Category: Fossil fuels

Am I Still An Environmentalist?

This piece has been a long time coming. The reason I raise the question is simple: my recent public statements in favor of approving the Keystone XL pipeline and that fracking is here to stay for a while and we need to act accordingly. The question I’ve asked myself is: does taking these positions override a lifelong professional commitment to clean energy and environmental protection in environmentalists’ eyes? In mine it does not. Both positions are strongly opposed by vocal and perhaps significant fractions of the ‘environmental movement’. What that fraction is is not clear. I also wish to offer some unsolicited advice to my fellow environmentalists to help ensure that environmentalism will continue to flourish in the years and decades ahead.

First a little background. I’m a trained scientist (physics) who started thinking about clean energy (solar, wind, ..) in the early 1970s and have spent most of my professional career helping to prepare these technologies for wide scale deployment. I’ve also worked hard to advance energy efficiency as the cornerstone of national energy policy.

My involvement in planning and management of renewable electric programs at the U.S. Department of Energy, from which I retired in 2012, exposed me to some of the less attractive realities of the renewable energy world, such as solar energy advocates denigrating wind energy, and vice versa. I reacted strongly at the time, seeing such self-interested behavior as damaging to the long-term interests of the nation and the renewable energy community. I now fear for the long-term interests of the environmental movement as I see parts of it putting what I consider too much energy into battles that it cannot win. In my opinion this can only harm the movement’s image with the public and thus environmentalism’s needed and long term impacts.

Why do I feel this way? Despite my strong belief that the U.S. must reduce its heavy dependence on fossil fuels as quickly as possible, for environmental, economic and national security reasons, and that we must move as quickly as possible to an energy future based on renewable energy, my sense of reality is that this cannot happen tomorrow and that the public recognizes this, despite their often-repeated enthusiasm for renewables. The public wants leadership and a clean energy future, but it also wants energy, the services energy makes possible, and a realistic path to that future. When environmentalists and others imply that our current dependence on fossil fuels can be undone in a decade or so I take strong issue. It will take decades, even with a willing Congress, and fuels derived from petroleum will still be needed to move our cars and trucks while we move to develop alternative fuels. The Keystone XL pipeline will not reduce Canadian mining and production of its tar sands, the rationale behind environmental opposition to the pipeline, and I’d rather have that oil coming to the U.S. via a modern and highly regulated pipeline than via truck and rail and barge.

We have made significant progress in reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere by replacing coal with natural gas in power production, but solar and wind and geothermal and biomass and hydropower and ocean energy are not yet ready to take on that full burden. We need natural gas as a transition fuel to our clean energy future, even though its combustion still releases CO2. It is still much better than burning coal, and careful regulation and enforcement of fracking can minimize the amount of natural gas, a powerful greenhouse gas, that leaks into the environment.

Finally, I recommend that my environmental colleagues join with me in putting our energies into making sure that the pipeline and fracking are done as well as possible, that national policies encourage maximum utilization of energy efficiency to minimize energy and water demands, and that a steadily increasing price is put on carbon emissions. All these points are essential, but this latter point to me is critical. Without a clear signal to all sectors of our economy that we must reduce carbon emissions to avoid the worst impacts of global warming and climate change we are being irresponsible to ourselves and succeeding generations. Such a price on carbon can unleash innovation and set an example for the rest of the world which still looks to the U.S. for leadership.

Human Wastes: Another Energy Resource Waiting to Be Tapped

Recently I posted a blog entitled ‘Animal Wastes: An Energy Resource That Is Win-Win’. The Washington Post article reproduced below may be considered a follow-up to that blog but focused on using human wastes to generate energy. It usefully points out the several beneficial uses to which human wastes can be put and the economic benefits of doing so. It is worth reading!

…………………………………

WASTE, NOT WASTED
By Ashley Halsey III
Washington Post (April 6, 2014)

This is a topic that one must approach delicately so as not to offend the reader’s sensibilities, but since it is a matter of importance for which you may receive a bill for some portion of $470 million, we start out with an analogy.

