PricewaterhouseCoopers has released a report summarizing its annual survey of senior power utility executives.  This year's version encompasses the opinions of 118 executives from nearly that many companies spread over 37 countries, and also includes the viewpoints of energy technology and equipment supplier executives.

Entitled “A World of Difference,"the report suggests that there are sweeping changes on the horizon for the utility sector. “These are profound changes with an unprecedented range of technological investment," said Manfred Wiegand, global utilities leader for PricewaterhouseCoopers. "As the pressures of climate change and energy security intensify, the conditions are ripe for a diversification of generation technologies."

Selected highlights from the report: 

• Compared to two years ago, the percentage of survey respondents anticipating that distributed generation with have the greatest impact on companies' power markets has doubled from 24% to 49%.  Furthermore, the proportion predicting that solar power will have the most significant impact has risen from 20% to 54% over that time period.
• Respondents see a carbon emissions cap that creates genuine scarcity in allowances as key to any trading scheme that addresses emissions.  They view energy efficiency and energy savings as the responsibility of governments rather than utility companies.
• Nuclear and renewable generation are expected to have the greatest impact on limiting greenhouse gas emissions.  Americans, in particular, rank nuclear as more important in this regard than renewable generation, at 56% and 35% respectively.
• Only a quarter of respondents expect that carbon capture from coal will have a big impact over the next 10 years, and that proportion only rises one percent when projecting further out to the year 2050. 

The majority of respondents believe that companies with global brands and big balance sheets will lead energy utility landscape, given the huge investments that are required in nuclear, carbon capture and storage, and other technologies.

Download the full report here.

Related articles:
Optimal Technologies Puts Utilities in the Catbird Seat
Carbon Credits: Credit Where It's Not Due
Coal's Future Might Lie in Gasification

Photo by Jessica Juriga

The fantasy that spurred An Inconvenient Truth was that our current way of life is sustainable. That we can all travel around town in our cars and and fly between cities on our airplanes and extract our energy from coal the way we as a Westernized nation have been for the past 60 years. Richard Branson and Al Gore have even fronted massive prizes to any technology that can keep our current lifestyle afloat: $25 million to the first person who can effectively remove massive amounts of carbon dioxide from our atmosphere and keep us running down at ground level.

 

But that’s science fiction, right? After all, combustion of hydrocarbon fuels must release carbon dioxide. But where that carbon dioxide goes and what it reacts with can, to a certain extent, be controlled. This is the root science behind carbon sequestration, and despite a relative lack of publicity — at least compared to other possible greenhouse gas solutions, such as cap-and-trade, hybrid electric vehicles, and renewable electricity sources — it’s further along on its path to development than you might think. 

“This is a geotechnical problem,” says Paul Metz, with the Mineral Industry Research Laboratory at University of Alaska-Fairbanks. “By far, 99.99 percent of the Earth's carbon is sequestered or stored as carbonate minerals. If we're going to look at ways to store carbon, we should look at how the Earth stores it.” Metz’s research deals with what’s called geologic sequestration, or storing carbon beneath the earth’s crust.

By venting exhaust from coal plants — America’s current coal stock can meet its current energy need for the next millennium or so — unground, near rock formations rich in iron, magnesium and calcium, sequestration supporters hope the hot carbon dioxide will form carbonates, rather than escaping into the atmosphere.

While the science behind the theories does hold up, there are several possible problems. First, the technology is still at least a decade away from any sort of commercially viable implementation. Second, the technology would still require us to make massive changes in our daily activities, as a tremendous amount of carbon emissions currently produced are from automobiles and airplanes. To reap the benefits of carbon sequestration, these technologies would still somehow have to be converted to electric power. Then there’s the problem of the environmental impacts of coal extraction, and of controlling the mercury and other toxic chemicals emitted during coal combustion.

So while there is some definite potential for carbon sequestration to aid in a more sustainable future, it is by no means a carbon solution unto itself. Many environmental advocacy groups have taken a wait-and-see approach, acknowledging carbon sequestration’s potential while saying even if effective, it would be best used in tandem with other approaches, such as cleaner energy sources and more efficient transportation and building design.

Related articles:
Carbon Capture: The Algae Alternative
Carbon Offset Confusion
U.S. Investing in Costly Coal Carbon Sequestration
BP Considers Massive Carbon Sequestration Plant

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

The growing demand for energy has utility operators on their heels, trying to manage electrical grids with layers of complexity that makes air-traffic control look like a picnic. And as new renewable energy facilities get hooked into grids, utilities have to juggle even more resources, and come up with prices for energy on an ongoing basis. To manage the situation, utility operators use a hodge-podge of software programs, but they lack a comprehensive and precise view of all the components on the grid. Given these limitations, it's no wonder that power system failures and unpredictable energy prices have become more prevalent in the U.S. power market.

