Micro Loans for Micro Power

Hundreds of thousands of people have electricity because of distributed generation from small renewable energy systems financed by micro lending:

The Solar Home System (SHS) dissemination programme in Bangladesh is considered to be one of the most successful of its kind in the world, bringing power to rural areas where grid electricity supply is neither available nor expected in the medium term.

The program started in January 2005 and nearly 350,000 SHSs were installed by last summer, most of which had a rated power output of 50W. Systems came with 3-4 compact flourescent light bulbs. Owners benefit from lighting, especially in their kitchens and courtyards, and also use the systems to charge batteries, power radios, and even run 12V televisions. While statistics are lacking, it appears that some owners are using the power in their small stores and restaurants, boosting their income.

This is a great program beautifully suited to regions without existing electrical grid infrastructure, and has the potential to have a lasting and powerfully positive impact on the energy poverty that afflicts much of the developing world. Even small amounts of electricity can change lives for the better by providing lighting for reading, heating and cooking that doesn't burn nasty fuels with toxic byproducts, and the ability to create a business, boosting the local economy.

Such an approach could work with micro hydropower too.

Distributed Hydropower for Remote Ocean Devices

There are many users who want to place electronic devices in remote ocean locations where power is not available from the electrical grid. These remote ocean devices (often sensors of some kind) are powered by batteries; however, today's state-of-the-art solutions are expensive and inconvenient.

For example, researchers at the University of Washington frequently want to deploy Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCPs) or other devices to take measurements under water over the course of weeks, months or longer. Running power through a cable from shore is impractical and costly, but the alternative actually used has a stiff price too: a disposable battery that costs $500 and lasts a mere 10 days, after which it must be replaced. In addition to the recurring cost of replacement batteries, there is the enormous cost of a boat and crew to do the replacement--often $1,000 per hour or more. In the deeper ocean farther form shore, boat costs can easily top $100,000 per day.

For small ocean power, the Hydrovolts turbine paired with a rechargeable battery replaces the current disposable battery solution, providing a capital ROI of substantially less than one year.

Tea Power

The Kenya Tea Development Agency (KTDA) has a massive power bill from over 60 factories that process tea from 500,000 farmers. The supply from the national grid is costly and erratic, so last summer the KTDA created an energy subsidiary to pursue locally generated hydropower, reducing factory costs and boosting farmers' incomes. The Kenyan Ministry of Energy identified 12 sites for the KTDA to develop distributed hydropower generation. Two of these sites are now under development:

Imenti Tea Factory Company is already generating 1 megawatt through the Imenti mini-hydro project. Last June, the factory signed a power purchase agreement (PPA) with the Kenya Power and Lighting Company to supply surplus power to the national grid. The second project still under construction at Gura river in Nyeri is a four-factory partnership that will serve the KTDA factories at Gitugi, Iriani, Chinga and Gathuthi.

Distributed Solar Generation

Earlier this month David Roberts at Grist reported that Recurrent Energy would announce a power purchase agreement (PPA) with Southern California Edison for 50MW of solar generation. The interesting part is that the deal involved three separate smaller-scale installations rather than one central array.

On their home page Recurrent says that they develop and operate solar power plants making 2-20MW. And:

Distributed-scale projects enjoy permitting and interconnection advantages that enable us to reach operating status quickly compared to central-scale projects.

We use proven solar technology to meet rising energy demand with a fleet of clean power plants located right where they’re needed most. Recurrent Energy is distributed solar power.

Electricity in the Developing World

The need for electricity throughout the developing world is immense and will continue to grow. Unlike in the industrialized countries, much of the developing world does not have large centralized power plants and transmission lines to carry that power to widely-spread users. Nor are they likely to ever have such a system:

Building out the power grid can be prohibitively expensive, which is why in many countries, like Haiti, less than three quarters of the population have grid access. Pike Research’s Clint Wheelock says just for the transmission portion alone it can cost at least $500,000 per mile. And that’s without the distribution portion and any kind of the grid intelligence (smart grid) that is getting all of the investment this year.