You need energy, so you eat. Through the miracle of digestion, your body sorts what you have eaten, say, a pastrami on rye with a glob of coleslaw and a dill pickle, and plucks out the nutrients — proteins, carbohydrates and sugars it needs to generate power. Then it jettisons the rest.

What your body jettisons disappears forever, carried along in a huge network of sewers to a plant in the southeastern corner of Washington.

Just like you, that plant needs energy. Through a miracle called thermal hydrolysis, it soon will be able to sort through what you have jettisoned and use it to generate electricity.

Yes, from poop will come power — 13 megawatts of it. Enough electricity to light about 10,500 homes.

Ben Franklin never dreamed of this one.

While Ben may have denounced the scheme as impossible sorcery, he also noted that a penny saved is a penny earned, so he might have been at least intrigued by this notion.

More than a few pennies may be saved for the citizens of the District and for some Virginians and Marylanders. Those people — 2.2 million of them — get a monthly bill for the privilege of sending their thoroughly digested nutritional intake to the plant in Southeast Washington operated by D.C. Water.

A chunk of that monthly bill is passed on to another local utility — Pepco. D.C. Water is the electricity company’s No. 1 customer. By converting poop to power, the water company will cut its Pepco bill by about one third and reduce by half the cost of trucking treated waste elsewhere.

But enough about poop, a subject that makes many a reader a bit squeamish. Because we’d rather not drive you away from the description of a wholly remarkable plan that is very likely to affect your pocketbook, henceforth we will refer to the matter that flows through the sewage plant as “the product.”

In fact, you soon will learn, it is going to be turned into a genuine product. One with a price tag. One that you may buy back.

Think about it.

The product has shed the label “wastewater” to morph into something called “enriched water,” a term laden with many more intriguing possibilities.

“It could be a game changer for energy,” said George Hawkins, an environmentalist who became general manager of D.C. Water. “If we could turn every enriched-water facility in the United States into a power plant, it would become one of the largest sectors of clean energy that, at the moment, is relatively untapped.”

What’s nearing completion outside Hawkins’s office window, however, is something never built on this scale anywhere in the world. A decade of study came first, and to see whether the system would work here, D.C. Water paid smaller European utilities that use the same process to modify their product so it more closely matched that which Washington produces.

“We’re confident that this model will work,” Hawkins said.

Something called the Cambi, for the Norwegian company that builds it, sits at the heart of it.

image

When the product flows into the more than 150-acre plant known as Blue Plains, it goes through a couple of mesh filters to shed the debris swept up in the sewer system. Then it goes through a treatment process that turns it into what the Environmental Protection Agency categorizes as class B waste, enough to fill 60 big dump trucks with 1,600 tons of product every day.

And out the gate it goes, at a cost of $16 million a year.

That will change in May and June, as D.C. Water begins a phase-in intended to get the new system into full service by January.

Here’s how it works:

image

A centrifuge drains off the liquid, and then the screened product will flow into four pulpers, tall stainless steel vats that look like Gulliver’s soda cans. Steam recycled from farther down the process is used to preheat it, and then it flows into one of the two dozen Cambis. They sit like a row of gleaming, blunt-nosed rockets, but they serve as pressure cookers.

The product is heated to more than 320 degrees under as much as 138 pounds of pressure for 22 minutes. Then it moves to a flash tank, where the temperature and pressure drop dramatically and a critical change takes place.

“Because of that pressure difference, the cells burst,” said Chris Peot, director of resource recovery at D.C. Water.

When the cells burst, the methanogens can have their way with them.

That happens in the digesters. They are four huge concrete vats, 80 feet tall and 100 feet in diameter. Right now, their interiors are like vast cathedrals, with domed ceilings and a shaft of light glancing through a hole in the top.

