Dissertation: Background (2 of 3) - Energy Storage Technologies

2.   Energy Storage Technologies

Among others Chen et al (2009), Ibrahim et al (2008), Hadjipaschalis et al (2009) have thoroughly explored the state of ES technologies in the present and near-future. Their analysis roughly divides ES technologies into two categories (see Table 1), those that are useful for power quality management (capable of making short-term, high power, low energy interventions) and those that are useful for energy management (capable of mediating variations in supply and demand). Though power quality management (a.k.a. “Ancillary”) ES technologies have a definite role to play in the future stability of the electricity grid (e.g. Shayeghi et al 2009 and Hartikainen et al 2007), their likely contributions seem difficult to quantify in an absolute manner. Therefore, this study seeks to quantify the potential effects energy management (a.k.a. “Bulk”) ES could have on GHG emissions in the near-term while discussing qualitatively the advantages and drawbacks of the use of ES for power quality management with regard to GHG emissions.

Table 1: This table categorizes the energy storage technologies reviewed by Chen et al (2009) into either Power Quality Management or Energy Managment energy storage based on their applications.

Power Quality Management ES	Energy Management ES
Capacitors	Pumped-Hydro*
Super-capacitors	Compressed-Air*
Superconducting Magnetic ES	Thermal ES
Flywheels	Batteries (NaS*, ZEBRA, Li-ion)
Batteries (Lead-Acid, NiCd )	Flow Batteries (VRB*, ZnBr, PSB)
	Fuel Cells
	Solar Fuel

*Chen et al (2009) refers to proven MW-scale, multi-hour systems operating

By focusing on the “near-term” (in this case approximately the next two decades) means that some consideration must be given to the fact that some technologies are not yet viable on a commercial (large-) scale (Chen et al 2009). In fact without even considering cost limitations, only pumped-hydro power, compressed-air, and certain types of batteries and flow-batteries have examples of successfully developed MW-scale systems capable of operating for multiple hours. The remainder of this section briefly overviews bulk and ancillary ES technologies as well as the one type of ES-related smart-grid technology (specifically plug-in EVs). For a broad compilation of the physical and performance attributes of ES technologies please see the table in Appendix B.

a.    Bulk Energy Storage

Various forms of bulk ES have been employed by electric utility companies since the beginning of the 20^th century (Chen et al 2009). Not surprisingly, there are a variety of different types of bulk ES technology at different stages of development in use across the world today. After reviewing numerous academic articles and observing internal industry presentations on the topic, it is apparent that it is technologically feasible to incorporate substantial amounts of bulk ES on developed electric utility grids within the next two decades. As this assumption predicates the usefulness of this study, a review of these technologies is in order. However, rather than attempting to describe all potential ES technologies that may be employed by electric utilities, this brief review prudently highlights the three types of bulk ES that are in the latter stages of technological development and already have examples of multi-MW scale plants in regular operation somewhere in the world. While the three types outlined below (pumped hydro, compressed-air ES, and sodium-sulphur batteries) do not create an all-inclusive list of the possible bulk ES technologies (e.g. certain types of flow batteries and flywheels could have also been included) that could be included in this study, it is believed that those reviewed below should sufficiently validate the incorporation of ES technologies on developed electricity grids over the next two decades.

This review will not focus on underdeveloped ES technologies (e.g. hydrogen-based fuel cell systems), because it is unlikely that they will be widely installed at a substantial capacity prior to the latter quarter of the next two decades. This decision should avoid basing the remainder of the study on speculation about research and development timelines that may or may not materialize. Similarly, this review will not cover mature technologies that are unlikely to be employed at a significant scale within the foreseeable future due to practical limitations (e.g. Pb-acid and NiCd battery systems). Finally, this review will not focus on so-called thermal ES technologies, which heat or cool a medium during times of low-demand in order reap the benefits of the temperature difference during high-demand times (e.g. systems that freeze water overnight to assist in cooling buildings during the day). Admittedly, the use of the technologies in this last category could result in many of the same benefits with regard to reduced GHG emissions as the bulk ES technologies that are being reviewed. However, such technologies do not tend to produce electricity at the end of their charge/discharge cycle. Thus, they will only be employed by end-users of the electric utility grid. Whereas, the technologies being reviewed are able to both consume and produce electricity. This allows them to be used either by end-users or utility companies.

Aside from perhaps small-scale Pb-acid battery systems, the use of pumped hydroelectric storage (or simply ‘pumped hydro’) is perhaps oldest and most well-developed bulk ES technology in use today. Chen et al (2009) site examples of pumped hydro being used by electric utilities as early as 1929 and note that more than 100 GW of pumped hydro capacity is installed across the world today. Ibrahim et al (2008) explain that one of the main advantages of pumped hydro is the technology’s availability. Described simply, when electricity demand is low, electric pumps draw water from a lower reservoir and pump it to an upper reservoir. Then, when electricity demand is high, water flows from the upper to the lower reservoir through hydroelectric turbines similar to conventional hydroelectric dams (Ibrahim et al 2008). The use of reversible pump/generator assemblies acting as both pump and turbine is also possible (Hadjipaschalis et al 2009). Typically, pumped hydro plants use two naturally occurring or artificially constructed bodies of water as the reservoirs; however, Hadjipaschalis et al (2009) suggest that abandoned mines can also provide a suitable venue for the lower reservoir.

Due to the physical nature of pumped hydro (i.e. storage capacity is linearly proportionate to the height difference between the reservoirs and the amount of water stored), Baker (2008) states that the opportunities for significant advances in pumped hydro technology are limited. Recent reviews show rough agreement regarding the overall cycle efficiency of pumped hydro, which is listed as 71-85%, 65-80%, and 70-85% (for Chen et al 2009, Ibrahim et al 2008, and Hadjipaschalis et al 2009 respectively). The primary sources of inefficiency are losses from evaporation at exposed water surfaces and electrical conversion loses (Hadjipaschalis et al 2009). Thus, pumped hydro is considered a mature technology and its cycle efficiency is unlikely to change over the next two decades. Furthermore, an industry expert states that in the US it typically takes 7-10 years to take a pumped-hydro plant from initial conception to full operation (Boston and Mansoor 2010). This means that if efforts to install pumped hydro begin in earnest within the next few years, a substantial amount of new installed-capacity could realistically be operational well before the end of the next two decades.

Stressing the need for more installed ES within the immediate future the same industry expert suggests that compressed-air ES (or CAES) plants can be operational within a 3 year time period in the US (Boston and Mansoor 2010). CAES is typically considered to be a developed technology; however, most studies (e.g. Baker 2008 and Cavallo 2007) acknowledge only two operational multi-MW plants in the world (i.e. a 290 MW plant in Huntorf, Germany, installed in 1949 and a 110 MW plant installed in the 1970s in Alabama in the USA). Since newer, larger CAES plants are currently in the planning stage in the US (e.g. First Energy Generation is planning to build a plant in Norton, Ohio, USA, that could potentially be capable of running at 2700 MW; see Leidich 2010), it is not unreasonable to consider the potential of CAES in this study.

