New Climate Change Coalition to Focus on Short-lived Greenhouse Gases

For those who were disenchanted with the results of the most recent United Nations Conference on Climate Change, a recent development gives at least one reason to be optimistic. The formation of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants was announced on Thursday, February 16^th by United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.[1]

It is a partnership between certain developed and developing nations with the aim of reducing the concentration of short-lived greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere, thereby mitigating climate warming in the short-term.  It is the first effort to focus on short-lived GHGs collectively and it is intended to augment current efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions globally. The participating countries include Canada, Sweden, the United States, Mexico, Ghana, and Bangladesh.

Three GHGs are the focus of this initiative: Methane, Black Soot and Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).  Each is a contributor to climate change and is also short-lived in the atmosphere, from a matter of days to approximately 15 years. This can be contrasted with carbon dioxide, the most well-known GHG, which has an average atmospheric lifetime of longer than a century.

By reducing the atmospheric concentration of these short-lived GHGs, it should be possible to see strong and relatively quick climate change mitigation. A recent NASA study estimated that 0.5^oC of global warming could be avoided by reducing the atmospheric concentrations of key short-lived GHGs like Methane and Black Soot.[2]  This is an important finding since the International Panel on Climate Change has determined the maximum allowable global temperature increase to avoid catastrophic climate change is 2^oC. Furthermore, the study indicates that these emissions reductions could boost international crop yields and prevent hundreds of thousands of premature deaths related to these atmospheric pollutants.

The Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants pledges to help reduce the atmospheric concentration of short-lived pollutants via a multi-faceted plan. It will work with already existing groups like the Arctic Council and Global Methane Initiative, create national policy priorities, mobilize funds, raise awareness, and support further scientific research into the atmospheric effects of these pollutants.

Tackling the problem presented by climate change is easily one of the most difficult and important tasks set before humankind. Any viable long-term plan will need to deal with all the issues—most importantly, our dependence on fossil fuels as an energy resource. However, with global action on climate change mitigation stalling, this seems to be a reasonable, albeit small, step forward.

---

[1] http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/02/184055.htm

[2] http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/interactive-charts.html

Double Standard of Subsidies

It is widely understood that the expansion of solar industries depends heavily on government subsidies to offset manufacturing and installation costs. Germany is the perfect example, with a fairly poor solar resource when compared to other countries, and yet it is the world’s strongest solar power economy due solely to its subsidies.

Skeptics will say that solar energy can’t become cost-competitive without government subsidies, a fact which will be hard to deny until economies of scale and technological innovation brings the price of solar energy down. However, those skeptics don’t mention that no energy sector existing today was developed without subsidies – and compared to what is received by the fossil fuel sectors, the public financial support given to solar is meagre. One of the more prevalent arguments against solar is that taxpayer money is being spent on incorporating solar into the electricity grid and that’s not true capitalism, is it?

A report by the Environmental Law Institute which reviewed U.S. government subsidies between 2002 and 2008 found that $72 billion in support was given to the well-established fossil fuel industry, which has been receiving public support for decades, while $29 billion was given to renewables, almost half of which was towards corn-based ethanol production. If solar received the same kind of subsidies as fossil fuels, solar power would actually be cheaper than conventional power.

So the playing field is an upward slope for solar when comparing to other energy sources, but subsidies are causing problems even within the solar industry. China, to be specific, is finding itself in the midst of an impending tariff case due to its own government’s support. Chinese photovoltaics companies have been alleged of “dumping” their solar panels, meaning that because they received such heavy government subsidies they have been able to sell their panels at below-value prices. The result of this case could be that the U.S. International Trade Commission will place import tariffs (of up to 100%) on solar panels imported from China, which would undoubtedly result in a price increase for end-users.

