Renewable Energy Barriers Fall With New FERC Order

Energy storage fans are rejoicing all across the country on the heels of a new ruling by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which opens the floodgates to connecting more solar arrays and wind farms to the power grid. FERC adopted the new ruling, Order 792, in order to bring its existing rules for small generators up to speed with new developments in the energy storage field.

As FERC explained when issuing Order 792:

…the Commission finds it necessary under section 206 of the Federal Power Act  to revise the pro forma SGIP [Small Generator Interconnection Procedures] and pro forma SGIA [Small Generator Interconnection Agreement] to ensure that the rates, terms and conditions under which public utilities provide interconnection service to Small Generating Facilities remain just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory.

Our friends over at the Energy Storage Association contributed to public comments on the rule during its proposal phase and they tipped us to the new ruling, so let’s see what they have to say about it.

Energy Storage Gets A Boost From FERC Order 792

In a nutshell, Rule 792 adds energy storage as a power source that is eligible to connect to the grid. It effectively puts energy storage in the same category as the existing Small Generator Interconnection Procedures and makes it eligible for the existing Fast Track process.

Darrel Hayslip, who chairs the ESA, was fast out of the box with a big thank-you to FERC:

We commend the FERC Commissioners for acknowledging that energy storage should be able to participate in the small generator interconnection process on our electric grid and that our rules and policies should evolve as well. These reforms are good news for storage project developers and further facilitate the deployment of storage on the power grid.

What About Rule 784?

The implications for renewable energy, namely wind and solar, are clear when you take a look back at Order 784, which FERC adopted just last July.

Order 784 opened up the ancillary services market to renewable energy storage sources, by requiring utilities to consider speed and precision when deciding on which source to buy (ancillary services refers to power sources that utility companies can tap into on an as-needed basis).

Our friends at Midwestern Energy News explain that Order 784 filled an important gap in the rules for ancillary services, which previously specified generation, transmission, distribution, and load facilities â€" in other words, everything but energy storage.

Can Energy Storage Beat Gas And Coal?

Here’s where the rubber hits the road. Between Order 792 and Order 784, energy storage gets its own “box to check” when utilities are considering proposals for ancillary services. That puts it in a head-to-head matchup against gas and coal power plants, which utilities typically rely on for ancillary services.

The question is, since utilities are now required to consider speed and precision on a non-discriminatory basis, can next-generation storage facilities rev up more quickly than the typical gas or coal power plants?

That’s the key question, especially when you consider that a 2011 ruling, Order 755, established market incentives for speedier ancillary services and more precise supply-and-demand response (tx to our friends at breakingenergy.com).

Some storage technologies have already answered that question, with a Midwestern Energy News source claiming instantaneous production of 10 megawatts for a 40-megawatt lithium-ion battery in Ohio.

Barn Door Is Already Open

If you’re thinking that it will be a while before energy storage technology can get to the point where the industry can take advantage of the new FERC rules on a mass scale, guess again.

Energy storage for wind and solar is already well on its way to the mainstream.

To take just one example, let’s see what the energy storage company Xtreme Power has been up to. We first took note of their activities earlier this year when they hooked up with Duke Energy’s massive Notrees Wind Farm for an R&D project in partnership with the Department of Energy and other stakeholders.

Xtreme Power is also involved in a Texas smart grid R&D project with Samsung SDI and other partners.

That’s just future-looking part of the company’s profile. Meanwhile on the commercial front, Xtreme Power has already been quite active, particularly in Hawaii where it has just announced its eighth energy storage project.

Hawaii is ripe for the renewable energy picking partly because of its reliance on expensive imported diesel fuel.

The new Xtreme Power project, in cooperation with the Kauai Island Utility Cooperative, will consist of a two megawatt lithium ion energy storage system for a 12 megawatt solar farm. Completion is expected in spring 2014.

The addition of utility scale storage facilities is expected to have a ripple effect on the renewable energy market in Hawaii, by contributing to grid flexibility.

Not for nothing, but Xtreme Power has some heavy hitters in its investment portfolio, including some that indicate the fossil fuel industry is continuing its slow (very slow) and lurching pivot to a more diversified approach to energy generation.

That would be BP Alternative Energy (yes, that BP) and Dominion Resources (yes, that Dominion).

Renewable Energy Barriers Fall With New Ferc Order was originally published on: CleanTechnica. To read more from CleanTechnica, join over 30,000 other subscribers: RSS | Facebook | Twitter.

Connect:

Authored by:

Tina Casey

Tina Casey is specializes in military and corporate sustainability, advanced technology, emerging materials, biofuels, and water and wastewater issues. She is currently a Senior Reporter at Cleantechnica.com and a Staff Writer at TriplePundit.com. Tina’s articles are reposted frequently on Reuters, Scientific American, and many other sites. You can also follow her on Twitter @TinaMCasey and ...

See complete profile

Read More

A Final Contribution From Warsaw

As most will have seen from various media reports, delegates to COP 19 in Warsaw continued negotiating the outcome until late Saturday night. The key sticking points were “loss and damage” and the shape of national actions that would ultimately form the foundation of the 2015 deal (for implementation post 2020).

The agreement from the Doha COP (3/CP.18) to create a mechanism for “loss and damage” related to climate change was delivered on, but probably fell far short of what many developing country negotiators were hoping for. Those at the extreme of this may have been interpreting it as a formula to assess the climate component of national reparations from a given event or weather trend and then bill emitters accordingly, but this is not how the problem was addressed by the negotiators in Warsaw. Rather, the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage establishes an advisory and information sharing body with an executive committee that must report annually to SBSTA and SBI and make recommendations. At least for now, this issue has been kicked into the long grass, but it will return in 2016 when it is subject to review at COP 22.