Ibrahim et al (2008) explain that large-scale CAES utilizes underground caverns made out of solid rock to store air at high pressure. These caverns can be “created by excavating comparatively hard and impervious rock formations, salt caverns created by solution- or dry-mining of salt formations, and porous media reservoirs made by water-bearing aquifers or depleted gas or oil fields, e.g. sandstone and fissured lime” (Chen et al 2009). The air is cooled and compressed into the cavern during times of low-demand using electric compressors (Hadjipaschalis et al 2009). During times of high-demand, the air is released from the cavern, heated, and combined and combusted with natural gas to retrieve the stored energy and produce electricity (Ibrahim et al 2008). Ibrahim et al (2008) note that for every 1 kWh produced using CAES approximately 0.7-0.8 kWh energy was used to compress air during low-demand and 1.22 kWh of natural gas is combusted. By way of comparison, Jaramillo et al (2007) suggest that conventional natural gas power plants are 28-58% efficient; this means that in a non-CAES plant 1.72-3.57 kWh of natural gas would need to be combusted to produce 1 kWh of electricity.

Recent articles suggest that the overall cycle efficiency of CAES is approximately 70-80% and 70% (see Chen et al 2009 and Ibrahim et al 2009 respectively). This is comparable (or slightly lower than) the cycle efficiency of pumped hydro; however, Hadjipaschalis et al (2009) point out that the self-discharge rate of CAES systems are minimal meaning that energy can be stored for months or years without significant additional losses. On the other hand, Chen et al (2009) state that CAES can only be used in association with natural gas plants. Thus, committing to CAES as a long-term strategy relies on the availability of natural gas or synthetic substitutes and requires accounting for some additional considerations (see Cavallo 2007). However, with regard to meeting the need for ES over the next two decades, CAES is another appropriate candidate.

While pumped hydro and CAES store energy in mechanical form, sodium-sulphur (NaS) batteries store energy in chemical form. Unlike conventional batteries (e.g. NiCd batteries), which store chemical energy in a solid form, NaS batteries consist of molten sulphur (on the positive electrode) and molten sodium (on the negative electrode) divided by a ‘solid beta alumina electrolyte’ (Hadjipaschalis et al 2009). The electrolyte allows the sodium ions to pass through the electrolyte during the charging and discharging phases as electrons pass through an external circuit (Hadjipaschalis et al 2009).

Baker (2008) explains that NaS batteries have 100% coulombic efficiency meaning that all of the electricity stored in the battery can be recovered, yet there is some disagreement regarding the overall efficiency of the system. Hadjipaschalis et al (2009) suggest that the heat produced during the charging and discharging phases is sufficient to maintain the battery’s operating temperature of 300-350ºC. However, Chen et al (2009) suggest that an additional heat source is needed, which reduces the overall performance of the system. This discrepancy leads to a difference in overall cycle efficiency (i.e. 89-92% or 75-90% according to Hadjipaschalis et al 2009 or Chen et al 2009 respectively). In either case, it appears that NaS batteries have higher cycle efficiencies than most pumped hydro and CAES technologies. Additionally, NaS batteries are expected to have a cycle life of approximately 2,500 cycles and have been proven to maintain a constant, multi-MW discharge of approximately 8 hours. Thus, NaS batteries have also been considered a viable bulk ES option in this study.

b.   Ancillary Energy Storage

While bulk ES technologies provide the opportunity for peak shaving and load leveling, which may significantly improve the efficiency of traditional generation plants and allow intermittent renewable generation systems to meet consumer demand, there are other ES technologies that may be better suited to meet the ancillary service needs of the grid, notably frequency regulation as described in section II.1. Traditionally, fossil fuel power plants are used to meet regulation needs; however, new ancillary ES plants are able to respond to regulation much more precisely than fossil fuel power plants (Shelton 2010).

Similar to bulk ES development, ancillary ES technologies are at various stages of development and deployment. Many ancillary ES technologies (e.g. superconducting magnet ES and ultracapacitors) are underdeveloped and are not currently ready for mass deployment (Pickard et al 2009). Other ancillary ES technologies (e.g. some battery systems and high-speed flywheels) already have several multi-MW plants in operation across the world today (e.g. Shelton 2010 and Capp 2010). However, the amount in operation today by no means covers a majority (or even a large minority) of the need. Such technologies are considered developed but under-deployed (or otherwise in the ‘pilot’ stage of deployment). Thus, given the appropriate incentives, ancillary ES could be brought into wider deployment soon (Jackson 2010).

The remainder of this study has been predicated upon the assumption ancillary ES technologies such as batteries and high-speed flywheels, which meet and exceed that ancillary service standards established by US regulatory authorities (McIntosh 2010), could feasibly compensate for any loss in regulation services caused by a reduction in traditional generation capacity. Even though these effects are not explicitly included in the calculations, Østergaard (2006 & 2008) highlights the need for such considerations as intermittent renewable generation such as wind replaces traditional generation. Since the need to ensure grid-stability through ancillary services such as frequency regulation is vitally important to the viability of any ES-related intervention, the following section illustrates an alternative solution to meeting that need through the use of smart-grid technology and an aggregation of smaller-scale ancillary ES.

Previous Post: Background (1 of 3) - The Electricity Grid

Next Post: Background (3 of 3) - Plug-in Electric Vehicles

Table of Contents - References

Dissertation: Background (1 of 3) - The Electricity Grid

II.    Background

1.   The Electricity Grid

Due to the contemporary structure of electric grids, electricity must be generated at the time of use, which causes inefficiencies that exacerbate the associated impact on anthropogenic climate change. Even everyday conditions such as diurnal fluctuations in electricity demand are a source of avoidable emissions (Dell and Rand 2001). The inclusion of ES systems on a grid has the potential to decouple electricity supply from demand thereby reducing the impact of such inefficiencies (Chen et al 2009, Dell and Rand 2001).

Chen et al (2009) indicate diurnal and annual demand fluctuations not only cause generation inefficiencies but also require that generation capacity be over-built to meet peak demand that may only last a few hours each year. With sufficient ES capacity to meet such peak-demand the construction of additional primary generation capacity can be delayed or avoided (Dell and Rand 2001).

Dell and Rand (2001) suggest that peak-shaving and load-leveling with ES can reduce the need to maintain plants in spinning reserve (i.e. generating electricity at sub-nominal values in case the plant needs to be called into regular service with short notice due to an unplanned plant failure or an unexpected increase in demand) to avoid a short-term shutdown. When fossil fuel plants are operating in spinning reserve, the GHG emissions per kWh of generation is greater than emissions during optimal generation (Voorspools and D’haeseleer 2000). Furthermore; this effect is not insignificant. As one report from the PJM Interconnection (a regulatory authority in the USA) shows annually the average GHG emissions from so-called ‘Marginal Units’ are over 50% greater than the overall average emissions of all generators (PJM 2009). This leaves a significant amount of room for emissions reductions. By charging ES systems during low-demand and allowing ES systems to meet demand during peak conditions or to be held in reserve for unplanned plant outages, plants can be maintained at optimal generation levels by running at a constant or near-constant rate (load-leveling or peak-shaving respectively) (Chen et al 2009).