When the whole operation gets rolling, inside them is not a place you would want to be. The product will flow in from the four flash tanks, mixing with the methanogen microorganisms. Methanogens create marsh gases. In the digestive tracts of animals and humans, they also create gas, to the particular delight and fascination of middle-school boys.

That’s what this is all about — creating methane to generate electric power.

The temperature inside the digesters is kept at about that of the human body: 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Each digester chamber has five vertical blue tubes, as big around as manhole covers, that suck the product from the bottom and recycle it to near the top. After the product stews there for about two weeks, the methane produced by the process will vent out a 12-inch diameter pipe in the crown.

After a bit more purification, the methane will be used to fire three jet turbine engines that create electricity. A byproduct of that process: steam, which is funneled back to the pulper.

The power portion of the plant will be operated under contract by Pepco. The deal doesn’t allow D.C. Water to sell the power it generates, a moot point since the process of creating it eats up 3 megawatts and the remaining 10 megawatts will be sucked up by operations at Blue Plains.

Once the digester’s work is done, the remaining product will be drained out into dump trucks, but their total load will be cut in half to about 600 tons a day.

Remember that we told you earlier that what you jettison disappears forever? Let’s reconsider that, because there’s actually a chance you’ll see it again. In a strikingly different form. Right back where you saw it first: on your dinner table.

The product that has been trucked from Blue Plains is rated class B. But the product that comes out of the digester will be rated class A.

The difference?

Class B still has some bad stuff in it. Most of it is shipped to farmers, some in Maryland but most of them in Virginia. They get it free, but unless they let it sit for at least a month, and sometimes up to 18 months, the only things they can use it to fertilize are trees and sod used by landscapers.

Class A product can be used right away on anything, including fields that grow the fruits and vegetables you buy at the grocery store and serve for dinner.

That’s because, Peot says, in the Cambi, “All the pathogens are completely obliterated.”

“Our product has these super-elevated levels of these naturally occurring, extremely important plant hormones,” Peot said.

It is a more environmentally sound choice than the chemical fertilizer alternatives. In the raw, the class A product is so potent it needs to be cut with other materials before it is used to fertilize crops.

“We can blend this with sawdust and sand and make a topsoil substitute for use in green infrastructure projects,” Peot said. “We’re still going to go to farms while we try to build the market for this product.”

Hawkins, D.C. Water’s general manager, chimed in: “It’s clean, organic fertilizer. Conceivably, we could sell this product at Home Depot. ”

Unlike most innovations in waste treatment locally and nationwide, this project was not mandated by a federal court order. D.C. Water’s board decided it was a worthwhile investment of ratepayers’ money.

“This was one of the easier $500 million decisions that we’ll ever ask the board to make,” Hawkins said, ticking off the value: a savings in electrical costs of about $10 million a year; lowering the cost of hauling away treated waste; the potential to generate a profit by selling the product; a reduction by one third in the plant’s carbon footprint; and one more critical virtue.

For about three days a month ago, residents of part of Northwest Washington were told to boil their drinking water for fear it might be contaminated. That scare was caused by a power problem that shut down a pumping station.

“It wasn’t Pepco’s problem. It was internal to us,” Hawkins said. “We have great fears here about what would happen if there was a catastrophic power failure and Blue Plains stopped.”

Generating power internally will provide enough juice to keep the basics running, were that to happen, he said.

“This is the rare combination of both environmentally and economically positive,” Peot said.

image
A Cambi installation in the UK

Zero Energy Buildings: They May Be Coming Sooner Than You Think

Buildings account for approximately 40 percent of the energy (electrical, thermal) used in the U.S. and Europe, and an increasing share of energy used in other parts of the world. Most of this energy today is fossil-fuel based. As a result, this energy use also accounts for a significant share of global emissions of carbon dioxide.

image
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Buildings Energy Data Book