Many U.S. politicians are using Solyndra as their go-to argument for the problems with subsidizing the solar industry. Solyndra received $500 million from the government in 2009, and then filed for bankruptcy in 2011. This was clearly a blow to the industry, and many republicans have been milking Solyndra’s bankruptcy for all it’s worth, but who said that the oil industry wasn’t viable when Enron went bankrupt in 2001? Who said that wall street wasn’t viable when a multitude of investment banks went bankrupt in 2008? And let’s not pretend that those companies didn’t receive significant government support. The solar industry is undergoing a very similar transition to the auto-industry in the early 20th century. In the U.S., there were initially hundreds of auto manufacturers, but by the late 1920′s it was dominated by the big three: GM, Ford, and Chrysler. The other companies didn’t fail because the industry was doomed to fail; the industry simply needed to weed out the weakest competitors, and the strongest companies remained (with plenty of government support along the way).

What it comes down to is our future energy supply. Doesn’t it make more sense to look at subsidizing renewables as an investment in the future? Continuing on our current path, we will be dependent on both foreign oil AND foreign renewables. In order to achieve energy independence, governments need to invest in renewables such as solar while the industry is still young, and hopefully one day the solar industry will be as large and economically powerful as the oil industry is today.

President Obama will not walk away from clean energy

Energy was certainly on the agenda during President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union Address. “This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy,” he stated, while opening up the energy discussion.

His strategy includes exploiting America’s limited oil reserves and also expanding natural extraction. However, with commendable foresight, he acknowledged that these resources are finite and emphasized the need to continue government support of clean energy technologies like wind and solar while removing support from the already prosperous oil industry.

“We’ve subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough,” he stated. “It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that rarely has been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that never has been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits.”

To justify the subsidization of clean energy, President Obama used natural gas extraction as an example. He stated that “…it was public research dollars, over the course of 30 years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock –- reminding us that government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground.”

Furthermore, he encouraged citizens to think long-term, noting the example of natural gas as proof that “…the payoffs on these public investments don’t always come right away. Some technologies don’t pan out; some companies fail.”

This is no doubt an allusion to the highly publicized failure of the government subsidized solar module manufacturer Solyndra. It is clear from the president’s statement that he sees such failures as inevitable on the road of technological development and he is certainly correct.

Despite this failure, he remains unperturbed, pledging not to “…walk away from the promise of clean energy.”

————-

A full transcription of his address can be found at:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/24/us/politics/state-of-the-union-2012-video-transcript.html

That’s the power of a vacuum

Humanity is consuming more and more energy every year and, since much of the world depends on fossil fuel based resources, our total carbon emissions continue to climb as well. In the effort to curb this trend, energy conservation is imperative. One area where conservation efforts can make a particularly large impact is in our nation’s buildings where 40% of our national energy expenditure is consumed. [1] This is a powerful motivation to construct buildings that are more energy efficient. Researchers from the National Research Council (NRC) are attempting to do just that with a promising new technology called the vacuum insulated panel (VIP).

It is important to digress somewhat here.  What does it mean to make a building more energy efficient? Well, we have to actively heat and cool our buildings. In other words, we continually supply energy so as to maintain a constant temperature. If we need to supply it constantly then that means we must be losing it somewhere.  The energy expended to heat or cool a structure is lost through the walls, windows, floor, roof, etc. An “energy efficient” building would lose less.

This is what insulation does. It helps to maintain the difference between the interior and exterior temperature by slowing the rate of heat transfer between them thus requiring less energy to heat and cool the structure. The best insulation possible is a vacuum. This is because heat needs some medium through which to travel and a vacuum is essentially the absence of a medium. Everyone knows that a thermos can keep liquids hot for a long time and this is the reason why. It is insulated with a vacuum (in actuality it would not be a perfect vacuum).

This is the same idea behind VIPs. They are constructed from an open nano-porous material that is strong enough to remain intact under atmospheric pressure. The air is evacuated from the panel and then the whole thing is sealed in a gas barrier to prevent any air infiltration. It is essentially a portable, rigid container that holds a vacuum. In terms of performance it blows the competitors away.

Cross-section of a VIP: The core is made from a porous material. (Picture from ref.)

The ability of a material to prevent heat loss is given by its R-value per unit thickness. Familiar insulation materials like mineral fibre or cellulose are less than R-5 per inch. VIPs can achieve R-values as high as R-60 per inch. This is incredibly high and anyone in the building industry would be very skeptical of such a number. However, that’s just the power of a vacuum.

