Renewable Energy Now

Will Solar Electric Systems Hurt Utilities?

2007-02-26T21:16:00.000-06:00

I found this comment from a recent newspaper article interesting (source)

"Needless to say, electricity utilities are watching the solar revolution with horror. Companies in Japan and Germany have already seen an erosion of profits because of an effect known "peak shaving". In essence, the peak wattage of solar cells overlaps with hours of peak demand and peak prices for electricity in the middle of the day, crunching margins."

I believe the article. But as I write in my last posting - I forecast that space and water heating will be increasingly electric (hopefully using heat pumps), and transportation will be increasingly electric (using plug in vehicles and electric mass transit). So in general, we will be seeing electricfication and movement away from oil and natural gas. Thus I see electric utility's market/sales continuing to grow.

We are starting to see utilities wanting to own wind farms here in Wisconsin (rather than signing a power purchase agreement with a third party wind farm owner). A trend that suggests utilities are starting to get renewables. Perhaps utilities (or their non-regulated utility entities) will get solar electric systems one day and own solar electric systems on their customer's sites. That could be a great growth area for utilities.

If solar becomes common - the utilities peak will move away from the mid-day hours towards evenings, and towards cloudy winter days. Either a dispatchable power source will be needed (biomass plants?) and/or the batteries in plug in cars and other devices could be used to store power for periods of hours and a few days (given we have a smart grid).

So don't worry utilities - solar will not put you out of business, nor will carbon taxes, increases in natural gas prices, or more efficient homes. You will only need to get smarter - and let more happen at your customer's sites (generation, storage, load shifting, etc.)

The Futre of Energy - A forecast

2007-02-23T22:23:00.000-06:00

Oil and Gas
1. North America is running out
2. We will import it at increasing prices
3. Resulting in huge trade deficits, all kinds of bad geopolitics...
4. Oil sands are but a drop in the bucket (oil shales not worth the effort)
5. Then the world will run out (could be some very rough times)

Coal
1. Lots of it around - but harder and more expensive to get at
2. Climate change/carbon trading (climate change will occur faster than they think)
3. Cheapest way of sequestering carbon will be to leave coal in the ground

Good Farmland
1. The basis of wealth in the sustainable future
2. Will increase in value
3. Grows food
4. Grows energy (sugars, oils and cellulose)
5. Plant wind turbines
6. But with less and less petroleum based chemicals and fertilizers productivity will decline

Heating
1. Goes from natural gas and propane
2. To solar thermal, passive solar design and electric heat pumps
3. With increased efficiency (and smaller buildings)
4. Rural areas use more biomass/wood stoves (including grass pellets)

Transportation
1. Goes electric
2. Goes rail
3. Plug in hybrid biofuel cars
4. Biofuels for longer travel and electricity for short trips
5. Smaller vehicles and less travel
6. Gets expensive (see the world while it is still cheap)
7. Rich will drive (while the poor starve)

Power Generation
1. Natural gas too expensive for power generation
2. Coal with carbon taxes declines
3. Wind farms move off shore and into the big windy areas (with beefed up transmission networks)
4. For about a decade or two nuclear returns (a transition fuel)
5. Solar electric farms in the southwest
6. Solar electric standard on commercial buildings and homes
7. Solutions found for large-scale electricity storage

Big general trends
1. Energy goes electric (from cars to space and water heating)
2. Solar electric, and solar thermal are huge
3. We will live smaller (homes, cars, refrigerators...)
4. Energy efficiency is huge and implemented through legislation5. We will live more locally (food, travel, work from home...)
5. Eventually the county with the best farm land (that is well above sealevel) per capita will do best (Canada or the US perhaps?)

Solar Electric Boom - Applied Materials

2007-02-22T22:33:00.000-06:00

Finally US investors are beginning to understand that solar power has a future. Remeber in April 2006, when I wrote here that I envisioned and Clean Energy Wave. Well I believe it is well underway.

Solar Electric stocks traded in the US have leapt in value over the last months. Take a look at these: First Solar (FSLR), Trina Solar (TSL), SunTech Power (STP) and SunPower (SPWR). I am an investor in STP and SPWR. I was not agile enough to get in on FSLR and TSL - and they are up about 80% in a month. Of course this cannot be sustained.

It is interesting that this surge occured just after Pres. Bush's mention of climate change in his state of the union address and the release of the IPCC report on climate change. I believe they are related.

OK, let's not pay so much attention to stock prices. Lets talk about the future of solar power. (It is gonna be huge - most people have no idea.) The future of solar power is all about reducing its cost per watt. And I mean significantly. While maintaining quality and hopefully 25-year module warrantees.

TSL and STP are in China and currently make fairly conventional crystalline silicon low-cost good-quality modules. To significantly reduce module prices they will need to significantly change how they make panels.

SPWR has their main factory in the Philippines and makes a complex crystalline silicon module with the highest efficiency of any module on the market (close to 20%). It is not a cheap panel. However the complexity of their panel shows (e.g., wire pickup on the backs of the modules) that they have both technical and manufacturing savvy. They may be better positioned than TSL and STP to make the technical leaps need to significantly reduce modules costs. (Q: But what do I really know? A: Not much.)

FSLR makes their modules out of Cadmium Telluride, which are rare 0r poisonous metals. However their cost is really low. I read somewhere, (Photon International magazine perhaps) that there manufacturing cost is under $1.60 per watt. FLSR’s conversion efficiency is also much lower than a crystalline module, around 10%. I did not buy the stock because I know nothing about this type of module. It has been on the market of less then five years. I do not envision a huge market for it (afterall telluride is rare) and they will be all on their own when it comes to R&D and improving their manufacturing process.

Now let me throw out my current favorite "solar" stock. They will not make panels but the assembly lines that make the panels. With their assembly lines any firm with money and the ability to run a large plant will be able to make either thin film or crystalline panels. The firm is Applied Materials (AMAT).

AMAT has a market capitalization of over $25 billion, sales of about $10 billion per year, and has been around for 40 years. AMAT "engages in the development, manufacture, marketing, and service of fabrication equipment for the semiconductor and semiconductor-related industries worldwide." Google "AMAT, Solar and Piper Jaffray" – to hear their recent, Feb 21, solar presentation.

They have already sold solar equipment to Q Cells of Germany, Nanosolar (a VC start up) of California and SunPower of California (source). AMAT is forecasting $500 million in solar sales by 2010. Their first generation thinfilm machine makes a large sized panels (the size of garage doors) with about 10.5% efficiency.

As far as I know, AMAT is the largest firm to step into the solar market in a serious manner. Here are some recent quotes from the media (source):

"Mike Splinter, chief executive of the US semiconductor group Applied Materials, told me his company is two years away from a solar product that reaches the magic level of $1 a watt."

"Cell conversion efficiency and economies of scale are galloping ahead so fast that the cost will be down to 70 US cents by 2010, with target of 30 or 40 cents in a decade.” We think solar power can provide 20pc of all the incremental energy needed worldwide by 2040," he said."

"Applied Materials is betting on both of the two rival solar technologies: thin film panels best used where there is plenty of room and the traditional crystalline (c-Si) wafer-based cells, which are not as cheap but produce a higher yield - better for tight spaces."

They also forecast using 7 grams of silicon for their crystalline panels. And "By 2010, crystalline silicon solar cells will sell for about $1.25 to $1.50 per watt, while thin-film solar cells will sell for 90 cents to $1.30 per watt. The thin-film cells, however, will be less efficient." (Source ) Note, they are talking "cells" in that last quote, and cells have to be assembled into modules or panels.

So today I purchased some AMAT stock.

Yes, at first solar will be a very small share of AMAT's business and their chip business may continue to falter. But with their business expertise, financial resources, and engineering might, I foresee that they will rapidly grow into and take leadership of the solar cell production line market place.

The question is, could the relatively small firms that purchase AMAT equipment do better than AMAT? The answer is probably yes.

Exreme Energy Efficiency

2007-01-26T20:51:00.000-06:00

So what are some of the extreme things I do in the name of: Energy Efficiency. (Ok, some maybe nutty and or stupid.) We renewable energy folks always say "Energy Efficiency First" So here goes.

1. I rarely heat my home over 62 degrees. To stay warm I wear, undershirts, vests, wool socks and house shoes. Why over heat all 10,000 cubic feet of my home when only about 6 cubic feet (i.e. my body) needs to stay warm? At night my thermostat is set at about 52 degrees. I love sleeping cold under a warm down comforter (Mine is from Wisconsin's Company Store). Yes, if I had a partner, I would be fine turning up the heat.

2. My eight-year old son turns off lights when he leaves a room

3. I line up the items I want to place in the refrigerator beside the refrigerator - and then open the door part way and quickly put everything away

4. I wait until food cools off before I put it in the refrigerator

5. During the home heating season, I leave the hot dishwater in the sink until it cools off (yup, I do it with shower water too).

6. I used my clothes dryer once in the last 20 months (actually my German aunt used it). See right, I line dry instead

7. My outside doors are so well weatherstripped that my son has to work at opening them

8. I have a masonry house (i.e., rock walls (i.e., terrible r-value (i.e., no insulation))), but it is a beautiful 1100 square foot brick house. So I made my small bedroom even smaller - by studding out the walls, insulating, doing the electric, drywalling, etc.

9. I have some really cool fans (including a whole house fan) to keep me cool in the Summer. I got the floor fan in the picture from the University of Wisconsin's property disposal folks for $1. It was in the winter and my now ex-wife thought I was nuts. It is very 60ties and I dig it (can also be used as an ottoman)

10. Oh yeah, I grow a lot of my own food

If you have some good (or stupid) energy efficiency items - share them in the comments section (yeah, I know it is a pain to sign up.)

Icicles on the Roof - Equals a Poorly Insulated Home

2007-01-24T21:17:00.000-06:00

I live in a neighborhood of very similar 1950's era Cape Cod homes. For the last year I have been watching how snow and frost melts off my roof to determine where my heat losses are. My roof is now looking pretty good. But some neighbor's homes are not.

I took these pictures yesterday morning, two days after a five inch snow fall. Temperatures have not been above freezing since. Many older homes are "cooking" the snow off their roofs and making icicles and ice dams.

Remember these are Cape Cod homes. In a Cape Cod the second floor rooms are built under the roof. They have a:
1. lower vertical wall, called the knee wall (with a craw space between the knee wall and the roof),
2. an upper angled wall (angled at the same pitch as the roof) and
3. a flat ceiling (with a small true attic above it).

The home in the first picture has a warm attic. Most likely, there is not enough insulation above the flat ceiling in the attic area. Note, the large beautiful icicles.
The second Cape Cod does not have enough insulation between the angled upper wall and the roof. This is common because the space is typically only six inches wide and also should allow air flow between the crawl space and the attic. Sadly this is not easy to fix (everything else that I mention here is relatively easy to fix). Meanwhile the attic looks pretty well insulated.

This house looks pretty good. But note the one area where the snow is melting just to the right of the chimney. In a Cape Cod the crawl space is often used for storage, either by building shelving units into the crawl space or by putting little entry hatches in the knee wall that allow people to store "stuff" in the crawlspace. If either the built-in storage units or the entry hatches are not air tight they will leak warm air and cause snow melt above them.

Also, note in the third picture that snow is melting from around the chimney. This means that inside-the-home air is running up the chimney chase and melting snow around the chimney.