These simple facts make it imperative that buildings, along with transportation fleets and power generation, be primary targets of reduced global energy and fossil fuel demand. This blog post discusses one approach in buildings that is gaining increasing visibility and viability, the introduction of net zero energy buildings and the retrofit of existing buildings to approach net zero energy operation. A net zero energy building (NZEB or ZEB) is most often defined as a building that, over the course of a year, uses as much energy as is produced by renewable energy sources on the building site. This is the definition I will focus on. Other ZEB definitions take into account source energy losses in generation and transmission, emissions (aka zero carbon buildings), total cost (cost of purchased energy is offset by income from sales of electricity generated on-site to the grid), and off-site ZEB’s where the offsetting renewable energy is delivered to the building from off-site generating facilities. Details on these other definitions can be found in the 2006 NREL report CP-550-39833 entitled “Zero Energy Buildings: A Critical Look at the Definition”.

The keys to achieving net zero energy buildings are straight forward in principle: first focus on reducing the building’s energy demand through energy efficiency, and then focus on meeting this energy demand, on an annual basis, with onsite renewable energy – e.g., use of localized solar and wind energy generation. This allows for a wide range of approaches due to the many options now available for improved energy efficiency in buildings and the rapidly growing use of solar photovoltaics on building roofs, covered parking areas, and nearby open areas. Most ZEB’s use the electrical grid for energy storage, but some are grid-independent and use on-site battery or other storage (e.g., heat and coolth).

A primary example of what can be done to achieve ZEB status is NREL’s operational RSF (Research Support Facility) at its campus in Golden, Colorado, shown below.

image

It incorporates demand reduction features that are widely applicable to many other new buildings, and some that make sense for residential buildings and retrofits as well (cost issues are discussed below). These include:
– optimal building orientation and office layout, to maximize heat capture from the sun in winter, solar PV generation throughout the year, and use of natural daylight when available
– high performance electrical lighting
– continuous insulation precast wall panels with thermal mass
– windows that can be opened for natural ventilation
– radiant heating and cooling
– outdoor air preheating, using waste heat recovery, transpired solar collectors, and crawl space thermal storage
– aggressive control of plug loads from appliances and other building equipment
– advanced data center efficiency measures
– roof top and parking lot PV arrays

image

U.S. ZEB research is supported by DOE’s Building America Program, a joint effort with NREL, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and several industry-based consortia – e.g., the National Institute of Building Sciences and the American Institute of Architects. Many other countries are exploring ZEB’s as well, including jointly through the International Energy Agency’s “Towards Net Zero Energy Solar Buildings” Implementing Agreement (Solar Heating and Cooling Program/Task 40). This IEA program has now documented and analyzed more than 300 net zero energy and energy-plus buildings worldwide (an energy-plus building generates more energy than it consumes).

image

An interesting example of ZEB technology applied to a residential home is NREL’s Habitat for Humanity zero energy home (ZEH), a 1,280 square foot, 3-bedroom Denver area home built for low income occupants. NREL report TP-550-431888 details the design of the home and includes performance data from its first two years of operation (“The NREL/Habitat for Humanity Zero Energy Home: a Cold Climate Case Study for Affordable Zero Energy Homes”). The home exceeded its goal of zero net source energy and was a net energy producer for these two years (24% more in year one and 12% more in year two). The report concluded that “Efficient, affordable ZEH’s can be built with standard construction techniques and off-the-shelf equipment.”

image

The legislative environment for ZEB’s is interesting as well. To quote from the Whole Building Design Guide of the National Institute of Building Sciences:
“Federal Net Zero Energy Building Goals
Executive Order 13514, signed in October 2009, requires all new Federal buildings that are entering the planning process in 2020 or thereafter be “designed to achieve zero-net-energy by 2030”. “In addition, the Executive Order requires at least 15% of existing buildings (over 5,000 gross square feet) meet the Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings by 2015, with annual progress towards 100% conformance”.
Two milestones for NZEB have also been defined by the Department of Energy (DOE) for residential and commercial buildings. The priority is to create systems integration solutions that will enable:
Marketable Net Zero Energy Homes by the year 2020
Commercial Net Zero Energy Buildings at low incremental cost by the year 2025.
These objectives align with the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), which calls for a 100% reduction in fossil-fuel energy use (relative to 2003 levels) for new Federal buildings and major renovations by 2030.”