As noted, the second major sticking point was over the nature of national mitigation actions post 2020. The agreed text seeks to have these tabled in the next 18 months, i.e. by Q1 2015. Specifically the text says:

To invite all  Parties to initiate or intensify domestic preparations for their intended  nationally determined contributions,  without prejudice to the  legal nature of the contributions, in the context  of adopting a  protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties towards achieving the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2 and to communicate them well in advance of the twenty-first session of the Conference of the Parties (by the first quarter of 2015 by those  Parties ready to do so) in a  manner that facilitates  the clarity, transparency and understanding of the intended contributions, without prejudice to the legal nature of the contributions;

Reaffirming the mandate agreed in Durban which aims to see all countries treating mitigation similarly, the negotiators landed on the wording “prepare contributions”, rather than some countries being asked for specific reduction targets or commitments and others for appropriate (to their development status) actions. The latter would have been a retreat back towards the strict developed / developing country division of the Kyoto Protocol, so this wording is a positive development in that sense.

But the compromise word of “contribution” has its own issues and is not the same as “commitments”. The two words have very different meanings;

Commitment: the state or quality of being dedicated to a cause, activity, etc., or, an engagement or obligation that restricts freedom of action. 

Contribution: a gift or payment to a common fund or collection (e.g. the part played by a person or thing in bringing about a result or helping something to advance).

What the world has settled on is essentially a voluntary role for nations as this is the essence of a contribution, rather than the obligation that arises from a commitment. Perhaps we all knew this, but it is now becoming clear that nobody has any particular requirement to do anything with regards mitigation. It is certainly looking unlikely that this choice of wording is preparing nations for what is necessary if they are indeed going to achieve the objective of the Convention as set out in Article 2:

. . . . stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.

While there is certain to be a long argument at some point about the exact level of stabilization that is necessary, the above statement nevertheless requires that anthropogenic emissions are eventually reduced to about zero (or at least net zero), in that without such a reduction stabilization is not really possible. It is also likely to be the case that this needs to happen during this century so as to avoid an excessive global temperature excursion and therefore dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system (the official line here is of course 2°C, which implies net zero emissions rather sooner than the end of this century, but still in the second half).

A further aspect of the intended global agreement is that while it currently lacks any structure, it will seemingly require contributions now that eventually deliver on the needs of the Convention (although the 2015 outcome will probably only cover the period 2020-2030).  In theory and if negotiators followed this line of argument, it would give nations only one variable left to play with in determining said contributions, that being the date at which they intend to reach net zero emissions. Statements of this magnitude hardly fall into the category of voluntary efforts, rather they become national obligations that may well restrict freedom of action in the future, at least at a national level. That sounds very much like a commitment.

It could therefore be argued that the frantic last hours of a long COP that started out with very low expectations have delivered a challenging legal paradox. Of course it will be unraveled by a focus on the word “towards”, in that it implies a 2015 agreement that doesn’t require a statement of zero emissions now, but at least a pathway that eventually gets there. But this is meant to be a global agreement for the long term, not another interim step towards real action. Whether or not the 2015 agreement embraces a concept such as “net zero emissions” remains to be seen, but if it does then it is hard to see that “contributions” will be a robust approach to getting there. If it doesn’t embrace the concept then it won’t be the global agreement the world actually needs, which means that “contributions” will probably do for now but stabilization of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will continue to remain elusive.

Photo Credit: COP 19 Ending/shutterstock

Read More

Bridge Out: Study Finds Methane Emissions From Natural Gas Production Higher Than EPA Estimates

A major new study blows up the whole notion of natural gas as a short-term bridge fuel to a carbon-free economy.

Natural gas is mostly methane (CH4), a potent heat-trapping gas. If, as now seems likely, natural gas production systems leak 2.7% (or more), then gas-fired power loses its near-term advantage over coal and becomes more of a gangplank than a bridge. Worse, without a carbon price, some gas displaces renewable energy, further undercutting any benefit it might have had.

Fifteen scientists from some of the leading institutions in the world â€" including Harvard, NOAA and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab â€" have published a seminal study, “Anthropogenic emissions of methane in the United States.” Crucially, it is based on “comprehensive atmospheric methane observations, extensive spatial datasets, and a high-resolution atmospheric transport model,” rather than the industry-provided numbers EPA uses.

Indeed, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study by Scot Miller et al takes the unusual step of explicitly criticizing the EPA:

The US EPA recently decreased its CH4 emission factors for fossil fuel extraction and processing by 25â€"30% (for 1990â€"2011), but we find that CH4 data from across North America instead indicate the need for a larger adjustment of the opposite sign.

D’oh!

How much larger? The study found greenhouse gas emissions from “fossil fuel extraction and processing (i.e., oil and/or natural gas) are likely a factor of two or greater than cited in existing studies.” In particular, they concluded, “regional methane emissions due to fossil fuel extraction and processing could be 4.9 ± 2.6 times larger than in EDGAR, the most comprehensive global methane inventory.”

This suggests the methane leakage rate from natural gas production, which EPA recently decreased to about 1.5%, is in fact 3% or higher.

This broad-based look at methane emissions confirms the findings of 3 recent leakage studies covering very different regions of the country:

• NOAA researchers found in 2012 that natural-gas producers in the Denver area “are losing about 4% of their gas to the atmosphere â€" not including additional losses in the pipeline and distribution system.”
• A 2013 study by NOAA found leaks from oil and gas exploration and extraction in the L.A. basin representing “about 17% of the natural gas produced in the region, similar to the leak rate estimated by the California Air Resources Board using other methods.” Almost all the gas produced in the basin is “associated” with oil production (rather than, say, fracked). Associated gas is still about a fifth of total U.S. gas production.
• Another 2013 study from 19 researchers led by NOAA concluded “measurements show that on one February day in the Uinta Basin, the natural gas field leaked 6 to 12 percent of the methane produced, on average, on February days.” The Uinta Basin is of special interest because it “produces about 1 percent of total U.S. natural gas” and fracking has increased there over the past decade.
The comprehensive nature of this new study strongly suggests these earlier findings were not anomalies, as some have suggested.

