwaliteit Elektriciteits Productie) subsidies for green electricity
in August 2006. According to Minister of Economy Wijn, the goal of 9% sustainable electricity by 2010 will be
reached with currently submitted projects, so there is no need for continued MEP subsidies.
Although this sudden abolition of the MEP was paired with certain compensations, it placed some investors in
Netherlands renewable energy in financial difficulty.
One of the shortcomings of the MEP was that it was open-ended. While this clearly could not be maintained
indefinitely, it was expected that the MEP would be gradually limited over time and scale, rather than being
abolished outright. It has now been left to the new, recently created Dutch government to work out a new
subsidy programme for green electricity.
HAREBRAINED SOLUTIONS FOR THE ENERGY PROBLEM
HAREBRAINED SOLUTIONS FOR THE ENERGY PROBLEM
THINKING OUT OF THE BOX
Surfing the Internet, one frequently comes upon articles on new inventions for harvesting energy and solving
the energy problem. Last week, we reported on the concept of ‘solar highways.’ That idea is certainly not the
craziest one to come along.
HARVESTING SMALL NATURAL PHENOMENA
A first category of crazy solutions are those aiming at harvesting energy out of natural phenomena that at
first sight appear too small or too local to be of interest. Trendhunter Magazine reports on a system using
piezoelectric devices for catching the energy of falling raindrops [link]. Another idea, reported by Inhabitat, is
to collect the energy of lightning, not to start a camp fire like our ancestors did, but to power our homes [link].
Even more surprising is a concept to tap electricity out of trees, reported by Humacon [link]. When pounding a
nail into a tree and connecting it with a pin in the ground through a copper wire, a weak electric current starts
flowing. This current is caused by the difference in acidity between tree and ground. Crazy as it may sound,
this concept has already found an application in supplying energy to environmental sensors in remote forest
areas. And what about the idea of harvesting electricity out of our own breath, reported by Live Science [link]?
CHALLENGING THE LAWS OF PHYSICS
A second category of crazy inventions are the ones that try to challenge the known laws of physics. Certainly
belonging to this category is a system to create room temperature superconductivity, reported by Next Energy
News [link].
Clean Break reports on an invention to create ‘free’ energy by harnessing electromagnetic fields [link]. As is
often the case with these kinds of topics, a lively discussion between believers and non-believers is going on in
the comments pages beneath the article.
ENERGY FROM OUTER SPACE
A third category of harebrained energy systems are the ones that are related to outer space. Extraterrestrial
solutions to earthly problems have been triggering our collective imagination since the birth of science fiction.
Page 75 of 80
This is nothing new when it comes to solving today’s energy problem. One can find ample articles on the
concept of constructing photovoltaic power stations in space and beaming the harvested electrical energy to
the earth. Take for example a look at Energy Outlook [link], The Financial Times [link], PC World [link], or SEED
Magazine [link], or watch a movie on You Tube on Space-based Solar Power [link].
Other reports suggest that the quest for energy might lead to a new race to the moon [link]. The reason is that
the He3 atom, which is very rare on earth but abundant on the moon, is thought by some to be a suitable
alternative material for nuclear fusion, enabling a reaction without generating radioactivity. The idea is already
being pushed by several politicians, although some specialists in the nuclear domain declare it to be nonsense.
Only time will tell.
CRAZY IDEAS MAY BECOME ORDINARY ONE DAY
It is unlikely that the ideas mentioned above are going to change the energy debate from one day to the next.
Most probably, the large majority of them will always remain unfeasible. And no doubt several of the potential
results which are presented are seriously stretching the truth. But as already suggested in the article on solar
roads last week, providing harebrained solutions with small amounts of funding for building demonstration
plants or prototypes is never a bad idea. You never know what will come out of it one day; history teaches us
to be cautious with negative predictions. The first photovoltaic cell was built by Charles Fritz back in 1883 (!),
and only had an efficiency of 1%. I can imagine people of that time found that idea just as crazy and useless as
we judge many inventions of today.