Spinning reserve is one of two types of ancillary services required to ensure that the electricity grid seamlessly meets consumer demand. The second type of ancillary service is commonly called regulation (or frequency regulation or regulation power). Kempton et al (2008) explain that regulation maintains the grid at its optimal frequency (i.e. 60 Hz in the USA and 50 Hz in the rest of the world). When electricity generation exceeds demand the frequency increases. Contrapositively, the frequency decreases when electricity demand exceeds generation. In order to maintain the grid at the optimal frequency, ancillary service providers are called upon to provide regulation up (i.e. increasing generation or decreasing demand) and regulation down (i.e. decreasing generation or increasing demand) services (Kempton et al 2008). Currently, traditional generation plants are tasked with responding to regulation demands; however, as Shelton (2010) illustrates traditional plants are typically not capable of responding quickly to regulation requirements. Additionally, traditional plants acting in regulation mode are subject to the same inefficiencies as described in the previous paragraph. Thus, regulation services provide another opportunity for emissions reductions.

In addition to the limitations of traditional energy production, ES appears likely to play an even greater role with regard to future development plans and attempts to mitigate climate change. Perhaps most significantly, as developed nations look to integrate so-called ‘emission-free’ renewable energy technologies with intermittent generation into their energy portfolio (e.g. NCSC 2009), the integration of ES systems on the utility grid may be not only desirable but necessary for the sake of practicality and the economic viability of a large-scale implementation of renewable generating capacity (e.g. Pickard et al 2009, Aguado et al 2009, Benitez et al 2008).

Finally, Bayod-Rújula (2009) and Verhaegh et al (2010) suggest that the future of the electricity grid in developed countries will likely involve increased distributed (non-centralized) generation and/or the wide-scale use of EVs and residential heat-pumps, which may vastly alter the nature of the contemporary diurnal supply and demand cycles. In the US in particular mass production of EVs seems imminent within the next several years (e.g. Woody and Krauss 2010). Thus, earlier studies that have not consider these developments will need to be reexamined or taken with caution.

a.    Generation Technologies

Voorspools et al (2000) have suggested that studies analyzing GHG emissions associated with ‘emission-free’ technologies need to take into account indirect emissions embedded in construction in addition to the direct emissions from the fuel cycle, which is traditionally the limit of the scope of energy generation analyses. Weisser (2007) explains that all energy systems in use today have some associated GHG emissions, irrespective of the generation technology used. Performing a full life cycle analysis (LCA) of various generation technologies allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the actual GHG emissions associated with the electricity being transmitted through the grid. A comprehensive LCA tabulates the cumulative emissions (i.e. those associated with the entire life cycle of the generator), which is the sum of direct (i.e. emissions created during the generation process) and indirect (i.e. emissions created ‘upstream’ of the generation process such as fuel processing and plant construction and emissions created ‘downstream’ of the generation process such as plant decommissioning and fuel disposal) emissions (Weisser 2007). Further, even if the same generation technology is used, the level of associated GHG emissions can vary greatly depending on the source of the fuel (Jaramillo et al 2007).

For the purposes of this study, the range of generation technologies was limited to those in regular usage in the PJM territory and those that are expected to be added within the next two decades. The combination of nuclear, coal, natural gas, oil, hydroelectric power currently accounts for more than 95% of the electricity generated in the PJM territory (see section III.2.). Meanwhile, solar and especially wind power show significant promise for future expansion (Boston and Mansoor 2010). As such, finding reliable LCA GHG emissions values for all of these generation technologies is crucial for assessing the impact of installing ES on the electricity grid.

b.   Consumption Patterns

Even from the earliest development of the electric utility grid in the USA starting in the 1890’s, generation plants have been constructed and operated with the expectation that demand will be met by altering supply in a real-time manner (Schainker 2010). This means that for any alterations to the utility grid to be successfully implemented the needs of society must still be met. Thus, for the most part as utility companies and regulators plan for future developments, traditional consumption patterns can be assumed.

In PJM territory, which is not uncommon for developed countries, consumption patterns tend to follow a number of general patterns. Diurnally, demand tends alternate between on-peak (when demand is high) and off-peak (when demand is relatively low) between the day and night respectively. On a weekly basis, demand tends to be higher during the work week (i.e. Monday through Friday) and lower during weekends and on holidays (PJM 2009). Furthermore, most grid systems tend to experience seasonal fluctuations in demand annually; however, these fluctuations are harder to generalize across different territories as they depend on variables such as the local climate, local industries, and the preferred choice of air conditioning technologies in the territory (e.g. Lund and Münster 2003). With these considerations in mind, this study accounts for diurnal and weekly consumption patterns but does not attempt to quantify seasonal differences.

Previous Post: Introduction

Next Post: Background (2 of 3) - Energy Storage Technologies

Table of Contents - References

Climategate Anniversary

Well, dear readers, it has been one year since "Climategate" hit the internet and the news. For a brief update on this phenomenon,  I recommend reading an op. ed. article written by my former professor Mike Hulme, which explains some of the changes in climate science research and climate policy approaches due to Climategate.

Happy Thanksgiving,

Sean Diamond

Dissertation: Introduction

I.    Introduction

As developed countries seek to modernize their electric utility grids, whether for the sake of cost savings, the environment, energy security, grid stability, or some combination thereof, many utility companies have started to implement or consider the use of large-scale energy storage (ES) systems to meet present and future demand. Careful consideration of present and future grid scenarios and issues such as inefficiencies in traditional non-renewable energy generation (Dell and Rand 2001), the intermittency of renewable energy sources (Pickard et al 2009), the increased use of distributed generation technologies (Bayod-Rújula 2009), and the introduction of plug-in electric vehicles (EVs) (Verhaegh et al 2010) provide a number of opportunities to implement energy management ES systems that reduce the overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of a grid thereby lessening the region’s impact on anthropogenic climate change.

Sims et al (2007) explain that energy use currently accounts for 70 percent of global GHG emissions and of this 40 percent is used to produce electricity. Furthermore, approximately two-thirds of electricity is generated through the combustion of fossil fuels (i.e. coal, lignites, natural gas, and oil), which creates direct GHG emissions (Sims et al 2007). As a result, comprehensive attempts to mitigate anthropogenic climate change will likely involve addressing electricity generation and use in some form or another.

While a number of energy simulation studies have examined some combination of traditional generation, intermittent generation, and ES systems, the majority of recent studies appear to have optimized their results for financial gain (e.g. Aguado et al 2009, Benitez et al 2008, and Crampes and Moreaux 2010); however, optimizing a system for financial gain will likely result in inefficiencies with regard to GHG emissions (Voorspools and D’haeseleer 2000). Thus, with the issue of global climate change in mind, there is a distinct need to consider situations optimized to reduce GHG emissions.

The objective of this study is to assess the potential near-term impact on greenhouse gas emissions of a large-scale implementation of energy storage systems on an electric utility grid in a region with a fully developed grid system. To this end, technical data has been collected and a scenario-based computer simulation has been developed to model the electricity generation and consumption as well as the GHG emissions associated with the inclusion various types and amounts of ES technologies on an electric utility grid. 