Heat rises. So warm air is pressing against a Cape Cod's second floor ceiling with more "pressure" than anywhere else in the home. The ceiling and the walls need to be air tight.

All these houses were built in about 1950. It could be that for those fifty years they would have been 20% more efficient with better insulated and tighter second floor areas. That 20% heat losses would have heated the homes for about 10 years.

So look at your roof, after a snow or a frost, and see how it is doing. If you have icicles or is melting some areas before others it probably needs work and is wasting you money and wasting the planet's natural gas.

To get a better idea where the air leaks are, get a blower door test. In Wisconsin contact Focus on Energy to line one up (www.focusonenergy.com).

This is something real that you can do to reduce global warming and your energy bill. And everyone that lives in your house in the future will benefit as well.

Bush's Words: Music to My Ears - OK a few notes

2007-01-23T21:27:00.000-06:00

Alternative energy technologies.."will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change."

Our president in tonight's State of the Union speech: called global climate change a SERIOUS challenge. Give up all you nay sayers of global climate change (also known by its scarier name "global warming"). Give it up Mr. Exxon, you too Mrs. Peabody Coal.

The writing is on the wall... there will be a national carbon tax of one type or another soon. Mr. Exxon and Mrs. Peabody and boy Ford... you better start rethinking how you do business.

Other musical notes included this: "We must continue changing the way America generates electric power - by even greater use of clean coal technology ... solar and wind energy ... and clean, safe nuclear power.

Ok, well two of the notes were sour: "clean coal" (an oxymoron) and "clean, safe nuclear power" (that is a double oxymoron?). At least he didn't call nuclear power “renewable” as the president has in the past (thank you Mr. Speech Writer).

But he mentioned "wind and solar energy"! That is music to my ears.

Who opened our President's eyes to solar power? Why none other than Stanford R. Ovshinsky - genius, old guy, hero of many, and founder of UniSolar (a.k.a. Energy Conversion Devices or Ovonics ECD). Rumor is that President Bush met with him about a year ago at UniSolar's Michigan solar plant, and Stanley told him about solar electric systems and how they could be on the roof of a home and generate its power needs. Bush loved it and he has spoken about it since. That was a home run, Mr. Ovshinsky, Thank you.

Sadly, President Bush did not say: it is time we put a limit on the amount of carbon dioxide the US emits. But hey, he has come a long way. Remember last year he announced that we are "addicted to oil". Maybe next year he'll admit that we need to do something serious about climate change.

Back of the Envelop Calculations and Comments: CitizenRe

2007-01-10T11:32:00.000-06:00

Here is what I can understand of their basic business model
CitizenRe owns the system
Home owners pays monthly “based” on currently billing rate and systems production
For 25 years

Lets look at the economics.

Example Best Case Scenario
System cost per kilowatt
Anyone that is selling systems today must use today’s prices. This cost estimate is lower than anyone can get, for a small system, while covering their costs:
Panels: $4,000/kW
Inverter: $700/kW
Balance of System: $500/kW
Rack: $325/kW
Tax: $260/kW
Labor: $650/kW
Shipping: $65/kW
Additional payments to CitizenRe field staff etc: ~$250/kW
Total cost: $6750/kW

Let’s assume CitizenRe’s Corporate costs for are ZERO!
Marketing: $0/ kW
Contracts and Administration over 25 years: $0/kW
PV System data collection and billing over 25 years: $0/kW
PV system maintenance over 25 years: $0/kW
Cost of money over 25 years: $0/kW
My guess is that these costs equal the system’s cost.

If Citizen’s RE owns the system they get:
30% federal tax credit on installed cost of the system: $2025/kW of system
Accelerated depreciation over the first five years of systems cost
Assuming they are at a 35% tax bracket: $2010/kW
System cost after Federal tax credits: $2715/kW

Payments to CitizenRe: Madison Gas and Electric customers
According to their own calculator MGE power is: 11.7 cents/kWh
A one kW fixed mounted system in the full sun with no snow cover will generate about: 1250 kWh/year
So customer payments would be $146.25/year or $3,656 over 25 years

CitizenRe Return on Investment: MGE Customers
Based on all my assumptions (Zero CitizenRe corporate costs), CitizenRe would make a profit of about $940/kW over 25 years on an investment of $2715
That is a 35% return over 25 years, or less than 2% return per year

Payments to CitizenRe: North Dakota Ottertail Customers
According to their own calculator Ottertail’s power is: 7.2 cents/kWh
A one kW fixed mounted system in the full sun with no snow cover will generate about: 1350 kWh/year in ND
So customer payments would be $97.20/year or $2430 over 25 years

CitizenRe Return on Investment: Ottertail customers
Based on all my assumptions (Zero CitizenRe corporate costs), CitizenRe would lose about $285/kW over 25 years on an investment of $2715

Summary: When evaluating a business plan venture capital investors are looking for returns of 1000% over a three to seven years. CitizenRe does not look like a workable business model.

Second set of Comments

CitizenRe notes that they need a 7 cent/kWh net metered rate to break even. At the noted 7 cents/kWh for 25 years in Wisconsin – the customer would pay $2,1875 to CitizenRe per kW of system assuming a discount rate of zero.

If we assume a discount rate of 8% the customer's payments are worth $970/kW over 25 years. So simply the time value of money reduces their net income, be it from kWh or REC sales, by about 65% over the 25 years!!

Regarding CitizenRe’s claims of vertical integration: Check out Conergy - they have economics of scale and vertical integration today http://www.conergy.de/en/PortalData/2/Resources//investor_relations/pdf/CGY_CompanyPres_HVB_9-06.pdf see slide six, etc. It does not reduce system cost by 50%

Regarding CitizenRe’s claims of plug and play: Maybe "plug and play" could work on a row of identical homes as they are being built in a new sub-division, with the same roof exposure and all the homes getting solar at the same time (that is what CA's new PV program is about).

Talk to any installer about putting PV on existing homes - about plug and play - and they will laugh at you. Just about every system is different, no mater how hard they try to sell similar systems.

Installers would also laugh about a CitizenRe’s claimed 4 to 6 hour installation time (for a 2 kW system). That would about cover travel and being there for the utility interconnection testing.

Regarding their claim of reducing the production cost of modules and passing it on to consumers. Any business that sells modules, sells them at the market price. If you are a low cost producer, say SunTech Power, you sell them at roughly the same price as all the other producers, but you make a lot more profit.

Once you are able to do that, your stock prices goes nuts, and the owners, stock holders and venture capital investors all make a killing (again see SunTech Power). The CEO of SunTech Power is now the richest man in China.

CitizenRe's 1000 MW module production facility is only words - in other words hype. If they really had something they would go the way of SunTech Power (go the IPO route to make a quick killing) or NanoSolar (Use venture capital funding and stay private). Also, where is their silicon supply contract for the production facility, where are their investors, where will it be located (note, low cost production is in Asia), etc?

Why offer they same deal cross the country when some people net meter at 40 cents/kWh and other 5 cents/kWh? And when there are different amounts of sunshine and state incentives, etc. This makes no business sense. Instead it makes business sense to go where the best opportunity is (see SunEdison, whose is in CA, NJ etc., and on commercial buildings.)

If CitizenRe argues efficiency of scale why go on residential homes? Boring flat commercial roof are much easier, larger, more common, sunnier, etc.?

CitizenRe claims significant income from Renewable Energy Credit (REC) sales. Today, there is no solar REC market in most of the US, so I have no idea what their value would be. I do know that some utilities in the country would say that because they provided net metering they should own the RECs (some incentive programs want to own the RECs too). This would need to be determined for all they states CitzenRe work's in before their business model is complete.

Investors/banks... have no interest in any business models that takes 25 years to cover costs.

That is about all I have to say about CitizenRe.
These are my opinions only.

Passive Solar in the Northern Tier

2006-11-03T19:16:00.000-06:00

Recently, an email discussion group that I moderate and prod here in Wisconsin had a raucous discussion on Passive Solar.

Passive solar homes seem to be getting some interest again. But the examples are always in the sunny-winter parts of the country.. not cloudy-winter parts of the country. That gets my ire up. Also, the general public think - "ahh, passive solar how cool, I will use it to heat my home" (with no other heat source). Up goes my ire again.

So after our raucous discussion here is what we came up with. First, passive solar will only met about 20% to 30% of a home's space heating needs. Second, a passive solar house needs to be "super insulated." (Yes, it is time to use that 7-'s phrase again.) But this time that super insulated home needs to have (third) a mechanical ducted fresh air ventilation system (with a air to air heat exchanger).

Oh yeah, and for passive to work, your need either really good, high R-value windows or really good window shades that are used religiously. And the windows need to have a high solar heat gain coefficient

And to quote one discussion group member:
"Thermotech, a Canadian window, is the only one I know that uses Libby Owens Ford Energy Advantage II hard coat low-e, U-0.3, SHGC 0.49 (whole window). So, with 100sf of south glazing here, a house would have a net gain of 4 MMBtu/yr."
and
"5-9% of floor area in south facing glass is an inexpensive way to get 20-25% of heat energy needs. On a 2,500sf house, that's 175sf, an ordinary looking amount of window."
The Germans have basically figured this out. They call it the "Passive House" they dropped the "Solar" (we should too). Google them; they are online.

Their passive house is built with whatever thermal shell that is needed to reduce the building's heating load to 10-watts/square meter. A house built to this standard in Northern Minnesota has R-70 walls and a R-100 ceiling with German made triple pane windows.

The German's passive house ends up meeting it space heating needs with 1/3 passive solar, 1/3 internal heat gain (people, appliances, cooking etc.), and 1/3 some heating source (they seem to dig pellet stoves). But the heating load is a small fraction of the average home - thanks to all the insulation.
So what we need now are decent high R-value and reasonably priced windows that allow the sun's warmth to enter a building. Time for some market transformation.

Recent Solar Electric Developments

2006-11-03T05:22:00.000-06:00

Suggesting that solar electric modules have a huge cost reduction potential

1) SunPower - this firm is the cutting edge on crystalline modules. A few reasons include:

The SunPower SPR 315, 315 watt module with 19.3% efficiency. The high module efficiency results in an area requirement of 55 ft2 per kW of modules. It also means lower installation costs - as fewer modules, less racking, and fewer connections are needed per kW. (The Kyocera D-blue panels require about 85 ft2 per kW of modules.)
While increasing cell efficiency, they are also making the silicon wafers thinner and thinnner, from 325 micons (industry norm) in 2002 to 200 micorns today. The net result of improving efficincy and reducing cell thickness is that instead of using 15 grams of silicon per watt, they now use 7.5 grams per watt of cell. (Note thin film producer, UniSolar, uses about 6 grams silicon per watt)
The SunPower CEO stated that there remains vast potential to improve cell efficiency, reduce silicon use and reduce cost. Forecasts of wafer thickness projects 120 micron cells by 2012.
SunPower is using new cell designs to boost module efficiency (I saw a diagram of their cells somewhere on the web but was unable to find it). For example, by putting the electron pickup wires on the back of the cells and interweaving n and p type silicon on the back of the module. Wires ont he back reduces shading (and, yes, improving efficiency) while making them better looking.

2) Applied Materials (AMAT) enters the solar cell manufacturing business. They make the machines that make large flat screen TV's - where evey pixel has to work. AMAT is a huge company with a capitalization of over $25 billion. I believe that they will be in the thick of the world wide revolution of the solar cell manufacturing process. That revolution will dramatically reduce the cost per watt of cells. AMAT's enterance into the marker helps assure that we see radical new cell designs sooner rather than later.