Indeed, all of these findings taken together vindicate the concerns of high leakage rates raised by Cornell professors Howarth, Santoro and Ingraffea, which I reported on back in 2011. I asked Ingraffea to comment on the new study. He wrote:

The results presented by Miller and his team are another serious challenge to an “all of the above” energy policy that relies on negotiated estimates of methane emissions, rather than actual and representative emission measurements, while at the same time claiming serious concern about climate change. A growing series of regional, top-down measurements by this team and others, now on a national scale, is proving to be a more rational approach to accounting for the highly skewed distribution of methane emission sources.

He added, “That methane bridge is starting to crack.”

We have seen a number of cracks this year in the methane bridge â€" bringing it to the point of collapse. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported recently that methane is a far more potent a greenhouse gas than we had previously realized, some 34 times stronger a heat-trapping gas than CO2 over a 100-year time scale â€" and 86 times more potent over a 20-year time frame.

With methane having both a higher leakage rate and higher global warming potential than previously thought, the notion of methane as a bridge fuel is falling apart.

Yes, it’s true a recent study finds the best-fracked wells have low methane leak rates â€" but that study ignored the super-emitters that are responsible for the bulk of the fugitive emissions.

And remember, for natural gas to be a bridge fuel to a carbon-free future (rather than a detour around it), gas must replace coal only, rather than replacing some combination of coal, renewables, nuclear power, and energy efficiency â€" which is obviously what will happen in the real world absent a price on carbon pollution. The most comprehensive modeling to date, by fourteen teams from different organizations, found that abundant and cheap natural gas has little net impact on U.S. CO2 growth (especially post-2020) compared to the case of low shale gas penetration precisely because it displaces carbon-free energy. Globally, the International Energy Agency finds a dash to gas would destroy a livable climate.

Finally, natural gas makes little sense as a short-term sustainability play, since we know that each fracked well consumes staggering amounts of water, much of which is rendered permanently unfit for human use and reinjected into the ground where it can taint even more ground water in the coming decades. That’s particularly worrisome considering that fossil fuels destroy the climate and accelerate drought and water shortages.

With this most recent study, our understanding of the limitations of natural gas is now fairly complete. Natural gas is not a bridge to a carbon-free or climate-safe future. In fact, absent both a serious price for carbon and very strong, enforceable national regulations on leakage, natural gas is a gangplank.

The post Bridge Out: Bombshell Study Finds Methane Emissions From Natural Gas Production Far Higher Than EPA Estimates appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Connect:

Authored by:

Joseph Romm

Joe Romm is a Fellow at American Progress and is the editor of Climate Progress, which New York Times columnist Tom Friedman called "the indispensable blog" and Time magazine named one of the 25 "Best Blogs of 2010." In 2009, Rolling Stone put Romm #88 on its list of 100 "people who are reinventing America." Time named him a "Hero of the Environment″ and “The Web’s most influential ...

See complete profile

Read More

A Smart Grid Thanksgiving List

The Atlantic magazine had a recent article about the top 50 innovations in human history in the last 6000 years.  Number one on the list was the printing press.  It beat electricity (#2) as the most game-changing technology breakthrough.

Will any current or future technology breakthroughs found in Smart Grid buildouts be identified in a similar list in 25 years?  I think so.  The Smart Grid melds communications networks with electricity grids, and that is triggering an upwelling of new products, services, and businesses that create new value.   As a very active vertical in the larger M2M (machine to machine) sector, grid modernization is instigating innovations in materials sciences (such as graphene research and battery developments) and communications (such as cognitive radio research and energy-harvesting sensors).  I applaud all the innovators and early adopters of new technologies who are braving skeptical naysayers, convincing investors, and calling for changes to outdated policies and business models to help ensure that our electric grid continues to be safe, reliable, and in the future, resilient.

That’s why, prompted by the upcoming American Thanksgiving holiday, energy entrepreneurs top my list of energy-related reasons to give thanks in 2013.

1. Entrepreneurs focused on innovative products and services that save energy and/or water.  They could be spending their time on extremely derivative startups focused on more ways to target ads at us so we consume more stuff, and I see many in that category in Silicon Valley.  Instead, energy entrepreneurs want to improve the world we live in, and make a well-deserved buck doing it.  They are working on serious solutions that leverage communications, sensors, and analytics to build awareness of consumption and how to intelligently manage water and energy use.  They are also creating new ways of financing renewable energy or energy efficiency retrofits to accelerate deployment of innovations that form the Smart Grid.
2. AB2514.  This California law directed the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to study the possibilities of energy storage integration into the state’s grid.  That in turn triggered a recent CPUC ruling that orders the 3 California investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to invest in energy storage â€" for a total of 1.325 GW by 2020. California policy-makers recognize the value of coupling energy storage with renewables.   California is the ninth largest economy in the world, and this law just created the market for utility-scale energy storage in the USA.
3. Tesla Motors.  There are more and more EV models available for purchase now, but Tesla put the cool factor into the EVs.  A recent news report in the San Jose Mercury News noted that the Model S is the top-selling vehicle in eight of the nation’s 25 wealthiest ZIP codes.  (Six of those eight zip codes are in Silicon Valley.)  Anything that accelerates the transition away from fossil fuel-based transportation is an extraordinarily good thing, and Tesla accelerates very nicely while looking cool too.
4. MLP Parity Act.  The Master Limited Partnership Parity Act is pending legislation in the US Senate, co-sponsored by a bi-partisan(!) group of senators led by Chris Coons (Delaware) and Jerry Moran (Kansas).  I am thankful that some political leaders recognize the inequities of the current tax law that favors polluting fossil fuels, and are actively working to level the playing field for clean renewable sources of energy like wind and solar.  Let’s hope they succeed in getting this common-sense legislation into law.  You can help by writing your senators and encouraging them to support this legislation.  Find out more at this site.
5. Thomas Edison â€" the first energy entrepreneur.  He harnessed electricity into its first useful application â€" the incandescent light bulb.  Before that, it was an interesting phenomenon.  Modern economies and societies can’t exist without electricity.  If he was alive today, I’m sure he’d be in a lab somewhere tinkering on better materials for integrated circuits to reduce the energy that ends up as waste heat or building an even better light bulb.