A word about cost: ZEB’s cost more today to build than traditional office buildings and homes, but not much more (perhaps 20% for new construction). Of course, part of this extra cost is recovered via reduced energy bills. In the future, the zero energy building goal will become more practical as the costs of renewable energy technologies decrease (e.g., PV panel costs have decreased significantly in recent years) and the costs of traditional fossil fuels increase. The recent surge in availability of relatively low cost shale gas from fracking wells will slow this evolution but it will eventually occur. Additional research on cost-effective efficiency options is also required.

To sum up, the net zero energy building concept is receiving increasing global attention and should be a realistic, affordable option within a few decades, and perhaps sooner. ZEB’s offer many advantages, as listed by Wikipedia:
“- isolation for building owners from future energy price increases
– increased comfort due to more-uniform interior temperatures
– reduced total net monthly cost of living
– improved reliability – photovoltaic systems have 25-year warranties – seldom fail during weather problems
– extra cost is minimized for new construction compared to an afterthought retrofit
– higher resale value as potential owners demand more ZEBs than available supply
– the value of a ZEB building relative to similar conventional building should increase every time energy costs increase
– future legislative restrictions, and carbon emission taxes/penalties may force expensive retrofits to inefficient buildings”

ZEB’s also have their risk factors and disadvantages:

“- initial costs can be higher – effort required to understand, apply, and qualify for ZEB subsidies
– very few designers or builders today have the necessary skills or experience to build ZEBs
– possible declines in future utility company renewable energy costs may lessen the value of capital invested in energy efficiency
– new photovoltaic solar cells equipment technology price has been falling at roughly 17% per year – It will lessen the value of capital invested in a solar electric generating system. Current subsidies will be phased out as photovoltaic mass production lowers future price
– challenge to recover higher initial costs on resale of building – appraisers are uninformed – their models do not consider energy
– while the individual house may use an average of net zero energy over a year, it may demand energy at the time when peak demand for the grid occurs. In such a case, the capacity of the grid must still provide electricity to all loads. Therefore, a ZEB may not reduce the required power plant capacity.
– without an optimised thermal envelope the embodied energy, heating and cooling energy and resource usage is higher than needed. ZEB by definition do not mandate a minimum heating and cooling performance level thus allowing oversized renewable energy systems to fill the energy gap.
– solar energy capture using the house envelope only works in locations unobstructed from the South. The solar energy capture cannot be optimized in South (for northern hemisphere, or North for southern Hemisphere) facing shade or wooded surroundings.”

Finally, it is important to note that the energy consumption in an office building or home is not strictly a function of technology – it also reflects the behavior of the occupants. In one example two families on Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts lived in identical zero-energy-designed homes and one family used half as much electricity in a year as the other. In the latter case electricity for lighting and plug loads accounted for about half of total energy use. As energy consultant Andy Shapiro noted: “There are no zero-energy houses, only zero-energy families.”

Oil Spills and Our Inability to Clean Them Up Properly

While preparing my latest blog (on zero energy buildings – to be posted shortly) I read the attached piece on the Washington Post’s OpEd page for March 29, 2014: “We Still can’t clean oil spills”. It was authored by Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, and because I think it is a very important article I am reprinting it here to facilitate its distribution. BP, Exxon and other oil companies can advertise all they want about their commitment to safety, but advertising doesn’t substitute for investments in safety research and deployment of safety equipment and practices in an industry that will inevitably experience accidents. Reduced dependence on oil is the long-term strategy that we also need to pursue aggressively.

“25 years after Exxon Valdez, we still haven’t learned to limit oil drilling

By Frances Beinecke, Published online on March 28

Frances Beinecke is president of the Natural Resources Defense Council. She was a member of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling.