3) Sanyo Bifacial solar module. As far as I know they are the first to combine crystalline and thinfilm photovoltaic materials in one cell. This trend, of layering different photovoltaic materials that respond to different wavelenghts of radiation (or materials with different bandgaps) is the path to higer efficiency cells.

The Sanyo bifacial panels produce power from both sides and thus have two "front" sides. As a result its efficiency is dependent on the incident light on both sides.

Summary: I am convinced that we will see solar prices per watt fall more rapidly than we have historically (Historically, the market saw about a 20% cost reduction will every doubling of cell production). With these new developments (and the cost of other energy resources increase) we will see solar electric systems take over the world's rooftops.

Forecasts: Solar will be cost effective in much of the world in the next seven years. Both demand and production will increase very rapidly. When demand outpaces production by too much, prices will increase, technical innovation will be pushed even harder, and the market will continue to grow. This is a boom market and will be so for decades.

The Big Question: Will solar electric beat out nuclear? The answer will depend on developments in electricity storage.

Stock pick: At the moment my favorite is SunPower - they seem to be constantly innovating - and now define cutting edge. But can they keep it up? What has Evergreen, UniSolar or the others really done in the last year or so. The companies that constantly innovate will win this race.

Energy is Cheap - futher reflections on the cost of energy

2006-10-30T22:26:00.000-06:00

This was originally published in Dane County's Sustainable Times newspaper in September 2006.

So what is the difference between me pushing my Honda Civic from Middleton Wisconsin to Mount Horeb Wisconsin and back (abougt 36 miles), and driving it at 65 miles per hour? Less than one gallon of gasoline. How much would I have to pay you to push my car to Mout Horeb and back? Much more than the cost of a gallon of gasoline. Maybe $1500 split among you and two friends.

As a measuring stick lets look at Floyd Landis’ energy output at the Tour de France. On his record breaking day (for which he was charged with doping) he rode 125 miles at 23 miles an hour. His total output during 5.3 hours of riding: about 1.5 kilowatt hours (kWh).

Madison Gas and Electric residential customers pay about 13 cents per kilowatt hour for their electricity during the peak of the summer. So the value of Floyd’s energy output is less than 20 cents. And that is for an amazingly hard day’s work.

The average daily household electricity consumption in Wisconsin is about 25 kilowatt hours. That would be equal to Floyd riding over 2000 miles for us per day.

If Floyd rides at that 125 mile Tour De France race every day of the year his energy output could either meet the electricity needs of the average home for about twenty days (about 500 kWh), or drive my Honda Civic about 2500 miles (about 55 gallons of gasoline). That effort would be worth $65 of electricity or $165 of gasoline. Meanwhile those corporate sponsors were going to pay him millions.

Most of us do not realize what amazing feats our society has managed with our amazingly cheap energy. What will we do once this cheap fossil energy is gone?

One more story. Last week I was driving down the highway at a respectable, and not very energy efficient, 75 miles per hour. Looming behind and gaining on me, was a huge Ford F350 pickup pulling a gigantic fishing boat. (That fishing boat will never go 75 miles an hour on the water, but it can on the highway.) Assuming they are getting ten miles per gallon it would take 270 Floyds to equal that F350’s gasoline use.

In the next generation oil and natural gas will be running out, and they will get more expensive. How much will you be willing to pay for energy?

Consider solar energy. It actually is not expensive when you realize the true value of energy. If my solar electric system lasts 20 years (it should last 40 to 50 years), my solar power costs 33 cents/kWh. That makes Floyd's effort worth about 50 cents of solar electric power. Still really really cheap.

At the Hybrid Car fest, in Madison, I learned that one kWh of power will propel a Prius about five miles. On a sunny day my little 1.25 kilowatt solar electric system makes enough power to drive a Prius (or Tesla) about 30 miles. That is about three times my average daily commute.

The Future of Coal

2006-10-30T21:37:00.000-06:00

These comments are based partly on Vinod Khosla's presentation at the Solar Power 2006 conference in San Jose, California, Oct 2006, (as well as other sources).

Almost 150 new coal fired power are planned for the US. Some feel that much of this is driven by the utility sector's desire to build plants before carbon trading becomes law. Remember, coal meets about 70% of Wisconsin's and the USA's electricity needs.

Here is the definition from the Wikipeda:
"Emissions trading (or cap and trade) is an administrativie approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. In such a plan, a central authority sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups that emit the pollutant are given credits or allowances which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that pollute beyond their allowances must buy credits from those who pollute less than their allowances. This transfer is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is being fined for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions. The more firms that need to buy credits, the higher the price of credits becomes -- which makes reducing emissions cost-effective in comparison."

Carbon trading is already happening in Europe and legislation has passed in seven North East States and California. Trading on the east coast market will start in 2009 and in the Californian market trading will be fully implemented in 2012.

In Europe carbon dioxide has been trading for about $20 per ton. Every ton of coal fired releases about three tons of carbon dioxide (C becomes CO2). Any new coal generation above the carbon emission "cap" would have to pay about $60 for every ton of coal fired (today).

In the US coal currently costs about $30 per ton at the mine mouth (which is commonly located in the powder river basin of Montana). Here in, Wisconsin it costs about $60 per ton of coal - once all the other costs are added (mostly transportation (70% of the US's rail traffic is coal)). So the cost of the carbon emissions would about double the cost of coal in states like Wisconsin (today). Khosla says carbon trading will increase coal generated power prices by three to six times!

We often hear that the US has a 200-year supply of coal. What we do not hear is that the first coal to be mined is the easy cheap coal. We also do not hear that the 200 years is based on current consumption.

The U.S. Geological survey, according to Vinod Khosla, reported that only 17% of the US coal resource could be mined without significant increases in production cost. With all the new coal power plants that coal would last ten years. After that the cost of coal mining will increase quickly.

Coal is dirty fuel and a serious source of carbon doixide. If we think that global climate change has even a small chance of occuring than the world must reduce coal firing (the Chinese are very busy building coal fired power plants as well).

In Wisconsin, people purchase a home insurance policy primarily to cover major events, such as the home burning down. These major events have a probability of less than one in a hundred of occurring. Is the likelihood of global climate change greater than one in a hundred?

In Britian a report on global climate change was released today. Two quotes: "failure to tackle climate change could push world temperatures up by 5 degrees Celsius (9 Fahrenheit) over the next century, causing severe floods and harsh droughts and uprooting as many as 200 million people" and "Failure to act could plunge the world into an economic crisis on a par with the 1930s Depression..."

Vinod Khosla recommends (that like farmers) we pay coal miner not to mine coal. It may be one of the cheapest ways available to society to "sequester" fossil carbon.

Solar Power 2006 Conference

2006-10-30T21:18:00.000-06:00

I am one of the lucky 8000 people that witnessed the birth of solar energy market in the US. It occurred in San Jose, California at the Solar Power 2006 Conference in October.

Thanks you U.S. DOE for sending me! Note, I run what used to be called the Wisconsin Million Solar Roofs Initiative.

Information about the conference can be found here:
http://www.solarpowerconference.com/
I particularly recommend the webcasts of the Keynote speakers
http://tvworldwide.com/events/eqtv/061016/
check out Vinod Khosla

The conference had about 1500 attendees in 2005 and over 7000 this year.

Something happened in those 12 months. It is called the rebirth of the solar market place in perhaps the best of all places in the world for it: silicon valley California. In Silicon Valley they know silicon, they know venture capital, they know how to create new businesses, they know engineering and perhaps most importantly they know how to draw together the best minds in the world to meet technical challenges.

And the man behind it all - happens to be the "Governator". Yes, Arnold Schwarzenegger. He kicked started it all by creating a three billion dollar incentive program for solar electric systems.

I believe the Governator's investments in solar, green technologies in general and passage of California's carbon trading law, will be an economic boon to California. California now has a energy climate that the world will be forced to face in a few years. In those few years California's businesses will get a jump on most everyone else (like those of us here in Wisconsin).

Attendees of the Solar Power 2006 Conference tended to look like business people, including many bankers, and included large contingents from Germany, China and Japan. This is unlike the attendees of any other solar conference that I have attended over the last eight years: where the attendees tended to be older, more academic, and depressed that nothing was happening.

How to Buy More Sustainably

2006-08-01T20:21:00.000-05:00

Note a version of this will be published in Dane County's Sustainable Times Newspaper. The authors are myself and my friend Mark Daugherty.

Conventional economics is not structured to guide our society to make the proper choices. It was developed when human activity was a small part of the total ecosphere. It places no value on maintaining the health of the plant on which we depend for survival.

Conventional economics does not consider global climate change. Much of the US is under drought conditions. Soon another hurricane season will be upon us. Large portions of North America forest are on fire. Climate change is transforming where and if plants and animals can live. The Gulf Stream is being pushed down into the ocean by a layer of fresh water coming off the melting Greenland icecap.

Conventional economics does not consider our rapid consumption of the earth’s treasury of mineral resources and fossil energy. The recent doubling of gasoline prices has not turned the behemoth global economy toward using less gasoline or toward sustainability. Instead gasoline use continues to increase.

We have created a lifestyle dependent on cheap mineral and energy resources. A life style that is dependent on imports of energy, food and products from the other side of the world, from often politically unstable portions of the world. A lifestyle where a neighborhood, city or state can no longer survive on its own. A lifestyle that has plunged all American’s deep into debt.

Individuals, governments and businesses of the world must begin making choices based on sustainability rather than economics.

To make your own or your businesses purchases more sustainable, here ten questions to ask:
1. Will it be thoroughly used? Perhaps you do not really need it.
2. Could you borrow or get a used one instead?
3. Was it made or produced by someone in your community?
4. Will it last long? If not can it be reused, recycled or composted?
5. Is it maintenance free or low maintenance? If not can you or someone in your community easily fix it?
6. Does its production, operation, maintenance and recycling keep air, water, and land clean?
7. Could you get a smaller one?
8. Does it bring joy to those who made, sold, used, and recycled it?
9. Does it require a lot of space?
10. Does it support the strengthening of your community

A few purchases are relatively easy from a sustainable standpoint: such as locally grown- food or locally-brewed beer. Others are much more difficult: such as a new car. Subjecting your purchases to these questions will show you how far we have to go to get to real sustainability.

We have been trying to ask ourselves these ten questions during our recent purchases. It is hard. The ten questions are beginning to change how we purchase goods. But it will take some time.

If you ask yourself these ten questions, you will purchase less… and then you can work less – which is good for the environment.

Thoughts on Energy and Climate

2006-07-30T22:05:00.000-05:00

1. In mid June I was bitten in the shoulder by a brown recluse spider (do a google image search on "brown recluse" - I faired much better than the photos show). I was on antibiotics for three weeks, for days my arm felt like it would drop off, it was not fun. The brown recluse is not supposed to live here in Southern WI. Yet with climate change it may now.

Soon we will be able to grow fine French wine grapes here too. Meanwhile polar bears are left without ice and can no longer get to their seal hunting grounds.

2. Madison and much of America and Europe is in a major heat wave. Much of the country, including Wisconsin, is in drought. Friends from Spain mentioned Spain is on its third year of drought. Madison isn't. We just had five inches of rain on Thursday - cars were almost floating away. Kids were canoeing in the streets.

