Flywheel system on the diesel Crane

I read an interesting article last week about saving energy by using a flywheel system.

The article stated “In large coastal shipping ports, thousands of diesel engines are operated within ships, trains, trucks, and cranes. Although these engines are the workhorses of the industry, their exhaust is a known pollutant that can cause cancer and other diseases. Around the vicinity of the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, California, in particular, the diesel exhaust is associated with 70% of pollution-related health problems; moreover, diseases caused by the port pollution are responsible for hundreds of deaths annually in this area.” (Flynn, 2008)

This article talked about how a flywheel system installed on a diesel operating crane can help the U.S. shipping port reduce the energy consumption and the diesel exhaust pollution.

The shipping ports around U.S. use this type of crane to pick up and lower the container onto a truck for delivery. As we can see from the picture below, the spreader goes down to pick up the container by using the hoist motor and the operating car moves the container above the truck. The crane then delivers the container on the truck for the final delivery. There is a lot of energy wasted in this process.

CEM (Center of Electromechanics at University of Texas designed a dual flywheel system that can capture this waste energy into something useful. They capture container’s kinetic energy (downward motion of the crane) to turn the flywheels and the flywheels can store this energy due to momentum. This stored energy in the flywheel system can be redistributed back into hoist motor for the next lift. This will greatly reduce the diesel consumption of the crane.

Flynn, M. M., McMullen, P., & Solis, O. (2008, November/December). Saving Energy

Using Flywheel. IEEE Industry Application Magazine, 69-76. Retrieved from

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=4623741&isnumber=4623726

The result of the testing are in the table listed below. We can clearly see that with the flywheel system incorporated into the diesel gentry crane, all three categories (Fuel consumption, Nitrous oxides and Particulate emission) were reduced.

Flynn, M. M., McMullen, P., & Solis, O. (2008, November/December). Saving Energy

Using Flywheel. IEEE Industry Application Magazine, 69-76. Retrieved from

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=4623741&isnumber=4623726

(What do you need to know about energy, 2008)

We have seen this pie chart above from Dr. Webber’s lecture slides. If we combine industrial, commercial and residential together, we will see that these 3 sectors consumed almost 72% of our energy. I believe that we should target our energy policy from both end of the spectrum. Not only we need to have new research and development of sustainable energy but we also have to find a way to make our current process more efficient. That is why the above article caught my eye. A penny saved, is a penny earned…..It is not all about make more energy and consume more, but how to use efficiently.

Greenhouse Gas Regulation in TX Leg

Texas politics takes center stage tomorrow with our guest lecturer, State Rep. Mark Strama (D-Austin). The new House Speaker, Joe Strauss (R-San Antonio), is perceived as more moderate and amenable to increased environmental regulation than his predecessor, and this has sparked the filing of a number of bills regarding climate change, as noted in this recent article in the Austin American-Statesman:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/01/10/0110warming.html
Although Sen. Ellis' bill requiring the state to emit no more greenhouse gases in 2023 than in 1990 is unlikely to even reach the floor of the GOP-controlled Senate, the fact that it has been offered by this well-known Senator, that much of the Legislature appears to be moving in a direction at least more hospitable to it, and that similar bills have been passed into law by states like California I think warrants some response.

While the goal is worthy, I believe the timing, opacity, and seemingly arbitrary nature of the bill make this a poor option. As we all know, the nation is mired in a severe recession right now, and some of Texas' largest industries are the oil, gas, and chemical industries, which by their nature emit greenhouse gases. Legislation cracking down on or even bringing increased uncertainty upon these industries at this point in time would impact jobs and tax revenues in our state at a time when we can least afford it. As Sen. Averitt notes, coordinated action at the federal level is preferable to this alternative, since these industries can just move to another state, taking their jobs and tax payments with them, if faced with uniquely harsh regulations in Texas.

The bill itself also seems fairly arbitrary - what's so magical about the years 1990 and 2023? Also, how is it going to be enforced, and what industries or groups will this burden fall on? Will motorists convert to electric cars that are powered by coal plants, or perhaps will our open spaces be filled with wind and solar farms while drivers continue to drive as they have? Would the Legislature, easily swayed by political motives, be empowered to decide on whose shoulders this burden will fall, or would unelected, unaccountable (though politically insulated) bureaucrats hidden in a basement away from the lobbyists and the citizens of Texas make these decisions? Most importantly, would there be any sort of ongoing cost/benefit analysis on how beneficial the results yielded by this ongoing effort are, or will the directives be strictly mandatory, no matter if reducing CO2 emissions the last 1% costs $100 or $100 billion?

While setting grand targets and pledging to meet them makes for great sound bites, the failure of almost all Kyoto signatories to live up to their pledges provides a useful lesson on the advantages of small, focused, and measurable advances versus willing the accomplishment of massive feats. When William Bratton took over as police chief in an out of control New York City in the early 1990s, he focused the NYPD not on reducing crime city-wide, which was widely regarded as hopelessly entrenched, but for each precinct to focus on cleaning up their precinct block by block. As gains were made on the individual unit level, the crime rate for the entire city plummeted. Similarly, a detailed, market-oriented, adjustable program focused on incremental improvement would likely provide deeper emissions cuts with more responsiveness to public needs than simple decrees like Sen. Ellis' bill.

From Rio to Copenhagen

A few days ago (Jan 28th), the European Commission published a basis for the document presenting the European position for the conference on climate change to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009. This conference is very important, as it is supposed to take over the Kyoto protocol which will expire in 2012. As my contribution to the blog this week, and in preparation for all the expected negotiations in 2009, let me recap a brief history of international mobilization to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions.

• 1992: The Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro was the first international response to climate change. It resulted in 5 documents, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The UNFCCC merely encouraged the signatories to stabilize their GHG emissions. It did not set any mandatory limit, but allowed for future additions to the text: the so-called “protocols”. It was ratified by 192 countries (including China and the US).

• 1997: The Kyoto protocol was added to the UNFCCC. This protocol is a legally-binding document that commits the signatories to cut their aggregate GHG emissions by at least 5% below 1990 levels by 2012. Under the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”, the parties recognized that developed countries are principally responsible for GHG emissions. Therefore, only the “industrialized” countries (i.e., the countries mentioned in Annex I of the UNFCCC) committed to reduce their GHG emissions. As of 14 January 2009, 183 countries have ratified the Kyoto protocol. The US has not. China has, but is not included in the Annex I list of countries.

• 2007: Conference in Bali.Its objective was to find a framework to negotiate a new treaty to replace the Kyoto protocol when it expires.

• 2008: Conference in Poznan. More than 190 countries met again in Poznan to work on the new guidelines to follow up with the Kyoto protocol. Conflict arose between industrialized and emerging countries, as the latter ones blamed the former ones for not providing them with enough funding to fight global warming.

• 2009: The conference in Copenhagen will be the 15^th conference of parties (COP) of the UNFCCC (COP15). Its aim is to find an agreement on a document to replace the Kyoto protocol when it expires. The discussions will run all year long to prepare for the Copenhagen conference in December.

Key items to consider for this conference include:

• New (tougher) targets to reduce the GHG emissions from industrialized countries
  
• Reduction targets for developing countries such as China
  
• Agreement on how the industrialized countries will finance the emerging countries for them to take measures against climate change
  
• US position: with the new American administration, the US will most likely be back in the negotiations, but will probably defend its interests fiercely, given the current economic situation and the fact that China is now the #1 GHG emitter (although far behind the US in emissions per capita).
  

Interactive map of carbon emissions (The Guardian, Tuesday 9 December, 2008)

All parties will now successively present their views regarding what the “new Kyoto” should entail. 2009 will be intense in negotiations until a political agreement can (hopefully) be found.

You can contribute to the Copenhagen negotiations on the Road to Copenhagen website.

Sources and references:

UNFCCC website
UNFCCC full text (Rio 1992)
Kyoto protocol full text
COP15 website
Copenhagen Climate Council Council
Interactive map of carbon emissions (The Guardian, Tuesday 9 December, 2008)
UN Climate Conference: The countdown to Copenhagen (The Independent, Friday 9 January, 2009)
Road to Copenhagen

Osmosis Used for Water Purification and Electric Generation

We live in a world that always works to improve and progress, trying to live up to the new standards imposed in industries. The water purification industry has always been very strict about water contaminant levels, and it has met the standards, but the processes used had seemed to reach their maximum energy efficiency. That is where innovation has to step in.
At Yale University, a doctoral student, Robert McGinnis, and his advisor, Menachem Elimelech, developed a new water purification method that not only simplifies purification processes, but it can also be used to generate electricity. This new method is based off osmosis, and it serves as an affordable means for water purification while suppling a sustainable energy source.
The idea can serve to take non-potable water, even salt water, and make it freshwater. The great part about using osmosis is that it takes one-tenth of the energy used for present purification processes and the low temperature heat sources can be used to generate electricity.
The process uses natural diffusion through a semi-permeable membrane which “draws” the contaminants to salts. These contaminants can then be removed with low heat. This diffusion process is also being studied by the Yale research group to develop a heat engine. The diffusion process will increase hydraulic pressure, and it will then expand through a turbine to produce electricity.
With this new development, water purification (one of the most vital industries in the world) will become much more cost and energy effective, and this may serve as a viable energy source to aid in answering the energy crisis.

This is the link to the article, which was taken from Energy Science and Technology Magazine http://opa.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=6309

Geothermal is HOT

Geothermal is hot…literally at least.

This underutilized and underappreciated resource that exists beneath our feet could provide us with the next big boom in renewable energy production. According to an MIT report released in 2007, a “substantial portion of the country’s energy needs could be met by mining geothermal resources.” The study indicated that 100,000 megawatts could potentially be developed by 2050. Although the timeline for this is almost 15 years, the cost (approximately $1 billion in research and development) is about the same as that of a new coal plant.

Perhaps even more important than being able to simply supply a lot of energy, is that geothermal is a relatively clean resource. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) states on their website that geothermal applications (heating and direct use) have little to no negative impact on the environment. Due to the manner in which the energy is harvested in addition to the fact that geothermal resources lie beneath the Earth’s surface, greenhouse gas emissions are extremely low. A 2006 report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) stated that “U.S. geothermal generation annually offsets the emission of 22 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, 200,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, and 110,000 tons of particulate matter from conventional coal-fired plants.” In addition, it is a more reliable resource than fossil fuel plants with an average system availability equal to 95 percent.

So, it’s clean, readily available and within our own borders. Why then, is it so often ignored as a reliable energy source? A large reason for this is because it’s the nerd of the renewable resources. You know the kind…the one that’s kinda cool, but not cool enough to get invited to the good parties. It’s the wind and solar jocks that get all the fame and glory.

And, to be fair, rightly so for the most part. Wind farms and solar projects are an integral part of our nation’s energy future. But, we need to make sure we aren’t putting all of our eggs in one basket. Look no further than the ethanol debacle from the world of transportation. Tons of effort and billions of dollars were spent on the idea that corn would save us from our dependence on foreign oil and lead us back onto the path of righteousness. Well, as we all know, it didn’t quite work out that way.

For this, and many other reasons, we need to be careful that our future energy policies aren’t too focused in on only one or two key areas. By now, most people realize that there is no silver bullet that can save us from our energy woes. No giant solar array, wind turbine, hydrogen contraption or gushing domestic oil field is going to present itself as our singular saving grace.

No, the only way we can secure our energy future is to diversify our energy portfolio. In 2007, the EIA reported that approximately 93 percent of the energy consumed in the U.S. was produced from petroleum, natural gas, coal or nuclear power. Renewable or other energy sources accounted for less than seven percent.

To me, this is not diversification. True, we are making progress in terms of building our renewable energy portfolio, albeit slowly, but we are not capitalizing on the technologies currently available to us. We need to focus our efforts on getting the most out of the technologies currently in existence and put a significant amount of money towards developing new sources of energy.

Statistics from the EIA show that since 2003 consumption of geothermal energy sources has remained fairly steady at approximately 0.34 quadrillion Btu (quads) per year. In comparison, consumption of wind has almost tripled (from 0.115 quads to 0.319 quads). Solar, although growing at a slower rate than wind, has also increased a noticeable amount over the past several years. One of the main reasons for the surge in wind and solar production is the federal renewable energy production tax credit. With the passage of The Energy Policy Act of 2005 which made geothermal power generation eligible to receive the same tax credit, geothermal supporters are hoping production numbers will start growing more quickly.

The future may be bright for geothermal energy. A recent New York Times opinion editorial highlighted the benefits of geothermal energy, calling for the development of the untapped resource. As the new Obama Administration pushes for more progressive energy policies, geothermal may actually start making more friends in the energy world.

If we can get the word out about geothermal, as we have with wind and solar, it might just develop into the energy world’s next hot topic. And, in doing so, help balance out the nation’s energy portfolio.

Global warming and its challenges

Concerns on global warming have rapidly increased in recent times, so I thought to pen down some of the issues, developments and my thoughts regarding it.
Key findings in UN Climate Panel Report suggest that the rise in global temperatures is due to increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas emissions. Global warming is being indicated by more than subtle changes in the environment. Various fingerprints of Global Warming have been well observed:
a.) Warmer Weather than usual
b.) Ice Melt across the globe.
c.) Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding.
The website below tracks the record breaking decrease in the Arctic Ice Cap in 2007:-
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/10/01/science/20071002_ARCTIC_GRAPHIC.html#first
Also it is known that 25 countries contribute to 80% of the global green house gas emissions. At present the amount of CO2 emissions due to burning fuels and forests are twice as fast as can be absorbed by the plants and oceans (Ref 2).

CO2 is seen as a serious contributor to the green house effect. In the U.S., CO2 eq. emissions have increased by 14.7% since 1990 through 2006. Figure 1 shows contribution of the green house gases in the US in which CO2 contributes to most of the sum. Major CO2 emitters in the U.S. are:
1.) Electricity Generation Sector: Coal being the main contributor to CO2 emissions.
2.) Transportation Sector.
3.) Industrial Sector.
In both the above sectors a constant rise in CO2 emissions is reported ever since 1990. The U.S. Electricity generation sector sees a constant rise due to increase in the demand for electricity since 1980's and the same goes with transportation sector. Over 60% of the transportation emissions resulted from gasoline consumption. Industries contributed to 28% of CO2 emissions both by direct and in-direct combustion.

Around the globe, efforts are being taken to fight climate change. Introduction of Kyoto Protocol in 1992 is a good indication of this global effort. It is a binding treaty between the developed countries and commitment of developing countries to reduce their carbon foot print. I think that steps like these will help a great deal. A glimpse of the results is shown below in the table and it reflects a start for the action:





Also in the US, 5 states in the West and 10 in the Northeast have joined hands to fight in reducing their share of 22% emissions. The west has a good potential to harness the abundant wind energy as an alternative. Moreover, companies like British Telecom have reduced their carbon footprint by 58% since 1996. Imagine if all the companies work on same path forward...

Even though the world is making efforts limit emissions however it's not enough. We would have to change the way we think and work for a better world tomorrow. Dr. Sterman's, an MIT Sloan Professor demonstrates an interactive simulation to show how imminent the threat to climate is, even if we decrease the emissions dramatically today (Ref.4). New technologies have to be developed, ideas have to be brought to work, and today's practices have to be reinvented. So as to keep the CO2 ppm levels in between 350 to 450ppm we will have to start today. Not only new technologies like CO2 sequestration would play a key role to fight it, however, I think the most effective way to approach this problem is to increase public participation and change our organizational strategies & behaviors.

The time to act is now. Together we stand and fight to save our planet and make it more hospitable. Not only technical leads but more common man involvement is required to make a difference.


References:

1.) Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and sinks: 1990 - 2006.

2.)http://www.blogger.com/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/

3.) UNFCCC table

4.) http://www.blogger.com/mitworld.mit.edu

5.) NASA website on climate change

Should the Air Force fleet be fueled by coal?

This is a topic that was discussed on the blog last year, but the article I read on popsci.com that was posted last month talked about solutions to the problems with the Air Force’s plan to change the type of jet fuel their planes use. The motivation for the shift is due to many factors. The Air Force currently uses more fuel than all other branches of the military combined, making up 10% of the total domestic aviation market, which comes out to the small sum of $5.6 billion. A lot of that fuel is imported from other countries and that also makes the military uncomfortable. So their idea is to use more of our available domestic resources, which would be petroleum, natural gas, or coal. Since we are the 'Saudi Arabia of coal', coal seems to be a good option. They want to dig more coal mines and build coal-to-liquid (CTL) plants, a plan which is meeting a lot of opposition from people who believe we need to find an alternative to dirty coal. However, this could help with job creation and decreasing dependency on foreign oil. To create the fuel, the coal is steamed, creating gas which is then exposed to catalysts to liquefy it.

The Air Force is pursuing their plan to fuel the entire fleet with a 50/50 blend of this synthetic fuel from coal and regular jet fuel by 2016. Thus far they have certified the B-52 and C-17 to use the alternative fuel and testing has already begun for the B-1 Bomber, F-15, F-22, and KC-135. The goal is to complete the testing and certification for all aircrafts by 2011.

Supporters spin the criticism of coal by saying that burning CTL is cleaner than regular jet fuel because particulate emissions, SO2, and NOX are eliminated during the gasification process. However, the proponents leave out the fact that twice the amount of CO2 is produced during coal mining and burning. That isn’t allowed by Section 526 of the 2007 energy bill which forbids the US government from spending taxpayers money on fuels that don’t produce “ lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” that are “less than or equal to such emissions from the equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources.”

So to get around Section 526 they have to deal with the extra CO2. Here are some solutions: recycle the CO2 to produce more fuel, use it to grow oil-producing algae, or convert it to other gases that would be useful in the industrial sector. However, the technology isn’t ready for those three. Enhanced oil recovery could be pursued, but it has its own set of problems. Carbon capture and storage (injecting CO2 into underground formations) could also be another option but at this point it is quite expensive. According to the article, even Vaclav Smil says that “sequestering 10% of the world’s 2005 CO2 production would require more plants and pipelines than are used in the entire worldwide business of crude-oil extraction.” Hmmm, that seems like a big hurdle.

Obviously low carbon fuels would be better options than coal-to-liquid or petroleum fuels, but they aren’t ready yet so the dilemma is this: foreign oil or domestic coal-based fuel that’s dirtier? I wonder what Steven Chu thinks…

"Shock therapy for petrol addicts"

"Shock therapy for petrol addicts"is the catchy title of an article I ran across today. The author, Philip King, writing or The Australian, follows the push of automakers all across the world for the introduction of the electric car as a substitute to the gasoline-powered vehicle.

The article presents the cars that companies such as Nissan, Toyota, Ford, GM and Daimler Chrysler will be putting into production over the next year or two. The similarities between all these cars are that they are low-powered, high-priced, city-commuters with a limited range and a very high recharge time. The author explains what each of the aforemetioned companies is doing on a technological level, for example, he compares Toyota's "parallel" hybrid to GM Volt's "series" hybrid. The parallel hybrid has both a gasoline and an electrical motor. When the car is moving at a slow speed, it uses the electrical motor, while at high speeds the gasoline motor is utilized. In a "series" hybrid like the Chevrolet Volt, the car is always powered by the electric engine. The gasoline engine turns a generator which charges the batteries and provides power for the electrial motor.

Aside from greenhouse gases and high fuel costs, a major reason behind the push for electric vehicles is expressed by Nissan's head of advanced product strategy, Francois Bancon, who believes that this is the computer age and 80% of the 15-16 year old kids are not even interested in cars. They do not reject the car as a mode of transportation, however these future car-buyers are not interested in the "way the car moves" and the "driving pleasure as we define it". He believes the the car-buyers to be will be much more interested in the way their heads up display (HUD) looks then the way their machine performs.

The author of the article presents a few smaller companies that are becoming players in the electric car market; while they are not putting out original models, they are converting gasoline cars to electric ones by fitting them with electric motors and lithium ion batteries.

The author also presents the problems the electric cars have yet to overcome: they cost more than twice as much as gasoline models, the batteries are expensive, they polute and even though there are companies working on it, there is currently no supply chain equivalent to the gas stations that will be able to service these vehicles

I agree with the author on many of the points he presents in his article, however he fails to foresee some other maor drawbacks.

Electric cars have been around since the 1830's when there were two models developed by Robert Anderson and Professor Sibrandus Stratingh [2]. However the reasons the electric car did not take off then are the same reasons it will be hard for it to take off now: limited range and high cost, mostly due to the batteries. Lithium Ion batteries have major drawbacks when it comes to cost, lifetime and operating conditions. Batteries do not work well when it is cold, and they lose their recharge capacity when it is hot; also they are very hard to recycle.

Also, does Nissan really think that these 15-16 year old kids will not change their mind when they get a bit older?

The most important question is whether people are willing to pay a lot of money for a vehicle an extremely limited use.

References:

[1] http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24984579-13232,00.html
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car

New transportation technology improves safety, efficiency

Bombardier has recently announced the development of a catenary-free light rail/tram system that is safer than traditional systems, and has also been found to be up to 30% more energy efficient in testing. While there as yet appear to be no details on when the system will be commercially available of what the cost of the system will be, it does raise an interesting question. As the U.S. looks for solutions to reduce carbon emissions and increase energy efficiency, will products such as the Primove be able to gain a significant market in U.S. cities? It seems that between the likely future increase of oil prices, desire to reduce traffic congestion, a need for more efficient solutions, and the ever-present concern for safety, that this could be an ideal time for this type of product to make a positive impact in our automobile-loving country.

Research, Development and Deployment, the bridge to future energy security

Petroleum Products touch our lives in innumerable ways every day. Whether it be as Gasoline, with which we drive our cars, trucks and other locomotives or as LPG or as indirectly as a raw material to the manufacture of plastic, textiles and other industries, Petroleum has become an indispensable part of our lives. US petroleum consumption sums up to a total of 20.68 million barrels per day where the domestic production is just 5.064 million barrels per day (EIA, Petroleum Basic Statistics (data for 2007 except where noted)). The energy demand is met by the imports from other countries. EIA reports that US will require 19 % more energy by 2030. Major part of this will then also be met by petroleum. Global demand will rise by 50% by that time. Keeping above figures in mind, it is worthwhile to know about some of the latest technological developments and research undergoing in the field of petroleum sector and it will be interesting to speculate how this ever increasing energy demand can be met.

Despite the rapid growth of global demand for petroleum products, the EIA estimates that less than half the world’s total conventional oil reserves will have been exhausted by 2025. These estimates include existing oil reserves and anticipated reserves resulting from new technologies and discoveries, but do not include unconventional resources. One massive potential energy resource is oil shale. No other nation in the world is as rich in oil shale as the U.S. Even though extraction poses some technical challenges; US oil shale reserves contain the energy equivalent of 2 trillion barrels of oil. To put this figure in perspective, the world has used 1 trillion barrels of oil since the first oil well was successfully drilled in Pennsylvania in 1859. As such, the United States’ 2 trillion barrels of oil shale is a potentially huge new source of oil, and must be central to any discussion of our continental energy security. New developments in the oil recovery such as Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) , with the help of either Chemicals such as Surfactant and Polymer or CO2 and steam, has a potential to provide that extra oil to the US’ domestic production. These are viable only through the support of extensive research in these particular fields.

Research plays an important role in developing new technologies, which can be used to surmount the problems which we are facing today. Carbon emission to the atmosphere poses a real threat to our environment. One of the main reasons for the proposal of an alternate energy, in my opinion, is the harmful effect of the current fuels on our environment. How many of us know about the recent developments in such technologies as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)? This technology, if deployed successfully, will reduce the carbon emission by 80-90%. We are spending a lot of money in search of alternate energy. Transition from today’s energy source to completely a new source cannot be done overnight. Studies done by EIA suggest that we will be depending on fossil fuels at least for the coming 25 to 30 years. So it is more important to tackle problems created by these fuels rather than spending more time and money for an alternate source of energy. I am not against the development of alternate fuels, but the urgent need is to prioritize research and development according to current problems and situations. Of course, we need those nuclear power plants which are much efficient than current coal fired plants, but at the same time we should think more about mitigating problems created by producing power with current technology. Similarly it will be a technological feat to produce oil from those oil shales, where major oil companies are spending a lot of time and money on the extraction of that sealed nectar out of the ground. If ever we succeed in this, and I think we will someday, the USA will be one of the key oil producing countries in the field. We will no longer talk about energy security then.

Another sophisticated technology which is being developed is the Enhanced Oil Recovery. The oil which is recovered today is only a percent of oil actually present down the reservoir. Oil is trapped there due to capillary force. Research shows that we can recover that oil with the help of chemicals such as Alkali, Surfactant and Polymer. There’s tremendous interest amongst the oil companies in this technology and thus extensive research is currently underway at The University of Texas at Austin coupled with some major oil companies. This extra oil will also add to that domestic production which will help to reduce the petroleum imports from outside. This technology actually started its course in early 70’s, but at the height of the gas crisis in early 80’s, when the oil price reached 10$/bbl, most of the oil companies closed their research facilities. Thus research became stagnant for many years and it even became impossible to start those facilities again when the oil price went up. It was a hard blow to the development of some of the research areas. We are still recovering from that. This clearly points towards the importance of research and development and also deployment of new technology to meet the energy demands of the future. All these things would be possible only with the help of energy policies by the Government to actually try and test these new technologies.

Government has the leading role in the development of petroleum industry by its policies towards this sector. American oil and gas leasing has been prohibited on most of the OCS (Outer Continental Shelf) since the 1982. Today, 97 percent of America’s offshore OCS lands are not leased for energy exploration or production. The U.S. is now the only developed nation in the World that restricts access to its offshore energy resources. The Mineral Management Services estimates that the OCS contains 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Since there was no exploration activity in these regions, these figures tend to be very moderate. The new government should study the effect of exploration in these areas. Technological advancement in drilling and production technology will ensure safe recovery without adversely affecting the coastal ecology. The link attached contains statistics and other information about current OCS production. http://www.mms.gov/stats/OCSproduction.htm.

Thus investment in Research, Development and Deployment coupled with visionary energy policies would lead to our goal of Energy Security. This conscious approach would also establish our leadership in science and technology benefiting the world at large.

Focusing on "Green" Buildings

One of our reading assignments was looking at the different graphs on Energy Consumption by Sector Overview from the Annual Energy Review 2007. That graph showed both the Residential and Commercial sectors combined consuming 39% of total energy in 2007 which equates to approximately 40 Quads. The Transportation sector consumed 29% of total energy or approximately 30 Quads. While much of the nation’s focus is in producing “greener” and more fuel efficient vehicles, I believe there should be more focus on ways to build “greener” buildings that use less energy to construct AND less energy to operate/maintain. You may have heard about the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certifications. USGBC is a non-profit organization committed to expanding sustainable building practices across America. LEED, developed by USGBC, is a national rating system for developing sustainable buildings by assessing performances in categories of sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy & atmosphere, materials & resources, indoor environmental quality and innovation & design process. Check out the LEED for New Construction checklist which shows how the points are structured and the different levels of certification (Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum) that can be achieved.

I recently read an article which reported the number of LEED projects doubling in 2008 as many owners are catching on with the idea of sustainable buildings. And this upward trend is projected to remain solid despite the economic conditions the nation is facing. This leads me to think that there is a definite market in the segment where the notion of leasing and working in a green building is highly desirable. It also hints that a green building does not necessarily mean more expensive building. On the contrary, the amount of energy conserved and saved over the lifecycle of a building can significantly outweigh the added initial cost of constructing it with sustainable designs.

LEED was originally created as a voluntary program but the tide is starting to shift. There are now numerous federal, states and local government initiatives aimed at adopting the LEED program at various levels. I’m curious to know the change in involvement at the federal level with the new administration over the coming years. Will LEED eventually become part of our standard building code? Is there a huge business potential for innovative and environmentally conscience construction contractors with this movement? Will this actually have a significant impact in the total energy consumed for Residential and Commercial sectors in the coming years?

Jatropha: A bio-fuel panacea?

The use of bio-fuels as alternative sources of energy has long been a subject of intense debate among its proponents and its critics.  Some of the points raised by critics of bio-fuels, like Mr. Peter Brabeck - Letmathe, the chairman of Nestle (in an article in the Wall Street Journal¹) are that,

1) Bio fuels are unreliable.

2) They have triggered a massive reorientation of agricultural land towards their production (130 million tons of corn in the US alone for bio-fuel production) having disastrous consequences on the food front.

3) Bio-fuels create water shortages in many areas and worsen them in places where they are already endemic.  

Jatropha plant is being seen by many to be an answer to the issues raised above. It is an ideal bio-fuel crop. Goldman Sachs ^[2] has rated it to be the perfect biodiesel crop. "Jatropha" in Greek literally means 'medicinal plant'. It is a traditional bush that has been found in the wild in Central America for centuries and was brought to Europe by the Portugese in the 16th century and has since spread all over the world.

Jatropha is drought resistant, thrives on virtually any kind of soil, including desert and other non-arable soils and requires minimum amounts of inputs like fertilizers, pesticides etc. Since the jatropha plant can grow in virtually any kind of soil; these lands need not be strictly agricultural. The Indian Railways^[12]  has plans to cultivate jatropha along the sides of railway tracks and other surplus waste lands under its possession and produce bio-fuels which would be used to blend with conventional diesel for its usage. Moreover, Jatropha yields many times as much bio-fuel per acre as compared to corn and other bio-fuels ^[4] (four times as much as soya and ten times as much as corn^[3]). Another important aspect of the use of jatropha as a bio-fuel is that it is virtually carbon neutral, absorbing as much carbon dioxide as that produced by its combustion. Also, the residue after the extraction of bio-fuel is a good source of bio-gas as well as biomass. It is also excellent in preventing soil erosion and the leaves it drops act as a soil enriching mulch ^[3], thereby enriching the soil on which it is grown. 

Also, the economics of using jatropha is also favorable and by some estimates^[2] is about $43 per barrel, about half that of oil from corn, a third of that from rapeseed and very close to the current crude oil prices. Furthermore, the capital investment required for setting up its processing facilities is comparable to that of conventional refineries according to UOP ^[8]. Companies like BP and D1 oils (British bio-fuels company) have made substantial investments ^[5] in jatropha plantations in India, Southern Africa and South East Asia.

The fuel obtained from Jatropha is also suited for use as an aviation turbine fuel. Recently, Air New Zealand, in partnership with Boeing, UOP LLC and Rolls Royce, did a successful test flight^[6] on a Boeing 747-400 passenger aircraft which had one of its four engines (of make Rolls Royce RB-211) powered by a 50-50 mix of jatropha oil and standard Jet Air 1 (standard jet) fuel. The following videos ^{[7], [8], [9], [10], [11]} describe this test flight and analyze the use of jatropha as a bio-fuel. The jatropha oil used for the test flight matched remarkably well with the standard aviation fuel with respect to its properties, especially those related to its performance as an aviation fuel ^{[8], [9]}.

Thus, from the above discussion, it is clear that jatropha can address most of the problems associated with the use of bio-fuels like corn and is an ideal solution to meet the current and future energy shortfalls. However, it has its own share of problems, such as its toxicity due to which the government of Western Australia banned the cultivation of jatropha ^[3]. There is also the fear that in areas dependent on subsistence agriculture, it could force out food crops, thereby increasing the risk of famine ^[3]. There is also some uncertainty associated with its yields which could affect the economics of its use. Thus, further research into the development of new technologies to address these issues is needed before advocating its large scale use as a bio-fuel.

References

1) "Bio-fuels Are Indefensible in Our Hungry World". The Wall Street Journal (June 13, 2008)  

2) "Jatropha Plant Gains Steam In Global Race for Biofuels". The Wall Street Journal (August 24, 2007)

3) "Poison plant could help to cure the planet". The Times (July 28 2007)

4) "Mali’s Farmers Discover a Weed’s Potential Power", New York Times (September 9, 2007)

5) "Could jatropha be a biofuel panacea?" by Angela Hind, BBC Radio 4 (July 8, 2007)

6) "Air New Zealand Completes Test Flight with Jatropha Biofuel" Renewable Energy World.com

7) "Air New Zealand Jatropha bio-fuel test flight" youtube.com

8) "UOP presentation: Air New Zealand test flight". youtube.com

9) "Rolls Royce presentation: Air New Zealand test flight". youtube.com

10) "Boeing presentation: Air New Zealand test flight" youtube.com

11) "Bio-fuels power New Zealand jet" Reuters.com

12) "Indian Railways’ Jatropha Biodiesel Gathers Steam: a Biofuels Digest special report" Bio-fuels digest (Sept 9, 2008)

 

Taking Zero Emissions Goals One Step at a Time

Most level-headed people can agree that there is a need to reduce our emissions. If you ask most geologist, they will tell you that there is not definitive data and evidence to prove that human activity is directly linked to current rates of global warming. Nevertheless, emissions from coal plants and oil refineries needs to be monitored and controlled as we do with our daily municipal waste. I thought Dr. Weber's analogy on a messy room could not only apply to thermodynamics, but the basic need to control our waste at least to protect the integrity of our environment we live in, the same way we try to keep our room clean. Luckily, most of us do not share our room with other people but we all share this Earth and it should be kept in good living condition.

This brings me to the main point of my blog. It is fair to say that everyone eventually wants zero emissions energy. We are seeing the initial progress to this point as countries like Norway are setting ambitious goals of reaching zero emissions by 2030. Other countries are setting similar goals to 2050 or even 2100. In my opinion and with the recent plummet of fuel prices, these goals for zero emissions or evening cutting emissions in half within the next century are mostly just wishful thinking. I mention Norway because there was recently an article in The Economist on Norway and its ambitious and somewhat hypocritical goal of reaching zero emissions by 2030. From the article it is clear that Norway is taking many of the right steps in building a cleaner society, incorporating hydroelectric power where it is effective and funding initial carbon capture and sequestration projects. They are also making regulations on infrastructure such as a strong requirement to build bridges instead of tunnels, where tunnels require lighting 24 hours a day and require more energy than bridges. With these sort of actions, Norway is setting the bar on building a cleaner society and infrastructure. Norway gets blamed as hypocrites for promoting zero emissions by 2030 because they are the 3rd largest exported of gas and the 4th largest exporter of oil. In other words, within Norway their society is striving to be green but the countries they export to are generating more emissions.

An underlying point I saw from this article is that countries may take individual action towards building a zero emissions society, but the problem needs to be solved on a global scale. If Norway became zero emissions by 2030 would that have any impact on the rate of global emissions. Not only Norway, but the countries they export to also need programs to reduce emissions. China is literally just getting their hands "dirty" with there significant amount of coal resources. One of the best things Norway is doing is funding initial carbon capture and sequestration projects (CCS). I strongly believe that CCS is the immediate answer to reducing global emissions. It is obvious on a economic and geologic basis that coal is here to stay. By having governments fund these initially CCS projects, we will be able to learn about the process and make it more efficient and lower the costs. If governments pair the lowered costs of CCS with regulations like a carbon tax and/or a cap-and-trade system then companies like Shell and BP will eventually enter the economic market of CCS. I make an analogy of this process to space exploration. We would not have satellite TVs in every house if countries like Russia and United States didn't take the initial risk of simply sending a man to space. Yuri Gagarin went to space in 1961 and DirectTV, an economically successful company, started in 1993. The timescale for CCS maybe even shorter because oil companies have a plethora of subsurface data on the geologic formations that would be used for carbon sequestration. If we pair CCS technology with nuclear power, we may have the first global step to cutting our emissions at a significant but reasonable rate. Nuclear power can be a crucial component to our energy infrastructure, protecting from a spike in coal consumption as our global population grows. On a regional scale, clean sources of energy like wind power and geothermal energy can be incorporated, but it is too ambitious to think the world can run on only wind and geothermal energy. Obviously we cannot dispose of nuclear waste and sequester CO2 for hundreds of years, but in sufficient time these processes will bring us to zero-emissions energy as we consume our supply of fossil fuels in a cleaner way. Eventually the price of oil and coal will no longer be economic as energy sources like solar will develop cost-effective and efficient technology.