Distributed Generation

In the developed parts of the world we are all quite familiar with centralized electricity generation. Megawatts of high-voltage electrical power are created by large coal, gas, nuclear, or other installations and sent over the transmission grid to areas of large demand where it is transformed to lower voltage and distributed to individual homes and businesses.

The alternative is distributed or point-of-use energy generation. Water wheels have been used for thousands of years to create mechanical energy for grinding grain, sawing lumber, and pumping water for drinking or irrigation. Windmills have been used similarly. These and other technologies are still in use in much of the developing world today, along with distributed power from less sustainable sources like diesel generators.

Distributed and point-of-use generation have advantages and disadvantages over centralized power generation. Centralized generation requires an electrical grid, which is both costly and difficult to create since it demands an enormous right-of-way footprint. Our current electrical grid was developed higgledy-piggledy over time and increasingly reveals its growing decrepitude. It is less suitable to the many of the new forms of generation, especially variable renewable energy, like wind, which now comprises 40% of all new generation in the United States.

Restructuring our energy economy is a monumental, but critically needed undertaking. Promoting greater energy efficiency, developing utility-scale renewable energy generation and creation of a new, smart, electrical grid are important certainly, but getting less visibility is the rediscovery and resurgence of distributed energy, especially that based on sustainable sources. Distributed renewable energy generation has a huge potential market where there is no electrical grid, primarily in the developing world, but also in off-grid locations such as remote communities, military and offshore marine uses, and isolated scientific or other installations.

Distributed renewable energy generation will also often make sense even alongside centralized generation and grid distribution for several reasons:

• Operating cost: where there is no fuel expense the operating cost of distributed energy can be very low, limited only to maintenance and financing. Where excess is generated, it can be reverse-metered and make money.
• Environment: as the likelihood of the introducing some carbon tax or cap-and-trade system grows, a carbon-neutral solution gains appeal.
• Security and independence: locally produced and used power is not as subject to disruptions from foreign fuel supplies, labor unrest, hostile state or terrorist action.

There are many distributed generation approaches, both new and re-imagined from older ideas. Apart from small solar and small wind, which are quite widely recognized and have decades of recent installations, there are some intriguing others:

• Capturing every-day human power, e.g. from revolving doors
• Piezoelectric harvesting from walking on floors
• Updating the mill pond to use small hydro
• Novel solar collection sites, like sidewalks (but what about dirt?)
• Motion-to-energy from normal human activity
• Backyard nuclear plants (Isaac Asimov would be thrilled!)

The ones that capture human power are especially tantalizing, since they appear at first to be free and nearly limitless from something otherwise wasted. However, I can't help but wonder if we were drawing energy from all our kinetic activities all day long, wouldn't we get rather hungry? No free lunch (or breakfast or dinner) means that the operating costs are just hidden in another way. Energy that comes from nature, however, be it flowing water, waves, solar, etc. does not require any significant input of human productivity to generate on a day-to-day basis. This is why we're so bullish on in-stream hydrokinetic power, and started our company Hydrovolts to make a product to harvest it.

The biggest disadvantage of distributed energy generation is capital cost. Economies of scale have largely favored centralized generation; to be cost-effective, distributed energy generation solutions must be simple, mass-produced, easily transported and require minimal installation time and expertise. Lots of companies, including ours, are seeking to create just these kinds of products.

The current political and economic debate rightfully focuses on building the energy infrastructure that will both create a current economic stimulus and to lay a foundation for future growth and prosperity. President-elect Obama, as well as many think-tanks, institutes, and progressives--call them the Obama Ohana--cheer large-scale and large-dollar solutions for enormous renewable energy projects and massive smart grid building. I support these, but a similar impetus should also be given to partially decentralizing energy generation. A federal investment bank providing grants and loan guarantees, like a clean energy bank modeled on the very successful Ex-Im Bank, would be a powerful and cost-effective measure to nurture good ideas into the next generation of businesses to solve our nation's energy needs, rebuild our industrial base, and create jobs.