3. So far I have not used my air conditioning (all I have is one window unit - it is still in the basement). Instead I am opening windows in the evening, putting fans in two windows - pushing air into my home, and running my undersized whole house fan (or maybe my attic is poorly vented?).

Then in the morning I close up the house, turn off all fans and drop the shades on all windows that get sunlight. It has been working well.

I begin to see the importance of having thermal mass in the home. With it you can store some of that night cool - and keep the house cool longer into the day. The only challenge is when night temperatures stay in the 80ties or upper 70ties.

Then I resort to wearing a swimsuit, visiting our local pool, and sitting/sleeping with fans blowing on me. I maybe sticky - but I have not lost any sleep.

And I cannot be blamed for all the new transmission lines that are being called for around Madison.

4. Madison's need for transmission lines - is driven by late afternoon/early evening (about four to six p.m.) air conditioner load on hot (always humid) summer business days. I am sure Madison is breaking new peak load records on the recent hot summer afternoons.

The problem is compounded because electric wires (e.g., transmission lines) loose their efficiency as the get hotter. And the lines get hotter on hot days and when they are fully loaded. They measure how loaded they are by how much the transmission lines sag.

So if you do not want to be the cause for Madison's new transmission lines, here are few things you can do:
1. Don’t run your air conditioner between about four and six
2. Turn off all electric appliances (lights) that you really do not need
3. Don’t open your refrigerator or freezer
4. Get an Energy Star (and smaller sized) refigerator, freezer, compact florescent lights, dehumidifier, ceiling fan, laptop computer, etc.
5. Find a cool spot, I like the neighborhood pool, and relax
6. Eat a late dinner
7. Empty and unplug that freezer and extra refrigerator
8. Put solar electric panels on your home. (Alas in the late afternoon they will only perform at about 25% of their rated capacity. Because the late afternoon sun is at a high angle to them. And because when the panels are hot they have higher internal losses.)
9. Unplug that dang wine cooler!

5. During these hot "global warming" days with floods and a threatening hurricane season - I see my car is a global climate change machine. So I ride my bike more.

6. I have set my self up with a pretty cool city bike. The fine wooden fenders were made by Cody Davis of Bend Oregon (I found him and the fenders on E-Bay). Another reason not to drive my (climate change machine) car.

six is enough.

Solar Electric Power is Cheap & A Vision of the Solar Home and Car

2006-07-27T11:08:00.000-05:00

1. Flody's Ride
From Randy Udall (Via Michael Vickerman of Renew Wisconsin)

"Interesting numbers about Floyd Landis amazing ride through the Alps.

He rode 125 miles at 23 miles an hour, much of it alone. His total output during 5.3
hours of riding: about 1.5 kwh.

Average daily household electricity consumption in the US: about 30.
Daily per capita energy consumption in the US, expressed in kwh: 270."

2. kWh Cost of that Ride
I pay my utility 13 cents per kWh of power - so Floyd's effort was worth about 20 cents. If my solar electric system lasts 20 years, my solar electric cost of power is 33 cents/kWh. That makes Floyd's effort worth 50 cents of PV power.

Still really really cheap

3. Plug in Prius and Solar Electric
At the Hybrid Car fest, in Madison, I learned that one kWh of power will propel a Prius about five miles.

So on a sunny day my little 1.25 kW solar electric system makes enough power to drive a Prius about 30 miles. That is much more than my average daily commute.

4. Solar Powered Homes and Cars
I envision a future where home Solar Electric Systems will
1. power home electricity needs
2. power a heat pump for home heating and cooling (low temperature air sourced perhaps)
3. charge up the plug in hybrid

Solar thermal would provide most of the hot water needs (and perhaps some space heating).

For an efficient moderately sized home, and car, I am thinking it would require six to twelve kW of PV per home. If costs get down to $4,000 per kW.. we are talking $24,00 to 48,000. Or 10% to 20% of the cost of the average home here in Madison WI.

So, I see a growing market for Solar Electric Systems.

Midwest Zero Energy Homes

2006-07-12T13:29:00.000-05:00

Here is the executive summary of a report that just completed with some U.S. DOE funding (Award Number DE-FC45-05R530753). For a PDF of the full report email me at (wolter at msbnrg.com)
___

Several challenges facing the American economy encourage the construction of new homes able to meet their own energy needs using locally available renewable energy resources. These challenges include: high and highly variable fossil energy prices, global climate change, state and national energy trade deficits, reduced energy supply reliability, and increasing dependence on fossil energy imports.

A true Zero Energy Home (ZEH) is defined as a home able to offset any import of fossil energy by generating and exporting an equal amount of renewable energy over the course of a year. Homes that get close to this goal are considered zero energy homes.

Homes on the path toward zero energy:
1) Are sited, designed and built to use as little energy as possible while providing the comforts of home,
2) Use energy efficient appliances
3) Install high efficiency heating ventilation and air conditioning systems (HVAC),
4) Have occupants that are careful about how they use energy,
5) Produce onsite renewable energy (or purchase renewable power or credits),
6) Are designed and constructed so that in the future the home can meet all of its energy needs with onsite renewable energy.

ZEH homes and experts can be found employing ZEH technologies and designs across the Midwest. Links to Midwest ZEH case studies and experts are included in this report.

The greatest challenge is providing reliable space (and water) heating during the Midwest’s cold and cloudy winter months. A ZEH cannot rely solely on standard solar thermal systems or passive solar for winter space heating. Instead, it must rely on renewable energy that can be stored for weeks to months such as wood, thermal energy, or net-metered (banked) renewable kilowatt-hours (kWhs).

If ZEHs are to rely on renewable kWhs for heating, then the electrical heating systems must be very efficient. Ground source heat pumps (GSHP) are the most efficient space heating systems suited to the Midwest’s climate (they also provide very efficient cooling).

There are two general ZEH types, based on their method of space heating. The Urban ZEH that has a GSHP for space heating and cooling, a solar electric system for power generation, and a solar water heating system backed up by an electric hot water heater. The rural ZEH has a wood stove and solar thermal system for space heating and water heating and an onsite solar electric system or wind turbine for power generation.

The Urban ZEH would add about $55,000 to the price of a new energy efficient home while reducing its natural gas use by roughly 95% and electricity use by 75%. The price includes federal but not state incentives. The solar electric system is responsible for the majority of the added price.

Many new single-family homes built today are large. By reducing the size of new homes by 400 square feet, the home’s construction costs would reduce by about $36,000. These cost savings would cover much of the cost of making the home zero energy.

ZEH economics will improve if: fossil energy prices increase; energy system prices decline; utility’s encourage ZEH with incentives (through tariffs, buy back rates, financial incentives, financing, etc.); or States and/or the Federal government provide incentives for ZEH or ZEH technologies.

Key ZEH barrier reduction strategies include:
1. Target wealthy green innovator home buyers
2. Target successful Energy Star® home builders
3. Education through mainstream demonstration homes and detailed case studies
4. Ensure homes have curb appeal
5. Offer home builders market differentiation by offering new labels/logos such as “Green” Energy Star® home
6. Offer new ZEH services such as: guaranteed savings, maintenance agreements and system commissioning
7. Begin mainstream market transformation by promoting the “zero energy ready home”
___________________

disclaimer
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The view and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

Low Termperature Air Sourced Heat Pumps

2006-07-12T12:56:00.000-05:00

I am very interested in heat pumps that for meeting building heating (and cooling) needs here in the cold and cloudy winter climate. Several blog posts cover ground sourced heat pumps (GSHPs)... which are widely available and been sold for a couple of decades.

Basically I am very worried about the future cost of natural gas and global climate change... as well as an expanding trade deficit as we import more natural gas. And lastly the ports needed to import liquefied natural gas are vulnerable to hurricanes.

Heat pumps are the most efficient electric means of space heating. In our, Wisconsin, climate normal air sourced heat pumps loss their efficiency when you get near freezing.

There is a new option.. and it is just entering the market: Low Temperature Air Sourced Heat Pumps. Apparently they have a coefficient of performance (COP) of 2.23 at zero degrees F (unlike an air sourced unit that has a COP of ~1).

Here is a great link for more information from the Architectural record
archrecord.construction.com/resources/conteduc/archives/0603edit-1.asp

"It does seem like they are poised to hit the market. If and when they do, it seems to me it could really hurt the GSHP market, since they will no doubt cost considerably less." (quote from Scott Pigg of the Energy Center of Wisconsin.) No ground loop would be needed.

Their inventor as a company that just started selling them on June 19th.
www.gotohallowell.com/
Clearly a new webpage... it has some interesting test result data.

Hey you HVAC contractors - perhaps you should consider becoming a distributor?

What Does Sustainability Mean

2006-07-11T22:38:00.000-05:00

(Note, this posting is based on a article my friend Mark Daugherty. He wrote it for our Energy and Climate Column in Dane County's Sustainable Times Newspaper.)

This post is based on the thoughts of John Ikerd. John is an agricultural economist who has spent a lot of time thinking, writing and talking about sustainability.

There were two previous transformations of social structure on the same order of magnitude. The first was the Agricultural Revolution, during which human society transitioned from hunter – gatherers to farmers. The second was the Industrial Revolution in which fossil fuel combustion replaced muscle power.

Sustainability will be the third fundamental transformation of human social structure. The fundamental shift in sustainability is a shift to permanence. Today we are optimizing for maximum production. After the sustainable transformation, we will optimize a balance between meeting the needs of the present and ensuring that the future has a sound resource base from which to meet its needs.

The fundamental thing in both industrial and sustainable society is energy. Industrial society is optimized to extract energy. It extracts energy from human and natural capital. Industrial society does not expend energy to restore or renew itself. There is no economic benefit, in the classic industrial worldview, to expending energy on restoration or renewal. That is why the industrial age is coming to an end. It has depleted its resource base and is becoming increasingly nonfunctional.

A sustainable society is optimized to balance energy between extraction for use today and investment in restoration and renewal. It deliberately chooses to invest some energy that could be used today in restoration in renewal. As we begin investing in restoration and renewal we face strong resistance from parts of society firmly locked into the industrial mentality.

Fundamental transformations require fundamental shifts in worldview. In the industrial worldview the world is a factory. It is optimized to extract, exploit, specialize, standardized and control. This is the way industrial society provides more and more stuff that is cheaper and cheaper. That's the goal of industrial society. More cheap stuff.

In the sustainable worldview the world is a living system. It is optimized to interact, balance, invest, diversify, communicate and relate – much like the natural world’s web of life. Creating this web of relationships is not driven by a desire to give everyone a warm fuzzy feeling. Rather it is a necessity for permanence.

A permanent society is more difficult than an extractive society. It requires a more advanced worldview. The interrelationships and interdependencies between a field mouse and a prairie ecosystem are orders of magnitude more complex than an industrial fertilized corn field growing in that same prairie top soil.

Social transformation won't happen unless people think it's in their best interest. Why is a sustainable society better than an industrial society?

Let's compare the two. In an industrial society the primary goal is the accumulation of wealth. In a sustainable society this is replaced by a desire for permanence.

In industrial society everyone wants to be independent. In a sustainable society people are capable of functioning independently but deliberately choose to depend on each other. This is termed interdependence and it requires both the ability to be independent and the ability to relate in mutually beneficial ways.

In industrial society everyone wants to get rich, then they will live a good life. In sustainable society people decide to skip the get rich step and jump directly to living a good life.