So why haven’t we seen the widespread proliferation of this wonder-material? There are several reasons. Cost is the most prohibitive factor. VIPs are currently more expensive than the alternatives. However, the researchers at the NRC claim that once economies of scale kick in the cost will come down considerably. Another major issue is  uncertainty in the long-term performance of VIPs. The research has yet to establish how this technology degrades over time. They are certainly less robust than convention materials, as a single pinhole in the gas barrier will compromise the vacuum.  Nevertheless, it is a very promising technology and perhaps not too far away from more widespread adoption.

For the NRC paper on VIPs  see:

Mukhopadhyaya P., M.K. Kumaran, F. Ping and N. Normandin. Use of vacuum insulation panel in building envelope construction: advantages and challenges. May 2011. NRC-53942.

http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc53942.pdf

---

[1] Mukhopadhyaya et al.

They say it’s “sun-believable”

Researchers at the University of Notre Dame are working on a novel one-coat solar cell paint that they claim is “sun-believable.” The concept may seem strange; ie. a solar cell that you can just paint onto a surface, really? When we think solar cell, the image comes to mind of a bluish-coloured square of rigid silicon lined with metal contact fingers and certainly not a bucket of Benjamin Moore’s “Burnt Sienna” with eggshell finish.  However, in both appearance and physical application, this solar cell paint may have more in common with the latter than the former.

So what does one do with solar cell paint? Paint it on your car or maybe your house? What about bus terminals, fire hydrants, public buildings, etc.? The possibilities seem endless but perhaps we are getting ahead of ourselves here. The researchers claim that this is just the sort of “transformative” technology that is necessary to bring solar energy generation into the realm of economic viability but it doesn’t appear as though they are speculating as to how this paint could be applied outside the realm of familiar solar cell/module processing.

The benefit of solar cell paint for standard solar cell processing seems to be that it uses relatively cheap materials and is straightforward to apply. It really is just painted onto a conductive surface in one coat with a brush, followed by a relatively low-temperature heat treatment. It’s that simple. The downside is that the efficiency of this solar paint is currently quite low (around 1%). However, that may just be indicative of the fact that there is still plenty left to optimize.

We’ll see where the technology goes but with a growing interest in solar-integrated green-buildings it seems at least somewhat possible that solar paint may have some role to play in tomorrow’s structures. We already have solar shingles… is solar paint the natural step forward?

(For a proper explanation of how this solar cell paint works please visit the original article: “Sun-Believable Solar Paint. A Transformative One-Step Approach for Designing Nanocrystalline Solar Cells.” Matthew P. Genovese, Ian V. Lightcap, and Prashant V. Kamat. ACS Nano (2011).)

Solar roads?

What are the top three things that most people hate about winter? The average list would probably look like this: (1) it’s cold, (2) it’s dark and (3) the driving conditions are terrible.

The cold and darkness are things we just need to accept. They are a consequence of the Earth’s tilt and our country’s latitude, neither of which are going to change.   However, one American inventor has come up with an eyebrow-raising  solution which he hopes will tackle the problem of icy winter road conditions…. and it also generates electricity.

At first glance, the invention proposed by Scott Brusnaw, an electrical engineer, seems to be a logistical nightmare. He suggests we turn our road systems into large solar photovoltaic (PV) installations integrated with LEDs, sensors, heating elements and other electronic devices to essentially create a “smart-road.”

According to his vision the road is a constructed of glass and is rugged enough to protect all the electronic components. It produces electricity, monitors road conditions, displays signals to drivers and it even heats itself to keep clear of snow and ice.

The benefit of using the road system as a power plant seems to be that it could turn an already existing structure into something with dramatically increased functionality and thereby potentially lessen land-use and construction costs associated with photovoltaics.

That is the basic concept. It may not be the first time someone has envisioned it. However, this case is unique in that now Brusnaw has been given the funding to actually try out a prototype of his design in a parking lot in his hometown in Idaho.