Not all big problems need big solutions. In an era when "too big to fail" should imply too big to exist, it's time to start thinking and acting locally.

Solving the Variability of Renewable Power

An oft-repeated problem with renewable sources such as wind, solar, wave, and tidal is that they are variable. When the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining then they don't produce power; conversely, there are times where more power could be produced than could be used. This variability, often exacerbated by its unpredictability, has significant implications, especially for utility-scale generation that is connected to the electrical grid.

Current grid management is, in its simplest form, the matching of electrical generation and electrical use, the matching of supply and load. Electrical grid managers are able largely to rely on the load profile, the historical variation of the load over time. There are two basic techniques today to match generation and load: generate additional electricity from various sources when needed (the usual approach) or reduce demand (demand response, much less common.) A detailed explanation can be found here:

The power utilities are able to predict to a reasonable accuracy (generally to within one or two percent) the demand pattern throughout any particular day. This means that the free market in electricity is able to schedule just enough base load in advance. Any remaining imbalance would then be due either to inaccuracies in the prediction, or unscheduled changes in supply (such as a power station fault) and/or demand. Such imbalances are removed by requesting generators to operate in so called frequency response mode (also called frequency control mode), altering their output continuously to keep the frequency near the required value.

The grid frequency is a system-wide indicator of overall power imbalance. For example, it will drop if there is too much demand because generators will start to slow down slightly. A generator in frequency-response mode will, under nominal conditions, run at reduced output in order to maintain a buffer of spare capacity. It will then continually alter its output on a second-to-second basis according to the needs of the grid.

This spinning reserve is a significant expense to the power utilities as often fuel must be burned or potential power sales lost to maintain it. The kind of generation used for fast response is usually fossil fuel powered which produces emissions of between 0.48 and 1.3 tonnes of CO2 equivalent for every megawatt hour (MWh) generated. Thus a significant environmental burden, in the form of increased greenhouse gas emissions, is associated with this imbalance.

Most forms of generation are unsuitable as peaking power plants (peaker plants, spinning reserves) because they cannot be efficiently started/stopped or operated on an intermittent or sudden demand basis. As a practical matter, only natural gas turbine generation can serve as peaker plants. This is the core reason why T. Boone Pickens, Chesapeake Energy and others are so interested in wind power--it will increase demand for natural gas.

Thus the paradox: the desire to add renewable sources of electrical generation is motivated in part by the need to mitigate climate change; however, the addition of variable renewable sources increases the need for spinning reserves, which currently adds to the carbon problem.

What to do? What other than natural gas, with its carbon footprint problems, could serve as a spinning reserve or, more broadly, as a peaking power plant or some kind of load following capability from storage that would enable near-instantaneous supply increases to respond to changes in the electrical demand?

An alternative is grid energy storage. With the growing interest in and development of electric vehicles, especially plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) some have suggested that a growing array of distributed batteries in PHEVs could serve as a source of additional electricity in periods of high demand.

The concept, called vehicle to grid (V2G), is based on the fact that your car is typically not being used 90 percent of the time. "What if it could work for you while it sits there?" said Jeff Stein from the University of Michigan.

The National Science Foundation has granted a research team lead by Stein $2M to explore the possibility of V2G technology using PHEVs. There are many problems to be solved, however. The cars would need to be plugged into a socket not just when being charged, but also so electricity could be drawn back out. How would this be controlled? No PHEV owner will be happy to wake up in the morning and find the battery (half-)drained after being plugged in all night, presumably charging. There are (potentially significant) efficiency losses in charging/discharging batteries, and the life of the batteries would likely be shortened by an arbitrary cycle where complete charge or discharge may not occur. Lastly, there would need to be substantial elements of a future smart grid deployed to even allow this distributed storage to be harnessed in a centralized way. Interestingly, there is already a test of this concept underway at the University of Colorado (Boulder) by Xcel Energy. Other tests are also underway by Southern California Edison, Austin Energy, Duke Energy, Wisconsin Power, Excel Energy, and Pacific Gas & Electric, amongst others.