Photo Credit: Smart Grid T-Day List/shutterstock

Connect:

Authored by:

Christine Hertzog

Christine Hertzog is a consultant, author, and a professional explainer focused on Smart Grid technologies and solutions. She provides strategic advisory services to startups and established companies that include corporate development, market development, and funding strategies. She is the author of the Smart Grid Dictionary, now in its 4th Edition, the first and only dictionary that ...

See complete profile

Read More

The Explosive Growth of Steel Production in China: Why it Matters

There is no material more fundamental to industrial civilization than steel. Modern buildings, ships, cars, planes and bridges would all be unthinkable without steel, and as pointed out by Allwood and Cullen in their fine recent book on materials production we currently have no viable substitute materials that could perform steel's multiple functions. We are still very much living in the iron age.

Global production of steel has now reached almost 1.5 billion tonnes each year. The geographic make up of steel production however has changed profoundly in the last decade. In the year 2000 China produced 15% of the world's steel. Today almost half of the world's steel is made in China, with Chinese steel production increasing by over 500% since 2000. The astonishing levels of steel consumption in China is illustrated by the fact that 60% of rebar, used in buildings to reinforce concrete, that is produced each year is now consumed in China.

Energy requirements of steel manufacturing in China

Last year China produced 708 million tonnes of steel. On average each tonne of steel produced in China requires the equivalent of 0.69 tonnes of coal in energy consumption. In other words China's steel industry consumes the equivalent of 500 million tonnes of coal each year, and this being China more or less all of the energy used to make steel comes from coal. China's steel industry consumes almost 7% of the world's coal, and if China's steel industry was a country it would rank 6th globally in total primary energy consumption, ranking above both Germany and Canada. A comparison of this level of energy consumption with current global consumption of wind and solar energy is sobering. 

As with all comparisons of energy consumption, methods and calculations should be laid out transparently. Here I will compare the total primary energy consumption of China's steel industry with global primary energy consumption of wind and solar. In 2012 wind and solar electricity production was 614 TWh (trillion watt hours). However to make a more apples to apples comparison we should ask how much coal would be needed to produce this electricity. Using this approach current annual global energy consumption from wind and solar works out as 200 million tonnes of coal equivalent (using EIA's conversion methodology and BP's assumptions for the average thermal efficiency of power plants).  Therefore growth in global energy consumption from wind and solar since 2000 has been approximately half of the increase in energy consumption by China's steel sector alone. A stark illustration of how little has been achieved in the transition to low carbon energy.

This rapid growth in Chinese steel consumption poses another problem. We are not only fundamentally dependent on steel production, but as Vaclav Smil points out steel production is more or less fundamentally dependent on the large scale use of coal, with no prospect of a transition to low carbon methods of steel production in the short to medium term. Calls to fully dismantle the coal industry must consider how we can make steel without coal, because currently no methods seem particularly feasible. Globally about 1 billion tonnes of coal is used to produce steel, representing 14% of total coal production, with steel and iron production equating to over 6% of global carbon dioxide emissions. This figure is much higher than that of the aviation industry, yet have you ever read an op-ed calling steel manufacturing a rogue industry?

The vast disparities in steel consumption in the world today suggest that a significant increase in overall steel consumption is inevitable and probably desirable. We are however reaching the limits of how efficiently steel can be produced, and despite multiple opportunites to improve the rationality of steel use it appears clear that we will need to mine hundreds of millions of tonnes of coal each year to produce steel for decades, and more likely, generations to come. These realities should be borne in mind by those who claim there are no significant barriers to 100% renewable energy.

Data sources

World Steel Association

BP Statistical Review of World Energy

Connect:

Authored by:

Robert Wilson

Robert Wilson is a PhD Student in Mathematical Ecology at the University of Strathclyde.

His secondary interests are in energy and sustainability, and writes on these issues at The Energy Collective.

Email: robert.wilson@strath.ac.uk

See complete profile

Read More

Sunset for Suntech as China Solar Target Rises

Doug Young 

Sunset for Suntech. Photo by Tom Konrad

More good news is coming for the rebounding solar sector with word that Beijing is accelerating its build-up of solar power plants in a bid to help the industry and also improve China’s dismal air quality. But that news is coming too late for rapidly disappearing sector pioneer Suntech (NYSE: STP), which has just announced it has formally launched a liquidation process that will end its life as an independent company. Suntech’s downbeat news isn’t really unexpected, and comes amid a much broader flurry of positive signs for a solar panel sector that is finally emerging from a downturn that has lasted nearly 3 years.

The latest piece of upbeat news from the corporate sector came just a day ago, when Trina (NYSE: TSL), one of the largest players, raised its shipment guidance for the third quarter by 20 percent, and said margins would also be significantly better than previously forecast. (company announcement) Trina’s news came after Canadian Solar (Nasdaq: CSIQ) gave a similarly upbeat update on its third-quarter results, including a return to profitability for the period. (previous post)

The latest good news for the sector comes from Beijing, which has raised an already aggressive target for new solar power plant construction even higher to help the industry. According to the latest reports, Beijing has raised the target by 20 percent, with an aim for 12 gigawatts of solar power capacity nationwide by 2014, up from a previous target of 10 gigawatts. (English article)

Beijing was always an aggressive supporter of the solar panel sector, offering generous incentives that led to a huge build up in manufacturing capacity. That resulted in massive oversupply that sparked the recent downturn. But while it supported a build up of manufacturing capacity, Beijing didn’t support a parallel build-up of domestic solar power plants, with the result that manufacturers like Trina, Canadian Solar and Suntech relied completely on Europe and the US for most of their sales.

Now Beijing is trying to rectify that imbalance with an aggressive build-up of solar plants, with an aim of 35 megawatts of capacity by 2015. That target looks a bit unrealistic to me based on the 12 megawatt target for 2014. But then again, perhaps we’ll see a sudden massive construction binge in response to Beijing’s recent calls to clean up China’s highly polluted air, and also the government’s determination to support solar panel makers.

