The Smart Grid is a hot topic these days: it’s in the press a lot, and gets tons of play in Washington DC. However, the average citizen is still pretty hazy on the details.

Tracy Crawford gave a great rundown of the debate over whether or not to implement a Smart Grid in a previous post.

Many people confuse the Smart Grid with Smart Meters; which are the Smart Grid’s most noticeable aspect, but only one piece of the puzzle. It’s all really pretty intuitive, once you see it on paper.

Definition

The term “Smart Grid” is an umbrella term, defining the modernization of the electricity infrastructure in the US. It will take a decade or more to fully revamp the grid with the latest technologies. It’s a project the Department of Energy (DOE) compares to the national interstate highway system and the internet, both of which took decades to develop.

Our electricity grid includes several components: generation, transmission, distribution, and end consumption. Electricity storage is currently inefficient and costly, but storage may be a major component of the system in the future. The “grid” refers to the portion of the electricity infrastructure between the power plant and end-user: transmission, distribution, and storage.

Smart Meters and other advanced metering infrastructure and Smart Devices which communicate digitally, more efficient transmission lines, software allowing households and businesses to voluntarily reduce demand at certain times, and energy storage technology are all components of the Smart Grid.

According to the DOE, our electricity infrastructure includes “9,200 electric generating units with more than 1,000,000 megawatts of generating capacity connected to more than 300,000 miles of transmission lines.”

The National Academy of Engineers called it: “The most significant engineering achievement of the 20th Century.” Every time we flick on a light-switch or surf the web, we have the electricity grid to thank.

Motivation for an upgrade

If the current grid is so great, why should we change it?

- New Technology:

It’s said that while Alexander Graham Bell would not recognize today’s communications infrastructure, Thomas Edison would be very familiar with our electricity infrastructure. We have the technology to digitalize the electricity grid to increase communication between its various components, we just need to implement it.

- Efficiency:

It’s estimated that $150-$180 billion are lost every year in the US due to blackouts and poor quality electricity. 7% of energy is lost in transmission and distribution. Making the grid just 5% more efficient would be equivalent to permanently eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from 53 million cars. Part of modernizing the electricity infrastructure would be realizing potential efficiency gains.

- Demand Response:

A big goal of the Smart Grid is to level out demand. Currently, there are certain time of the day and certain periods of the year when demand spikes–peak demand episodes–requiring excess capacity to deal with those rare occurrences.  In fact, according to the DOE, “10% of all generation assets and 25% of distribution infrastructure are required less than 400 hours per year, roughly 5% of the time.”

By informing users of real-time electricity prices–which rise as demand rises–the Smart Grid will allow consumers to level out demand and remove the need for many excess power plants and a lot of extra infrastructure.

- Distributed Power Generation:

Large-scale implementation of solar and wind power–above 20% of total electricity–will require advanced energy management techniques, according to the European Wind Energy Association.

With 30 states having developed and adopted renewable energy standards requiring certain percentages of electricity to come from renewable sources by certain dates (California’s being the most ambitious: 20% by 2010), this will become an important issue in the near future.

“Islanding” is another important result of distributed power generation. When power is cut off to a region because of a natural disaster, military/terrorist attack, or any other reason that region would be able to sustain some of its basic electricity needs (hospitals, grocery stores, etc.) through local energy sources such as solar panels and already charged electric vehicles.

- Environment:

Electricity generation is responsible for 40% of CO2 emitted in the US, twice as much as transportation. By allowing for more renewable sources, increasing efficiency, and reducing peak demand the Smart Grid will help reduce our carbon footprints significantly.

Click here to learn more about the Cap and Trade system.

Here are four of the oddest and most extraordinary alternative energies to date. From kites to entire islands, the future of replacing fossil fuels is getting creative.

