This past week my colleague Michael Webber presented some preliminary results (currently under review for publication at Environmental Science and Technology) at the 2008 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. A journalist from the Toronto Star reported about the results of our work. And Gordon Quaiattini, the president of the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association (CRFA), put in his 2 Canadian cents worth of comment to the Star editor.
First, our work on this is under review so I won't comment too much on the methodology until it is accepted and published, but I can clarify some aspects of the table in the Toronto Star article as well as the comment by Mr. Quaiattini.
As far as Mr. Quaiattini is concerned, let me assure him that neither me nor Michael are against biofuels. What we are for is understanding the impacts of all fuels. That is why we presented information that compares a variety of fuels, and future work can focus on additional biofuels and alternative fuels.
Mr. Quaiattini claims that 85% of U.S. corn is non-irrigated. This is fairly consistent value as in 1998 we show approximately 1.9 billion bushels irrigated (see http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/fris/fris.htm Table 22) out of about 9.8 billion bushels of US corn grain (see http://www.nass.usda.gov/ and select 'US corn grain' stats for 1998 in the pull down menu) - this gives 15.6% irrigated. He also states the numbers of 3 gallons of water to process the corn into a gallon of ethanol, and this is at the lower end of the range of values we used.
The data presented in the aside in the Star article lists ethanol water 'use' (note in this case consumption and withdrawal are roughly equivalent) as 40-130 gallons per mile driven on E85. This is close, but not quite accurate as noted. We calculate 12-136 gallons per mile driven on E85 derived from irrigated corn in the U.S. The range exists because not all regions that grow corn need the same amount of irrigation. Obviously some regions get more rain than others. We have made no claim (yet!) on the total water consumed and withdrawn for travel in light duty vehicles in the US.
NOTE: when considering ethanol derived from non-irrigated corn, the values for consumption and withdrawal are less than 0.5 gallons/mile. This shows you that the vast majority of the water of concern is for irrigation.
IMPORTANT:
Does this mean we should not use biofuels? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!
What it does mean is that we need to understand the limits of our water resources while considering the tradeoffs that that the "biofuels vs. fossil fuels" debate entails. Fossil fuels are essentially really old biomass as nature has done a lot of work for us in growing the plants and storing them in the ground (over 100s of millions of years) for us to now use. Biofuels are essentially really young fossil fuels.
When planning for growing crops either for food or fuel, we need to use both the land and water resources responsibly. I applaud the efforts of the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association and other similar organizations that are helping promote alternatives to fossil fuels for transportation or stationary applications. I believe we can avoid a water conundrum, and our work is providing information to help society do just that.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Water for Transportation - publication on "electric miles"
A paper of mine has been published online today in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. The paper describes how much water is used, that means consumed and withdrawn (which are two different concepts) for driving a vehicle on electricity as "fuel". This pertains to electric vehicles (EV) or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) while they travel on battery power alone.
First, two basic definitions:
water withdrawal is that water which is taken from a source, run through a process, and returned to the source or some other source.
water consumption is water that is withdrawn but not returned to the source due to evaporation (for example - in cooling processes for steam power plants) or evapotranspiration (evaporation from through plants).
Due to water consumed and withdrawn for cooling steam electric power plants (coal, nuclear, geothermal, solar concentrated power, and most natural gas), we can associate that water usage with the electricity generated from the plant. Assuming that an EV or PHEV is charged with electricity from the generic U.S. grid, each mile driven by a average light duty vehicle (a car, pickup truck, or SUV) will consume 0.2-0.3 gallons of water and withdraw 8 gallons of water. This is approximately 2-3X more water consumption and 12X more water withdrawal than when driving a light duty vehicle on petroleum gasoline.
Does this mean we should not pursue EV and PHEV technology? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
There are many benefits to the integration of EV/PHEV vehicles which include the ability to use a diversity of fuels sources - anything that can end up generating electricity (burning stuff to produce steam, nuclear power, wind power, photovoltaic solar, etc.). The ability to use a variety of transportation fuels by way of the electric grid is very powerful and important.