That rapid domestic build-up may be good news for relatively healthy companies like Trina, Canadian Solar and Yingli (NYSE: YGE), but it comes too late for bankrupt Suntech, which has just filed an application for provisional liquidation in the Caymen Islands where it is technically based. (company announcement) This application looks like sunset may be imminent for the company, whose main manufacturing assets are being purchased by Hong Kong-listed Shunfeng (HKEx: 1165) for 3 billion yuan. ($500 million) (previous post)

There’s not much new to say about this latest development, except that it’s coming a bit faster than I had expected. I had previously said that Suntech’s bankruptcy reorganization could be delayed by litigation in New York and Italy; but now it appears the Chinese court hearing the case wants to go ahead and liquidate Suntech sooner rather than later.

One interesting footnote as the end draws near is what’s happened to Suntech’s stock. This kind of bankruptcy filing usually causes a company’s stock to become nearly worthless, since shareholders seldom recovery anything from such reorganizations. But in this case Suntech’s stock held its value, and was trading as high as $1.58 just 2 days ago. Now that the end is finally near, shareholders finally seem to realize they may not get anything. Suntech’s shares plunged 16 percent in Wednesday trade, and were down another 11 percent at $1.12 after hours. Look for the downward plunge to continue, until the shares hit the nearly worthless level where they should have been throughout the bankruptcy process.

Bottom line: Newly raised power plant targets will help China’s rebounding solar panel sector, but Suntech shares are likely to soon become worthless as the company liquidates.

Doug Young has lived and worked in China for 15 years, much of that as a journalist for Reuters writing about Chinese companies. He currently lives in Shanghai where he teaches financial journalism at Fudan University. He writes daily on his blog, Young´s China Business Blog, commenting on the latest developments at Chinese companies listed in the US, China and Hong Kong. He is also author of a new book about the media in China, The Party Line: How The Media Dictates Public Opinion in Modern China.

Read More

Lower Threshold to End Filibusters in Senate Boosts Odds for Aggressive Emission Limits by Obama

There’s a real game-changer now afoot in Washington, DC that would make it even more difficult to build a coal-fired power plant in the U.S. The Obama administration’s efforts to stiffen limits on harmful carbon dioxide emissions got a big boost from the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate, albeit not from any new legislation.

The change comes in the Senate’s vote Nov. 20 to change a rule that reduces to 50, down from the 60, the votes needed to end the storied practice of filibustering the administration’s nominees to executive branch positions and to the federal courts, including those to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington.

It’s in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (aka the “D. C. Circuit,”) where utilities, energy and industrial companies are expected to challenge new rules taking shape at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement Obama’s much-anticipated rules reducing emissions of carbon dioxide.  The D.C. Circuit is given the responsibility of directly reviewing the rulemakings of federal “independent” agencies, and very seldom does it need a prior hearing by a U.S. District Court.

If President Obama can win approval for his nominees for the three open slots on the D.C. Circuit, such rules would very likely be upheld upon appeal by the U.S. District Court in DC. In that case, Obama would achieve an important win by regulatory fiat.  Officially, the latest Obama climate plan is striving to reduce U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

Here, left, is how U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions have increased, decreased and are expected to resume upward trajectory. CREDIT: U.S. EIA

Thanks largely to cheap natural gas from shale unleashed by hydraulic fracturing, U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions have actually declined about 12 percent below their 2005 level. That’s without any new and tougher rules from the EPA. But much of that decline also occurred during the deep recession. As the economy recovers, CO2 emissions already are resuming their upward trajectory.

Since assuming office, Obama has succeeded in filling only one of four vacancies. Currently the balance tips in favor of those in favor of blocking new emissions rules, according to several court observers. Obama’s nominees for the three vacancies are: Patricia Ann Millet, Cornelia Pillard and Robert Wilkins. See accompanying photo.

If one or more of those nominations succeeds, before Obama’s second term concludes in January 2017, then the new emissions paradigm could have a strong backstop in the DC Circuit. Lobbyists and legal scholars on both sides of this debate are re-forging strategies to defeat -- or support -- whatever new rules the EPA produces.  The battle over existing and future nominations to the D.C. Circuit â€" not in Congress, not inside a regulatory agency per se â€" has become the defining energy / environmental policy contest for the next three years, and perhaps beyond.

U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominees (in adjacent photo, from left) Robert Wilkins, Cornelia Pillard and Patricia Ann Millet are expected to defend President Obama's push for stricter emission limits on future and existing U.S. power plants. CREDIT: WhiteHouse.gov

It was a 2007 decision by the Supreme Court which set the stage for this showdown. The EPA, the Court affirmed, is required under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide if it poses a threat to public health and welfare. The EPA has been using that authority to propose carbon standards for future coal- and natural gas-fired power plants not yet built. But Obama’s climate team is ready to push hard with updated regulations in 2014, to be enforced starting in 2015, which would focus also on existing power plants.

By most measures, existing power plants are responsible for 40 percent of the nation’s CO2 emissions. That piece of the Obama strategy could speed up the closure of power plants; along the way it could pave the way for renewable sources of electricity and shine a brighter light on reducing demand through energy efficiency initiatives.

From Obama’s long-anticipated climate speech this past June, the his administration’s plan to tackle emissions from existing plants now calls for the EPA “to build on state leadership, provide flexibility, and take advantage of a wide range of energy sources and technologies including many actions in this plan.” Here is how the EPA is receiving inputs that could frame the new regulations.

To be sure, there are numerous rule-making mechanics that could help -- or hinder â€" the policies the EPA opts to pursue. Success or failure of an appeal at the D.C. Circuit may rest on how much legal risk the EPA wants to assume. The more aggressive the limits on emissions, the bigger the risk that an appeal will succeed; a more modest target might not draw as potent an appeal effort.

Connect:

Authored by:

Jim Pierobon

As a career-long advocate for cleaner, safer and more secure energy solutions, Jim creates and helps execute energy campaigns and projects for a variety of trade association/NGO, government agency, smart grid, renewable energy, utility and other clients through Pierobon & Partners LLC. He blogs at TheEnergyFix.com. Among other positions, he has co-managed the energy and environmental practice ...