THE QUEST FOR CONCENTRATED WIND POWER
LEVIATHAN ENERGY PRESENTS A NEW DESIGN CONCEPT
While concentrated solar power is entering the commercialization phase, ‘concentrated wind power’ is still in
the area of bold claims intended to attract research money.
The idea of concentrated wind power is to build a structure that conducts the wind towards the turbine
blades and in this way harvests more power.
Recently, an article on CleanTechnica presented a new design of this kind created by Leviathan Energy. It
consists of a screen around the base of the turbine that changes air circulation. The company claims this
passive structure can increase the turbine efficiency from 30% to as much as 150% at low wind speeds (0-6
meters per second).
According to Dr. Daniel Farb, CEO of Leviathan Energy, this is a breakthrough technology. Some CleanTechnica
readers however dare to doubt this claim. The test model presented by Leviathan Energy shows a very small
wind turbine. According to one reader, to increase the efficiency of such a turbine it is a cheaper option to
simply make a higher pole and longer rotor blades — something that wind manufacturers have already been
doing in recent decades. If the structure of Leviathan Energy has to be built around a 2 MW turbine, it would
require a huge construction taking up a large surface of possibly arable land.
Those considerations do not mean that the concept of Leviathan Energy is worthless, but rather that it would
need a complete and independent economic analysis before proclaiming a technological breakthrough. I’m
sure the main wind manufacturing players will quickly make such an analysis.
As already mentioned above, the idea of concentrating wind power to increase the efficiency of wind
turbines is not new — it already has a long history. In the summer of 2008 we reported on the ‘jet engine
concept’ of the FloDesign company in the U.S. (article ‘New growth factors for wind industry’).
Page 76 of 80
REFERENCES
The concept of Leviathan
http://cleantechnica.com/2009/04/29/wind-turbine-output-boosted-30-by-breakthrough-design/commentpage-1/#comments
Wind turbine concept inspired by Jet Engines
http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/wind-turbine-concept-jet-engines/
LE article ‘New growth factors for wind industry’ (http://www.leonardo-energy.org/new-growth-factors-windindustry)
SOLAR HIGHWAYS
INTEGRATING ROAD NETWORKS AND POWER NETWORKS
The US Department of Transportation has awarded funding for building a ‘solar highway’ prototype. A solar
highway contains photovoltaic (PV) modules covered with bulletproof glass as a road surface. The surface
also contains a grid of LEDs that can light the roadway, draw lines, and flash warnings that react to traffic
sensors. Apart from supplying power for the LEDs and sensors, the energy generated by the PV modules will
also be used to heat the highway when required. The remaining energy can be used for houses and
businesses alongside the road. If this systems works as projected, it could well make power stations and
power lines superfluous. According to an article on Matter Network, covering all American roads with this
system would produce an annual yield of energy three times as large as the entire U.S. energy consumption in
2006.
A UTOPIAN IDEA
Anyone reading about such a project with a critical — or downright sceptical — mind may question the claims
and even wonder how this idea ever managed to receive funding. After all, PV manufacturing companies are
already hard-pressed to create PV modules that are efficient and affordable; their task will become even more
complicated if those modules also have to withstand the weight of heavily loaded vehicles. And how will the
cost of one square meter of this ‘intelligent highway’ ever be in the range of one square meter of simple
asphalt or concrete combined with a conventional PV panel? And what about the production intermittency
caused by passing cars and trucks?
The idea to replace the complete system of power plants and power lines with these so-called solar roads
sounds utopian. How will such a network be balanced? How will daytime production be stored at night? How
will production and consumption variations over the year be flattened out? Without power cables along the
road and extensive storage facilities — both of which are very costly — the whole concept appears impossible.
FUNDING PROPORTIONAL TO POTENTIAL
But then again, the funding by the US Department of Transportation is only $100,000. That is a small amount
of funding for testing new ideas — however harebrained they may appear at first sight — that just might
stimulate workable, creative innovation. One day, one of these apparently crazy ideas just might make it into
the mainstream market.