With the launch of its AEMPFAST (Advanced Energy Management Power Flow Analysis System Technology) software system this week, Optimal Technologies aims to dramatically change the way utilities view and manage energy resources on the grid. Similar to air-traffic control system, AEMPFAST (pronounced "aim-fast") gives a birds-eye view of network resources, so operators can see all the components of energy production, distribution, and consumption. More importantly, though, it can analyze and diagnose events in real time, and manage networks for optimum efficiency and reliability.

"AEMPFAST can move power across a large network, and also optimize it at every point, so you get a global and local understanding. There's no other technology that can do that," said Roland Schoettle, CEO of Optimal Technologies. "It has the ability to get a true asset value for every single item in the network, so the [energy] pricing is real and accurate," he added.

More than a decade in the making, the software system has been field-tested over the last few years, and Schoettle said it typically finds about 10 percent more capacity in the energy grids it analyzes. The more data and information the system can crunch, the more accurately it can do its work.

Of course, utilities already have tools in place – sensors, smart meters, and distributed computers – to help achieve "smart-grid" goals, but these devices have primarily been concentrated on the distribution side of the equation. AEMPFAST can work alongside existing IT systems that utilities have been using, so it's not meant to be a disruptive technology. Likewise, it doesn't require any significant capital investment to run the system – install it on a laptop or desktop, and it starts crunching the data. But one of the challenges for Optimal has been getting access to the proprietary data that is generated throughout the electrical grid, from generators to distributors to retailers. When it has all that information, it can give a precise picture of the entire grid, so operators can get an up to the minute, real-world view of how efficiently it's working.

"AEMPFAST has the potential to provide a whole new level of ability to model a grid and operate it more efficiently, and that means you're saving resources and money," said Barbara Barkovich, a regulatory energy consultant and principal at Barkovich & Yap. "I have never heard of another system like this that's non-linear and can operate in real time – it's a substantial change in the way of doing things," she added.

Barkovich said the system could be particularly important during times of peak demand, when utilities are paying the highest prices to generate or buy power, and resources are stretched to the limit.  She was on the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in the summer of 2000 when the California grid suffered a meltdown and had to schedule rolling blackouts across the state. Based on a study that was recently conducted, using real data from the utilities, she said AEMPFAST could have prevented the collapse, by identifying the problem earlier and shifting power resources where they were needed.

With more and more renewable energy generators hitting the grid, utilities need to determine where to locate these energy resources to best utilize their capacity. Building transmission lines from solar and wind facilities to hook into the grid is a costly enterprise, so the closer the plants are to the areas where power is needed, the better it is for the whole grid.

Optimal recently finished a job in California where a utility company put in wind, solar, and other energy producers onto the grid – adding about 160 megawatts of power -- and engineers located the plants where they thought they would create the most benefit to the network. When AEMPFAST diagnosed the system, Schoettle said, it produced a net total of 240 megawatts, by placing the plants in more optimal areas and freeing up (or de-congesting) other energy resources. "So that's about $50-60 million worth of energy, and you couldn't find that with traditional technology," he said.
 
Another area that Optimal hopes AEMPFAST can make its mark is by reducing greenhouse gases and other pollution. Since electricity production is the biggest source of carbon emissions, utilities will face fines, or be forced to buy carbon credits if they can't meet emissions restrictions in the future. The AEMPFAST system can help control emissions and make systems more reliable by ensuring that all the energy that's being produced is being allocated efficiently. Likewise, creating a healthy mix of energy sources is increasingly important, as volatile fuel prices drive up the price of power.

Optimal recently opened new U.S. headquarters in Downtown Raleigh, North Carolina, and received $25 million in funding from Goldman Sachs International. Schoettle said the company is talking to utility companies around the world, and is close to signing a contract with a UK utility company. Optimal executives have also had discussions with the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and both agencies have shown interest in the system, according to Schoettle. If Optimal can convince utility companies to sign on to the system, he added, it could have a big impact on energy use across the country. 

"We've met with people in D.C. and they tell us that AEMPFAST could deliver anywhere from $5 billion to $200 billion to the U.S. economy annually."

The company's preferred revenue model is to sign contracts with utility companies and split a certain percentage of the savings that result from the use of the software. As compelling as AEMPFAST may be, though, Optimal faces some challenges as they try to convince utilities to adopt the system.

"Utilities don't have the right incentives to be efficient, and are making money putting more stuff into the system," said Schoettle. "What we do is so far advanced compared to what they think is possible, and we have to overcome the old-world inertia and engineering arrogance."