In a sustainable society you are willing to give up a fair amount of cheap stuff in return for getting a better life for yourself and future generations.

(Thanks Mark - I hope you do not mind me posting this on my blog)

Solar Thermal Seasonal Storage for Space Heating

2006-07-11T22:20:00.000-05:00

Solar seasonal thermal storage is in the news thanks to the very cool Drake Land project in Canada. Where the cover garages of about 60 homes with solar thermal panels and dump the heat into one large well field.

picture from the website below

See http://www.dlsc.ca/ and http://www.sterlinghomesgroup.com/drake/northamerica.html

Solar experts in Wisconsin are thinking once again about seasonal thermal storage for homes in Wisconsin.

Mark Klein of Gimme Shelter is thinking about setting aside a "room" in the basement that would hold a several thousand gallons of water in a very well insulated tank. The water would be heated during the summer and used for space heating during the winter.

Alex DePillis of Seventh Generation Energy Systems did these calculations.

Residential customers in Wisconsin use ~ 1000 therms each, annually. The room would need to hold ~ 40,000 cubic feet of water; about 5400 gallons. A cistern of size 8' x 20' x 200'+

Here are the calculations (corrections please!)
1.)
1 Btu per # per degree F.
Raise the water from 60 to 100 F (delta T = 40)
8.3 pounds per gallon water
So raising the temperature of one gallon of water by 40 degrees stores 333 Btu, or 0.0033 therm

2.)
(one gallon per 0.0033 therm) x (1000 therms per customer) = 1000/0.0033 = 303,030 gallons
(7.5 cubic feet per gallon) x (303,030 gallons) = 40,404 cubic feet

3.)
If this is a cistern in the basement of a house, limited at 8' height...
8 high by 20 wide by... 252 feet long. Or pick your tank/cistern dimensions.

Now my 1100 square foot home, with about R-4 (concrete) walls uses about 600 therms per year (for hot water, cooking and space heating). So lets say it uses 500 therms per year for space heating. (Yes I am working on insulating those walls from the inside - which means studding up new walls and making my home even smaller.)

If the thermal envelop of the home is improved, have the house solar tempered, and
assume some solar thermal heating during the winter season (as there is sun
in the winter)... and maybe that tank can be reduced to: 8' by 20' by 100'

Humm, that is more square feet than my entire home.

Solar Hot Water Systems are Back IN!

2006-07-11T22:04:00.000-05:00

The corner has been turned!

Solar hot water is now officially booming in Wisconsin. During the month June 2006 the Focus on Energy Renewable Energy program (focusonenergy.com) approved 95 Solar Hot Water System Cash Back Reward Applications. The poor image of solar hot water left over from the 1970's is fast disappearing.

This dwarfs the number of solar electric systems (nine), wind turbines (four) or biogas systems (two) approved during June.

The large number of approved solar hot water system is partly due to the fact the Focus on Energy incentive declined starting July 1.

One of the more fascinating developments is occurring in Madison at a lower income multifamily project (Troy Gardens) where:
1. Every unit was made solar ready
2. The condo purchasers were shown that the cost of the solar thermal system when included in their mortgage was less than their natural gas savings.
3. Last I heard every condo buyer decided to include solar water heating in their home.
Eighteen of the solar thermal systems approved in June were from the Troy Gardens project.

Remember, we are only at the start of the Solar Decade

High Oil Prices - Oil Companies Fault, No Yours

2006-05-03T21:15:00.000-05:00

Jimmy Carter warned us decades ago – actually 1977. Did we listen, No. Reagan laughed him off - and won the 1980 presidential election. We have been in denial since.

What did Europe do - they raised gasoline taxes in order to get their nation off their oil addiction and fund the development of alternative technologies.

It is our politician’s fault to let us continue to build an automobile-gasoline powered landscape. And now, having used half the world's easy oil, that landscape is like a boulder tied around our necks.

And it is going to get worse. Oil prices will go up and up. Everyone will be looking for a scapegoat - but when will they point to himself or herself?

For a few generations now life has been easy in America. Different fringe type folks have raised warning flags (air pollution, mercury, global warming, trade deficit, health care, energy...) but most of us have done well ignoring them. Instead we had the tech boom, rapidly increasing real estate values, healthy stock market, etc. So we have learned to not worry... not think about the future... it'll work itself out.

And our politicians have done the same. Go ahead, go to one of your representatives - tell them something along the lines of: "There is this serious problem I see coming at us in about five years, could you do something about it." They will smile and say, "Oh I agree with you, but if I write up a bill nobody will co-sponsor it, it won't go anywhere. Come back to me when it is an emergency."

Well, dude, we are addicted to oil and there is less and less of it out there, and now it is an emergency!

What to do? Nothing really can be done in the span of weeks or months or even years - so lets blame the oil companies or the Republicans.

Soon each of us must stop complaining and take responsibility and start acting by reducing our oil usage.

Participating in the Clean Energy Wave

2006-04-19T14:41:00.000-05:00

I was up late last night thinking about investments and clean energy.

Over the last year and a half, I began investing in to energy and clean energy stocks. I started around Dec 04 and finished rollig over my investments around November 05. Well, I am up 50%.

I see no reason in sight for it to stop. I look around the US and see everything that will need to change - cars, lights, sprawl, natural gas fired power plants, roofs without solar panels, SUVs, freeways full of trucks, grocery shelves full of food from Mexico and California, plastic grocery sacks, plans for new coal-fired power plants and new highway bridges … I can go on and on and on. They do not have a clue!

In the next 20 years it is all going to change. A gigantic transformation of our economy is underway. I believe that it will make the tech boom of the 90ties look like the bunny hill. And it will change our world.

Even our republican government sees it (my bold):

President Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative is a "Vision for Victory," according to Alexander Karsner, DOE's new Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). Assistant Secretary Karsner declared that the energy initiative could lead to victory over U.S. enemies; over U.S. dependence on unstable regimes and ideologies; and over "anxiety and misplaced fears that we are passive and helpless to better this nation and better our planet." Assistant Secretary Karsner emphasized, "Maximizing energy efficiency and renewable energy is the domestic epicenter in the war on terror, and it is imperative that we maximize the partnerships between the public and private sectors in new and creative ways with a sense of seriousness, national purpose, and the urgency the situation merits."

They see it in a different light than I do (i.e., militaristic). I see it as survival of our and the planet's quality of life.

My goal in life is to steer the energy solution toward energy efficiency (EE) and renewable energy (RE) not nuclear. Nuclear is a false solution. Uranium is limited, waste is dangerous, it is too complex (complex solutions are the wrong solutions), etc.

There are a few ways that each of us can do that:
1. put EE and RE into/on our homes
2. make part of your career include EE and RE
3. tell people about it, lobby for it, etc
4. invest in it

The better EE and RE stocks do:
* The more seriously the financial markets treat the sectors and the more other people invest…
* The better financed EE and RE firms are to do R&D and grow.
* The more and smarter the entrepreneurs that start EE and RE businesses.

So when we invest in EE and RE there are many benefits:
1. Empower the companies and sectors you invest in
2. Make the RE future a bit more likely
3. Do good for the planet
4. Help create local jobs and strengthen local economies (rather then importing fuel from far away)
5. Help put and end to global tensions over energy resources

So I suggest you think about rolling some investments into managed funds that purchase EE and RE stocks. I only know of two and one is brand new.

The first is the PowerShares WilderHill Clean Energy Exchange traded fund (PBW).
Find more about it here:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=PBW

I began purchasing it about a year ago when it was first issued. Those initial investments are up over 70%. An exchange traded fund is like mutual fund that but is traded real time. They hold about 30 stocks traded on the US stock exchanges. The managers actively move in and out of stocks – so that you do not have to actively manage it.

The second is Guinness Atkinson Alternative Energy mutual fund (GAAEX)
Find more about it here:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=gaaex

It is brand spanking new. I began investing in their peak oil and gas fund (GAGEX) in December of 2004. Those initial investments are up almost 100%.

GAAEX is so new that they do not even list which stock they own. Read more about it here: http://www.gafunds.com/gaaex.asp

What I really like about GAAEX is that they will purchase international stocks that are not traded on the US stock exchanges, and one of their two main fund managers lives in England. Again they will own many stocks, and will move in and out of shares to maximize return – just like PBW.

No doubt the investments will be more volatile than standard funds. But in the longer term they will do better, plus they support a sector of the market all of us believe in.

Your comments?

Thoughts on Oil and the Artric National Wildlife Refuge

2006-04-15T16:25:00.000-05:00

Just wait, when the going gets tough, and I am sure it will, we will get every drop of oil that we can pump out of the earth. So yes, one day the oil industry will be in ANWR, as well as offshore California, offshore Florida and every other precious oil bearing place.

The longer we hold off on drilling in those areas - the better the oil exploration and production technology will be. With hopefully reduced damage to the environment.

After all that oil is:
* Fossil carbon waiting to warm our climate
* Money in our subterranean petro-bank

Are there items that we make today from oil, and can only be made from oil, that have become vital to our lives? For example medicines, plastic valves used to replace heart valves, oil for bearings... Perhaps we should save the ANWR oil for those purposes and use it over the centuries?

Ha Ha Ha... I really doubt that.

Our society is infantile. Now, now, now! Who cares about the future? The next quarter, the next NASCAR race, the next paycheck. Long term thinkers may wonder about their kid’s college education or their retirement.

Today in the Madison paper, on page A7, there was a tiny story on global warming. The huge team of scientists that participate on the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) came out with a statement that in the next 100 years temperature would increase by five degrees (so far we have seen a one degree increase), sea level would rise, and millions would starve as the planet dries up and cereal crop production declines.

Who cares right... after all did you hear who was kicked off "American Idol".

And what happens if we use much of that cereal crop to make ethanol or biodiesel?

The First World drive or Third World starve quandary is coming at us.

Renewable Energy Innovation

2006-03-24T09:12:00.000-06:00

I watched the tech boom with fascination: seeing companies go from zero to billions in months, seeing their products hit the market and our world change, and watching their stock prices explode (and for many crash).

A few years ago when I realized that the world needed an entirely new clean energy system, it occurred to me that we could see something like the tech's boom and innovation. Lets call it the "clean energy wave". It makes me feel very hopeful.

And here is one of the signs it is happening:

California Competition Courts Clean Energy Entrepreneurs
March 23, 2006

San Francisco, California [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] Organizers announced the inaugural California Clean Tech Open, a competition that will gather entrepreneurs in September to vie for the nation's largest cash and service prize devoted to innovations that have a positive impact on the environment. Venture Capitol firms are backing the event partly as a way to identify new opportunities in clean and renewable energy.

source: http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=44431

Get in early in the "clean energy wave" - invest in and support clean energy companies now. Please don't invest or promote in the radioactive future, i.e., nuclear energy.

Day's updates

2006-03-10T09:11:00.000-06:00

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) energy efforts - a shell game

A friend from the US DOE recently wrote this
"As you know, DOE is talking up energy and renewables, but the available budgets remain the same (a net zero sum game). They rearrange the deck chairs constantly depending on the flavor of the day. Solar and biomass programs will be doubling in size next year with the Industrial and weatherization efforts shrinking. Congressional earmarks continue to erode program $ from all programs -- it is becoming a serious problem.

Two recent "deck chair" headlines (solar is in)
1. Budget Cuts Threaten Distributed Energy Program
2. DOE Solar America Initiatve Set to Fund Solar PV Development

Chineses Renewable Energy IPOs

"While investors have devoured shares of Chinese solar gear maker Suntech Power Holdings (NYSE: STP), clean technology IPOs out of China have been sparse."

"Going forward, China Clean Energy Fund's Ye expects to see more solar issues as clean technology IPO issues from China pickup. "One reason the solar PV market is going well is because the government has given it lots of subsidies." Chinese wind technology, such as advanced blades, is another market benefiting from subsidies and expected to "quickly" pick up over the next couple of years. In addition to large export opportunities, demand in the domestic market is increasing as GDP growth continues to outpace the rest of the world."
source: http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=44304

Despite Constraints PV Sales Grow

Preliminary estimates for 2005 show global photovoltaic (PV) cell production increased more than 40% from nearly 1200 MW in 2004 to 1727 MW in 2005.

Remember there is both a silicon and PV cell manufacturing capacity shortage.

If solar electric systems are to meet and significant share of the world's electricity needs, in the next decade, growth will have to be increase beyond 40%. But 40% growth is impressive.

Signs of World Wide Energy Sector Transformation

2006-02-27T07:33:00.000-06:00

"China, according to The Washington Post, soon will complete a $100 billion deal with Iran that would permit a Chinese government-owned energy company to lead the way in developing a huge oil field in Iran." (Feb 22, 2006)

"China, seeking oil and gas to fuel its booming economy amid stagnant production at home, has been snapping up energy resources in places as far flung as Venezuela, Kazakhstan, Nigeria and Australia." (Times Leader Feb 21, 2006)

Former CIA Director James Woolsey, a staunch neo-conservative who is pushing for military intervention in the Middle East, warned the conference of the "potential use of oil as a weapon to affect our security and our behavior." (source Brookings Institution, March 5, 2004)

Our Federal government began offering tax credits for solar water heating systems (30% tax credit and five-year accelerated depreciation) in 2006.

George Bush is grasping at the straws of hydrogen cars and cellusic ethanol fueled cars - to replace our oil addiction. (see previous post)

Procter and Gamble is making a cold water Tide laundry detergent.

GAGEX, the only mutual fund that mentions peak oil in its prospectus, was the 4th best performing US mutual fund in 2005.

Statements made at the Renewable Energy Finance forum in June of 2005 in New York City included: that renewable energy was the next big multi-billion dollar sector with significant growth potential.

All the Japanes firms are introducing mini cars - you will soon see the Honda Fit, the Nissan Versa and perhaps you have noticed the Toyota Scion line.

Kuwait recently announced that they have half as much oil as they thought they did. (Gulf Times Feb 26, 2006)

The Bush administration is working on making nuclear waste fuel reprocessing legal again. Carter made it illegal for fear of nuclear proliferation.

Stocks of railway companies have been doing really well. (And I thought about buying some a eight months ago - ah well.) Nuclear companies too.
State's around the country - are passing renewable portfolio standards (RPS). A RPS requires the utilities in each state to generate a specific share of their electricity sales from new renewable generation.

Chevron USA - has the "will you join us" campaign going. Where they say "It took us 125 years to use the first trillion barrels of oil. We'll use the next trillion in 30." (Note experts estimate that there are two trillion barrels of conventional oil in the world.)

Governor Schwatznegger just got California to offer about $3 billion in incentives for solar electric systems.

China's worrying about energy. Here is one example from the Chinease Ministry of Construction (Feb 24 2006) "Bay windows, French windows, or any other designs which are too much energy-consuming, will be prohibited in Huhan, Hubei Province as of January this year."

Apparently Shell oil is thinking about buying the world's largest wind turbine manufacturer Vestas. Forbes online 2,23,2006

Russia is gaining new petro/gas- political power
"When Russia turned off the gas to Ukraine, it sent shivers across Europe where customers are increasingly dependent on Russia to keep warm." (BBC News, Moscow Feb 14, 2006)

Russia has stated that they hope to provide 10% of US natural gas use in the next decade.

Fueling Transportation - Renewable fuels

2006-02-26T08:53:00.000-06:00

Is President George Bush grasping at the straws of hydrogen cars and cellulosic ethanol fueled cars - to replace our oil addiction? Let’s take a look at energy options for transportation.

Today most ethanol is produced using by letting yeast have at corn sugars. That is a bit of a shame because those sugars also feed us humans.

To offset the USA's oil imports the quantity of corn need, to convert into the ethanol using current ethanol production technology, is simply staggering. American would need about 400 million acres of land in corn with all the corn going to ethanol production to replace all of our current oil imports. Currently there are about 325 million acres of cultivated land and about 80 million acres are in corn.

Also remember corn is fertilizer hungry- and fertilizer is mainly natural gas. The Haber-Bosch process is used world-wide to manufacture ammonia. The process reacts nitrogen (N), from the atmosphere, with hydrogen (H), typically from natural gas, to produce ammonia (NH3) over an iron catalyst under conditions of 200 atmospheres, 450°C. The chemical formula is:
N2(gas) + 3H2(gas) = 2NH3(gas)

Manufacturing 1 ton of anhydrous ammonia (which is 82% nitrogen) fertilizer requires 33,500 cubic feet of natural gas. Applying 80 lbs of nitrogen per acre get you about 135 bushes of corn in Kansas. In other words it takes 12 cubic feet of natural gas to grow one bushel of corn and it takes 1630 cubic feet of natural gas to produce the nitrogen fertilizer per acre of corn.

For that 400 million acres of land in corn - needed to displace our oil imports, it would take 6.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to make the fertilizer.

So corn based ethanol has two huge limitations

There isn't enough land to grow the corn with out starving the nation (and other nations that depend on our corn and wheat exports), and
it requires massive amounts of natural gas.

If ethanol is to supply a significant share of US's fuel needs the hope is that it can be based on cellulosic feedstocks. "Cellulosic" includes stuff like wood chips, grasses, leaves, that is found in agricultural and forest residues (e.g., the corn stock), and trees.

But it all hinges upon new bio-technologies, a.k.a. enzymes, being developed to break down cellulose and release the plants’ sugars for yeast fermentation into ethanol. Those enzymes do not exist yet - and they need to be able to break down many types of cellulosic feedstocks into sugars.

Other options

Biodiesel from soy. Basically this process squeezes the oil out of soy (hemp could also be used, or other oil seed crops). The soy oil is processed into diesel and the solid soy materials are used in food or feed. It is simple but requires lots of agricultural land, although soy needs much less fertilizer and corn.

Aqueous phase reforming (APR) hydrogen production. This is a hydrogen production method being developed by a start up here in Madison WI called Virent Energy Systems. The APR system generates hydrogen from aqueous sugar solutions such as ethylene glycol, biomass-derived glycerol, sugars and sugar-alcohols. It uses a catalyst (platinum coated beads) that under moderate temperature and pressure breaks the hydrogen off the aqueous sugars. That hydrogen is collected and is a fuel - like gasoline or ethanol.

To date the APR process only works on a few types of sugars, so they need purity in the aqueous solution... unlike the ethanol process that can use hundreds of sugars and be pretty messy. However Virent is just starting up and are working to expand the sugars, reduce the purity needs of the sugars, etc.

It does seem like the APR process is more energy efficient than the ethanol process.

Check out their presentation at:
http://www.virent.com/pdf/Website%20Presentation.pdf

Algal Hydrogen - has been in the news recently. Here is some information from Wired News of 25-February-2006 - (I edited it down)

Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley have engineered a strain of algae (known as C. reinhardtii), that with further refinements, produce vast amounts of hydrogen through photosynthesis. The work, led by plant physiologist Tasios Melis, if it proves correct, would mean a major breakthrough in using algae to produce a wide range of products, from biodiesel to cosmetics.

Melis figured out how to get hydrogen out of green algae by restricting sulfur from their diet. The plant cells flicked a long-dormant genetic switch to produce hydrogen instead of carbon dioxide. But the quantities of hydrogen they produced were nowhere near enough to scale up the process commercially and profitably.

The new strain of algae allows more sunlight deeper into an algal culture and therefore allows more cells to photosynthesize. Researchers hope to further boost hydrogen production, and reduce carbon dioxide production by using genetic engineering to close up pores that oxygen seeps through. "When we discovered the sulfur switch, we increased hydrogen production by a factor of 100,000" says Seibert. "But to make it a commercial technology, we still had to increase the efficiency of the process by another factor of 100."

Researchers are now trying to adjust the hydrogen-producing pathway so that it can produce hydrogen 100 percent of the time. A bigger challenge, and one that’s further down the road to solving, is improving the efficiency of getting hydrogen out of the "algal culture". Whether or not scientists can find solutions for those two problems will have a lot to do with realizing the vision of a hydrogen-powered economy based on algae farms in desert areas.

Some algae are also viewed as an ideal source for biodiesel because they can produce oils at a much higher rate than other plants. For all these applications, Melis’ antenna-truncated algae should be a major breakthrough.

Batteries - Plug in Hybrids Whatever the fuel, hybrids make sense. Basically hybrids are an energy efficiency improvement where:

energy is taken when the car's breaks are applied,
to spin a generator,
producing electricity,
storing the electricity in a battery
using the electricity to drive a motor to power the wheels when power is needed.

For years this was known as regenerative braking. If I recall correctly they use it on locomotives and large cranes, and the electric generator and the electric motor can be the same component. With regenerative breaking cars get more miles per unit of fuel (gallon of gasoline to algal hydrogen).

Hybrids also get additional fuel savings, by turning the internal combustion IC) engine off when it is not needed (e.g., at a stop sign or when the electric engine is power the car) and by being able to use a small more efficient IC engine. Or course they tend to be small light and aerodyanmic as well.

Now add onto hybrids, plugging the car in and adding larger batteries. What this allows you to do is start the car off with a full tank of batteries even if you parked with an empty tank. The smart system would wait until electric power is "cheap" to fill batteries. Cheap power today is between midnight a six in the morning. But in the future it could be when the wind is blowing or the sun shining.

You could also have solar electric panels on your home's roof that help charge up the car's batteries. Simply adding panels on the car - charging the batteries whenever it is sunny could improve its efficiency a bit. This is a link to someone that has done it - created a solar prius. Now with charged and larger batteries the car would get even more miles per gallon of gasoline, biodiesel, hydrogen or ethonal.

If you plug your car in at your job downtown - and there is a power shortage spiking up the value of electricity (to where it is worth more than what is in your battery) the smart utility grid would drain your battery - and pay your for it.

Both of these technologies, hybrids and smart charging systems, are ready - all we have to do is implement them.

Also expect cars to get lighter and smaller. And people to drive less.

Politics and Oil

2006-02-22T17:16:00.000-06:00

The Federal energy bill that our representatives cobbled together and finally passed last summer provided many billions in tax subsidies to the oil and gas industry.

President Bush had this to say about those subsidies: "I will tell you with $55 oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives." quoted in the Washington Post, 4/19/2005

Regardless the Energy Bill was passed with the massive oil and gas subsidies. Good olde oil industry lobbyists had it their way. It seems they have more power than even George W!

Then with Rita, oil and gas prices shot up. Oil is a global commodity. Every nation that purchases crude oil on the global market pays the same price (in US dollars). Oils its price shot up not only in the US but also in India, Japan, Germany, Mexico, Iceland, etc.