Will it result in a potentially game-changing technology? Is it doomed to failure? We’ll wait for the results but in the meantime one can’t help but both skeptical and intrigued by where such a technology could lead.

(Original article can be found at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/neil-reynolds/no-more-snowplows-or-icy-roads/article2287667/ )

Auditor General’s thoughts on clean energy subsidies

The recent release of the Ontario Auditor General’s critique of the province’s renewable energy policy has rekindled a debate that was brought to the forefront of public attention in the most recent provincial election.

Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak, used strong language to illustrate his interpretation of the report’s findings. He claims that the report was a “scathing indictment” of the Feed-In Tariff (FIT) program and that the “… Auditor General rips [it] apart.” Furthermore, he accosts McGuinty for “…basically giving the finger to the auditor general ,” or put more gently, telling the Auditor general to “take a hike,” when he visited a Samsung-related plant a day after the report was released. (Quotes from Toronto Star article “McGuinty shrugs off auditor’s critique of green energy” available at http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1097966–mcguinty-shrugs-off-auditor-s-critique-of-green-energy)

The report is available online at http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/reports_2011_en.htm and there is a seemingly endless chain of criticism within. While Hudak’s combative and polarizing tone is absent from it, in its place is a recognition that Ontario needs “a balanced and responsible plan with respect to renewable energy that provides Ontarians with a clean, reliable, affordable, and sustainable electricity system,” but this is situated alongside a battery of arguments ultimately concluding that the Ministry of Energy has handled things poorly and needs to do much better.

Detailed criticism can be found within the report itself. However, the general message is that the Ontario government has displayed a lack of comprehensive business-case evaluations motivating their policymaking and the consequence of this is that they are spending considerably more money than necessary on their renewable energy initiatives. As taxpaying citizens we should surely be thankful that the office of the Auditor General is there to keep provincial spending in check and they have identified several cases of potential mismanagement that ought to be brought to public attention.

The report attempted a balanced viewpoint by offering the reader responses from both the Ministry of Energy and the OPA. However, through the all the layers of criticism it is easy to lose sight of the fact that ultimately we are faced with two scenarios: (1) Dramatically change the way we produce energy in response to the looming threat of climate change and resource depletion or (2) Business as usual with heavy dependence on unsustainable carbon-producing energy resources.

Ontario has made the bold decision to pursue the first option. As such, the Auditor General explains to us what has been the cost of acting. However, as thoughtful citizens we also must ask ourselves: what if we chose the second option? What would be the cost of not acting? What if we don’t make an aggressive effort to curb our carbon emissions as the planet continues warms? This is the context that is perhaps missing from the report and it is imperative that we also consider this question alongside the Auditor General’s findings.

Bill Gates on Clean Energy Funding

“I believe it is imperative that the government commit to clean energy innovation at a level similar to its research investments in health and defense.” –Bill Gates

In a recent editorial of Science magazine Bill Gates gave his full support for government investments in clean energy. His sentiments were akin to those of Bill Clinton, reported in a previous post.  The question they both address is this: In terms of the global clean energy economy, what does the United States bring to the table?

China surely brings their manufacturing strength and with the Chinese currently pumping out solar photovoltaic modules cheaper than ever, the U.S. may be hard-pressed to shoulder their way into the market if this was the only important consideration. However, both Gates and Clinton agree, the strength of the United States lies less in their manufacturing capacity and more in the great spirit of entrepreneurship and innovation that permeates American culture. This could surely be harnessed to foster the development of novel clean energy technologies.

“The United States is uniquely positioned to lead in energy innovation, with great universities and national laboratories and an abundance of entrepreneurial talent,” Gates explains. However, the potential seems yet to be realized. Investment in energy innovation is declining.  The U.S. is spending less money spent on energy R&D than many of its competitors.  So what then is the solution?

Gates does not believe this is something to be left up to the market. He emphasizes that “…developing major new technologies, where the time frames necessary for true innovation stretch past the normal horizons of patent protection, requires up-front investments that are too large for venture capital and traditional energy companies.” Essentially, his point is that the federal government needs to step up to fill the funding void.