With more computer-savvy engineers coming to work at utilities, more sophisticated software will certainly be a bigger part of the picture soon. But how soon is anyone's guess.

"There's always the first-mover problem, because everyone wants someone else to be first, it's human nature." said Barkovich. "But this stuff is very exciting and someone has to go first. Since AEMPFAST doesn't involve replacing software, that's an advantage for Optimal."

Photo by Wolfgang Schlegl

Related articles:
Texas Builds a Pipeline for Wind Energy
PHEVs: Will the Grid Be Ready?
NY Counting on Long Island(?) for Efficiency

 

Now more than ever, consumers seek to take steps to reduce the environmental impact of their day-to-day lives. More and more, the nation’s streets are filling with bicycles and hybrid cars, people are aiming for local and eco-friendly meats and produce, and homes are being built with a closer eye toward walkability and energy efficiency. And certainly, one of the easiest and most popular green changes made by the average consumer is the switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, or CFLs.

CFLs, which pass an electrical current through mercury vapor suspended within their bulbs to create light, consume far less energy than traditional bulbs, which instead rely on the resistance of a filament for illumination. But concerns about disposal have always followed CFLs because of their mercury content. Mercury, a heavy metal that is especially toxic in a vaporous form, causes a variety of problems in the body, and has been responsible for some of the most prolific industrial poisonings in history.

Compounding this problem is the fact that safe CFL disposal efforts have simply not kept pace with the acceleration in demand for compact fluorescents over the past few years. Though just 17,000 of the compact bulbs were in use in 2000, there are now over 380 million providing illumination to homes across America. Unfortunately, disposal centers are few and far between, and mail-in programs, while expanding, are not as widely used as they should be.

So is all this mercury cause for concern? A recent AP article investigated the problem, and found that, although the CFLs sold last year contain a total of nearly two tons of mercury, they still represented a net mercury decrease over traditional bulbs. How? Because so much of America’s power comes from coal, and coal-fired power plants are responsible for about 65% of the world’s mercury pollution.

In fact, the article found that because so much of the extra energy required to power incandescent lights comes from coal plants, mercury pollution from traditional bulbs outstripped that of CFLs by nearly 4:1. "People should care about mercury and if they do, they should be working to save energy wherever they can and CFLs are a great answer to that," said John Rogers, a senior energy analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Cambridge, MA based advocacy group.

CFL manufacturers are also consistently working to create a better, safer product. While one of the world’s largest companies, GE, is researching newer, lower-mercury CFLs, other firms are attacking a variety of other CFL issues, such as a shorter “warm-up” time and dimmer-switch compatibility. Though CFLs are already a clear environmental favorite, the future only holds further refinement for the technology.

Photo by Tiago Daniel

The idea behind the 100-mile diet is that the food a person consumes must come from within 100 miles of home, in an effort to reduce that person’s carbon footprint.

It started with James MacKinnon and Alisa Smith (of Vancouver, British Columbia), who conducted a one-year experiment to demonstrate that they could live entirely on food grown or produced within 100 miles of their apartment. They went beyond produce — meat and dairy products in their diet came from animals that were packaged locally, as well as ate local feed.

For MacKinnon and Smith, the experiment was a success: while they do not follow a strictly local diet — they try, but since the experiment’s end have allowed food from outside their 100-mile limit back into their diets — the practice has spread and has become known as a good approach for sustainable eating.

But while I like the idea of a local diet, I know that practitioners of the 100-mile diet rarely have opportunities to eat outside of their homes: even office cafeterias are off limits. A few restaurants have made the attempt. FoodConnect interviewed Peter Robertson, the chef of Vancouver’s Raincity Grill. Raincity is trying to locally souce all of the ingredients that it turns into fine dining, but Robertson estimates that they’ve only reached about 98 percent compliance, citing spice and oils as two categories of ingredients that simply aren’t produced locally.

Complete compliance to locally produced food can be expensive, and it’s a cost that some people choose to pay. But, so far, the expenses seem out of the range of businesses. Restaurants — especially those that wish to spice their foods in such a matter that customers keep coming back — still have some major hurdles to overcome.

And once we’ve made our kitchens more sustainable, whether at home or commercially, we’ve got plenty of other factors to think about. I don’t know how well my office could handle a local diet — I have no idea where my printer paper comes from, despite the store’s labels regarding recycled content. And a lot of the equipment I use, from computers down to my office chair are definitely not stamped “Made in America,” let alone “Made Down the Road.”

The 100 mile diet is a good experiment, and a good influence. It’s time to start looking at the next step, though. Is it possible to make locally produced food (and other products) affordable for both big businesses and small? And more importantly, from their point of view, will it be affordable to the point that owners will still turn a profit?

 

 

Photo by Ben