See complete profile

Read More

Capstone Infrastructure: How Bad Is The Worst Case?

Tom Konrad CFA

Disclosure: I have long positions in MCQPF and AQUNF.

Capstone Infrastructure Corporation (TSX:CSE, OTC:MCQPF) has been trading at a significant discount to its peers because of a  power supply agreement which expires at the end of 2014.  Capstone is seeking a new agreement with the Ontario Power Authority for its Cardinal gas cogeneration facility, a process which has taken much longer than management expected.

The cardinal Cardinal plant currently accounts for about a third of Capstone’s revenue and a quarter of earnings before interest, taxes, and depreciation (EBITDA), but two-thirds of distributible income.  The high fraction of distributible income is because Cardinal’s debt has been paid down over the term of the expiring power supply agreement.  This makes income from Cardinal (and the terms of a new power supply agreement) crucial to maintaining Capstone’s dividend.

In the company’s third quarter conference call, we learned a few tidbits which point to how and when the negotiations might be resolved.

Timing

In terms of timing, the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) is expected to release its new Long Term Energy Plan before the end of the year.  It seems unlikely that the OPA would announce a new contract with Capstone before releasing the plan, so I expect that investors will have to wait until 2014 before we have any news on an actual contract.

The OPA did finalize a 20 year power supply agreement with TransAlta Corporation (TSX: TA, NYSE:TAC) for that company’s similar gas cogeneration facility in Ottawa.  That facility’s previous agreement was expiring at the end of 2013.  If Capstone’s negotiations follow a similar pattern, we would expect a new agreement for Cardinal in the middle of next year.

Likely Terms

TransAlta’s Ottawa power supply agreement is interesting in terms of its substance, in addition to its timing.  Under that deal, the plant “the plant will become dispatchable. This will assist in reducing the incidents of surplus baseload generation in the market, while maintaining the ability of the system to reliably  produce energy when it is needed.”

For similar reasons, the chance of Capstone and the OPA failing to come to any agreement seems minuscule.  The Ontario government has committed to no new nuclear and an increasing dependence on renewables and efficiency.  No new nuclear means lower overall supply, and more renewables means more variable power supplies, adding to the value of flexible plants such as Cardinal and Ottawa.

The Ottawa agreement provides for TransAltas’s plant to ramp up and down in response to the needs of Ontario’s power system.  Dispatchable plants receive two types of revenues from the utility: payment for energy produced, and a capacity payment based on the plant’s ability to respond to system needs.

Cardinal is also a flexible facility, so it makes sense that Cardinal’s power supply agreement would also provide for the plant to become dispatchable.  New capacity payments would go some way to making up for the lost revenue when Cardinal no longer operates as a baseload facility.  In 2012 and 2013, Cardinal has been generating power nearly flat-out, running at a capacity factor equal to over 90%  of its theoretical maximum.

The capacity factor of dispatchable facilities varies greatly.  ”Peaker” plants tend to be relatively inefficient facilities with high operating costs which operate for only a few hours or days each year, when load is highest and all other facilities are already operating.   More efficient cogeneration plants such as Cardinal and Ottawa are typically used to serve intermediate load.  Such plants are dispatched whenever demand is high or moderate or when renewable power production is low.  They are switched off at times of low demand or high production from renewables.  Such plants usually operate at capacity factors between 30% and 70%, with more efficient, low-cost facilities operating at higher capacity factors.  Cogeneration facilities tend to be among the most efficient.

Estimates

I modeled three scenarios for Capstone’s 2015 earnings under a new power supply agreement.  For a worst case, I assumed that Cardinal would operate at a very low 15% capacity factor.  My “expected” case would have Cardinal operating at a 55% capacity factor, and my “high” case would have it operating at a 65% capacity factor.

I then factored in moderate revenue and earnings growth from Capstone’s many development projects and capital investments to arrive at some rough estimates of Capstones future capacity to pay dividends.  The company measures this capacity with “Adjusted Funds From Operations” or AFFO, and aims to pay out roughly 70% to 80% of AFFO as dividends.

Starting with Capstone’s recent share price of C$3.66, I assumed that management would maintain the current C$0.075 quarterly dividend through 2014, and pay out 80% of AFFO in 2015.

Although income and AFFO will drop with the new contract, the market is already pricing in a dividend decrease.  Capstone currently trades at a dividend yield over 8%, while the closest comparable, Algonquin Power and Utilities (TSX:AQN, OTC:AQUNF,) yields 5.2%, so I assumed Capstone’s yield would fall to 6% in 2015, given the increased certainty embodied in a new contract.

In my expected scenario, this produced a C$4.70 stock price, while my worst case scenario had the stock fall to C$3.08, and the high case produced a stock price of C$5.06.  The worst case scenario produced only a tiny net loss (less than 1%) over the next two years because of Capstone’s high dividend yield, while the Expected and High scenarios produced 45% and 55% two-year returns, respectively.

 

Conclusion

Ontario’s plans to meet its electricity needs without new nuclear power, and with the increasing use of wind, solar, and energy efficiency mean that the flexibility of Capstone’s Cardinal cogeneration power plant is increasingly valuable.  The Ontario Power Authority is likely to reach a supply agreement with Capstone to provide for Cardinal to be operated as a dispatchable facility.  Such an agreement is likely to be finalized well in advance of the expiration of Cardinal’s current agreement at the end of 2014.

Under such an agreement, Capstone’s income from Cardinal will almost certainly decline.  However, the market currently seems to be pricing in a worst case scenario under which Cardinal operates only a fifth of the time.  Under a more likely scenario, Capstone should be able to maintain its current C$0.30 annual dividend.  If that happens, the stock should appreciate for a two year total return of between 35% and 55%.

This article was first published on the author's Forbes.com blog, Green Stocks on November 15th.

Disclosue: Long CSE, AQN,NPI,BEP,INE,RDZ

DISCLAIMER: Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results.  This article contains the current opinions of the author and such opinions are subject to change without notice.  This article has been distributed for informational purposes only. Forecasts, estimates, and certain information contained herein should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product.  Information contained herein has been obtained from sour

Read More

Renewable Energy Barriers Fall With New Ferc Order

Batteries

Published on November 25th, 2013 | by Tina Casey

Energy storage fans are rejoicing all across the country on the heels of a new ruling by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which opens the floodgates to connecting more solar arrays and wind farms to the power grid. FERC adopted the new ruling, Order 792, in order to bring its existing rules for small generators up to speed with new developments in the energy storage field.

As FERC explained when issuing Order 792:

…the Commission finds it necessary under section 206 of the Federal Power Act  to revise the pro forma SGIP [Small Generator Interconnection Procedures] and pro forma SGIA [Small Generator Interconnection Agreement] to ensure that the rates, terms and conditions under which public utilities provide interconnection service to Small Generating Facilities remain just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory.

Our friends over at the Energy Storage Association contributed to public comments on the rule during its proposal phase and they tipped us to the new ruling, so let’s see what they have to say about it.

Energy Storage Gets A Boost From FERC Order 792

In a nutshell, Rule 792 adds energy storage as a power source that is eligible to connect to the grid. It effectively puts energy storage in the same category as the existing Small Generator Interconnection Procedures and makes it eligible for the existing Fast Track process.

Darrel Haslip, who chairs the ESA, was fast out of the box with a big thank-you to FERC:

We commend the FERC Commissioners for acknowledging that energy storage should be able to participate in the small generator interconnection process on our electric grid and that our rules and policies should evolve as well. These reforms are good news for storage project developers and further facilitate the deployment of storage on the power grid.

What About Rule 784?

The implications for renewable energy, namely wind and solar, are clear when you take a look back at Order 784, which FERC adopted just last July.

Order 784 opened up the ancillary services market to renewable energy storage sources, by requiring utilities to consider speed and precision when deciding on which source to buy (ancillary services refers to power sources that utility companies can tap into on an as-needed basis).

Our friends at Midwestern Energy News explain that Order 784 filled an important gap in the rules for ancillary services, which previously specified generation, transmission, distribution, and load facilities â€" in other words, everything but energy storage.

Can Energy Storage Beat Gas And Coal?

Here’s where the rubber hits the road. Between Order 792 and Order 784, energy storage gets its own “box to check” when utilities are considering proposals for ancillary services. That puts it in a head-to-head matchup against gas and coal power plants, which utilities typically rely on for ancillary services.

The question is, since utilities are now required to consider speed and precision on a non-discriminatory basis, can next-generation storage facilities rev up more quickly than the typical gas or coal power plants?

That’s the key question, especially when you consider that a 2011 ruling, Order 755, established market incentives for speedier ancillary services and more precise supply-and-demand response (tx to our friends at breakingenergy.com).

Some storage technologies have already answered that question, with a Midwestern Energy News source claiming instantaneous production of 10 megawatts for a 40-megawatt lithium-ion battery in Ohio.

Barn Door Is Already Open

If you’re thinking that it will be a while before energy storage technology can get to the point where the industry can take advantage of the new FERC rules on a mass scale, guess again.

Energy storage for wind and solar is already well on its way to the mainstream.

To take just one example, let’s see what the energy storage company Xtreme Power has been up to. We first took note of their activities earlier this year when they hooked up with Duke Energy’s massive Notrees Wind Farm for an R&D project in partnership with the Department of Energy and other stakeholders.

Xtreme Power is also involved in a Texas smart grid R&D project with Samsung SDI and other partners.

That’s just future-looking part of the company’s profile. Meanwhile on the commercial front, Xtreme Power has already been quite active, particularly in Hawaii where it has just announced its eighth energy storage project.

Hawaii is ripe for the renewable energy picking partly because of its reliance on expensive imported diesel fuel.

The new Xtreme Power project, in cooperation with the Kauai Island Utility Cooperative, will consist of a two megawatt lithium ion energy storage system for a 12 megawatt solar farm. Completion is expected in spring 2014.

https://plus.google.com/102291313118764969093/posts

// ]]>

The addition of utility scale storage facilities is expected to have a ripple effect on the renewable energy market in Hawaii, by contributing to grid flexibility.

Not for nothing, but Xtreme Power has some heavy hitters in its investment portfolio, including some that indicate the fossil fuel industry is continuing its slow (very slow) and lurching pivot to a more diversified approach to energy generation.

That would be BP Alternative Energy (yes, that BP) and Dominion Resources (yes, that Dominion).

Follow me on Twitter and Google+.

Tags: Duke Energy, energy storage, FERC, FERC order 784, FERC Order 792, Notrees Wind Farm, Samsung SDI, xtreme power

About the Author

Tina Casey Tina Casey specializes in military and corporate sustainability, advanced technology, emerging materials, biofuels, and water and wastewater issues. Tina’s articles are reposted frequently on Reuters, Scientific American, and many other sites. You can also follow her on Twitter @TinaMCasey and Google+.

Read More

Electric Vehicles Approach Tipping Point

When the first hybrid cars hit the streets, people would point and stare, even stop owners on the street to ask questions. Was it a fad? A novelty? A toy for green enthusiasts?  Time has proven otherwise. In the first quarter of last year, the hybrid Toyota Prius was the third best-selling family car in the world. When the latest generation of plug-in electric cars hit the mass market three years ago, they evoked the same mix of reactions as hybrids did: enthusiasm, curiosity, and some skepticism. However, they’re selling at more than twice the rate at which the first widely available hybrids left dealers’ lots.

The 2014 Chevrolet Volt (photo courtesy General Motors).

Thanks to some savvy, forward-looking plans in many states across the country, electric vehicles are charging ahead. Yesterday, Charge Ahead California, a coalition of community-based, public health, and environmental groups, including NRDC, announced a campaign to place 1 million electric vehicles on California’s roads within the next 10 years. California is also part of an eight-state coalition, including  Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont, which recently agreed to work together to get 3.3 million electric vehicles on the road by 2025. And the recently signed Pacific Coast Climate Action plan, issued by the governors of California, Washington, and Oregon, and the premier of British Columbia, also calls for scaling up electric vehicle sales.