Furthermore, the focus of government funding can be for long-term gain, not only in its strictest monetary sense, but also “gains” in our relationship with the environment, in job creation and social well-being. This is especially relevant in the clean energy economy with the looming threat of climate change as it is in the “long-term” where we will continue to face the consequences of the decisions made today.

Full article at: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6058/877.full

The Ontario FIT is up for review

Ontario’s Feed-In Tariff (FIT) program has been the driving force behind the province’s expanding renewable energy industry for more than two years.  The program is now up for its scheduled two-year review date. This is an important aspect of the FIT because it allows the policy makers to make necessary adjustments to the program as they learn from the successes and failures of the past two-years.

The biannual review also allows for tariff digression, one of the most important aspects of a successful FIT program. The idea motivating tariff digression is that the province is interested in making renewables a competitive economic investment; no more, no less. If it is not competitive then people won’t invest their money. If it is too lucrative then it wastes taxpayer money and it may also endanger the program.

The province is attempting to make the review process as open and transparent as possible and as such, it is welcoming suggestions from the general public. To have your say you can fill out an online survey at http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/en/fit-and-microfit-program/2-year-fit-review/ or you can send an e-mail to 2yearFITreview@ontario.ca. Ensure your submissions arrive before Dec. 14/2011.

It is a good time to reflect back: what are some of the the notable “successes and failures” of the FIT so far? Perhaps the most notable success has been job creation. Recall that the FIT is a part of the Green Energy and Economy Act and its purpose is not only to foster a sustainable energy supply but also to develop new green-collar manufacturing and engineering jobs as well. The liberals claim 20,000 new jobs have been created but the ambiguity over the word “job” makes this figure less meaningful and thus, open to criticism. What do they mean: full-time, part-time, temporary, long-term?

A third-party consulting agency working for Canadian Solar Industries Association (CanSIA) put the job creation in the burgeoning solar photovoltaic industry, only one form of renewable energy subsidized under the FIT program, at 8,200 PYE by the end of 2011. A PYE is a unit used to measure job creation and is equivalent to one person working full-time for one year. This figure seems commendable seeing that solar is planned to be 1.5% of the long-term energy mix where wind and bio-energy make-up the remaining 11.3% of non-hydro renewables. Looking at job creation from a different angle, the report also states that more than two new dozen solar module and inverter manufacturers have set up shop in Ontario since the FIT program’s inception. (See: http://www.cansia.ca/sites/default/files/economic_impacts_of_solar.pdf)

The road to a sustainable energy mix hasn’t been entirely smooth though. Ontario has come under fire from Japan and the European Union for being protectionist and violating international trade laws with the 60% Ontario content requirement for all FIT contracts. This is something yet to be fully battled out.

Another bump in the road concerned the issue of grid-capacity. A number of solar energy installation owners with signed FIT contracts invested the necessary the capital only to find out later that the grid in their area couldn’t handle the extra electricity. Some creative solutions were offered to this problem but capacity may continue to be an issue.

A simpler, more stream-lined, application process for small-scale contracts seems wanting as well.

However, despite the setbacks, the largest hurdle threatening the survival of the FIT has been surmounted already and that was the previous provincial election. For now the program seems well enough on-track and the present review process will likely improve upon it further.

Finally it’s here!

We’ve all heard about the potential for symbiotic relationships between electric cars and solar energy. It makes sense. Solar panels covert light energy to electrical energy and, if not connected to the electricity grid, that electrical energy needs to be stored. Why not store it in the battery of an electric car?

Taken to the far end of what might be possible perhaps one day the problem of solar energy storage can be solved via a nationwide fleet of electric cars plugged into the grid. When there is excess power, the batteries can charge and when power is needed, it can then be taken back from the batteries.

Maybe such a system will never be implemented but at least this relationship is starting to be explored. Solar power systems are now being used to charge electric cars right here in Canada. Check it out at:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/skyfire-energy-solar-powers-albertas-first-net-zero-energy-car-2011-11-14