Hydro is another mostly green approach. Here in Washington state we get about 70% of our electricity from conventional (big dam) hydroelectric power, which has the ability to serve as a peaker plant by letting more or less water flow out of the reservoirs and through the turbines. There is competition for the water, however, especially from irrigation, but also from navigation and fisheries concerns, so the degree to which these dams can serve as peaker plants is somewhat limited.

Pumped storage hydroelectricity is another storage mechanism that might be explored, and may be very well-suited in coastal settings with large amounts of ocean energy generation (offshore wind, wave, etc.) Some of the drawbacks of this form of energy storage would be mitigated by a reservoir built for the purpose, rather than the use of a pre-existing (freshwater) lake.

Storage could also be achieved via flywheel arrays, hydrogen generation, compressed air, or other techniques.

Longer term, an updated, expanded, and smarter electrical grid is necessary. Wind generation is more variable the more local the scale and geographic reach of the turbine array. As more wind generation comes on line in greater density and over a more diverse, interconnected geographic area, local variations even out and become less significant. Offshore wind, despite its higher cost has several significant advantages over onshore wind; a large one is greater wind (power) on a steadier basis. Large coastal arrays (example) would take out some of the variability.

Fish Need a Smart Grid

First birds, then bats, and now...salmon? KUTA Portland reports:

At the end of June, there was an unexpected surge in wind power and too much energy was created for the regional grid to handle. To compensate, the dams cut their power by spilling more water. Spilling more water is dangerous for fish because water plunging from the dams into the river becomes saturated with air. Air is mostly nitrogen and salmon do not like nitrogen saturation.

The problem stems in part from load balancing between multiple generation sources, some of which, like wind are variable and do not produce firm power. Elliot Mainzer with the Bonneville Power Administration observed that they were caught "just a little bit off guard" due to the rapid growth of wind power generation and the larger swings in electrical generation as more wind capacity came on line. Very little new transmission capability has been built in the Northwest in the past 15 years making it hard to send excess green electrons out of the region.

In August, the Bonneville Power Administration asked gas and coal-fired facilities to look at 'generation increases or generation decreases.' In short, they asked if the facilities would be willing to produce less power when wind turbines are producing at high levels. The rub with that is that anyone who owns a coal or gas-fired electricity plant made a huge investment and is essentially being asked to cut their income.

While this approach may work in the short-term, it is not sustainable. Better integration of variable sources such as wind, solar and wave/tidal will be needed as more of these renewable sources become operational on a significant scale. Significant infrastructure investment is needed to upgrade the national grid and incorporate smart grid technology.

Election Offers Distinct Options

Worldwatch observes the importance of Tuesday's election on the future of green jobs, and notes that there are "distinct options":

With less than a week until the United States elects its next president, and at
a time when Americans are losing their jobs in record numbers, the two leading
candidates are suggesting that the financial crisis can be resolved by addressing the country's worsening energy crisis.

Combining job creation and energy policy into one economic stimulus plan is gaining steam among political and environmental leaders worldwide. Yet despite similar rationales, the plans presented by the Democratic and Republican candidates offer distinct options. And not all of the proposed jobs would truly be "green."

I've posted several items on the Green New Deal, and some of the other ballot measures in different states. As is typical of the election season the candidates are never wholly specific about what they will do, but despite the uncertainties of what is promised and what might be delivered, there are plenty of substantive elements voters should consider. While down-ballot races and initiatives certainly matter, the largest impact will come from who we elect as President for the next four years.