Twenty-five years ago this month, the Exxon Valdez struck a reef in Alaska’s Prince William Sound and dumped 11 million gallons of crude oil into the water. The public was shocked by photos of oil-soaked otters and reports that coastal residents had lost their livelihoods. The cleanup effort was so vast it required 11,000 people, some of whom scooped up oil with buckets. People were outraged.

Two decades later, the Macondo well beneath the Deepwater Horizon blew out, killing 11 and sending 170 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. I served on the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, and I saw firsthand the oil-drenched beaches and the anxiety of coastal residents. It was hauntingly familiar. Many lessons from the Exxon Valdez spill had not been applied, and the country was once again struggling with an industry ill-prepared to respond.

Flash forward four years, and oil spills continue to endanger our waters. A week ago , a barge and ship collided and spilled about 168,000 gallons of thick, viscous oil into Galveston Bay near a vibrant bird sanctuary.

An even greater potential disaster looms. Shell Oil plans to drill in Alaska’s next frontier — the Arctic Ocean, a region even more pristine and remote than Prince William Sound. The company’s initial attempts were plagued by failed emergency equipment, a 32-mile-long ice floe and a grounded drill rig. If this last unspoiled ocean isn’t put off-limits in a hurry, we could witness a spill of far greater proportions.

Our country can learn from experience. Preserving marine riches for generations to come makes more sense than trying to bring them back from the brink of the latest disaster.

Here is what we know and must act on today:

The oil industry is still using the same ineffective technology to clean up oil in water as it was 25 years ago. Exxon was woefully ill-equipped for cleaning up Prince William Sound, and the industry vowed to invest in better technologies. Yet when the Deepwater Horizon spill occurred, the industry showed up with the same tools: containment booms and dispersants. Companies spent billions of dollars to advance drilling technology but only a fraction on cleanup research. They had nothing new to offer. And those booms managed to pick up just 3 percent of the oil spilled in the Gulf.

Since the BP spill, companies have increased the number of available well caps, ships and booms, but they have had few breakthroughs in cleanup ability. That is alarming for the Arctic, since booms have not proved capable of cleaning up oil in an Arctic environment shrouded most of the year in ice, fog and gales.

This is particularly important since we now know that oil lingers for decades. In 2003, researchers found that more than 21,000 gallons of oil from the Exxon Valdez tanker remained in Prince William Sound, and some is still present. A recent study concluded that the region’s harlequin duck and sea otter populations have rebounded — but that took 24 years. Pacific herring have reached only 15 percent of pre-spill levels, gutting what was once a $12 million fishery in Prince William Sound. And while one pod of orca whales hit hard by the spill is recovering slowly, the other is headed for demise.

In Louisiana, oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill continues to wash ashore, and researchers are just beginning to understand its effects on the food chain. It’s clear that oil spills cannot be wiped away in a matter of months or a few years, and they can imperil wildlife for generations. Our remaining polar bears and some of our last beluga whales must not be exposed to the same dangers in the Arctic Ocean.

Congress has failed to strengthen safeguards for offshore drilling since the Gulf of Mexico disaster. Just one year after the Exxon Valdez spill, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act and generated important improvements in tanker safety. Yet in the aftermath of the larger spill in the Gulf, Congress hasn’t passed a single law to rein in an industry known for reckless operations and resistance to oversight.

It is long past time for Americans to hear what oil disasters keep telling us: Our safeguards and cleanup equipment aren’t sufficient, and our oceans and coasts remain vulnerable to long-term damage.

The oil industry and Congress must fill the holes in our safety net and recognize that some places should be off-limits to drilling. The fragile and beautiful Arctic Ocean is one of them. I do not want to mark the 25th anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon spill by reflecting on an oil disaster in the Arctic. Let us learn from history and create a safer, clean energy future.”

image
Exxon-Valdez Alaska oil spill

image
BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill