Search

The term solar thermal has been used to describe two different types of systems. One is where solar panels are used to collect heat, which is used directly, as domestic or process hot water, space heating, or in some cases, air conditioning. This is really the most basic form of solar energy utilization, which is commonly known as solar heating and cooling (SHC). Technically, one could consider drying ones clothes on a clothesline at one end of the solar thermal energy spectrum, along with the passive solar energy that comes in through the window to warm your house on a cool spring day.

The other, very different type of system involves concentrating solar collectors focusing an intense beam on a vessel or pipe containing fluid, which is then converted to steam to drive an otherwise conventional thermal power plant. This is generally called concentrated solar power or CSP. We will cover this latter type in a separate post under the heading Concentrated Solar Power.

As for solar heating and cooling, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), this sector grew by 14 percent in 2010. A total of 162 billion kWh of heat was collected, making this second only to wind, of the new, clean tech renewables.

The vast majority of installed systems were in China and Europe which combined to account for 78.5 percent of the total capacity.

Most of these systems, 95 percent, were for domestic hot water only, primarily utilizing gravity flow, or thermo-siphoning. Only 11 percent required active pumping, making this technology ideally suited for installations both with and without electricity. All together, some 10.2 million square feet of thermal collectors were installed in 2009. There are a wide variety of systems available, ranging from sophisticated systems with vacuum tubes that interface with radiant floor heating, to simple home-brew systems that can be little more than pipes mounted on a black painted board.

For some reason these types of systems have not really caught on in the US. EIA shows sales more than doubling from 2000-2006, but declining since that time.

The EIA divides solar thermal into three categories, low temperature (primarily for swimming pool heaters), medium temperature (for domestic hot water), and high temperature (systems used by utilities to generate electricity. Most of the systems shipped in the US, some 73 percent, were for swimming pool heaters. In this article we are only considering low and medium temperature systems. These are sometimes referred to as 1x sun systems, meaning that the sunlight is not significantly amplified or concentrated.

I’m not sure why more people here don’t heat their hot water with solar. These systems can be quite inexpensive and simple and can pay for themselves fairly quickly, but somehow they seem to lack the luster of the far more expensive photovoltaic systems which are only one-third as efficient in delivering electricity than these systems are in delivering heat. Activity might be picking up though. One 138 unit apartment complex in Tucson just opted for solar hot water instead of PV. They worked with the manufacturer Free Hot Water in San Jose.  The system is expected to save $1200 per month and roughly 80,000 pounds of CO2 per year.

Solar cooling, though it sounds like an oxymoron, is actually quite real and can be very practical. It is based on the absorption cycle, the same principle that drove some of the earliest refrigerators and is still used in the propane refrigerators that are found in many RVs and trailers. Essentially, they use heat to compress the refrigerant in a fixed volume instead of a mechanical compressor. The rest of the cycle is basically the same; the cooling is produced as the compressed liquid as is expanded in the evaporator. (Think of how cold spray deodorant feels coming out of an aerosol can.) The great thing about solar cooling is that the energy is always available when you need it the most, when the sun is out. Most of these systems today are still complex and expensive so that they only make sense at a commercial scale.

For the most part, it’s easy to separate solar thermal systems and solar photovoltaic systems into two categories. But, there are new hybrid systems that combine both for cogeneration and even tri-generation, which produce electricity, heating and cooling. These systems are inherently more efficient than either system alone, since more useful energy is being extracted from the incoming sunlight. We covered one example of a company doing this, Naked Energy, last month.

Solar thermal: Heating and Cooling

Pros

• Renewable. No fuels required.


• Non-polluting. Carbon free except for production and transportation


• Inherently distributed with onsite production


• Simple, low maintenance


• Solar cooling is available when you need it most


• Hot water provide some limited storage capacity


• Operating costs are near-zero


• Quiet. Few or no moving parts.


• Mature technology


• Good ROI


• High efficiency


• Modular systems


• Can be combined with photovoltaics in highly efficient cogeneration schemes.

Cons

• Intermittent


• Low energy density


• Does not produce electricity


• Supplemental energy source or storage required for long sunless stretches


• Expensive compared to conventional water heaters


• Construction/installation costs can be high


• Harder to compete against very cheap natural gas


• Some people find them visually unattractive


• Manufacturing processes can create pollution


• Installers not available everywhere


• Generally not practical to store or sell excess heat


• Produce low grade energy (heat vs. electricity)


• Limited scalability


• Dependent on home location and orientation

These systems tend to be small scale and are certainly not the silver bullet to solve our energy challenge. After all, domestic water heating, comprises only 22 percent of residential energy consumption. On the other hand, these systems are available and affordable and if many more people started using them, it would make a huge difference, as one aspect of a multifaceted solution.

----------------------
***

What about other energy sources?

• Pros and Cons of Wind Power


• Pros and Cons of Fusion Power


• Pros and Cons of Tar sands oil


• Pros and Cons of Solar Heating and Cooling


• Pros and Cons of Concentrating Solar Power


• Pros and Cons of Solar photovoltaics


• Pros and Cons of Natural Gas


• Pros and Cons of Fuel Cell Energy


• Pros and Cons of Biomass Energy


• Pros and Cons of Combined Heat and Power


• Pros and Cons of Clean Coal


• Pros and Cons of Algae Based Biofuel


• Pros and Cons of Liquid Flouride Thorium Power


• Pros and Cons of Tidal Power


• Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy

[Image credit: Seattle.roamer: Flickr Creative Commons]

RP Siegel, PE, is the President of Rain Mountain LLC. He is also the co-author of the eco-thriller Vapor Trails, the first in a series covering the human side of various sustainability issues including energy, food, and water in an exciting and entertaining format. Now available on Kindle.

By Gerad Hoyt, docSTAR 

The paperless office – at this point it’s becoming a little cliché. We’ve all heard for years about how in the near future our society and business will become totally paperless. The truth is, we’ll probably never be paperless due to the many areas where digital simply can’t match the tried and true paper and pen. However, many parts of our society are still consuming far too much paper. Most paper consumption comes from an inability or unwillingness to change our ways, as well as a lack of clear incentives to entice a reduction in the usage of paper. The reality is, your paper is actually costing you dearly. Here’s some food for thought:

• The average worker in an office uses 10,000 sheets of paper annually.
• It can cost up to 31 times the original cost to send information on paper (printing, copying, postage, storage, filing, recycling, etc.).
• 7.5 billion documents are created and 15 trillion copies are made each year.
• The average four drawer cabinet costs about $25,000 to fill and $2,000 per year to maintain.

These stats are staggering but knowing that most offices simply cannot go 100 percent paperless, there are a few key techniques for incentivizing reduced paper consumption and technology that when applied over time and in conjunction have a dramatic impact.

1. Identify documents that can be maintained without paper The largest step you’ll need to take is to identify what documents and files need to have physical copies and which don’t. You can separate your files into those that are long term and those which are more transient in nature. The nature of your business will go a long way toward determining how much goes into either category. For example, anyone in a field with large amounts of regulations, like legal or insurance, will require that many of their files exist in physical forms which will limit the amount that can potentially be reduced.

2. Develop a strong records management policy and strategy While this is easier said than done, it’s a vital part of making sure that there is an organizational commitment that will drive your paper reduction. Once you’ve mapped out your document structures to how they should be maintained make it policy so that organizational change occurs. Without having a policy to enforce how to manage each type of document, your paperless strategy is bound to fail. Depending on how comprehensive you want to get and the amount of documents you need to work with you may want to consult with a records management expert.

3. Encourage the use of online resources Instead of keeping track of several calendars for work, school, home, etc., make use of programs such as Google’s online calendar, or Microsoft’s Office tools to share information, stay organized and be on time.  Google has a wide variety of services that can help you minimize paper consumption, and the best part: a lot of them are free! GoogleDocs, GoogleCalendar, Gmail, etc. allows you to communicate easily, create and store files online, and has a behemoth amount of space available.  There is a plethora of online tools that can help you stay organized and paper-free. To name a few: Dropbox allows you to store and share data files with multiple people, and can edit from any computer; Prezi is an online presentation program (similar to, but a little more interactive than PowerPoint) that you can easily share with a quick copy and paste of a link.

4. Get an electronic document storage system Depending on the size of your organization, the options above may not work for you or really be able to handle the mass you produce. The system doesn’t need to be overly complex or advanced, it just needs to be able to serve the requirements of your organization. The key to choosing a correct system for document management is to know your organizational needs well, ensure the system is user friendly and that it has a commitment to usage.

5. Make Recycling a Must Not only does this mean throwing yesterday’s newspaper in the bin, or breaking down cardboard boxes; use scrap paper! Find little ways to recycle what paper you do actually use. Write down your daily list of things to do on the back of this week’s grocery receipt; print on the free side of a single sided sheet.  Bring it up in an office meeting, share ideas, give rewards!

6. Spread the word! Whether it’s in the office, or casually with friends, or in a deliverance speech to one of your clients, spread the word about how you feel about going paperless. This will encourage others to research, and follow suite, as well as help keep you conscious of your progress. In striving to reduce the amount of paper we use daily, we make a stronger effort to keep our planet healthy, our bills low and our time well-spent. People are constantly looking to educate others about the positive effects going paper-less has, as well as finding new ways and techniques to do so.  

With the endless amounts of tools and help out there, a good way to do your part is to stay current on what’s new, and to share your knowledge with others to keep the!

Image credit: Unsplash

Patagonia has long been a sustainability leader, and pokes its competitors in the eye with programs, from asking consumers to buy less to working with fisheries to the preservation of salmon populations while rolling out new snacks. Now the outdoor clothing and gear company is pushing supply chain transparency to a new level.

Now Patagonia has released its Footprint Chronicles, one tool to help customers and stakeholders learn more about the the company’s global operations and suppliers. The interactive map allows visitors to click on locations of the company’s textile mills and factories all over the world.

Clicking on the map offers a quick snapshot of each cog in Patagonia’s extensive supply chain. Users learn how long the mill or factory has worked with Patagonia, the number of workers and gender ratio, languages spoken and what items are produced within the facility. The very curious who may just happen to be in the area can even glean the address of the factory in question. Over time more information will be available for perusal by visitors to the site.

Patagonia’s steps towards greater transparency pairs well with the company’s Reference Library, which not only educates customers about the various textiles the company sources, but anyone interested in more sustainable fashion can download information. An explanation on a bevy of alternatives from bamboo as a substitute for rayon to chlorine-free wool and hemp are on offer.

Life is going to be tougher and more uncomfortable for more clothing companies thanks to Patagonia’s increasing disclosure. Not long ago it was enough for a company to say they were “doing better” and were “exploring alternatives” to current business practices. Then came the demands for increased disclosures about its supply chain. Now lists of factories and percentages of successful ethical audits will be insufficient.

Patagonia will soon push the boundaries even more once the Footprint Chronicles’ pages are linked to the company’s online shopping site. Customers who want to make decisions based on environmental or social issues will have access to sustainability benchmarking data and the full traceability of Patagonia’s products.

The clothing industry is now becoming more exciting, and more responsible, for the right reasons. The days of competing just on pricing and branding are slowly becoming eclipsed by who can be more responsible and disclose even more, and that can only be a positive change, especially for factory workers’ human rights abroad.

Image credit: Ajay Suresh/Flickr

Although the idea of using fuel cells to power cars or provide electricity for buildings has popped up fairly recently, the fuel cell itself has been around for a long time. The principle was discovered by Sir William Grove in 1839, though practical devices did not appear until more than a century later. In the late 1950’s Harry Karl Ihrig demonstrated a 20hp fuel cell powered tractor. Around the same time NASA began using fuel cells as a source of electricity for the space program, which led to significant improvements.

What exactly is a fuel cell? You can think of it as a battery that you add fuel to, in order to keep it going. The fuel, which is always combined with oxygen (or air) to produce electricity, can be as simple as hydrogen. This is the cleanest energy source we know of, since the only byproduct is distilled water. However, since neither of these two gases is found in nature in a pure state, they must be produced from some other source, such as air, water (through electrolysis), or hydrocarbon fuels (through reforming). Some fuel cells can run directly on hydrocarbon fuels. Hydrogen is not considered an energy source, but is instead called an energy carrier.

There are a variety of types of fuel cells, including: alkaline fuel cells (AFC), molten carbonate (MCFC), Proton exchange membrane (PEM) and solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC), phosphoric acid (PAFC), and direct methanol fuel cells (DMFC).

AFCs were originally used in the space program, Performance is high, but so is cost.

PAFCs were first generation fuel cells. Quite mature, they have been used to power buses as well as stationary applications. Cost is high and efficiency is relatively low.

PEM fuel cells are often used in vehicle applications because of their fast response time. Cost is a factor as they use platinum catalysts.

SOFCs used ceramics in their electrodes. They run at very high temperatures and do not require a catalyst.  Efficiency is good but startup time is slow, making them unsuitable for vehicle applications. They are used in stationary power applications like the Bloom Box.

DMFCs use liquid methanol as a fuel and is being developed for small applications like laptop and cell phone batteries.

MCFCs are high efficiency, resistant to contamination and can run on hydrocarbon fuels. They run at high temperatures and are being developed for utility applications. Because of high temperatures, durability is often an issue.

 

Fuel cells that operate at high temperatures are well-suited for combined heat and power (CHP) applications, which increase their overall efficiency. This could be done at a large industrial scale, or at the residential level. Imagine having a fuel cell in your basement that would take in gas and use it to produce both electricity and heat, as well as hot water in a highly efficient manner.

Pros

• High efficiency


• Clean. Carbon free when using H₂ and O₂.


• Can use renewable fuels


• Do not need recharging.


• Can run continuously (as long as fuel is available)


• Provides base load power (good complement to renewables)


• No moving parts


• No noise


• Certain types are well suited to CHP applications


• Fuel can be made from water which is abundant or many other things


• Highly scalable--cell phones to power plants.


• Well suited for distributed generation, eliminating distribution losses.


• Can be run in reverse for energy storage, producing hydrogen from electricity and water

Cons

• High cost due to expensive materials like platinum


• Requires fuel


• Reliability still evolving.


• Durability, particularly at high temperatures.


• Robustness. Many are sensitive to temperature and contamination.


• Hydrogen fuel not readily available


• Little (but growing) infrastructure for hydrogen delivery


• Safety concerns with hydrogen (though it is less dangerous than gasoline)


• Low density of fuel, compared to gasoline


• Could become irrelevant if batteries got good enough

A great deal of research is still being done on fuel cells, so we can expect to see them continuing to improve, and quite possibly become a serious player in our overall energy mix. Just today, the DOE allocated $2.5 million to develop a fleet of fuel cell-powered cargo vehicles for airports.

***

What about other energy sources?

• Pros and Cons of Wind Power


• Pros and Cons of Fusion Power


• Pros and Cons of Tar sands oil


• Pros and Cons of Solar Heating and Cooling


• Pros and Cons of Concentrating Solar Power


• Pros and Cons of Solar photovoltaics


• Pros and Cons of Natural Gas


• Pros and Cons of Fuel Cell Energy


• Pros and Cons of Biomass Energy


• Pros and Cons of Combined Heat and Power


• Pros and Cons of Clean Coal


• Pros and Cons of Algae Based Biofuel


• Pros and Cons of Liquid Flouride Thorium Power


• Pros and Cons of Tidal Power


• Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy

[Image credit: DECCgovk: Flickr Creative Commons]

RP Siegel, PE, is the President of Rain Mountain LLC. He is also the co-author of the eco-thriller Vapor Trails, the first in a series covering the human side of various sustainability issues including energy, food, and water in an exciting and entertaining format. Now available on Kindle.

Follow RP Siegel on Twitter.

Biomass energy has been around since long before anyone spoke of renewables or alternative energy sources. There was a time when wood was the primary fuel for heating and cooking around the world. It is still used that way today, though in many fewer locations in countries like ours.

When we speak of biomass today, we are basically talking about several different applications:

1. Direct burning for domestic heat: This is the traditional method of burning wood, peat, dung, etc., for cooking and heat. It is still widely used, especially in developing countries where it is responsible for many respiratory illnesses and deaths.

2.  Electric generation: Biomass is used to feed a boiler which then provides steam to a turbine which is connected to a generator. Feedstocks are mainly forest wood residues, and urban/industrial waste wood. EIA predicts that by 2020, biomass will produce 0.3 percent of the projected 5,476 billion kilowatt hours of total generation. Roughly 19,786,000 Mw hrs of electricity were created from biomass last year.

3. Co-generation: Essentially the same as item #2 above, with the addition that useful heat is withdrawn from the process, improving its efficiency in a combined heat and power (CHP) arrangement.

4. Gasification: The biomass is heated in an environment where it breaks down into a flammable gas. After the gas is cleaned and filtered, it can then be used as natural gas, usually in a combined cycle turbine. Feedstocks used primarily include forest and agricultural residues.

5. Anaerobic Digestion: The biomaterials go through a fermentation process that converts the organic materials into biogas, which is mostly methane (60%) and carbon dioxide (40%) biogas. Converting methane into CO2 and water by burning it is a net positive from a greenhouse gas (GHG) perspective, since methane is a much more potent GHG than CO2. Enzymatic digestion and other catalysts are used to enhance conversion. Suitable fuels are organic materials with high moisture content such as animal manure or food processing waste. Landfill gas which is siphoned off of active landfills can also be considered part of this category, though, in this case, there are concerns about toxins released, though some technologies claim to eliminate many of them.

6. Biofuels: This category includes any kind of biomass that is converted into liquid fuel, primarily for transportation. Most common are ethanol and biodiesel. Ethanol can be produced from food crops such as corn in this country, sugar cane in Brazil and sugar beets in Europe. “Cellulosic” ethanol can also be made from wood or paper waste as well as specially grown grasses such as switchgrass or from agriculture residues. Biodiesel is generally made from animal fats or vegetable oils. Much “homegrown” biodiesel is made from recycled restaurant grease. Commercially, soybean oil is used in the US, rapeseed and sunflower oil in Europe, and palm oil in Malaysia. Algae-based biofuel is a special case, which we covered in a separate posting. While convenient for transportation, biofuels require considerably more energy to produce than biomass.

Biomass is often advertised as carbon neutral or nearly carbon neutral, but this can be misleading. It is true that the carbon released upon burning it was only recently (in relative terms) pulled out of the atmosphere, so it can be viewed as returning what was already there before the plant came up. But any additional carbon emitted in cultivating, harvesting and transporting the fuel, which can be considerable, is incremental to that. The less carbon emitted in these stages of production, the closer the resulting fuel is to carbon neutrality. There is also the question of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, if used, and the energy and resources used and carbon emitted in producing them.

Biomass Energy Pros and Cons:

Pros

• Truly a renewable fuel


• Widely available and naturally distributed


• Generally low cost inputs


• Abundant supply


• Can be domestically produced for energy independence


• Low carbon, cleaner than fossil fuels


• Can convert waste into energy, helping to deal with waste

Cons

• Energy intensive to produce. In some cases, with little or no net gain.


• Land utilization can be considerable. Can lead to deforestation.


• Requires water to grow


• Not totally clean when burned (NOx, soot, ash, CO, CO2)


• May compete directly with food production (e.g. corn, soy)


• Some fuels are seasonal


• Heavy feedstocks require energy to transport.


• Overall process can be expensive


• Some methane and CO2 are emitted during production


• Not easily scalable

While biomass seems compelling at first blush, given that it is renewable and can be domestically produced, there are a number of drawbacks that make it far from a perfect solution. Primarily, as our population continues to grow, the competition for arable land and water needed for food production is going to make a number of these options unsuitable. That doesn’t mean that biomass cannot and should not play a role in our overall energy picture for some time to come. The most attractive and efficient options are those that utilize existing waste materials as inputs, which is, after all, the way nature operates. There are a number of these options that utilize forestry, agricultural, and even industrial waste (e.g. paper) as well, as trash found in landfills and recycled nutrients from waste water treatment facilities. Not only are these more efficient input sources, but in many cases using them will also help to address waste disposal issue. It could be argued, though, that in the future, many of these same materials might be needed for compost, particularly as the production of phosphorus, a key ingredient in fertilizer, begins to decline.

***

Learn about the future of biofuels here.

What about other energy sources?

• Pros and Cons of Wind Power


• Pros and Cons of Fusion Power


• Pros and Cons of Tar sands oil


• Pros and Cons of Solar Heating and Cooling


• Pros and Cons of Concentrating Solar Power


• Pros and Cons of Solar photovoltaics


• Pros and Cons of Natural Gas


• Pros and Cons of Fuel Cell Energy


• Pros and Cons of Biomass Energy


• Pros and Cons of Combined Heat and Power


• Pros and Cons of Clean Coal


• Pros and Cons of Algae Based Biofuel


• Pros and Cons of Liquid Flouride Thorium Power


• Pros and Cons of Tidal Power


• Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy

[Image credit: OakRidgeLabNews:Flickr Creative Commons]

 

RP Siegel, PE, is the President of Rain Mountain LLC. He is also the co-author of the eco-thriller Vapor Trails, the first in a series covering the human side of various sustainability issues including energy, food, and water in an exciting and entertaining format. Now available on Kindle.

Follow RP Siegel on Twitter.

For consumers worldwide, values are the new currency and purpose is the new paradigm. You might think this sentence was taken from the Occupied Wall Street Journal, but actually this is a quote from the latest goodpurpose study, Edelman’s annual global research study that explores consumer attitudes around social purpose. This research is an impressive effort (8,000 participants) to figure out how important purpose and values really are to consumers. The study found that purpose has a growing importance among consumers – “the power of Purpose is driving consumer preference and loyalty in a world where trust in corporations is low and differentiation between brands is negligible.”

For example, 53 percent of the responders said that when quality and price are the same, social purpose is the most important factor for them, up from 41 percent in 2010. Also, 47 percent reported that they make purchases of cause-supporting brands ‘at least monthly’ compared to only 32 percent in 2010. The study has some valuable lessons both for consumers and companies. Here are five of them:

1. Don’t take people’s word when it comes to paying premium on green products

According to the report 43 percent of the consumers are willing to pay a premium for purpose. The numbers are higher in developing countries like China (80%), India (71%) and Brazil (55%) and lower in more developed countries like Japan (29%) or UK (29%). My advice to companies would be to read these figures with a grain of salt. Usually the assumption is that about 10 percent of the consumers will pay premium for green products (see BBMG’s New Consumers research for example). Given the global economic environment and especially when 85 percent of the respondents report being affected by the global recession, there’s a better chance the average number now is lower than 10 percent, certainly not higher.

2. The bull and the bear

The report presents an interesting differentiation between Rapid Growth Economies (RGEs), including China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, UAE and Brazil, which are bullish on purpose, and “Bear” Markets, like the US and Western Europe. RGE consumers have much higher expectations of and engagement with brands and corporations on societal issues, whereas levels commitment to purpose and values seem to be lower in developed countries. This is not the first study showing this trend, although it seems to be more reflective of respondent attitudes than in actual behavior. We’ll have to wait for further research before we can really establish who is a bull and who is a bear when it comes to intention.

3. Companies need to do more, but also need to communicate more effectively

According to the report, while 87 percent of global consumers believe that business needs to place at least equal weight on society’s interests as on business’ interests, less than a third believe business is performing well at addressing societal issues. “This performance gap is likely to drive disillusionment, disengagement and outright distrust from consumers,” the report explains.

This finding presents three challenges to companies: First, companies need to act more sustainably or as Paul Polman puts it, “to recognize that the needs of citizens and communities carry the same weight as the demands of shareholders.” Second, when a company already acts, it needs to make sure that consumers know about it – how many buyers of Dove soaps know about Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan? How many customers of M&S know about its Plan A? Third and this might be the trickiest one, companies should learn to communicate effectively – the problem is that while consumers have higher expectations from companies, they don’t trust them too much. So companies that act and want to spread the word about their good work should find how to communicate smartly to make sure consumers not only get exposed to the news, but also find it reliable.

4. What should companies be doing anyway?

For companies that wonder what consumers are expecting them to be doing, exactly, the report provides answers. Approximately half of respondents believe organizations should donate a portion of profits (51%) and products or services (50%), while 49% believe companies should be creating a product or service that helps address a societal issue. They also think companies should be providing educational information (47%), partnering with NGOs (43%), and somewhat surprising – working with the government (45%).

5. The power of the sticks

According to the report, consumers are willing to praise those brands and corporations that support a good cause, and they will also punish those that do not. I have a feeling that companies are paying more attention to the sticks so they might want to pay attention to the favorite ways customers use to punish those companies that don’t actively support a good cause: refuse to buy products (44%), criticize it to others (44%), share negative opinions and experiences (44%), not want to work for it (48%) and not invest in it (53%).

As we can learn from the case Apple, where its sales set a new record last quarter alongside a waterfall of accusations about the working conditions at Foxconn, boycotts doesn’t seem to be too popular, no matter what people say. Still, the example of Apple shows that the power of online protests is no less and might be even greater than the power of boycotting.

Image credit: Unsplash

Combined heat & power (CHP) or cogeneration, is really not an energy source itself, but rather more of an energy multiplier, squeezing more usable energy out of each unit of fuel most everywhere it is applied.

According to the EPA, CHP is not a single technology, but rather, an integrated energy system that provides electricity and heat, usually in the form of hot water or steam. Heat is an inevitable byproduct of any power produced by gas or steam turbines, which would include all gas, coal, oil or nuclear power plants in use today. In these turbines, pressurized hot gas or steam is expanded across a turbine, which spins the blades that ultimately drive the generator. The hot gas needs to be cooled immediately after leaving the turbine for the system to work. This was traditionally done with a condenser or cooling tower, but using the heat to keep a building comfortable or drive a production process, with steam or hot water, will also do the job with little loss in efficiency. However, in order for the heating application to replace conventional cooling systems, the demand for heat must be continuous. Typical CHP system will reclaim upwards of 80 percent of the heat that would otherwise be wasted.

A conventional fossil fuel plant achieves a thermal efficiency of approximately 33 percent.

When integrated into a CHP system, the same power plant can achieve efficiencies between 60 and 80 percent. It is estimated that CHP systems can reduce carbon emissions by up to 30 percent.

Without CHP, fuel is used to provide electricity and then additional fuel is used for heat, which in many cases is a missed opportunity.

Cogeneration systems are generally installed on-site for large facilities, such as factories, institutions, commercial buildings, multi-unit residential buildings and district energy systems. It is particularly attractive for facilities with a high heating demand. These facilities then have their own source of electricity as well as a source of heated water or steam. The CHP needs to be located close to where the heat will be used so it won’t cool down. It is therefore an inherently distributed energy source. CHP is seen to be cost-effective in areas where the cost of electricity is seven cents per kWh or higher.

CHP is generally based on fossil fuel  technology, though some companies are now marketing solar cogeneration products: Naked Energy in the UK, and Cogenra in the US.

The number of building with CHP potential in this country has been estimated at well over a million, with energy usage close to 80,000MW. Cutting that by 30 percent would be equivalent to shutting down twelve 1000MW coal plants.

The systems can be installed by any of a number of contractors, many of whom are members of the EPA’s CHP Partnership.

Pros

• Increased efficiency. CHP systems act as energy multiplier which:
  
  
  • saves energy
  
  
  • saves money
  
  
  • reduces carbon emissions by up to 30 percent


• Increased reliability. System is independent of the grid and therefore immune to grid-level blackouts.


• The technology is available and in use today.

Cons

• Not an actual energy source, only a means of extending energy


• Could end up preempting more sustainable options


• Only suitable where there is a need for both electricity and hot water on site


• Heating and electricity demand must remain fairly consistent


• Capital intensive


• Not long term sustainable when based on fossil fuel technology


• Heating demand must be continuous


• Efficiency claims are sometimes overstated since heat energy and electricity are not equivalent

When used with a fossil fuel input source, CHP cannot be considered an ultimately sustainable solution for the long term. However, it can help slow the rate of carbon emissions with substantial energy savings in situations where more sustainable options are not available or affordable. On the other hand, when used with renewable energy sources, such as the recently announced solar cogeneration, or certain biomass applications, CHP can act to enhance the efficiency of sustainable energy systems.

***

What about other energy sources?

• Pros and Cons of Wind Power


• Pros and Cons of Fusion Power


• Pros and Cons of Tar sands oil


• Pros and Cons of Solar Heating and Cooling


• Pros and Cons of Concentrating Solar Power


• Pros and Cons of Solar photovoltaics


• Pros and Cons of Natural Gas


• Pros and Cons of Fuel Cell Energy


• Pros and Cons of Biomass Energy


• Pros and Cons of Combined Heat and Power


• Pros and Cons of Clean Coal


• Pros and Cons of Algae Based Biofuel


• Pros and Cons of Liquid Flouride Thorium Power


• Pros and Cons of Tidal Power


• Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy

Image credit: Courtesy of US EPA (with permission)]

RP Siegel, PE, is the President of Rain Mountain LLC. He is also the co-author of the eco-thriller Vapor Trails, the first in a series covering the human side of various sustainability issues including energy, food, and water in an exciting and entertaining format. Now available on Kindle.

Follow RP Siegel on Twitter.

Image: Unilever CEO Paul Polman. 

On Tuesday, Unilever released its first year’s progress report on the progress it made to meet its Sustainable Living Plan targets. The results so far are mixed. The report shows significant progress in many of the targets as well as real difficulties in others. For example, Unilever reports that sustainably sourced agricultural materials grew last year from 14 to 24 percent on the way to reach 100 percent in 2020. On the other hand, there was no progress in Unilever’s ambitious plan to halve its carbon footprint by 2020.

It’s not really surprising to see these mixed results given the fact that Unilever deliberately gave itself very challenging targets in the first place. “Many of our goals look as daunting now as they did when we announced them, but you have to set uncomfortable targets if you are to really change things,” explains its CEO, Paul Polman in the report. So taking into account the high bar Unilever set up in this plan, with goals like doubling its sales while halving its carbon footprint by 2020, my impression is that the Sustainable Living Plan is so far a success story.

The plan, published in November 2010, broke new ground by committing to take responsibility for the company’s impacts throughout the value chain, from the sourcing of raw materials all the way through to the consumer’s use of its products to cook, clean and wash. Looking at the progress report you can see a clear division in the value chain - while Unilever has made good progress in its supply chain and within the company’s operations, it had difficulties moving forward on changing consumer behavior.

The areas where Unilever made genuinely good progress included:

• Sustainable sourcing – 24 percent of total agricultural raw materials now being sourced sustainably, versus 14 percent in 2010. Unilever made a significant progress with its two main raw materials - 64 percent of palm oil and 60 percent of paper and board are coming now from sustainable resources.


• Nutrition – over 90 percent of Unilever’s leading spreads now contain less than one-third saturated fat.


• Renewable energy now contributes 20 percent of Unilever’s total energy use and 100 percent of electricity purchased in Europe is now from renewable sources.


• Safe drinking water – 35 million people have gained access to safe drinking water from Pureit water purifier since 2005.

Unilever reported a little less success in the areas of health and hygiene: The goal was to help more than a billion people to improve their hygiene habits and bring safe drinking water to 500 million people by 2020. By end 2011, Unilever had reached over 135 million people – 48 million with Lifebuoy, 44 million with its toothpaste brands, 8.5 million through the Dove Self-Esteem Fund and 35 million people with safe drinking water. There were also few areas where Unilever reported on real difficulties to make progress, especially regarding targets that require consumer behavior change, such as reducing the use of heated water in showering and washing clothes, or encouraging people to eat foods with lower salt levels.

It’s interesting to see that Unilever is aiming to reach this broad set of goals with collaborative efforts. In its global supply chain it collaborates on climate change, water and agricultural issues to create new standards, new frameworks and new forms of governance. When it comes to consumers, Unilever cooperates to change consumer behavior in issues such as health and hygiene, nutrition and recycling. The idea is not just to create better solutions, but as Paul Polman explains, to drive concerted, cross-sector change because he believes that even if Unilever meets its goals, it will still consider it a failure if no one else follows.

This approach is reflected not only in the vast number of collaborations in which Unilever is participating, but also in the openness of its innovative process. Unilever adopted a crowdsourcing approach, inviting all stakeholders, not just NGOs and governments, to take part in the effort to find the ways to meet its goals. A few weeks ago, for example, Unilever unveiled a new Open Innovation platform to gather and assess ideas from external resources, inviting “anyone who has a fresh, serious approach to new thinking” to pitch in. Another example took place on Wednesday, when Unilever initiated the Sustainable Living Lab, a 24-hour online dialogue aimed to create and inspire a discussion about the challenges Unilever is facing, co-create new ideas and share good practices.

The online discussion focused on several specific issues, including consumer behavior change, which is one of the most important keys to success. After all, consumers’ use of Unilever products represents 68 percent of the company’s carbon footprint – there is no way for Unilever to halve its footprint without getting consumers to reduce their own. But how do you do it? How do you convince people to wash their clothes in lower temperatures or use less water when they shower? And in addition, how do you integrate Unilever products into the process of shifting consumers to a more sustainable behavior? These are very difficult questions and from what I saw on the online discussions no one in or outside Unilever has yet to come up with a good answer.

Still, even with this sort of challenges, Unilever is proving in this report it knows not only to draw an impressive road map, but also to follow it.

Image credit: Transparency International/Flickr

Last August, I posted an article on Thorium reactors, a form of nuclear power that supposedly overcomes many of the concerns associated with traditional nukes. Despite my admittedly anti-nuclear bias, I had heard enough good things about this technology to want to learn more and share what I learned. The technology has attracted an enthusiastic following, many of who feel that this is the best of all currently available alternatives. Supporters claim that it sufficiently addresses the numerous issues that have made nuclear a less attractive, if not outright frightening option.

Among the concerns about traditional nuclear are the following:

1.  Proven risks of dangerous meltdowns (e.g. Fukushima. Japan is now shutting down all reactors).


2.  Very long time required for approval and construction.


3.  Potential terrorist target.


4.  Too big to be liable, taxpayers will likely pick up the cost of an accident.


5.  Highly centralized and capital intensive.


6.  Non-renewable and rare fuel source: Uranium (much of it controlled by indigenous tribes).


7.  High level of embedded CO2 in concrete and steel.


8.  Dangerous radioactive waste lasts 200 – 500 thousand years.


9.  No operating long-term waste storage sites in the U.S.


10.  Shipping nuclear waste poses an increased potential risk of spills or interception by terrorist groups.


11.  Fissile material can be converted into nuclear weapons.


12.  High construction costs generally requiring subsidies and loan guarantees.


13.  Competes with renewables for investment dollars.

Unlike conventional light water reactor designs, the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a type of molten salt reactor (MSR), that was first demonstrated in the 1960s. It is generally considered inherently safer, cleaner and more economically viable than conventional reactors, but was not chosen by DOE as the technology of choice  because it did not produce weapons grade material as a byproduct, something DOE was looking for at the time. That would be considered an advantage today. (11)

This design is less radioactive and more proliferation resistant. Its reaction in a molten-salt reactor (MSR) does produce U²³³ but that is apparently not a weapons-grade material. Thorium is about four times more abundant in nature than uranium (6). The largest reserves are in Australia, India, and the U.S.

LFTR reactor cores are not pressurized. Any increase in temperature results in a reduction in power, thus eliminating the problematic runaway meltdown scenario. If the fluid should get too hot, a salt plug at the bottom of the tank simply melts dumping the entire mess in to a storage vessel directly below the reactor. (1,4)

The question of waste (8,9,10) is also far better. Thorium produces about a thousand times less waste throughout the supply chain than uranium. It is mostly consumed in the reaction. Of the remaining quantity, which is quite small (I’ve been told it’s  about the size of a coke can for every billion kilowatt hours), 83 percent is safe within ten years and the remaining 17 percent requires 300 years of storage before it becomes safe. While that is still a long time, it is far more manageable than the 10,000 years required for today’s spent fuel.

It is expected to cost far less than conventional reactors and because of its simplicity, it can be assembled in a factory (2) scaled down to the point where one can be carried on the back of a tractor-trailer and used in a distributed manner. (5,12)

The technology already has a large following at sites like Nuclear Green and Energy From Thorium.

 

Pros:

• Carbon-free operation


• Inherently far safer than conventional light water reactors


• Abundant fuel (thorium)


• Chemically stable


• Currently being developed in China and by US  companies like Flibe


• Very small amount of  low-level radioactive waste. Should be much easier to manage.


• Concentrated energy source, requiring far less land than solar


• Runs round the clock, good base-load and load-following source


• Less suitable for weapons proliferation that conventional nuclear


• Relatively low cost and scalable


• Could potentially be used in a distributed manner


• Technology is currently at the demonstration phase


• Requires less cooling water than conventional reactors

Cons

• Non-renewable fuel


• Still produces hazardous waste (though far less)


• Can still facilitate proliferation of nuclear weapons


• Quite different than current technology


• Primarily conceived as a centralized plant


• Like all big plants, could be a terrorist target


• Technology not ready for prime time yet


• Competes with renewables for investment dollars

Because of the first two items on the cons list, I consider thorium to be ultimately unsustainable in the very long term, though I do believe it can play a significant role for several generations, if needed. For me, the perfect energy source requires no fuel and, like nature, produces no waste. But those that meet that criteria today (e.g. wind, solar) are intermittent and have a low energy density which means they require quite a bit of land, which is also a problem. I suggest you become familiar with thorium energy, as I expect you will be hearing more about it in the future.

***

What about other energy sources?

• Pros and Cons of Wind Power


• Pros and Cons of Fusion Power


• Pros and Cons of Tar sands oil


• Pros and Cons of Solar Heating and Cooling


• Pros and Cons of Concentrating Solar Power


• Pros and Cons of Solar photovoltaics


• Pros and Cons of Natural Gas


• Pros and Cons of Fuel Cell Energy


• Pros and Cons of Biomass Energy


• Pros and Cons of Combined Heat and Power


• Pros and Cons of Clean Coal


• Pros and Cons of Algae Based Biofuel


• Pros and Cons of Liquid Flouride Thorium Power


• Pros and Cons of Tidal Power


• Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy

[Image credit: US National Archives: Flickr Creative Commons]

RP Siegel, PE, is the President of Rain Mountain LLC. He is also the co-author of the eco-thriller Vapor Trails, the first in a series covering the human side of various sustainability issues including energy, food, and water. Now available on Kindle.

Follow RP Siegel on Twitter.

Submitted by Elaine Cohen

BP and the Macondo Spill: The Complete Story

Author: Colin Read

ISBN: 978-0-230-29358-8

Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan

By Elaine Cohen

While the folks at BP would probably prefer we forget that they ever had anything to do with the Gulf of Mexico, there's a strong chance that they will like this book.

In describing the background to what has been termed the worst oil spill in U.S. history—explaining in often highly technical detail the events leading up to the spill and the process of its containment—author Colin Read takes the broad view, and attempts to place BP's actions in a wider context.

A professor of Economics and Finance at SUNY College at Plattsburgh, Read offers the argument  that our demand for energy makes us complicit in the apparently preventable failures of the corporations (BP, Transocean, Halliburton etc.,) that resulted in the Deepwater Horizon blowout in April 2010, an event that caused more than 4.9 million barrels of crude oil to leak into the Gulf of Mexico.

As Read sees it, part of the problem is that as we began depleting the oil reserves offering easiest access, we created an incentive for oil companies to take more risk by drilling offshore.

Without our demand for energy, the need to employ riskier strategies would not have existed. Therefore, according to Read, we, the energy-guzzling population of the world, should share the guilt of BP and associated companies in the 2010 disaster that killed 11 men and over 6,800 animals, including birds, sea turtles, dolphins and more, and ruined the marine-dependent livelihoods of hundreds.

"When we shirk this latter responsibility [to reduce our consumption] and consider Big Oil as a monolithic and immoral entity that earns huge profits and usurps our income as it exploits the earth's resources, our consciences may be temporarily appeased," says Read in the book. "However, our own ignorance only makes the problems, and their solutions, more intractable".

Personally I don't buy this argument.

The world runs on oil-derived energy but no-one urged Big Oil companies to deliver oil at the expense of due diligence and quality procedures. No one said it was okay to kill while we heat our homes. No one agreed to any compromise of safety procedures. It was not our demand for oil that created lack of attention to safety procedures at the Deepwater Horizon rig.

The entire responsibility and accountability for the oil spill lies with those who made the decisions and managed the operations which contributed to the April 2010 disaster.

While there are compelling ecological reasons for us all to reduce our energy consumption, complicity with the inadequate safety practices of oil companies is not one of them.

BP and the Macondo Spill: The Fine Details

The book, BP and the Macondo Spill: The Complete Story, does, however, appear to deliver the complete story promised in its title. Colin Read's coverage of the oil spill story extends much wider than the spill itself, transferring the epicenter of the Deepwater Horizon disaster away from specific practices at BP and onto the entire oil sector ecosystem and its constituent parts. Indeed, the book is highly informative and educational and contains insights about many fascinating aspects of the energy sector, spills, technology, media and politics, including some definitions:

• Macondo: This was the name of a fictional village in Colombia created by the Latin American novelist Gabriel Jose de la Concorda Garcia Marquez. The name Macondo was re-used for the oil prospect in the Gulf of Mexico, located "at a latitude of 28.736667 degrees North and 88.386944 degrees West in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone off the coast of Louisiana," following an auction in which naming the prospect was the prize. The site was surveyed in 1998, and approved for drilling in 2009.
• Deepwater Horizon: the semisubmersible oil drilling rig owned and operated by the Transocean company, that was commissioned by BP to drill the Macondo Prospect.
• Blowout: the sudden and uncontrolled release of gas and oil from a well.

Part One of the book describes the natural and economic history of oil and the ways oil has been extracted over the years.

It goes on to provide a history of oil spills and the developments leading up to the Deepwater Horizon spill, taking care to make clear that the BP spill was far from the largest spill in U. S. oil extraction history. (The Lakeview Gusher spill in 1910 was larger, in terms of numbers of barrels released.)

The author then analyzes how the media flared up around the Deepwater Horizon story, "telling people what they wanted to hear."

In doing so, Read alleges that the media may have "cast to the wind certain journalist ethics," while also offering the view that BP "managed the crisis in a way that is likely to be more responsible and complete than any past transgressors."

Following chapters deal with the role of other corporate partners in the commissioning and functioning of the Deepwater Horizon platform, the political climate, and the concept of regulatory "oversight". The penultimate chapter — "What do we do with the World's Insatiable Need for Energy?" — concludes that "if we had continued on a path of alternative energy production that was initiated more than 30 years ago […] we would not be forced to explore in such technically challenged and sensitive environments in the first place."

Who feels sorry for BP?

After reading BP and the Macondo Spill, you may be inclined to feel almost sorry for BP.

Not only was the company backed into a corner by the need to pursue ever riskier methods in a bid to respond to relentless consumer demand for energy; its partners, Transocean and Halliburton, did sloppy jobs; the media attacked the firm aggressively; then-CEO Tony Hayward was hauled over the coals in government hearings and by the press.

As if this weren't enough, BP paid heavily for the privilege of its position as public whipping-post, recording a $17 billion quarterly loss by mid-2010, and forced to pay out over $20 billion.

Colin Read records the facts in scrupulous detail, including the fateful decisions at BP to move forward with drilling despite some prior reports of quality issues in the rig, which had been overlooked in the urgency to start drilling. While in no way suggesting exoneration for BP of responsibility for the spill and its consequences, the author does ensure that every possible potentially mitigating circumstance is aired in this book.

It's a great read, packed with fascinating information and loads of context. Those coming to the book seeking an excoriation of BP will likely be disappointed. However, those seeking a broader perspective and consideration of the general context and related facts around the Gulf spill will be very satisfied, as will those seeking to learn more about how the oil industry works. On those levels, this book makes a valuable contribution.