Funny, Wisconsin's Governor Doyle had subpoenas issued to executives from the world’s five largest oil companies to come to "Milwaukee to testify under oath about how, following one of the largest natural disasters to hit America, they could justify reaping billions of dollars in profits from the pockets of Wisconsin’s working class families." (Quote from Governor Doyle's webpage)

Hello Mr. Governor, the oil industry big five does not set the price of oil. The world market place does. (And as we import more and more natural gas - the world market will soon determine its price for us too.) The oil production of the big five is tiny when compared to the oil production from OPEC.

If any oil producer controls the price of oil it is OPEC. But these days I believe that the primary price driver is simple supply and demand. With supply and demand delicately balanced any natural disasters or political tensions that effects real or perceived supply or demand, effects price.

In the months before those subpoenas the WI governor cut the funding to the State's energy efficiency and renewable energy program by half, put pro-utility regulators at the utility commission, and hired someone to head the State's division of energy that knows close to nothing about energy. Politics as usual - to find a scape goat in big oil.

Then in January 2006, the oil and gas industry had their highest profits ever in the history of oil and gas. While we the consumers paid high prices. That had many of the same representatives that had put those subsidies in the energy bill in a huff. Many called to enact a windfall profits tax.

(I like high energy prices - nothing else gets us to make the changes this country so desparetly needs. Changes like improving energy efficiency and increasing the use of renewable energy.)

In response, the oil and gas industry came out with full-page ads showing that their profits as a share of sales were actually low (mostly when compared to the pharmaceutical industry).

Oil and gas prices are back down. So the brush fire is out... for now. But what about next week?

Response to "We Are Addicted to Oil" - so sad

2006-02-03T09:32:00.000-06:00

1) The Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget. A veteran researcher said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol. Those are two of the technologies that Mr. Bush cited on Tuesday night as holding the promise to replace part of the nation's oil imports.

2) In an interview Wednesday, the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki al-Faisal, said he would have to "seek an explanation" from Bush (source: the New York Times)

3) "The thing that they're really losing sleep about at the White House is the crude supply from Iran." (source: the New York Times)

4) The Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries on Wednesday warned that President George W. Bush’s proposal to reduce US dependence on Middle Eastern oil could badly jeopardise needed investment in Gulf oil production and refining capacity. (source: Financial Times)

5) An Opec delegate said: “Comments like that are unrealistic. Everyone knows the world will continue to depend on Middle East imports.” (source: Financial Times)

6) Financial Times Headline "Bush misfires in drive to end 'oil addiction'"

7) "One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally." (source: Knight Ridder Newspapers)

8) "Iran proposes to set up by March 2006 an “oil/energy bourse” for trading based on the euro, rather than the US dollar. While it may seem innocuous, this represents a grave threat to the continued global hegemony of the United States... Since the 1970s, the OPEC countries have agreed to sell oil for US dollars only. This means that every country needing to import oil must first acquire enough US dollars.... The net result is global hegemony of the US dollar. However, if Iran starts its own euro-denominated oil bourse and it takes off, the US dollar — already an ailing currency due to huge deficits in the US economy — will be marginalised as the global currency." (source: Daily Times of Pakistan).

note: The US dollar is kept strong in the world partly because countries need to buy dollars to buy oil. If the world oil trade switches to the Euro the value of the dollar (and international buying US treasury notes) will plummet.

Climate Change: A Call to Action

2006-02-02T14:14:00.000-06:00

(Note this was first published in the Sustainable Times newspaper, Dane County WI)

Ok, so you are sick of hearing about climate change. Well you, and the planet, will be getting only sicker. To feel better about climate – you must act! As Americans – who use 25% of the worlds energy with only 5% of its population - it is our duty to act. We believe that the best way for the world to solve the climate crisis is through energy efficiency, renewable energy and reforestation.

The average single family home in Wisconsin consumes about 10,000 kilowatts hours (kWh) of electricity. About 75% of Wisconsin’s electric power is from coal fired power plants, about 20% is from nuclear power plants and about 5% is from natural gas, hydroelectric plants and other sources. Our average home will require Wisconsin power plants to burn four tons of coal per year, evaporate over 4000 gallons of water each year and emit over 12 tons of carbon dioxide every year. The average single family home in Wisconsin consumes about 100,000 cubic of natural gas per year for heating needs. That gas firing releases another six tons of carbon dioxide each year.

Almost 50 acres of Wisconsin forest are required to absorb the carbon emitted to heat, cool and power the average Wisconsin single family homes. And that does not include the commercial, agricultural and industrial fossil energy usage needed to satisfy your needs for material goods and services, your workplace and travel.

A hopeful carbon dioxide reduction plan limits the increase in global temperatures by 3.6 oF. (This corresponds to a doubling of carbon dioxide levels compared to pre-industrial levels.) A 3.6 oF increase will result in the extinction of 25% the plant and animal species, increasing global sea levels and flooding millions of homes, rivers becoming too warm for trout, reduced farm production, etc. Less aggressive reductions of greenhouse gases result in increasingly catastrophic scenarios.

To limit global temperature increase to 3.6 oF the world must drastically reduce it use of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal). Starting today, all new and renovated homes and buildings must reduce their fossil energy use by 50%. That reduction in fossil fuel emissions must be phased in so that by 2030 all new buildings and homes use no fossil fuels. Reducing fossil energy emissions from new buildings by 100% in 2030 sounds almost insane. Scientists, however, are now aware that the cost of not acting is not acceptable.

A few years ago most scientists believed that the Greenland ice sheet would get larger during the early stages of global warming. Unfortunately the recent data shows that overall temperature rise has won out, and the ice is shrinking significantly. See the map of Greenland showing the shrinkage of the ice melt cap (the red areas) between 1992 and 2002. Oceanographers are concerned that the cold winter Europe is experiencing is caused by the fresh water melting off the Greenland ice cap and shutting down the Gulf Stream – thereby cooling Europe.

It is easier to run away and hide from some of these issues. Where do you stand? We need the strength and courage to face up to the danger. The Federal Government has failed us on this issue. We need to start acting without them.

There are three safe strategies to reduce fossil energy use: 1) Massive implementation of energy efficiency – meaning doing tasks (like lighting and heating) with less energy. 2) Massive use of renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, wave, tidal, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. 3) Massive reforestation.

You and I must begin leading the way to the energy efficient and renewable future. First by becoming energy "conservers." Conservers use energy wisely, use energy efficient technologies (from lights to cars) and begin using renewable energy sources at our homes and businesses. Second we must work to stop deforestation and dramatically increase reforestation.

Reforestation is not something that we can each work on directly. We can start taking small actions. Consider letting part of your yard go natural. This will save gasoline and, in a very small way, allow more biomass to grow. If you own large areas of land consider managing them to absorb more greenhouse gasses. Also ensure that the goods you purchase are not directly or indirectly causing deforestation.

Consider investing the stock of companies that provide energy efficiency and renewable energy products and services. The better financed these companies are the larger their impact on the US economy and politics. Wall Street seems to have discovered that energy efficiency and renewable energy are good investments. If you look at the performance of these companies you will find that many of them have increased in value by 100% in the last year.

If US citizens can not take energy efficiency and renewable energy actions than no one can. Your investment in renewable energy will better ensure that the world and our children have a safe future. Global climate change is occurring. We must respond now. If not now, then when?

Mark Daugherty is a co-author of this post.

Bush - We are Addicated to Oil

2006-02-01T07:17:00.000-06:00

Presidents since Jimmy Carter have called for reducing our reliance on foreign oil (particularly from the politically unstable Middle East). Now Bush joins that crowd with the strongest word yet "addicition". I do agree with him.

Addicition is not a good thing. We used to call it being dependent or reliant on foreign oil. Addicition is something you need to stop. So oil is a drug.

Does addicition mean the drug dealer can charge as much as they want?

Could Bush be looking a peak oil graphs - and see that in 20 years (2025) that oil production will be at 25% of current production.

Here is a recent example from the news on Middle East oil:

"LONDON, Jan 20 (Reuters) - OPEC producer Kuwait's oil reserves are only half those officially stated, according to internal Kuwaiti records seen by industry newsletter Petroleum Intelligence Weekly (PIW). "

Kuwait - used to say that they had about 10% of the world's oil reserves.

I was positively surprised that President Bush did not mention increasing drilling in the US. Maybe he accidently skipped a paragraph in his speach?

I was expecting to hear Bush say that he/the government wanted the authority to site liquified natural gas ports where he wanted them. But the administration may have realized that LNG ports mean the US will also become addicited to foreign sources of natural gas.

Do Americans understand the difference between oil and gas?

I am very very sad to hear the alternative energy and clean energy includes clean coal and nuclear. This is true contortion of what "alternative" and "clean" means. Clean coal is not clean - nor is nuclear. Perhaps we will need to use the pharse "renewable energy" when refering to solar, wind, hydro etc .

Natural Gas - pictures and Graphs

2006-01-25T21:17:00.000-06:00

It takes a lot of natural gas to make fertilizers. And it takes alot of fertilizers to feed the world (after the green revolution).

As North American runs out of natural gas we will need to import it as liquified natural gas (LNG).

"As the technology of LNG liquefaction and shipping has improved, and as safety considerations have lessened, a major expansion of U.S. import capability appears to be under way. These movements bode well for widespread natural gas availability in North America in the years ahead."

Alan Greenspan 6/10/2003

This is where hurricanes go.

This is where the existing and planned LNG ports are.

This is what happens when hurricans hit offshore oil and gas facilities.
"... Katrina... destroyed 46 platforms and damaged 20 others. Rita... destroyed 69 platforms and damaged 32 others..."

"The storms’ combined fury... also damaged 183 pipelines, including 64 classified as major. As of Thursday, only 22 had been returned to service, the MSS (mineral management service) said."

"... at least one-sixth of the region’s normal daily oil production will still be off line at the start of next storm season..."

all quotes from ALAN SAYRE / The Associated Press, January 23, 2006

So perhaps you catch my drift. We need to begin using less natural gas, through efficiency, behavior change, solar thermal, buring biomass, buring biogas, ground sourced heat pumps, organic farming, etc.

My home: walking my talk - Part One

2006-01-15T14:59:00.000-06:00

I lived in a 50 year old brick home in the core of Madison. There are many errands and recreational activities that I can do by foot or bike. Including getting tea, a haircut, grocery shopping, going to the community garden plot, getting to the local pool, even when the mood strikes me biking to work. When I drive, I drive my Civic. I do get around a good bit by bike, and happen to love bikes. Currently I own four of them.

I am a major organic gardener of things edible. So I compost. I even collect my neighbors leaves in the fall. I use them mainly for late-spring/early summer mulching of garden beds (mulching keeps me from weeding, water from evaporating and soil from loosing nutrients). I grow lots of veggies as well as fruit (including, black berries, currants, cherries, stawberries, raspberries, grapes and plums). Probably about 70% of our annual veggies come from my gardens. That would include 100% of our jam, salsa, canned tomatoes, garlic, and pesto.

I use an electric lawn mower (having given up on push mowers) and usually have it on mulch. If not, I compost the clippings or again use them to mulch the garden beds. My yard has not seen petrochemical fertilizers, etc. since I moved in (about 9 years ago). A rain barrel under one downspot collects water for garden watering.

One of the more apparent items in my back yard is our solar electric system. It is pole mounted and follows the sun - it should generated about 30% more electricity than a fixed system. A picture is found above.