Next Post: Background (1 of 3) - The Electricity Grid

Table of Contents - References

Dissertation: Title Page, Abstract, & References

DISSERTATION: THE GHG EMISSIONS IMPACT OF INCLUDING ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS ON THE ELECTRIC UTILITY GRID

 by

 Sean Diamond

Dissertation presented in part-fulfilment of the degree of Master of Science in Climate Change in accordance with the regulations of the University of East Anglia

School of Environmental Sciences

University of East Anglia

University Plain

Norwich

NR4 7TJ

Submitted: 5 AUG 2010

 

© 2010 M.Sc. Student: Sean Diamond

This copy of the dissertation (and all related posts) has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with the author and that no quotation from the dissertation proposal, nor any information derived therefrom, may be published without the author’s prior written consent. Moreover, it is supplied on the understanding that it represents an internal University document and that neither the University nor the author are responsible for the factual or interpretative correctness of the dissertation.

------------------------- 

Abstract

This dissertation offers a quantitative study of the potential impact of a large-scale introduction of bulk energy storage technologies on a simulated electric utility grid modeled around the characteristics of the PJM Interconnection grid in the USA. In addition this dissertation provides a qualitative review and critique of a similar introduction of ancillary energy storage technologies to contemporary electricity grids. This study finds that an introduction of both types of energy storage technologies will have an especially favorably impact on anthropogenic climate change if it is accompanied by a shift away from fossil fuel powered electricity generation.

-------------------------

References

Aguado, M., E. Ayerbe, C. Azcarate, R. Blanco, R. Garde, F. Mallor, and D.M. Rivas, 2009: “Economical assessment of a wind-hydrogen energy system using WindHyGen® software”, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 34, 2845-2854.

Baker, J., 2008: “New technology and possible advances in energy storage”, Energy Policy, 36, 4368-4373.

Barreto, L., A. Makihira, and K. Riahi, 2003: “The hydrogen economy in the 21^st century: a sustainable development scenario”, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 28, 267-284.

Bayod-Rújula, A.A., 2009: “Future development of the electricity systems with distributed generation”, Energy, 34, 377-383.

Benitez, L.E., P.C. Benitez, and G.C. van Kooten, 2008: “The economics of wind power with energy storage”, Energy Economics, 30, 1973-1989.

Boston, T. and A. Mansoor, 2010: “Welcome and Introduction”, PJM-EPRI Energy Storage Summit, presented on 20 APR 2010, video and slides available at , video viewed on 7 JUN 2010.

Capp, B., 2010: “Technical Panel (Part 6)”, PJM-EPRI Energy Storage Summit, presented on 20 APR 2010, video and slides available at , video viewed on 10 JUN 2010.

Cavallo, A., 2007: “Controllable and affordable utility-scale electricity from intermittent wind resources and compressed air energy storage (CAES)”, Energy, 32, 120-127.

Chen, H., T.N. Cong, W. Yang, C. Tan, Y. Li, and Y. Ding, 2009: “Progress in electrical energy storage system: A critical review”, Progress in Natural Science, 19, 291-312.

Crampes, C. and M. Moreaux, 2010: “Pumped storage and cost savings”, Energy Economics, 32, 325-333.

Dell, R.M. and D.A.J. Rand, 2001: “Energy storage – a key technology for global energy sustainability”, Journal of Power Sources, 100, 2-17.

Hadjipaschalis, I., A. Poullikkas, and V. Efthimiou, 2009: “Overview of current and future energy storage technologies for electric power applications”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13, 1513-1522.

Hartikainen, T., R. Mikkonen, and J. Lehtonen, 2007: “Environmental advantages of superconducting devices in distributed electricity-generation”, Applied Energy, 84, 29-38.

Ibrahim, H., A. Ilinca, and J. Perron, 2008: “Energy storage systems – Characteristics and comparisons”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12, 1221-1250.

Jackson, A., 2010: “Regulatory Session (Part 4)”, PJM-EPRI Energy Storage Summit, presented on 20 APR 2010, video and slides available at , video viewed on 14 JUN 2010.

Jaramillo, P., W.M. Griffin, and H.S. Matthews, 2007: “Comparative Life-Cycle Air Emissions of Coal, Domestic Natural Gas, LNG, and SNG for Electricity Generation”, Environ. Sci. Technol., 41, 6290-6296.

Kempton, W., 2010: “Technical Panel (Part 5)”, PJM-EPRI Energy Storage Summit, presented on 20 APR 2010, video and slides available at , video viewed on 10 JUN 2010.

Kempton, W., V. Udo, K. Huber, K. Komara, S. Letendre, S. Baker, D. Brunner, and N. Pearre, 2008: “A Test of Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) for Energy Storage and Frequency Regulation in the PJM System: Results from an Industry-University Research Partnership”, edited January 2009, available at , 1-32.

Leidich, G., 2010: “Technical Panel (Part 3)”, PJM-EPRI Energy Storage Summit, presented on 20 APR 2010, video and slides available at , video viewed on 10 JUN 2010.

Lund, H. and E. Münster, 2003: “Modelling of energy systems with a high percentage of CHP and wind power”, Renewable Energy, 28, 2179-2193.

Lund, H. and G. Salgi, 2009: “The role of compressed air energy storage (CAES) in future sustainable energy systems”, Energy Conservation and Management, 50, 1172-1179.

McIntosh, J., 2010: “ISO Panel (Part 2)”, PJM-EPRI Energy Storage Summit, presented on 20 APR 2010, video and slides available at , video viewed on 7 JUN 2010.

NCSC (North Carolina Solar Center), 2009: “Pennsylvania Incentives/Policies for Renewable & Efficiency”, DSIRE (Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency), , last accessed 22 FEB 2010.

Østergaard, P.A., 2006: “Ancillary services and the intergration of substantial quantities of wind power”, Applied Energy, 83, 451-463.

Østergaard, P.A., 2008: “Geographic aggregation and wind power output varience in Denmark”, Energy, 33, 1453-1460.

Pickard, W.F., A.Q. Shen, and N.J. Hansing, 2009: “Parking the power: Strategies and physical limitations for bulk energy storage in supply-demand matching on a grind whose input power is provided by intermittent sources”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13, 1934-1945.

PJM, 2009: “CO2 Emissions Report: CO2 Emissions Rates of Marginal Units Average CO2 Emissions Rates”, available at , downloaded 12 JUL 2010, 1-4.

PJM, 2010: “PJM Statistics”, published 25 MAR 2010, , downloaded 12 JUL 2010, 1.

Salgi, G. and H. Lund, 2008: “System behaviour of compressed-air energy-storage in Denmark with a high penetration of renewable energy sources”, Applied Energy, 85, 182-189.

Schainker, R., 2010: “Technical Panel (Part 2)”, PJM-EPRI Energy Storage Summit, presented on 20 APR 2010, video and slides available at , video viewed on 10 JUN 2010.

Shayeghi, H., H.A. Shayanfar, and A. Jalili, 2009: “Load frequency control strategies: A state-of-the-art survey for the researcher”, Energy Conservation and Management, 50, 344-353.