John McCain's energy plans heavily emphasize oil and nuclear, adding only a perfunctory nod to other approaches in a so-called "all of the above" policy. Oil is not the way forward. With 3% of the world's reserves and 25% of the world's consumption the United States cannot drill its way to energy security, even if all the oil could be feasibly extracted. Recent reports suggest peak oil may be much closer than previously thought--as soon as 5 years away. Nuclear power has gained adherents and public support; even some environmentalists such as Stewart Brand have softened their opposition in the face of climate change fears. However, nuclear has very long lead times, arduous permitting, unsolved waste disposal problems ("blah blah blah"), and uneconomical costs. Even if McCain succeeds in spurring the construction of 45 new nukes by 2030, it won't come close to solving our problems. Nuclear is not the way forward either. McCain offers nothing new.

Barack Obama's energy plans (PDF) emphasize updating the electrical grid, creating a national Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), and investing $150B over 10 years in renewable energy development. Updating the grid is a critical infrastructure need and will allow better integration of variable renewable sources such as wind, as well as allow significantly greater energy efficiency at all levels. The cost for this is potentially astronomical (or should I say economical?) A national RPS is a good idea, and would prevent the kind of sophistry proposed by Washington State gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi to redefine the term "renewable" in a way that would vitiate any new renewable energy development under the state RPS. There are several problems that will be difficult to resolve, especially deciding what qualifies as renewable, and making it appropriate for windy states like North Dakota, states with big solar resources like Arizona, states with large hydrokinetic resources like Washington, and states with few renewable resources like those in the southeast. Obama's $150B is a good step, but more is needed, the neo-Hooverite objections must be met, and there are questions about how it would square with free trade agreements under the WTO. There are questions about Obama's proposals, yes, but they aren't nearly as fatal as those posed by McCain's proposals, and it is easier to see how answers might be found.

In summary, Obama offers an approach where America can lead in the global energy economy of the future, while McCain offers an almost nostalgic reprise of the policies that got us here. I don't like where we are, and the last thing we need is more foot-dragging in the face of a future that makes the old ways of thinking not only obsolete but dangerous to our economic and environmental health. Whether Obama can deliver, and whether it will make enough difference are questions not yet answerable, but what McCain offers, even if delivered in full, will not suffice.

I will vote for Obama. For the future of our environment, our energy needs and our economic well-being, I urge you to do the same.

Wind Power Flagging?

The United States added more wind capacity in 2007 than any other country in the world--over 5,000MW. This year, the new additions will break records again--more than 7,500MW. Can it continue? The Wall Street Journal, quoting the American Wind Energy Association, is doubtful:

Next year won’t be so sweet, the AWEA says, for two big reasons. First, the financial crisis is making it tough for lots of developers to get the cash to build new wind farms. And even though the industry’s prayers were answered with a last-minute, one-year extension of tax credits for wind energy, the tax breaks came late, in the last-gasp Congressional bailout package. That means construction on new wind farms will get a slow start next year.

There are other reasons for concern not cited by the Journal. One is growing opposition to wind projects from the local NIMBY factions and also from those who oppose wind farms on principal (for whom some have coined the terms BANANA--Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone--and NOPE--Not On Planet Earth.) More on this in a later post.

Another reason is our increasingly creaky and ad hoc transmission and distribution electrical grid. With generation typically far from the load, the power must be moved. Here in Washington most wind generation is in the eastern half of the state and must use one of two corridors over the mountain passes. Both of these routes are at or very close to capacity today, so new wind farms cannot send power to a hungry Puget Sound area unless more wires are strung, a very expensive option.

These last two problems might be overcome by offshore wind. The larger problems of tight credit and, shall we say, gusty support for renewable wind energy will require stronger and better focused political leadership than we've seen the last few years. Dithering on making the smart and necessary energy choices would be an enormous missed opportunity for both our environment and our economy. The renewable energy industry in the United States demands bold leadership. Let's boldly demand it.