While the water consumption and withdrawal is higher than using petroleum gasoline, we can easily plan and accommodate for the increase in water usage per mile. The use of EV/PHEVs will occur gradually, and water resources will not be the limiting factor for their adoption. Full speed ahead for electric cars.
First, two basic definitions:
water withdrawal is that water which is taken from a source, run through a process, and returned to the source or some other source.
water consumption is water that is withdrawn but not returned to the source due to evaporation (for example - in cooling processes for steam power plants) or evapotranspiration (evaporation from through plants).
Due to water consumed and withdrawn for cooling steam electric power plants (coal, nuclear, geothermal, solar concentrated power, and most natural gas), we can associate that water usage with the electricity generated from the plant. Assuming that an EV or PHEV is charged with electricity from the generic U.S. grid, each mile driven by a average light duty vehicle (a car, pickup truck, or SUV) will consume 0.2-0.3 gallons of water and withdraw 8 gallons of water. This is approximately 2-3X more water consumption and 12X more water withdrawal than when driving a light duty vehicle on petroleum gasoline.
Does this mean we should not pursue EV and PHEV technology? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
There are many benefits to the integration of EV/PHEV vehicles which include the ability to use a diversity of fuels sources - anything that can end up generating electricity (burning stuff to produce steam, nuclear power, wind power, photovoltaic solar, etc.). The ability to use a variety of transportation fuels by way of the electric grid is very powerful and important.
While the water consumption and withdrawal is higher than using petroleum gasoline, we can easily plan and accommodate for the increase in water usage per mile. The use of EV/PHEVs will occur gradually, and water resources will not be the limiting factor for their adoption. Full speed ahead for electric cars.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Offshoring Energy and Emissions - Coming back from Developing to Developed Countries
A recent study in the journal in Environmental Science and Technology discusses the 'embodied carbon' in global trade. The concept of embodied effects in global trade has been noted by scientists and engineers by estimating such aspects as the energy embodied in a product when it is made in one place and shipped to another.
Somewhat by definition, making a product in China (say a Barbie doll) and shipping it to the United States takes more energy than making it in the United States and keeping it here. Just think of the energy used to create the infrastructure (tankers) and fuel the cargo ships (low grade petroleum used in ships). You don't need these if you don't travel the globe, but both systems require intra-continental infrastructure.
As peak oil and gas come on, businesses will be forced (albeit in some views 'rightly so') to better account for the energy used to make a particular product or provide a particular service. Products from China don't cost less in the U.S. because it actually costs less to make from an engineering sense; it just costs less based upon how much you value a person's time and labor. Essentially the time of farmer converted to factory worker in China has less value than the average Joe/Jane in the U.S. The 100s of millions of workers in China available to work cheap is the main reason why products have gotten cheaper in the U.S.
Essentially, the CO2 being shipped from abroad to the U.S. (and generally from developing to developed countries) is a proxy measure for energy. As suggested in the synopsis (linked above), the solution is likely to factor the cost into the consumer of the product and not necessarily its producer.
And we should quit shipping electronic 'waste' to China, as someday we'll likely wish we kept it to make use of it via recycling, but that's another story ...
Somewhat by definition, making a product in China (say a Barbie doll) and shipping it to the United States takes more energy than making it in the United States and keeping it here. Just think of the energy used to create the infrastructure (tankers) and fuel the cargo ships (low grade petroleum used in ships). You don't need these if you don't travel the globe, but both systems require intra-continental infrastructure.
As peak oil and gas come on, businesses will be forced (albeit in some views 'rightly so') to better account for the energy used to make a particular product or provide a particular service. Products from China don't cost less in the U.S. because it actually costs less to make from an engineering sense; it just costs less based upon how much you value a person's time and labor. Essentially the time of farmer converted to factory worker in China has less value than the average Joe/Jane in the U.S. The 100s of millions of workers in China available to work cheap is the main reason why products have gotten cheaper in the U.S.
Essentially, the CO2 being shipped from abroad to the U.S. (and generally from developing to developed countries) is a proxy measure for energy. As suggested in the synopsis (linked above), the solution is likely to factor the cost into the consumer of the product and not necessarily its producer.
And we should quit shipping electronic 'waste' to China, as someday we'll likely wish we kept it to make use of it via recycling, but that's another story ...
Monday, January 28, 2008
Shell CEO Talks of peak "easily accessible supplies of oil and gas" by 2015
As posted on other blogs (The Oil Drum and The Energy Blog) Jeroen van der Veer, the Chief Executive of Royal Dutch Shell, has suggested that the "easy oil" will not keep up with demand by 2015, and that a "blueprint" future energy scenario is preferable to a haphazard strategy. Now one of the world's largest companies says peak oil is within 7 years. Anyone want to work on battery and capacitor technology!?!
Use the title link to go to the Shell website for the statement, or just read below:
Use the title link to go to the Shell website for the statement, or just read below:
Two Energy Futures
* By Jeroen van der Veer
By 2100, the world’s energy system will be radically different from today’s. Renewable energy like solar, wind, hydroelectricity, and biofuels will make up a large share of the energy mix, and nuclear energy, too, will have a place. Humans will have found ways of dealing with air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. New technologies will have reduced the amount of energy needed to power buildings and vehicles.
Indeed, the distant future looks bright, but much depends on how we get there. There are two possible routes. Let’s call the first scenario Scramble. Like an off-road rally through a mountainous desert, it promises excitement and fierce competition. However, the unintended consequence of “more haste” will often be “less speed,” and many will crash along the way.
The alternative scenario can be called Blueprints, which resembles a cautious ride, with some false starts, on a road that is still under construction. Whether we arrive safely at our destination depends on the discipline of the drivers and the ingenuity of all those involved in the construction effort. Technological innovation provides the excitement.
Regardless of which route we choose, the world’s current predicament limits our room to maneuver. We are experiencing a step-change in the growth rate of energy demand due to rising population and economic development. After 2015, easily accessible supplies of oil and gas probably will no longer keep up with demand.
As a result, we will have no choice but to add other sources of energy – renewables, yes, but also more nuclear power and unconventional fossil fuels such as oil sands. Using more energy inevitably means emitting more CO2 at a time when climate change has become a critical global issue.
In the Scramble scenario, nations rush to secure energy resources for themselves, fearing that energy security is a zero-sum game, with clear winners and losers. The use of local coal and homegrown biofuels increases fast. Taking the path of least resistance, policymakers pay little attention to curbing energy consumption – until supplies run short. Likewise, despite much rhetoric, greenhouse gas emissions are not seriously addressed until major shocks trigger political reactions. Since these responses are overdue, they are severe and lead to energy price spikes and volatility.
The Blueprints scenario is less painful, even if the start is more disorderly. Numerous coalitions emerge to take on the challenges of economic development, energy security, and environmental pollution through cross-border cooperation. Much innovation occurs at the local level, as major cities develop links with industry to reduce local emissions. National governments introduce efficiency standards, taxes, and other policy instruments to improve the environmental performance of buildings, vehicles, and transport fuels.
Moreover, as calls for harmonization increase, policies converge across the globe. Cap-and-trade mechanisms that put a price on industrial CO2 emissions gain international acceptance. Rising CO2 prices in turn accelerate innovation, spawning breakthroughs. A growing number of cars are powered by electricity and hydrogen, while industrial facilities are fitted with technology to capture CO2 and store it underground.
Against the backdrop of these two equally plausible scenarios, we will know only in a few years whether December’s Bali declaration on climate change was just rhetoric or the start of a global effort to counter it. Much will depend on how attitudes evolve in China, the European Union, India, and the United States.
Shell traditionally uses its scenarios to prepare for the future without expressing a preference for one over another. But, faced with the need to manage climate risk for our investors and our descendants, we believe the Blueprints outcomes provide the best balance between economy, energy, and environment. For a second opinion, we appealed to climate change calculations made at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. These calculations indicate that a Blueprints world with CO2 capture and storage results in the least amount of climate change, provided emissions of other major manmade greenhouse gases are similarly reduced.
But the Blueprints scenario will be realized only if policymakers agree on a global approach to emissions trading and actively promote energy efficiency and new technology in four sectors: heat and power generation, industry, transport, and buildings.
This will require hard work, and time is short. For example, Blueprints assumes CO2 is captured at 90% of all coal- and gas-fired power plants in developed countries by 2050, plus at least 50% of those in non-OECD countries. Today, none capture CO2. Because CO2 capture and storage adds costs and yields no revenues, government support is needed to make it happen quickly on a scale large enough to affect global emissions. At the least, companies should earn carbon credits for the CO2 they capture and store.
Blueprints will not be easy. But it offers the world the best chance of reaching a sustainable energy future unscathed, so we should explore this route with the same ingenuity and persistence that put humans on the moon and created the digital age.
The world faces a long voyage before it reaches a low-carbon energy system. Companies can suggest possible routes to get there, but governments are in the driver’s seat. And governments will determine whether we should prepare for bitter competition or a true team effort.
Jeroen van der Veer, Chief Executive of Royal Dutch Shell plc, is Energy Community leader of the World Economic Forum energy industry partnership in 2007-2008 and chaired this year’s Energy Summit in Davos. He also chairs the Energy and Climate Change working group of the European Round Table of Industrialists.Friday, December 28, 2007
Peak Energy, Coal Reserves, and Climate Change
The blog The Oil Drum has posted a writing by Dave Rutledge, the Chair for the Division of Engineering and Applied Science at Caltech. In this post and in a YouTube video Rutledge makes a few basic claims or revelations, that if correct, should profoundly affect how we (the United States and the World) treat the issues of energy supply and climate change. Also see a webpage posted by Dave Rutledge where you can download his power point presentation and Excel files.
The three basic points he makes are:
1. Coal reserve estimates are inaccurate, outdated (derived and unchanged significantly since 1974), and in need of revision quite a bit downward. He references a National Academies report that discusses the need for new and accurate accounts of coal reserves and resources.
2. Hydrocarbon (oil and natural gas) and coal resources are well below those that are use by the IPCC climate models to estimate future global warming. The end result is that there is not enough mineable fossil fuels to cause the warming and sea level rises that are being predicted. For example, in some IPCC models, oil production is assumed larger in 2100 than today. Is this possible? Does this mean the use of tar sands and oil shale, or is using those resources even not enough? Rutledge's discussion of this concept makes it seem unlikely that new sources will take up the slack.
3. For climate change reasons, or fossil fuel depletion reasons, work on implementation and research and development into renewable energy systems is an imperative. I'll add not energy efficiency per se, but energy reductions that still enable us, as humans, to continue to be healthy and interact culturally as needed to have good lifestyles.
I will not further discuss this topic as one should refer to the links within this post for further information from the Dave Rutledge himself.
The three basic points he makes are:
1. Coal reserve estimates are inaccurate, outdated (derived and unchanged significantly since 1974), and in need of revision quite a bit downward. He references a National Academies report that discusses the need for new and accurate accounts of coal reserves and resources.
2. Hydrocarbon (oil and natural gas) and coal resources are well below those that are use by the IPCC climate models to estimate future global warming. The end result is that there is not enough mineable fossil fuels to cause the warming and sea level rises that are being predicted. For example, in some IPCC models, oil production is assumed larger in 2100 than today. Is this possible? Does this mean the use of tar sands and oil shale, or is using those resources even not enough? Rutledge's discussion of this concept makes it seem unlikely that new sources will take up the slack.
3. For climate change reasons, or fossil fuel depletion reasons, work on implementation and research and development into renewable energy systems is an imperative. I'll add not energy efficiency per se, but energy reductions that still enable us, as humans, to continue to be healthy and interact culturally as needed to have good lifestyles.
I will not further discuss this topic as one should refer to the links within this post for further information from the Dave Rutledge himself.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
New Energy Bill
The US Congress passed an energy bill yesterday and Bush signed it into law. It is both a step backward and forward for energy policy. See this CS Monitor article for a synopsis.