High Flying Wind Turbines and Kites

Source: Sky WindPower

At an altitude of 30,000 feet the wind power is 20 times greater than what it is available on the ground. That being said, manufacturers at Sky WindPower are attempting to capture this potential energy by sending up giant wind turbines high into the air that could convert it to electricity to be used back on earth. It has been estimated that converting merely 1% of all the high altitude currents could produce enough power for everyone on earth.

Source: Delft University of Technology

Researches at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands have proposed the idea of what they call a “laddermill.” To capture these powerful wind currents at high altitudes, proponents have suggested flying what they call “kiteplanes” up in the air.

Combining the ascension characteristics of kites with the descension characteristics of airplanes, the laddermill creates a looping movement of kiteplanes held together by an extremely strong cable that is connected to a generator that captures the produced energy.

Energy from Footsteps

Source: POWERleap

You may have heard of the concept of capturing energy from stationary bikes and using it to power appliances, but what about creating energy from something a little less stressful, like walking?

The alternative energy company POWERleap is trying to do just that with their invention of a technology that generates electricity from human foot traffic. Imagine entire stretches of sidewalks or floors of dance clubs creating energy while you walk or dance all contributing to decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels.

Energy Islands

Source: Energy Island

Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) is a method for generating electricity by using the warm surface water of tropical oceans which has been heated by the sun.  This warm water heats low boiling point fluids (like ammonia) to create steam which drives a heat engine. The colder, deeper water is then pumped up to the surface to cool down the warm fluid enabling the process to be repeated.

The main challenge of OTEC is to do this process efficiently, a point that the company The Energy Island Group is attempting to solve. What the Energy Island does is create a floating island that houses the technology of OTEC and combines it with other energy options such as wind turbines and solar panels to make the whole process more productive and efficient; the island even has a water desalination plant.

These floating islands could produce an estimated 250 MW of electricity, or enough power to supply all the energy use in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. And if multiple islands were moored together, the output could be drastically higher.

Solar Power from Space

Image: ©Mafic Studios, Inc.

Along the same lines as the high flying wind energy, the utility company PG&E hopes to tap solar power in space where the available energy is eight to ten times greater than on earth.

The concept is extremely advanced, in which the partnering solar company Solaren would generate the power using solar panels in earth’s orbit and then converting it into radio frequency energy for transmission to a receiving station somewhere in the U.S.

The good news for developers is that real estate is free all the way up in space, the bad news is that getting everything up there is tremendously costly.

Image: ©Mafic Studios, Inc.

After speaking with a few EPA employees, I have some follow-up information related to the

Canary in a Coal Mine article from October 6th.

The EPA intends to propose a rule on the status of fly ash by the end of 2009. There are three broad options for what this rule might be:

1. All residue of coal combustion may be treated as a hazardous waste.
2. All residue of coal combustion may be regarded as non-hazardous.
3. A hybrid approach to regulation. For example, disposal may be considered hazardous while some beneficial uses are considered non-hazardous.

Further information about fly ash is available from the Coal Combustion Products Partnership (C²P²).

Click here to learn more about Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Global Warming.

Click here to learn more about the Cap and Trade system.

It’s not a secret that a big draw-back of renewable energy is cost. The direct financial costs borne by the producers, and therefore consumers, of electricity created from fossil fuels is lower than that of renewable sources like wind and solar. However, the argument in favor of renewable energy is that there are indirect costs of electricity generated from fossil fuels that are not borne directly by the producers or consumers, but by society at large.

These are environmental and health costs that do have a direct and meaningful impact on our quality of life, but are not directly paid by producers and consumers of electricity generated from coal and other fossil fuels.

These indirect costs are not as tangible as the direct costs: you feel the impact of your electricity bill on your budget immediately, while the health and environmental impacts of coal usage are hard to quantify.

Carbon emissions levels are gaining public awareness, but still not universally accepted as important and hard to reach out and touch even for those of us who feel they are important. (One group is working to help us visualize a ton of carbon.)