The solar electric system generates about 1800 kWh/year. This is about 400 kWhs less than my son and I use per year. If we unplugged the chest freezer or if there were fewer trees (i.e., shade) around it would meet all our electricity needs. Regardless our home uses 4% as much electricity as the average Wisconsin single family home (400 versus 10,000 kWh/year respectively).

My home's shell is very inefficient. It is made with masonry walls - without any insulation or open area to add insulation. As the exterior is beautiful brick my only option is to added interior insulation. Thereby further reducing my interior living space (about 1100 square feet). It is a gradual process - and takes years - my bedroom is done and the basement is about 80% complete.

Of course we uses efficient appliances and endevour to keep them to a minimum (i.e., no wine refrigerator or hot tub). Almost all the lights are compact florescents. I have a Energy Star refrigerator and laptop computer, and the most efficient freezer I could find a Sears. We do not have electrical heated water bed, central air conditioning, electric hot water heating or dryer. I do electrically heat my garden seedlings in the spring and food dryer (main for tomatoes) in the fall.

End of Part One

Thoughts on future home heating

2006-01-12T16:18:00.000-06:00

How will we heat our homes tomorrow? North American natural gas discoveries are on the decline and production could fall off a cliff in the next five to ten years. The graph shows North American natural gas discoveries and production with the discovery curve moved forward 23 years. The area under the two curves will be equal once all the natural gas has been used. This is real data.

Importing natural gas as liquified natural gas (LNG) is the mainstream solution. But that gas would come from the Middle East and Russia, and it would be expensive. Our trade deficite would explode. Also we would need the infrastructure to import all that LNG. The most challanging are the LNG port facilities. They regularly explode and are very much unwanted by neighboring communities. The mainstream solution: off shore LNG ports in the Gulf of Mexico. But what about all those hurricanes? They will have a high likelihood of knocking out the gas lines that run from the LNG port to the mainland. Some Gulf of Mexico gas lines are still out from hurriance Katrina.

Also I argue that the natural gas should be used first for fertilizers. I wonder if we can feed the world's billions without fertilizers, natural gas chemicals, etc?

So if not natural gas than what?

Let us consider: coal, solar thermal, propane, passive cooling, passive solar, pellet stoves, corn stoves, wood stoves. Coal is dirty, bulky, emits carbon dioxide, etc. Solar thermal (or passive heating) can only augment heating needs in northern tier states. Propane prices will follow natural gas prices. Passive cooling will help maintain a lower summer indoor temperature – but people wanting a "cool" home may not be satisfied. The cost of the pellets for pellet stoves will tend to track the cost of the primary heating fuel (natural gas). Corn stoves will be competing for the corn against ethanol plants and hungry stomachs. Wood stoves, perhaps for the few, the hardy with wood lots.

What is left? Electricity. And what is the most efficient electric technology. Well for those of us in the Northern tier it would be Ground Source Heat Pumps (GSHP). GSHP happen to be very efficient at heating and cooling. And they work on mainstream homes in conventional neighborhoods.

Some homes GSHPs use over 10,000 kWhs per year. These I consider failures. However some use much less. Here are two examples:

A relatively small, 1320 ft2, home in Sun Prairie, WI. It is a tract home built to Wisconsin code. Over a period of three years of data collection, the home’s GSHP consumed an average of 2510 kWhs/year. This could be met by an unshaded 2 kW fixed-mounted solar electric system (requiring 200 ft2 of unshaded solar electric panels facing roughly south).

A larger home, 3000 ft2, located in Elk River MN (NW of Saint Paul) consumes 5260 kWh/year for its GSHP system. Again the home is fairly conventional and indoor temperature is kept a 71 in the winter and about 80 in the summer (see www.econar.com/casestudies/hurd.htm). Its GSHP’s electricity needs could be met by an unshaded 4 kW fixed-mounted solar electric system.

Both of these homes have low GSHP electricity consumption, yet their consumption could be further reduced if they were designed, built and operated in a very energy efficient manner.

So perhaps the future is Solar Electic Systems on the roof and GSHPs in the ground? Lets hope so.

No to Nukes!

Energy and Stocks - a paradigm shift

2006-01-11T17:00:00.000-06:00

For years I have been interested in the stock market as well as energy. For the last 18 months I feel as if I have had some advance information on the energy sector. That information - fossil energy's days are limited.

I have been using that advanced information to decide where to invest. My investments have done much much better than my retirement investments where I do what retirement fund guy recommends.

Go ahead, read about Peak Oil or Global Warming or our Growing Trade Deficits... Declining American Natural Gas Discoveries.... what’s behind it all? Fossil fuels!

America will be seeing much higher prices. That means, sadly perhaps, that investing in companies with fossil energy reserves is fruitful, because their value is largely based on their reserves and the perceived market value of those reserves. And the perceived market value of those reserves has been way undervalued. (However less so today than one year ago).

Secondly most firms/technologies that replace or reduced the need for fossil energy will be growing and making money. That includes renewable energy, energy efficiency, (sadly) nuclear and more efficient transportation (such as railroads), among others.

So what have I invested in? Clean Energy: PBW. Fossil Energy: XLE. Geothermal heat pumps: WFI.TO. Peak Oil: GAGEX. Precious Metals: VGPMX. I have been in most of these for over 12 months.

GAGEX is the only mutual fund that mentions peak oil (that I know of). It was the best performing mutual fund in America for most of 2005. We shall see what 2006 brings. So far in the first few days of the year it has done well.

I am new to WFI.TO. They make geothermal heat pumps - a way to efficiently heat homes without natural gas but with electricity. PBW is the fund which I used to participate in the renewable energy companies and clean energy companies of America. There are few such companies - and most are very small so I feel comfortable investing in about 30 of them through this exchange traded fund.

It seems to me that at the same time we are running out of oil and gas, we are realizing that many precious metals are limited. Thus I have invested in the Vanguard Precious metal fund (VGPMX).

With the mix of clean energy, fossil energy and precious metals my investments also offer some diversity.

My investments have done well. I see no reason why they will not continue doing well for years. Yet most of my investments are in fossil energy. As a renewable energy advocate that fact is a bit hard for me. So I have used some of those gains to become a life member of two renewable energy groups, invested in a solar water and space heating system on my home and am considering purchasing a 2006 Honda Civic hybrid.

The Energy Efficient Renewable Home: How, Why and Questions

2006-01-10T10:25:00.000-06:00

Thoughts on Beginning to Change How Homes Are Built
(I do like bulleted lists)
________________

Transforming the Market Place for New Homes:
Moving beyond Big Somewhat Energy Efficient Homes

My brothers passive and active solar, moderately sized, very well insulated, earth bermed home in Michigan

What Wisconsin is doing now:

The Wisconsin Energy Star home program, (in terms of energy and the environment) is it a success?

Reduces natural gas use by 9% (+/-6%)
Reduces electricity use by 4% (+/-7%)
Homes are slightly larger than the average home
Homes have slightly fewer occupants than the average home

What is an Energy Efficient Renewable Home?

An enjoyable place to live
Carefully sited and constructed
Relatively small
Very energy efficient
Suitable for solar energy

Concepts that an EE RE home embraces

Moderate size
Natural ventilation (i.e., passive cooling)
Tight home with controlled ventilation
Highly insulated shell with appropriate air and water barriers
Energy Star and energy efficient appliances
Non-electric heating system (but could be geothermal heat pump)
Renewable ready

Concepts that an EE RE home may embrace

Daylighting
Passive Solar/Solar Tempered
Internal Thermal Mass (an energy storage battery)
Solar Electric System
Solar Water Heating System
Wood, or Pellet Stove
In floor Hydronic Heating

Why do EE RE home markets need support:

Prospective home buyers unfamiliar
Prospective home buyers want other things such as marble counter tops (what the market shows them)
Home builders do not think the EE RE home market exists
Home builders tend to conservative and not want to take risks
Enhance national energy security
Improve world and local environment

In Wisconsin:

There are 2.075 million homes in Wisconsin
Over 26,000 homes were built in 2000.
The residential sector accounts for 21.2% of end use energy consumption (264 trillion BTU in 2000)
Natural gas comprises 51.8% of Residential energy usage (137 Trillion BTU or $1.03 billion in 2000)
Electricity accounts for 23.1% of residential energy usage (61 Trillion BTU or $1.35 billion in 2000)
Homes are getting more energy efficient but they are also getting larger. New home are 22% larger and use 23% less energy per square foot for heating (when compared to the existing home stock).
The average home built in 1950s is 1,100 ft2 while the average home built in the 1990s is 1,900 ft2.

Possible Reasons Why people would be interested in EE RE homes

Energy cost sand supply ecurity
The right thing to do
Fun/interesting place to live
Live more in touch with nature
Help protect the environment
Make a statement
Status
Reduced home energy costs
Improved resale value

Possible reason why people would want to live in a moderate sized home

Less to clean and maintain
More human scale
Reduced purchase price,
Reduced taxes, insurance, utility costs, etc.
Money can be put into a quality home rather than a large home

Possible early adopters

Environmentally concerned
People that place quality over quantity
Prius/hybrid owners
Elderly that want a home they can stay in (not driven out by energy costs)
People that purchase green power
People wanting minimize to home operating costs
People concerned about their energy security

Eventual Goal:

By 2005 getting 10% of prospective new home owners to follow the EE RE home approach would result in the construction of 2,600 homes.
With an energy usage of 50% of the average home (currently 100,000 cubic feet/year of natural gas and 10,000 kWh/year for the average single family home).
25% of the market by 2010

Needs:

What information best moves the market
Who is the best audience (builders, prospective home owners, general public, code officials, etc.)
How is each audience segment addressed

A first post

2006-01-09T16:13:00.000-06:00

And I thought I was simply signing up to comment on the Alternative Energy Blog.

______

Our Energy Future Must be Renewable

We are today at an energy crossroads; the world is warming and fossil fuels are getting more expensive. We are late in determining which energy future we ultimately want: renewable or nuclear. How will that future be determined? If we are silent, in corporate boardrooms and by lobbyist doing their best to effect national and state policy.

Nuclear is limited by the amount of uranium on the planet. Just like oil and gas, uranium is finite. If the world ran on nuclear power the known uranium supply would last less than 25 years. The only way to extend the life of the nuclear option is by reprocessing spent fuel and extracting plutonium. Plutonium is about the most dangerous substance known on the planet. Regardless, the nuclear option is a very complex solution that results in immensely toxic long-lived waste. The cradle to grave economic subsidies that we the public would pay, would never end.

Renewable energy is simple solution. With wind energy, moving air turns blades, which spin a generator. With solar electric systems, light knocks electrons around making a current of electricity. Renewable energy technologies are very simple and non-toxic solutions (and the fuel is free).

The renewable resource is almost unlimited. For example, a solar energy "farm" using today’s technology of solar panels covering about as much land as our federal highway system would meet all of our nation’s energy needs (all our cars, homes, factories, etc.). And solar electric systems still have huge opportunity for technical innovation, cost reduction and efficiency improvement. So the renewable solution will only be getting better.

Yes, we would need a storage system for times of no wind or sunlight. However with a real research and development effort, for example in creating hydrogen by splitting water and battery technologies, solutions will be found.

Do we leave a renewable powered future or a radioactive future to our children?

The real challenge is to set our Nation’s sight on a renewable energy future. And then begin the long and wonderful journey toward it.