Creating a higher CAFE standard to get to 35 mpg by 2020 is certainly a good step forward, and it has been a long time coming. The biofuels mandate is a marginally good idea. The emphasis on corn ethanol is not the greatest due to the environmentally unfriendly aspects of using a tremendous amount of irrigated water (200-2,500 gallons of water for every gallon of ethanol) consumed and fertilizer runoff into the Gulf of Mexico. To most engineers who study the problem, I would say they believe biofuels must be non-irrigated and farmed in a way that sustains the nitrogen cycle, and not only the carbon cycle we hear so much about.
The removal of the renewable energy production tax credits for wind, solar, etc. is disappointing, but it has lapsed and been restarted three times already in its brief history. What we really need is a PTC scheme that sets it at a medium to high level (note: it was 1.9 cents/kWh) and has it steadily decrease in a set manner which cannot be changed. This gives businesses the ability to know the future of this kind of incentive such that they can invest in infrastructure that must be amortized over several decades.
The CS monitor article mentioned above does point out one thing that I think is good: energy policy might now be, as it should, a perennial subject. That doesn't mean that energy policies should change every year, it just means they should be evaluated every year.
Creating a higher CAFE standard to get to 35 mpg by 2020 is certainly a good step forward, and it has been a long time coming. The biofuels mandate is a marginally good idea. The emphasis on corn ethanol is not the greatest due to the environmentally unfriendly aspects of using a tremendous amount of irrigated water (200-2,500 gallons of water for every gallon of ethanol) consumed and fertilizer runoff into the Gulf of Mexico. To most engineers who study the problem, I would say they believe biofuels must be non-irrigated and farmed in a way that sustains the nitrogen cycle, and not only the carbon cycle we hear so much about.
The removal of the renewable energy production tax credits for wind, solar, etc. is disappointing, but it has lapsed and been restarted three times already in its brief history. What we really need is a PTC scheme that sets it at a medium to high level (note: it was 1.9 cents/kWh) and has it steadily decrease in a set manner which cannot be changed. This gives businesses the ability to know the future of this kind of incentive such that they can invest in infrastructure that must be amortized over several decades.
The CS monitor article mentioned above does point out one thing that I think is good: energy policy might now be, as it should, a perennial subject. That doesn't mean that energy policies should change every year, it just means they should be evaluated every year.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Deregulated vs. Regulated Energy Prices
In Texas in 1999, Senate Bill 7 created a deregulated electricity market within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). Some areas opted not to join into the fun of a deregulated market, where consumers could choose their retail electricity provider of choice. Examples of these ares are the city of Austin (Austin Energy) and the city of San Antonio (CPS).
So since 1999, I wondered: if the economic 'free' market is supposed to be optimal and drive prices lower for the consumer, why aren't prices in the deregulated market lower than those at Austin Energy and CPS Energy?
Today, the winter charge for electricity within the Austin Energy domain is near 8.5 cents/kWh if using 1000 kWh per month. The summer rate this year was near 9.4 cents/kWh. If I look on the Texas Public Utility Commission's website for finding a retail electric provider (Power To Choose) in Round Rock, Texas (just north of Austin) in the Oncor region, I notice for the fixed rates (I will not consider variable rate electricity) the price varies between 10.2 - 14.1 cents/kWh. This is approximately 1.5 cents/kWh more than Austin Energy averaged over the year. Note that the price a consumer pays is due to costs for (1) electricity generation, (2) transmission, and (3) retail electric providers (REP) who administer the service. The ERCOT deregulated market makes it such that no one company can perform more than one of those functions.
One major reason for this discrepancy is how electricity is priced in the deregulated market.
Assume the following:
1. Company A is in the deregulated market in ERCOT, and Company B is a city municipality within ERCOT but not engaged in the deregulated market (like Austin Energy).
2. Both Company A and B have identical power generation capacity and mix at: 33% natural gas combined cycle, 33% pulverized coal, and 33% nuclear.
The deregulated market prices electricity at the 'marginal price' (i.e. the cost to generate the last bit of electricity). Also, all coal and nuclear power runs almost continuously with the natural gas units cranking up and down to follow the rise and fall of electric demand. Assume the case now with high natural gas prices, it is the most expensive.
Say nuclear power costs 1.7 cents/kWh, coal costs 3.5 cents/kWh, and natural gas generation costs 5.0 cents/kWh.
For 1000 kWh of generation the deregulated cost of energy is:
= (nuclear electricity)*price + (coal electricity)*price + (natural gas electricity)*price
= 333 kWh*5.0 cents/kWh +333 kWh*5.0 cents/kWh + 333 kWh*5.0 cents/kWh
= $50.00
For 1000 kWh of generation the municipality cost of energy is:
= (nuclear electricity)*price + (coal electricity)*price + (natural gas electricity)*price
= 333 kWh*1.7 cents/kWh +333 kWh*3.5 cents/kWh + 333 kWh*5.0 cents/kWh
= $34.00
So using THE EXACT SAME GENERATION units, the municipality is inherently cheaper. Of course, municipalities can be less efficient running their organization than competitive companies and end up charging more. But, competitive REPs also need to pay for marketing their product, which incurs costs. Thus, municipalities can afford to be less efficient in their general operation and organization up to the point that they make up for marginal price differences and marketing costs from REPs. There are also other factors, but the basic price structure for charging for generated electricity is perhaps the most influential.
Of course, since the deregulated market was created after lots of infrastructure existed already, it is not truly a 'free' market system since some companies started with a tremendous amount of assets. But that is a discussion for another day ...
So since 1999, I wondered: if the economic 'free' market is supposed to be optimal and drive prices lower for the consumer, why aren't prices in the deregulated market lower than those at Austin Energy and CPS Energy?
Today, the winter charge for electricity within the Austin Energy domain is near 8.5 cents/kWh if using 1000 kWh per month. The summer rate this year was near 9.4 cents/kWh. If I look on the Texas Public Utility Commission's website for finding a retail electric provider (Power To Choose) in Round Rock, Texas (just north of Austin) in the Oncor region, I notice for the fixed rates (I will not consider variable rate electricity) the price varies between 10.2 - 14.1 cents/kWh. This is approximately 1.5 cents/kWh more than Austin Energy averaged over the year. Note that the price a consumer pays is due to costs for (1) electricity generation, (2) transmission, and (3) retail electric providers (REP) who administer the service. The ERCOT deregulated market makes it such that no one company can perform more than one of those functions.
One major reason for this discrepancy is how electricity is priced in the deregulated market.
Assume the following:
1. Company A is in the deregulated market in ERCOT, and Company B is a city municipality within ERCOT but not engaged in the deregulated market (like Austin Energy).
2. Both Company A and B have identical power generation capacity and mix at: 33% natural gas combined cycle, 33% pulverized coal, and 33% nuclear.
The deregulated market prices electricity at the 'marginal price' (i.e. the cost to generate the last bit of electricity). Also, all coal and nuclear power runs almost continuously with the natural gas units cranking up and down to follow the rise and fall of electric demand. Assume the case now with high natural gas prices, it is the most expensive.
Say nuclear power costs 1.7 cents/kWh, coal costs 3.5 cents/kWh, and natural gas generation costs 5.0 cents/kWh.
For 1000 kWh of generation the deregulated cost of energy is:
= (nuclear electricity)*price + (coal electricity)*price + (natural gas electricity)*price
= 333 kWh*5.0 cents/kWh +333 kWh*5.0 cents/kWh + 333 kWh*5.0 cents/kWh
= $50.00
For 1000 kWh of generation the municipality cost of energy is:
= (nuclear electricity)*price + (coal electricity)*price + (natural gas electricity)*price
= 333 kWh*1.7 cents/kWh +333 kWh*3.5 cents/kWh + 333 kWh*5.0 cents/kWh
= $34.00
So using THE EXACT SAME GENERATION units, the municipality is inherently cheaper. Of course, municipalities can be less efficient running their organization than competitive companies and end up charging more. But, competitive REPs also need to pay for marketing their product, which incurs costs. Thus, municipalities can afford to be less efficient in their general operation and organization up to the point that they make up for marginal price differences and marketing costs from REPs. There are also other factors, but the basic price structure for charging for generated electricity is perhaps the most influential.
Of course, since the deregulated market was created after lots of infrastructure existed already, it is not truly a 'free' market system since some companies started with a tremendous amount of assets. But that is a discussion for another day ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