A 60 Minutes segment that aired Sunday October 4, explores an issue that might make the indirect costs of coal more tangible: a by-product of coal combustion known as fly ash. A dusty, dirt-like material that contains elevated levels of toxins such as arsenic, lead, and mercury. Fly ash is stored in vast mounds near power plants, or recycled for a wide range of uses including concrete, carpets, road beds, bowling balls, kitchen counters, golf courses, and fertilizers.

There are environmental benefits to these uses, particularly concrete. First of all, recycling the fly ash means that it does not have to be disposed of as waste. Fly ash makes concrete stronger, and should therefore increase its useful life and reduce waste. Using existing fly ash to replace Portland cement also cuts down on CO2 emissions.

Portland cement production creates about one ton of CO2 for every ton of cement. Of course, burning coal creates twenty to thirty tons of CO2 per ton of fly ash, but this is a sunk cost. The question is whether these environmental benefits are outweighed by harm that has been, to-date, unaccounted for…

Fly ash flew under the radar until December of 2008, when 1.7 million cubic yards were released into a local river from an 84 acre storage pond in Kingston, Tennessee. The fly ash has contaminated the river and forced local residents to abandon their homes. Those who cannot or will not leave are left living in what is basically a toxic site.

The direct clean up costs are estimated by the Tennessee Valley Authority to be between $675 million and $975 million. The indirect costs on the lives of area residents and those living downstream are virtually impossible to quantify. While the spill itself is absolutely unacceptable, the fact that the conditions which allowed it to occur were completely ignored by us, the public, and our elected officials is equally troubling.

60 Minutes’ Lesley Stahl sat down with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) director Lisa Jackson, who somewhat shamefully admitted  that the EPA has no idea about the safety of recycled fly ash products. Coal ash is not a regulated material by the federal government. Jackson did say that the EPA would study the issue.

To date, the studies on coal ash safety have been performed by big coal and big electric. They assure us that the material is safe. Yet 60 Minutes explored leaked documents which show that a utility selling fly ash to a local golf course instructed all employees to essentially treat the ash as a toxic material, wearing haz-mat suits and respirators. The resemblance to big tobacco appears to be striking: knowingly endangering the public, covering up and denying facts, and lobbying aggressively to assure the public that nothing wrong is happening.

The results of an EPA study on fly ash could do to big coal and big electric what lung cancer and other smoking related illnesses have done to big tobacco, especially if there is evidence of negligence or knowingly deceiving the public. If fly ash is indeed a dangerous material, toxic, then disposing of it will add to the cost of coal-fired power. Some will see this as an “unfair” tax on coal; however, it is actually a way to bring the direct cost of coal in-line with its societal cost.

Free-market economic theory dictates that externalities–costs on third parties, such as people unknowingly exposed to toxic products–should be internalized. Fly ash may cause the true cost of coal to be internalized even if cap-and-trade regulation fails to pass. It will be very interesting to see what the EPA’s findings are on the safety of recycled fly ash use.

Click here to learn more about the Cap and Trade system.

A new study from the Environmental Law Institute in partnership with the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, “Estimating US Government Subsidies to Energy Sources: 2002-2008,” shed light on US energy subsidies.

The study finds that fossil fuels received almost two-and-a-half times more subsidies over the 7 year period than renewables: $72 billion for fossil fuels compared to $29 billion for renewables.

Of equal concern is that 58% of renewables subsidies ($16.8 billion) went towards corn-based ethanol, a fuel that’s carbon credentials are in question and has been linked to increasing world food prices.

Not only do fossil fuels get more subsidies, they also get better subsidies. Fossil fuel subsidies are primarily permanent provisions in the US tax codes. Renewable subsidies, on the other hand, are usually tied in with energy bills and come with an expiration date.

This makes it harder for renewable industry firms to plan long-term, while oil and coal companies can be confident that their financial statements will be padded today, tomorrow, and in perpetuity.

Renewable energy is often knocked for relying on government assistance and, thereby, draining the economy. The rebuttal has always been that fossil fuels get direct and indirect government subsidies as well. These findings puts a face on that rebuttal for me, since I have not seen such a comprehensive study on the subject before.

“These figures raise the pressing question of whether scarce government funds might be better allocated to move the United States towards a low-carbon economy.”

Subsidies create a perverse incentive where more of a product/service is supplied (and demanded) than would be the case otherwise. This extra consumption of fossil fuels leads to more pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (negative externalities of consuming fossil fuels).

If these subsidies went towards renewable sources instead of fossil fuels, they would indeed push the US towards a low-carbon economy as the studies authors suggest.

Click here to learn more about the Cap and Trade system.

Time to turn that old “icebox” into a “nice box” of money.

Okay, bad pun.  But the point is: yep, cash for refrigerators.  The new measure from the Obama Administration’s national economic stimulus plan will provide you with a rebate for replacing your old “clunker” of a fridge for a shiny, new, high-efficiency model.

While the act will give consumers a nice cash break, it’s doubtful it will do much to revitalize the ailing appliance industry.  The more efficient appliances will also help consumers cut down on their monthly electricity bills, while eliminating millions of tons of CO2.

Program Details

This new act is based on the popular Cash for Clunkers program for old, inefficient cars, except this one will include refrigerators, washing machines, dishwashers, air conditioners, and other energy-hogging household appliances.

Unlike Cash for Clunkers, consumers won’t have to trade in their old appliances.  Only the purchase of Energy Star approved devices will qualify for the rebate. Twenty-five states already have similar programs in place (to which this new plan will add more cash), but for the other half of the country, this will be an entirely new opportunity.

The Energy Star designation is overseen by the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency.  Energy Star certifies everything from household appliances, to computers, to lighting, to televisions.  About 55 percent of new appliances purchased last year were qualified Energy Star models.

Potential Savings: $200 savings upfront & $100 every year thereafter

The government has put aside $300 million for this new program, which will hand out rebates from $50-$200.  The specifics of the plan will vary from state to state, and local officials are required to submit detailed plans to the federal government by October 15.  The government predicts that the majority of the $300 million will be already distributed by the end of November.

Buying a new fridge could provide other savings to shoppers as well (besides the government rebate check).  According to the Energy Star website, a fridge purchased before 1993 could be costing you over $100 per year in energy costs.  New models will cut that cost by at least half.

So what kind of savings are we talking about?  Well, let’s create an example of a family replacing a fridge and a dishwasher, and assume the average rebate is $100.  The family will save $100 per year in energy costs replacing a fridge from the 1980s, and $30 per year replacing a pre-1994 dishwasher with an Energy Star model.  That’s a total of $130 savings on energy per year with an extra $200 from the rebates to help pay for new, high-performing appliances.

Industry Benefits: Questionable

While this program offers a nice cash break for consumers, it’s unlikely that it is enough to get many people to buy new appliances who weren’t already planning to do so.  Considering that, it’s doubtful any boost in sales will be enough to offset struggling appliance companies’, such as Whirlpool, Electrolux, and General Electric, steady 15% decline in sales since 2006.

Environmental Benefits: The equivalent of 4 million cars

Common household appliances such as refrigerators are big energy users.  How much carbon could Cash for Refrigerators save? 24 million metric tons of CO2

For context, cutting back 24 million metric tons of CO2 is the equivalent of saving the average annual greenhouse gas emissions of over 4 million passenger vehicles.  These figures assume 3 million appliances are replaced ($300 million government investment divided by approximate average rebate of $100).  This also takes into account the 1,142 kilowatt-hours of electricity saved by replacing a conventional fridge with an Energy Star model.

It’s great that the government is providing a boost to the economy while simultaneously encouraging energy conservation, which raises environmental awareness.  But is it too little, too late for an unsteady economy and a troubled home appliance industry?

Time will tell.  In the meantime, visit recovery.gov to learn about federal economic stimulus measurements in your state.  Plus, learn more about the benefits of replacing old appliances on ecomii.

Click here to learn more about your Carbon Footprint.

Consider Packaging for Savings at Landfill and Check Out Register

One dollar of every ten-dollar purchase goes to the cost of packaging, and package waste accounts for more than half the trash in the U.S. These days, clever packaging can influence a purchasing decision and can be an important component in building brand recognition.

The purpose of packaging is to prevent damage and provide important information to the consumer about ingredients, usage, manufacturer and country of origin. Unfortunately, the ongoing quest to find new ways to safeguard food and transport products has become a slippery slope on the road to overload.

Smart shoppers know that packaging can add as much as 45 percent to the cost of a product. Shrink-wrapped, pre-cut produce on a plastic tray is twice as costly. Choosing popular prepackaged salad mixes can take a bite out of your food budget while adding to the avalanche of unnecessary package waste clogging our landfills.

Savvy shoppers choose the least packaged products available; a strategy that is both cost effective and practical.

1) Avoid trendy little water bottles. Those ubiquitous water bottles contribute heavily to the glut of practically indestructible plastic polluting the planet. Invest in a water filtration system and durable metal type sports bottles instead.

2) Buy food staples in bulk. Natural food stores and coops stock bulk bins with varieties of rice, lentils, dried beans, fruit, nuts, seeds, and cereals. Buying in bulk is economical and convenient, allowing you to buy in exactly the amount you prefer.

3) Buy fabric softener and detergent and in “ultra” or concentrated strengths. Smaller containers mean fewer for the product itself and in shipping. Toothpaste packaged in conventional tubes produces 70 percent less waste than the pump-type toothpaste container. And you get almost two ounces more toothpaste in the tube then the pump.

4) Choose reusable totes to carry groceries instead of paper or plastic, to reduce waste and the toxic pollutants emitted in the manufacture of plastic bags, save trees, and avoid dependence on foreign suppliers of petroleum. www.chicobag.com

5) Breastfeed your babies! Mother’s milk comes in the best packaging of all and human milk straight from the breast is always sterile.

Breast-fed babies are less prone to childhood ailments, and don’t require all the unnecessary packaging and accessories associated with bottle-fed babies (click here to learn more). Commercial baby formula costs over $1,000 in the first year. Nurse your baby and you will be giving away at least 1,100 calories a day, and that means you will get back in shape a lot sooner… and it’s free! Click here for some tips on effective breastfeeding.

Click here to learn more about your Carbon Footprint.

It amazes me the waste that occurs and the money spent to “figure things out.”

I am happy that more people are jumping on the green bandwagon and in the beginning, I was even pleased with those who got into it for their own selfish reasons as they are still increasing sustainability and decreasing our footprint so that generations can enjoy the vast wonders and resources that the earth gives us.

Now, however, I find myself frustrated at the actual spend earmarked for “greening-up”. In Massachusetts, as in states across the US, President Obama has allocated funds to stimulate jobs, the economy and renewable energy projects and we are spending huge amounts of money on consultants to “advise” on what actions should be taken.

In new building design and retrofits of extensive projects like the Empire State Building, I see the need to have a detailed plan.

I just read that a town hall, open part time is spending six figures to “analyze.”  Let’s stop and think. Stop making agencies, consortium and do the basics.

Money should be spent on recording where are the best places within the states to utilize the major renewable power choices; wind, sun, geothermal etc., and that information should be public, so that money isn’t spent to do the same calculations over and over.

Then when we have done all we can do that is general knowledge, well, then we can look into fueling thinkers, scientists and more for other venues.

This is not a new topic, after all; the first settlers used water to power their labors see Old Sturbridge Village and you will see the amazing things that can be done without fossil fuels.

One can go to Johnson Controls a leader for the past 20 years in smart technology to use their online assessment tool to determine best green building scenarios.
Solar Calculators, go to Siemens
Photovoltaics, 19 year Solar leader
Wind, Southwest Windpower is a global leader for 25 years
Small Wind Turbines

Things to think about;
6% of the US has excellent sites for WIND energy which could provide 1 ½ the current electrical consumption
The first U.S. hydroelectric power plant in Wisconsin, on September 30, 1882
An Italian company & the world Bank are building a hydroelectric power plant in Albania After all, this is not NEW technology, just new to general use and now becoming easier to find.

There are companies that have been using “smart” technology for decades. Just with the popularization of the ideas has this motivated retailers and others to promote and carry products that fit the bill. The U.S. leads the world in the production of small wind turbines

If anyone knows of projects or groups that are  doing just that I would love to write a blog on them. Write and tell me.

Polystyrene is the practically indestructible material used in packing peanuts, foam cups, egg cartons and produce trays.

Like all traditional plastics, polystyrene is made from petroleum and is a non-sustainable source of major pollution. It is ubiquitous, difficult to recycle, does not biodegrade and resists photosynthesis¹.  In a stunning development, a new study has shown that polystyrene not only dissolves in biodiesel fuel, it increases the power output in the process.

Scientists found that polystyrene packing peanuts dissolved in biodiesel can actually boost the power output of the fuel and get rid of garbage at the same time.

Styrofoam™ is a generic term for disposable plates, cups and coolers. Dow Chemical Company trademarked Styrofoam™, a form of polystyrene foam insulation in the 1950s. Styrofoam™, made from extruded polystyrene, is used in building materials, floral and craft products and is mostly blue.

That coffee you drank from a white foam cup this morning was not Styrofoam™; it was polystyrene foam, made from expanded polystyrene beads.

In the recent study, published in the journal, Energy and Fuels², researchers Najeeb Kuzhiyil and Song-Charng Kong of Iowa State University stated that polystyrene accounts for about 22 percent of all high-volume plastics.

Finding a method to convert waste plastics into energy could potentially ease the strain on landfills and generate electricity. Although polystyrene does not break down easily in petroleum-based diesel, it does break down almost instantly in biodiesel.

The study, funded in part by the Department of Defense, was conducted to investigate solutions to trash disposal and power generation under battlefield conditions. According to Song-Charng Kong, a mechanical engineer and co-author of the study, “One can recycle any kind of plastic, but if you are camped in a remote area, recycling is not an option.” Kong adds, “a polystyrene cup will dissolve almost instantly in biodiesel, like a snowflake in water.”

For most materials, recycling is more efficient than converting into energy, however polystyrene is both lightweight and bulky, making it less than economical to ship to recycling facilities and a good candidate for fuel conversion.

The study showed that polystyrene dissolved in biodiesel increases its viscosity, building pressure inside the fuel injector causing fuel to be injected sooner into the engine. This increases the overall output.
Biodiesel is a bio-renewable fuel and a good solvent for certain materials.

The downside is that dissolving polystyrene in biodiesel doesn’t eliminate the problem of harmful emissions. The research team found that adding polystyrene increases the fuel’s emissions of carbon monoxide, soot, and nitrous oxides, which don’t burn completely in the engine.

This is not entirely surprising since polystyrene is derived from petroleum in the first place. However the researchers continue to work on improving the engine’s fuel injection system to achieve a more complete burn with fewer emissions.

Dissolving polystyrene in biodiesel as a means to recover energy from waste plastics brings the idea of fueling a car with waste a step closer. Certainly preferable to land filling this exciting discovery could offer a viable solution to the polystyrene waste problem, if the emissions can be brought into line.

1. Bandyopadhyay, Abhijit; Chandra Basak, G. “Studies on photocatalytic degradation of polystyrene”, Materials Science and Technology 23 (3): 307–317 (2007)
2. Najeeb Kuzhiyil and Song-Charng Kong. “Energy Recovery from Waste Plastics by Using Blends of Biodiesel and Polystyrene in Diesel Engines.” J Energy and Fuels. April 21, 2009