Shelton, C., 2010: “Technical Panel (Part 4)”, PJM-EPRI Energy Storage Summit, presented on 20 APR 2010, video and slides available at , video viewed on 10 JUN 2010.

Sims, R.E.H, R.N. Schock, A. Adegbululgbe, J. Fenhann, I. Konstantinaviciute, W. Moomaw, H.B. Nimir, B. Schlamadinger, J. Torres-Martinez, C. Turner, Y. Uchiyama, S.J.V. Vuori, N. Wamukonya, and X. Zhang, 2007: “Energy Supply”, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution fo Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, and L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA.

Söderholm, P., 2001: “Fossil fuel flexibility in west European power generation and the impact of system load factors”, Energy Economics, 23, 77-97.

Verhaegh, N., P. deBoer, and J. van der Burgt, 2010: “Distributed Generation: Intelligent E-Transportation Management”, Leonard Energy, www.leonard-energy.org, 1-15.

Voorspools, K.R. and W.D. D’haeseleer, 2000: “The influence of the instantaneous fuel mix for electricity generation on the corresponding emissions”, Energy, 25, 1119-1138.

Voorspools, K.R., E.A. Brouwers, and W.D. D’haeseleer, 2000: “Energy content and indirect greenhouse gas emissions embedded in ‘emission-free’ power plants: results for the Low Countries”, Applied Energy, 67, 307-330.

Weisser, D., 2007: “A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply technologies”, Energy, 32, 1543-1559.

Woody, T. and C. Krauss, 2010: “Cities Prepare for Life with the Electric Car”, New York Times, available online 15 FEB 2010.

Next Post: Introduction 
Table of Contents 

A personal update: Utility-Scale Energy Storage

Hello Readers,

Tonight I attended a lecture hosted by 4CP about energy storage on the utility grid. If you've been following my blog, you may note the serendipitous nature of such a lecture for me. If you haven't, suffice it to say that I just got my results back from my Master's dissertation on the GHG emissions impact of incorporating energy storage on the utility grid, and I got a 'distinction'... the British way of noting 'hono(u)rs'.

I was quite pleased with the results of my dissertation; however, after sitting through a lecture by an industry professional on my dissertation topic and not learning a single thing (and in fact mentally noting a few inconsistencies with my background research), I have satisfied myself that I actually did learn something about energy storage on the utility grid while writing my dissertation.

Of course, I am using this post as an introduction to my next several posts, wherein I will post my dissertation in sections (after sending a copy to those who helped me out with the dissertation). Thus, please check back over the next several weeks if you are interested in learning what I learned about how adding energy storage to the utility grid will impact GHG emissions and subsequently anthropogenic climate change.

Till then, stay green dear readers!

~Sean

Solar: to wait or to install?

Hello Readers,

I recently had a conversation with a potential customer about installing solar PV. The customer was asking whether it makes more sense to wait a few years before installing solar or to install solar now. In particular the customer was curious whether upcoming technological improvements would mean that waiting a few years will result in a better payback.

In any event, this was my response (as part of an on-going conversation):

I take your point, but it was never my intention to indicate that the technology won't improve. I certainly expect that it will. It is simply a matter of timelines. If you read the article carefully, it says that such panels are just about to be developed and 39% efficiencies have be seen in the lab. To put this in context, that means that it will likely be 10-15 years before manufactures actually have such devices on the market (and at a reasonable price). 10-15 years is about half the life of a system, and it is about double the amount of time it takes to payback the costs of the system.

Thus, if one were to hypothetically install a system today, 10-15 years from now that system will have earned enough money to pay for itself and an additional system! Not to mention the fact that the original system will still have another 10-15 years of generating capability! Also, beyond financial benefits, installing a system today would mean that 10-15 years worth of coal and natural gas generation will have been displaced by the time your new product could be installed.

Besides, 10-15 years from now those same manufactures will still be researching and developing the next new thing, so in that case why not wait 20-30 years before installing a system? Well, I think you can see where I'm going with this. You could spend forever waiting for perfection, or your could reap the environmental and financial benefits all along! I don't know if this explanation is enough to convince you, but for right now it's the best one that I have. And assuming that you have a basic understanding of climate change, peak oil, and/or the other environmental and geopolitical issues with fossil fuel and nuclear electricity generation, I don't know that I could make a more persuasive argument without including lectures from an entire college degree. Of course, if you are interested in those topics, I could certainly recommend a few books.

 

Well, readers, of course I want to know what you think! Is it worth it to wait a couple years for better technology? If so, how long should you wait? How do you balance waiting for technological improvements with the urgency of climate change and the benefits of having solar right now?

 

~Sean

Change... in which I can (finally) believe

Hello Readers,

As you have likely heard already, White House officials recently announced plans to install solar PV and solar hot water systems on the roof of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. This will replace the system that was removed in 1986 during the Reagan administration. You will note that the 24-year gap roughly equals the 20-25 year warranty offered on solar panels, which means that the entire lifetime of a system could have been generating power if they had not been removed.

Although, a new solar energy system on the White House seemed like a bit of greenwashing, which would not have been surprising given the relative inaction (or at least lack of concrete action) on climate change and energy independence since Obama was elected nearly 2 years ago. However, an announcement today by Ken Salazar showed some substantial change (believe it or not).

It turns out that the White House has cleared the way for a 709 MW and a 45 MW system to be built on federal lands in California (with a few thousand more MW of capacity in the pipeline for approval by the end of the year). Granted, some may consider this a stunt for the midterm election. Even so, any election year stunt that allows for over half a million homes (and possibly closer to 2 million homes) to be powered by solar power is okay by me!

The New York Times article relating to the announcement mentioned a need for additional transmission capacity to be built. However, it did not mention any plans for energy storage! After doing all of the research for my dissertation, I cannot help but wonder if anyone in the political realm has considered that option as a way to alleviate the grid congestion that will occur when these mammoth solar generators come online.

Hopefully, the utility regulators in California, which are well aware of their options based on what I saw during the PJM-EPRI conference on Energy Storage, have the sway to make a suggestion about incorporating energy storage into these plans (and/or the budget to do it themselves!).

anti-schadenfreudlich,
Sean Diamond

P.S. Later this month I should be receiving the results of my dissertation, so I will be dispersing the final version of it accordingly. Thanks for waiting so long!

Where the Sidewalk Ends

Hello Readers,

This past week has flown by in a low-carbon way! I've been making several contacts with potential clients interested in solar PV systems. I also started reading "In Defense of Food" by Michael Pollan, so I plan to write a review of it as soon as I'm finished reading it.

In the mean time, I wanted to offer some commentary on my on-going effort to live without a car. In all honesty, I have been driving a decent amount for work (during work) to meet clients and help coordinate projects. However, as I mentioned before, I've decided to see how long I can go without buying a new car for personal use.

So far, it has not been terribly difficult. I live about a tenth of a mile away from a Giant grocery store and about a mile away (or a 5 minute bike ride) from my office. Also, there are a bunch of restaurants and bars within a 15 minute walk. Thus, my need to drive is limited.