Page 77 of 80
And there is certainly some interesting logic in the solar highway concept. Take for instance the idea of
making multipurpose use of the huge volume roadway surface that is otherwise lost for any purpose other
than transport. Actually the idea of combining electricity production and distribution in one network is rather
elegant. And isn’t it a fact that the large majority of energy consumers are located along roads? Moreover, if
EV’s ever replace conventional petroleum powered vehicles, the idea of producing electricity ‘on the road’
becomes even more attractive.
REFERENCES
Article ‘Driving on Electric Glass: Solar Highway Awarded Prototype Funding’ on Matter Network / News and
ideas for a sustainable world (http://featured.matternetwork.com/2009/9/driving-electric-glass-solarhighway.cfm)
GEO-ENGINEERING DOES NOT OFFER AN EASY WAY OUT
NO EFFECTIVE, AFFORD ABLE, LOW RISK SOLUTIONS AVAILABLE
If we are able to influence the earth’s CO2 density and climate in a negative way, it is logical to assume that we
are also able to influence it in a positive way. That is the basic idea behind geo-engineering solutions to climate
change. Those solutions generally include such ideas as afforestation, CO2 air capture, ocean fertilization,
cloud albedo using sea water spray to whiten clouds and increase cloud reflectivity, surface albedo using
specifically coloured roofing and paving materials, creating stratospheric sulphur aerosols, and space solar
reflectors.
IS CCS GEO-ENGINEERING?
A recent article on the subject in the Financial Times also includes CO2 capture at the stack (‘Carbon Capture
and Storage’, CCS) among other geo-engineering solutions. This is noteworthy primarily since this solution is
generally seen as more realistic. CCS already receives significant amounts of R&D funding, in contrast with the
other geo-engineering solutions.
NO SOLUTION SCORES HIGH ON ALL CRITERIA
The Financial Times article ranks all geo-engineering solutions according to four criteria: effectiveness,
affordability, timeliness, and safety (risk). Most solutions score poorly on the first two criteria. An exception is
the use of stratospheric sulphur aerosols, but that is considered to be a solution with high risk. CCS scores high
on safety and timeliness, but only in the medium range when it comes to affordability and effectiveness.
NO EASY WAY OUT
The bottom line is that we still do not know enough about the geo-engineering solutions to judge them
thoroughly. However at present, it seems very unlikely that they will offer us an easy way out of the climate
change problem.
Instead of the logic expressed in the first sentence of this article, there is perhaps another kind of logic that
prevails here, namely the one expressed in the famous Albert Einstein quote: ‘The significant problems we face
cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them’.
REFERENCE
Page 78 of 80
http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2009/09/02/the-sobering-news-about-geoengineering/
ENERGY LINKAGES
MICRO-GARDENING OR SOLAR ELECTRICITY?
WHAT IS THE BEST USE OF SMALL PLOTS OF URBAN LAND?
Gardening is presently a hot topic in many metropolitan areas around the world. Small open spaces — from
rooftops and patios to unused parking spaces and disused building sites — are actively being turned into
vegetable, herb, and decorative gardens. Terms like ‘square meter gardening,’ ‘parking space gardening,’ and
‘micro-gardening’ seem to be blooming everywhere. Self-styled ‘guerrilla gardeners’ even occupy public and
private strips of land to plant their greenery and vegetables.
The advantages of small city gardens are obvious: they bring more green into the city, it is a pleasurable
pastime for many individuals, and often provides a cheap source of produce. It is surprising in fact how much
food a small urban garden can produce. Proponents argue that a single 30m 2 piece of land is enough to feed
one person for one year. In Singapore, for example, one quarter of all of the vegetables consumed are
products of inner-city gardens.
Now suppose you are living in a large city and take the decision to stop using a privately owned vehicle and
rely instead upon a shared car, public transport, or bicycling. Assuming you had off-street parking, what is the
best use of your former parking space: gardening or solar electricity?
If your point of view is more heavily oriented towards aesthetics and leisure activities, then the garden will
probably be your preferred option. But what is the economic and ecological balance between these two
options?
THE ENERGY BALANCE
One square meter of land in a middle European city such as Paris, London, or Brussels receives approximately
1,000 kWh of solar energy per year (1). A garden can transform about 2% of this energy into food energy (20
kWh/m2/year). Photovoltaic (PV) panels typically have an efficiency of around 10% for turning that same level
of sunlight into electrical energy. If half of the surface of the parking space is filled with PV panels, the yield will
be approximately 50 kWh/m2/year. Consequently, from an energy and climate change point of view, the
balance is in favour of solar electricity.
THE ECONOMIC BALANCE
What about the economic balance however? Suppose PV panels do produce 50 kWh per m 2 per year, which is
the equivalent of 4 kWh per m2 per day. With an electricity price of €0.25/kWh and €0.15/kWh in government
incentives, a 30m2 piece of land will yield €1.60 per day of solar electricity. From this figure, we still have to
deduct the investment cost of the PV panels. Suppose a cost of €1,000/m2, of which 30% is regained by tax
credits, and further suppose a life span of 40 years. This results in an investment cost of €700/40/365 =
€0.048/m2/day. The net yield of the solar panels will be €1.55 per day.
This 30m2 is exactly the surface area required to produce a year’s supply of food for one person. If this food
had come from a typical vegetable vendor, that would cost you an average of €15 per week, or €2.14 per day.
Page 79 of 80
This conclusion corresponds with calculations made by the Belgian business newspaper De Tijd concluding that
a 40m2 garden yields €920 of vegetables per year (2). It follows from these figures that from an economic
standpoint, a vegetable garden is a better choice than PV panels on the same piece of land. That assumes, of
course, that the labour for maintaining the garden is not charged and the cost of seeds, fertilizer, and soil
conditioners is minimal.
SAVING ON TRANSPORT ENERGY
There is also another line of reasoning that can be followed. We need both food and electricity anyhow, so the
question is rather which product of these two choices is most reasonably produced locally. In other words,
which requires the least energy for transport?
Suppose you have a 30m2 plot of land. PV cells could produce about 50 kWh/m2/y * 30 m2 = 1,500 kWh/y on
this surface. If we take into account the average grid losses of 7%, the annual energy savings by producing the
electricity locally are 1,500 * 0.07 = 105 kWh.
How much transport energy do you save when you opt for growing vegetables on this 30m2 garden? The
average food product in the US travels 1,500 miles or 2,400 kilometres (3). The energy consumption for goods
travel is 0.65 MJoule/ton/km for cargo ships and 0.69 MJoule/ton/km for a heavy-duty truck (4). Suppose food
travels half the way by ship and half by truck, that results in an average energy consumption of (0.43
MJ/ton/km)/(3.6 MJ/kWh) = 0.12 kWh/ton/km. An average person in the US eats 250 kg food per year (5),
resulting in an annual transport energy of 0.25 ton * 2,400 km * 0.12 kWh/ton/km = 72 kWh. Conclusion: you
save more transport energy by producing solar electricity than by growing vegetables.
A final question regarding growing vegetables in city environments: to what extent will their nutritional and
health –giving benefits be affected by the high concentrations of pollutants typical of metropolitan air quality?
REFERENCES
(1) Solar Electricity Handbook: http://solarelectricityhandbook.com/solar-irradiance.html
(2) Netto / De Tijd:
http://netto.tijd.be/budget_en_vrije_tijd/budget/Eigen_moestuin_levert_920_euro_op.7489544
-2214.art
(3) http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/energy/
(4) Kristensen, H.O., CARGO TRANSPORT BY SEA AND ROAD — TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS, MARINE TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 39, No.4, October 2002, pp. 239–249
(5) http://ambio.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1639%2F00447447(2000)029[0098%3AECITFC]2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1
Page 80 of 80