I expected that living within a town (West Chester, PA to be specific) would mean that it would be very walking-friendly. However, I have noticed that this particular town could stand to benefit from some basic improvements.

Perhaps, I am a little spoiled from the last few places I've lived... all of which had ample sidewalks (aka "pavement" in England) and/or large areas of pedestrianized streets. Thus, I was astonished to move to West Chester, which lacks even the most basics in sidewalk maintenance and coherence.

To explain by way of example, on my walk to work today I encountered... smooth well-paved sidewalks, grass yards without sidewalks, brick sidewalks (some with hills and/or foot-high tree roots), broken sidewalks, slanted sidewalks, still more yards without sidewalks, and finally well-paved sidewalks (once I got onto Gay Street downtown). For having to walk only a mile, the variety in sidewalk quality is unbelievable . There seems to be no regulation, empathy, or reason behind the sidewalks (or lack thereof).

As an able-bodied, sustainably-minded individual I am completely willing to forgo the comfort of a smooth, well-laid sidewalk. However, I could see how such a state of sidewalk maintenance would deter many others of a different mindset (and prevent those who are physically disabled).

So, Readers, I ask what have you done to improve the condition of the walkability of your town? As a newcomer to a town, how do you take action before you even know your neighbors? Do you have any similar stories/anecdotes?

Cheers,
Sean Diamond

Coral Reef Bleaching Article

Hello Readers,

I just started to get into the full swing of my new job, so I don't have a full post for this week. Instead, I'm just going to point you too an interesting article about coral bleaching.

Till next time,
Sean Diamond

Extreme Heat Bleaches Coral, and Threat Is Seen

By JUSTIN GILLIS

Published: September 20, 2010

In New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/science/earth/21coral.html

"Local Climate Actions" and "Don't Know What to Believe"

Hello Readers,

In an excellent follow up to my post to about car free cities, the Yale Forum on Climate Change recently posted an article on the impact of local actions to mitigate climate change. The article profiles the struggles of Fort Collins, Colorado as the city tries to lower their greenhouse gas emissions. It also gives a thorough list of useful websites for those interested in city-based climate initiatives and organizations, which I will repost at the bottom of this article. Although, I recommend you read the full article.

In the meantime, I wanted to share a brief anecdote. Today, at a dentist appointment I struck up a conversation with one of the ladies working there. After I told her that I had just returned from studying climate change science, she explained that she "just wasn't convinced". I decided to persist a little to try to find out why. She explained that it was just hard to tell who to believe and questioned the motivation of the scientists. After I told her about my experience at UEA during the email-hacking scandal and the subsequent investigations, she was surprised to find out what the conclusions were about the independent investigations. It turned out she had only vaguely heard about scandals in climate change science, and she did what everybody does about news stories that are interesting but not integral to their lives: she caught the headlines from several directions but missed the follow-up stories.

I found this encounter particularly instructive. As a proponent of sustainability and climate change action, I learned it is not a good idea to rely on public follow up. It is necessary to confirm that others have heard about the news you have before trying to have a conversation about disagreements.

Until next time...
Sean Diamond

List of Links from Yale Forum on Climate Change

World Urbanization Prospects:
The 2009 Revision
ICLEI — Local Governments for Sustainability
ICLEI is an international association of local governments and their associations that have made a commitment to sustainable development
*   ICLEI USA
United States Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Center
The U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement commits cities to reduce emissions to seven percent below 1990 levels by 2012. At least 1,044 mayors have joined to reduce carbon emissions in their cities in line with the Kyoto Protocol.
*   The U.S. Conference of Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement
Global Carbon Project’s Urban and Regional Carbon Management Initiative
URCM was launched in 2005 as a place-based and policy-relevant scientific initiative aimed to support carbon management and sustainable urban development.
*   City Action Plans
*   Urban Regional Carbon Management: Publications
OECD: Cities and CC
C40 is a group of large cities committed to tackling climate change.
*   Current C40 initiatives about each of the cities involved.

Metropolis: World Association of the Major Metropolises
Created in 1985, the Metropolis Association is represented by more than 100 members from around the world and operates as an international forum for exploring issues and concerns common to all big cities and metropolitan regions. Metropolis also manages the Metropolitan Section of United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG).
Connected Urban Development
Connected Urban Development (CUD) demonstrates how to reduce carbon emissions by introducing fundamental improvements in the efficiency of urban infrastructure through information and communications technology (ICT). CUD was born from Cisco’s commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative to participate in helping reduce carbon emissions. The founding CUD cities are: San Francisco, Amsterdam, and Seoul. In 2008 four new cities joined the program — Birmingham, Hamburg, Lisbon, and Madrid — beginning a new phase for CUD and opening new avenues for collaboration in promoting smart urban environments globally.
Sustainable Cities Institute
The Sustainable Cities Institute (SCI), built by The Home Depot Foundation, is working with cities across the country as a resource to assist in planning and implementing local sustainable strategies through the use of its vetted best practices, communication tools and an innovative city program.
Research and Information
Global Cities Indicator
The Global City Indicators Program provides an established set of city indicators with a globally standardized methodology that allows for global comparability of city performance and knowledge sharing. This website serves all cities that become members to measure and report on a core set of indicators through this web-based relational database.
United Nations University: International Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change
HDP’s activities focus on three principal areas: developing and sustaining cutting-edge research; developing world-wide capacity to understand and deal with these challenges; and promoting interaction between scientists and policymakers on these topics. Cutting-edge science pushes the research agenda and urgency of action towards global environmental change forward, by continually identifying and addressing contemporary topics through its network of scientific projects.
Tyndall Center: Cities and Coasts
Our programme on building resilience and decreasing the vulnerability of people and places, with particular reference to cities and coasts, aims to bring greater integration to our work on coastal communities, cities and adaptation. Given the widespread consequences of climate change on ecosystems throughout society, adaptation represents a major challenge to future sustainability.
UN-Habitat: Climate Change and Cities
The United Nations Human Settlements Programme, UN-HABITAT, is the United Nations agency for human settlements. It is mandated by the UN General Assembly to promote socially and environmentally sustainable towns and cities with the goal of providing adequate shelter for all.
*   UN-HABITAT Climate Change Strategy 2010-2013

Exploring Car Free

Hello Readers,

Today, I was directed by a Dickinson alumni newsletter to an interesting BBC radio broadcast about Cars and Culture. The piece looks at the political ideology behind car use in the US and USSR during the cold war. While focusing on the US culture, the piece briefly references the concept that the ideals of individual freedom for which the car originally stood may no longer hold true.

This got me thinking about my personal car situation. I sold my car before leaving for grad school, and now that I have returned to the US I have decided to see how long I can go without buying a car. Fortunately, I have landed a job in a relatively small town and my new job is at a place that has company cars and vans. This means that my lack of car ownership will only affect my own personal travel ambitions and not my employment.

Of course, my circumstances are somewhat unique, but after visiting Boston this past weekend I was reminded that living without a car in other places could also be possible. On the other hand, I have to ask why living without a car needs to be the exception rather than the rule.

To help answer this question, I took a look at CarFree.com. The website outlines some of the basic requirements for cities designed for car free living. Such a place would even take things a step further than allowing people to reasonably live without cars. Instead, such places discourage car use/ownership and offer better alternatives!

The website references a number of places that are car free or have car free zones. However, I could not find any examples of towns that had been retrofitted to be car free (i.e. had once been designed for car-use, but are now car free). Does this mean that entirely new towns and cities need to be built in order to achieve freedom from cars? I plan to continue investigating this concept. If you find any examples of retrofitted car free towns, please let me know!

Until next time,
Sean Diamond

P.S. another promising car free resource: http://www.worldcarfree.net/

IAC review of the IPCC

Hello Readers,

As I indicated in my previous post, I wanted to read the full IAC review of the IPCC before offering any real commentary on their findings. For the most part, the results of the review were not particular surprising. The IAC commented on the need for significant improvements to the IPCC's communications strategies (e.g. responding to errors and criticisms in the media). It explained the deficiencies that resulted from the different working groups interpreting the uncertainty guidelines differently, and made recommendations to expedite the review processes.

The main point that I found surprising -after finishing a year-long excursion into the science of climate change- was the proportion of non-peer-reviewed literature used in the assessments.

"An analysis of the 14,000 references cited in the Third Assessment Report found that peer-reviewed journal articles comprised 84 percent of references in Working Group I, but only 59 percent of references in Working Group II and 36 percent of references in Working Group III (Bjurström and Polk, 2010)."

The IAC review explains that this has a lot to do with the less heavily researched fields assessed in Working Groups II & III (i.e. "impacts of climate change and strategies for adaptation" and "mitigation options" respectively) that depend on social sciences and predicting human responses in the future. Whereas, Working Group I, which focuses more on physical sciences, relies more heavily on observations and global models.

Despite such explanations, the distinction between the various amounts of 'gray literature' in the Working Groups is an important issue, and the IAC's recommendation for more clarity surrounding its use should not go unheeded. While the exclusive use of peer-reviewed articles would eliminate useful information sources (e.g. government and farming record databases), the apparent opaqueness of the use of gray literature in the IPCC assessments (as highlighted by the IAC) seems unacceptable. For a comparison, I cannot imagine a doctoral candidate being allowed to cite so much gray literature in a thesis (especially without any accompanying justification!), so why should the IPCC take such liberties?

Well, that's all that I have to say about the IAC review. In case you are interested: the IAC report on IPCC processes and procedures is intended to inform discussions at the 32nd session of the IPCC Plenary, which will be held in South Korea in October 2010, and work on the fifth assessment and subsequent assessments.

Sincerely,
Sean Diamond

2 Tips for Understanding Climate Change Scientists

Hello Readers,

On Monday of this week, The InterAcademy Council released a new report that advises the IPCC on changes that should be made to its structure and processes. After I have time to read and process the report, I'll try to offer some informed commentary on it.

In the meantime, I was struck by a few lines from the preface of the executive summary:

Scientific debates have always involved controversies over the value and importance of particular classes of evidence, and this can be expected to continue. Moreover, all scientific knowledge always contains some level of uncertainty and any actions based on scientific evidence inevitably involves an assessment of risk and a process of risk management.

These words should be read as a disclaimer to anyone reading the IPCC reports (or really any scientific article or op-ed piece). If you take these two sentences into consideration before reading any climate change related paper, you should be able to understand what climate change scientists are actually trying to say (and avoid being hoodwinked by climate change skeptics).

In plain English, the first sentence indicates that technical disagreements between scientists about the exact figures and types of evidence should not be misconstrued (as they often are by skeptics) as forms of non-consensus. As an over-simplified example, if Bob and Frank (2 hypothetical scientists who have been studying climate science for decades) are debating which technique for estimating global mean temperature is "best", Bob may suggest that warming over the next several decades will be X degrees while Frank argues that it will instead be Y degrees. This means that both scientists, which are using different techniques to calculate their estimations, agree that warming will occur. They are just unable to agree on the extent of the warming.

Unfortunately, many skeptics will look at such disagreement and claim that since Bob and Frank cannot agree there is no consensus. They may even take it several steps further to conclude that such varying results mean that none of the results can be trusted. This is simply not the case.

The second sentence in the quote helps to explain why there can be technical disagreements between Bob and Frank without "disproving" or negating the general conclusions. The most important word of the quote being uncertainty. Scientific uncertainty has a fairly specific meaning, and it is normally discussed as a range of uncertainty. On the most basic level, scientific uncertainty relates to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. While the uncertainty principle has a specific definition, it in essence means that no matter how sophisticated technology becomes scientific measurements will never be able to be 100% accurate.

Thus, scientists make measurements and estimations to a degree of uncertainty that is deemed acceptable (or as accurate as possible given the equipment at their disposal). This means that even though Bob and Frank do not have figures that align perfectly, the figures from Bob, Frank, and 10 other scientists can be compared to find a range of uncertainty. Such a range should give you a pretty good idea of what is likely to happen. Unfortunately, skeptics jump on the ambiguity that the word uncertainty conjures in the mind of the non-scientist in order to make their own claims seem more credible.

I hope you this post helps you to have a better grasp on climate change debates and articles!

Sean Diamond

Leaving Norwich

Hello Readers,

This week I am leaving Norwich (where I have lived for the past year) to return to America. As such, I thought it would be good idea to reflect on some of the things from the past year that I've really enjoyed.

Thing 1: Korfball

In the out'n'out fun category, Korfball immediately leaps to mind. If you haven't heard of Korf before, you are not alone. I would suspect 99.999% of the world population hasn't heard of it either. Before I arrived at UEA this year, I hadn't heard of it either. By random happenstance, I decided to join the UEA Korfball Club, and it was an excellent decision.

The sport itself is a bizarre twist on basketball. Legend has it that at the turn of the 20th century a Dutch gym teacher learned about basketball, but decided that he need the sport to be playable by his male and female students at the same time. The end result: Korfball, which has a hoop on a pole in the middle of each half of the court and requires 4 girls and 4 boys on each team. To loosely tie this into the sustainability theme of this blog... it is a great low-carbon (i.e. very little equipment needed), community-building experience. By forcing co-ed teams (and making it so that boys can only guard boys and girls can only guard girls) the sport tends to be very sociable and promotes a non-threatening environment for physical activity.

Thing 2: The Greenhouse

Another random happenstance led to me volunteering at the Greenhouse Cafe this year. It turned out to be another great experience. The staff and other volunteers became very good friends of mine. I was introduced to vegetarian cooking/baking, which I will be sure to continue when I return to the US. In fact, when I get the chance, I may post some of the my own recipes on this website.

In addition to the lessons in the cafe kitchen, the Greenhouse Trust introduced me to an excellent 'business model' for a sustainable, community-based non-profit organization. Their facilities (and good food) provided a place for green-minded people in Norwich to congregate, and the volunteers in the cafe and shop helped to support the sustainable living campaigns put on by the trust.

Thing 3: The City and Countryside

The physical layout of Norwich and the surrounding suburbs and countryside helped to make this year great. By having a compact, walkable city center with loads of restaurants, pubs, music venues, dance clubs, etc., there always seemed to be plenty to do. Also, when I felt like getting away from hectic-ness or just getting some exercise, the miles and miles of running/bike paths through parks and fields were the perfect answer.

Thing 4: My Course and Coursemates

Last but not least, my climate change course and all of my coursemates definitely made my year-long experience in Norwich worthwhile. I learned enough about climate change science to confidently hold an intellectual conversation (or debate) about the topic. Somewhat surprisingly, my most memorable and influential module in my degree was certainly Sustainable Consumption (the instigation for this blog). The subject matter and the interactive nature of the seminars were well designed.

To any of my coursemates that happen to be reading this... well, it was a great year! Let me know if you find yourself in America!

Cheers,

Sean Diamond

Renewable vs. Nuclear or Renewable plus Nuclear

Hello Readers,

For years now, I've been reading articles, blog posts, and op-ed pieces debating the merits of nuclear and renewable technologies and the use of them in the development of a low-carbon energy grid. Without feeling a need to reference any specific examples, both sides of the debate (which are both arguably environmentalist in nature) seem to universally agree that fossil-fuel power plants are 'evil'; however, neither side can agree on the best alternative.

Both sides of the argument tend to be concerned about the environment in some capacity and agree that reducing carbon emissions and other pollutants is a good idea. Renewable energy proponents (nuclear opponents) tend to disapprove of the radioactive waste and international security issues associated with nuclear. Whereas, nuclear proponents (renewable energy opponents) tend to site the disruption of the landscape/habitats caused by covering vast areas of land (or waterways) with solar or wind (or hydro) technologies. Meanwhile, fossil-fuel proponents (the champions of the status quo) will point to the weaknesses in either argument and completely deny climate change issues to ensure that their investments (either capital or lifestyle investments) are safe.

As a physicist in undergrad (with a basic understanding of radiation and nuclear technologies) and a climate change scientist in postgrad, I have never fully settled on either side of the renewable vs. nuclear debate. I have come to acknowledge nuclear power plants -if run responsibly- can be a relatively clean source of power. However, careful geopolitical considerations should be accounted for in the development of any new nuclear power plant (i.e. While I understand the reasoning behind sanctioning Iran, it is hypocritical of the USA to discourage other countries from developing nuclear facilities while simultaneously attempting to reinvigorate its domestic nuclear industry.). On the other hand, massive deployments of renewable generators (on the scale necessary to power even half of the current US demand) will require the disruption of not-insignificant portions of natural landscapes and will require huge infrastructural projects on the electric grids (i.e. the incorporation of energy storage and/or reinforced transmission lines).

Of course, either case -if implemented and managed responsibly- will only have a marginal environmental impact compared to the current reliance on fossil-fuels. So it begs the question: how can the renewable vs. nuclear debate turn into what it should be a fossil-fuel vs. non-fossil-fuel debate?

While reading an article about the impacts of climate change on nuclear power plants, a thought occurred to me. Why not attempt to combine the two technologies? Specifically, the article referenced the weakness of many nuclear power plants is the need to use adjacent rivers for cooling. However, this means that the heated water cannot exceed 90 degrees F, which is generally not an issue except on especially hot days (such as those experienced in the USA this past summer). Otherwise, the expelled water would start cooking the wildlife in the river.

Thus, my thought was all new nuclear plants should be coupled with concentrated solar power (CSP) plants to maximize efficiency. The CSP plant, which would need to operate at temperatures of several hundred degrees Fahrenheit, could use the expelled cooling water from the nuclear plant as a preheater. This would simultaneously allow CSP plants to produce more energy with fewer/smaller collectors and allow for more significant levels of cooling for the nuclear plant on hot days. Also, This will allow for more energy to be created for every gallon of water used (e.g. up to 800 gal/MWh for CSP), and in a worst case scenario the CSP mirrors could be turned away from the sun to allow the system to act as a massive radiator for the attached nuclear plant.

Such a solution may not fully alleviate the concerns of either side of the renewable vs. nuclear debate, but it may help to bring the how to 'solve' climate change debate back into perspective. Ultimately, as both sides of the debate continue to batter each others' weaknesses rather than search for solutions, a stalemate only supports the status quo.

Thanks for reading! Please leave your comments or objections down below.

Sean Diamond

The Age of Stumped

Hello Readers,

Earlier in the year I was assigned a debate topic that revolved around the 'documentary' the Age of Stupid. The premise of the movie is that a man (living a few decades from now in a remote arctic archive) is looking back on the history of the world leading up to the severe climate change during the coming decades.

In the movie, the narrator flips through a number of real news clips portraying severe weather events prior to 2010. The effect of condensing several sensational news stories together is meant to indicate that these were obvious precursors to even more severe weather to come. The narrator, who is looking at his past (our future), calls the time we are living in "The Age of Stupid". He asks, "Why didn't we save ourselves when we had the chance?"

The rest of the film offers several paradoxical stories of people in contemporary society. Each story pointing to how 'stupid' we are being. In the film, it is obvious that we are missing all of the signs of impending disaster. While this movie simplifies the complexities of resolving the issues that are causing anthropogenic climate change, it makes no question about whether there are issues (and hopefully this will be the case for public opinion sooner rather than later).

During my debate about the film, I took issue with these over-simplifications. I also did not think that smashing several real-world news clips about weather-related disasters was a proper motivator for actionable change. However, over the past month or so... when the actual daily news started to look like the movie's montage of news clips (See the "Hell and High Water" article on Climate Progress), I began to wonder if the dramatic weather events associated with the changing climate was the only tangible warning we were going to get.

Certainly, pointing to every passing storm and drought as an indicator of climate change is the wrong way to encourage social and behavioral change. Especially when - to be scientifically accurate - every legitimate representation of an extreme weather event requires the disclaimer "not directly caused by climate change", it seems impossible to use the facts as a public motivator without moving into the realm of fear mongering. How can the messaging get past this barrier?

Perhaps it will take related messages, such as the announcement last week by NASA scientists that plant growth will not necessarily continue to benefit from increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, to tip the scales of public opinion and motivate action. Unfortunately, articles (e.g. the related article in the Christian Science Monitor) about such findings are drenched in the term "uncertainty", which means something different to scientists and the general public. This again dulls the meaning of the findings in the minds of most readers.

Thus, I think the 'Age of Stupid' might be a bit harsh when describing the state of affairs today. Instead, I would like to offer the title the 'Age of Stumped'. Wherein those who know what is going on are unsure of how to communicate the issues in terms that others can understand without sounding alarmist.

On a side note, the term 'alarmist' makes me think of a t-shirt I once saw. The t-shirt read "I am a Bomb Technician, If you see me running, try to keep up!" So I have to ask: is there a time to simply start 'running'? I certainly don't think now is the time, but will there be if things do not change? At what point does it stop being 'alarmist' and start being practical?

I do not know the answer to these questions. Instead, I will leave you with a quote from Douglas Adams:

"Don't Panic"

Thanks, for reading along. I'd love to hear your comments on the subject.

Sean Diamond