Why the push for more electric cars? Because right now, they are incontestably the cleanest vehicles we have. They’re clean because they produce zero tailpipe emissionsâ€"none. No smoke, smell, pollution, nothing coming out of the tailpipe. Eliminating tailpipe pollution is a major public health victory. In California, four out of ten people, often from low income communities of color, may face increased risks of asthma, cancer and other health hazards because they live near busy roads. By reducing pollution, electric cars, buses and trucks help create healthier communities, with less illness, fewer missed days of work and school, even longer lives. The Charge Ahead California campaign will also advocate for rebates and vouchers, ride shares, cash for old cars and other policies that will bring electric vehicles into vulnerable communities instead of merely whizzing past their doors.

Electric cars also help curb the harmful carbon pollution that is fueling more frequent and extreme storms, floods, droughts and wildfires. Several peer-reviewed studies have shown that even with today’s electric grid, manufacturing and operating an electric car today produces 30 to 50 percent less carbon emissions than conventional vehicles. Plus, unlike gas-powered cars, the same electric vehicles on the roads today will get cleaner over time, as our electric grid moves toward 100 percent clean energy.

What’s more, electric cars are appealing not just to dedicated environmentalists, but to anyone who’s ever winced about the price of gas. Driving an electric car is the equivalent to paying about $1 per gallon for gasoline. When’s the last time you saw that price at the pump? Other electric car owners simply enjoy the smooth, quiet ride, the fast acceleration, or never needing an oil change. Driving a car with a combustion engine, one blog commenter told us, in addition to being expensive, “feels smelly and crude.”

The rise of electric cars isn’t limited to the coasts. Five of the top 15 markets for the Nissan LEAF are in the South and Midwest, including Atlanta, Nashville, St. Louis, Chicago and Dallas â€" Ft.Worth. Atlanta actually ranks fifth in the nation for total electric car sales.

These figures are no fluke: Georgia offers generous incentives for electric cars, including access to car pool lanes in congested Atlanta, and the state’s big utility Southern Company, one of the largest in the nation, is throwing its weight behind electric vehicles. The LEAF and its batteries are manufactured in Tennessee. And in Dallas, major corporations like Texas Instruments provide convenient workplace charging for EVs.

The Northeast and West Coast states in the eight-state coalition have many similar programs in place to build out infrastructure and encourage sales. By working together, they plan to use their collective buying power to leverage good prices on big orders for state-owned electric vehicles and charging stations. Smart policies like these are expected to spur the growth of electric car sales beyond state borders, by boosting infrastructure and bringing down prices.

Electric cars have a long way to go, with only about 150,000 on the road today. But all the signs of approaching a tipping point are there. Prices are falling rapidly. GM and Nissan have reduced their prices by at least $5,000 from their first models, spurring record sales. This year, national sales are expected to increase five fold since the cars debuted in 2011. And the plan to hit 3.3 million cars by 2025 would represent a 20-fold increase from today.  As states like California and other key markets, working with the support and expertise of groups like NRDC, push to make electric cars a convenient, affordable option for consumers, the day will come when electric cars are no longer cause for rubbernecking. They’ll be just another everyday solution for cleaner air, a more stable climate, and freedom from oil.

Read More

Tesla Tussles With Chinese Squatter

Doug Young 

US electric car maker Tesla Motors (Nasdaq: TSLA) has landed in the headlines with an escalating trademark dispute in China, casting a spotlight on Beijing’s ongoing efforts to bolster the country’s intellectual property (IP) protections. China has made great strides in its IP protection in the last 5 years, resulting in a healthier business environment where both domestic and foreign companies can feel more secure that their trademarks, copyrights and product designs won’t be illegally stolen and copied.

But this latest case involving Tesla shows there is still more work to do, especially in trickier areas like Chinese-language equivalents of famous western brand names. Tesla is the latest major trademark case in China to make headlines over the last 2 years, reflecting the recent build-up by many famous brands in the fast growing market. Media first reported on the case in August, saying a Chinese businessman had registered the company’s name locally in both English and Chinese in 2006. (previous post) The man also registered the Chinese Internet domain of tesla.com.cn, which carries a logo almost identical to the US Tesla’s and claims to be selling its own electric car.

According to the latest reports, the businessman now wants $30 million for the trademarks. (Chinese article) Tesla executives said last week that the trademark dispute is one of the last remaining obstacles to the company’s entry to China, following its recent approval by the government to sell its popular electric cars in the market.

Tesla’s trademark roadblock follows a similar high-profile dispute in China last year involving global tech giant Apple and its iPad tablet computers. (previous post) In that instance, a Guangdong-based computer parts maker had registered the iPad trademark years ago for a line of products that it later discontinued before Apple’s 2010 launch of its popular tablet computers with the same name.

Apple believed it had purchased the trademark through a deal with an affiliate of the Guangdong company, but realized later the trademark transfer was never consummated. Apple later sued to legally get possession of the trademark, and the Chinese courts ultimately helped to mediate a settlement that reportedly saw Apple pay $60 million for local rights to the iPad name.

In another high profile case last year, luxury goods maker Hermes lost in its latest bid to claim the rights to its name in Chinese, which had been registered by a clothing maker from Guangdong. In that case Hermes had registered its native French name in China as early as 1977, but failed to register the Chinese equivalent at a time when the domestic market for luxury goods was tiny.

Since then, demand for luxury goods in China has exploded with the nation’s rising economic clout, and the market is now one of the world’s largest. Hermes took the Guangdong company to court several times to try to regain the Chinese name. But in the latest case that reached a conclusion last year, a Beijing court ruled against the French company because it could not prove that it was a famous brand in China before 1995, the year that the Guangdong company registered the name.

Each of these 3 cases involves slightly different issues, but all are common in showing how so-called “squatters” can use Chinese trademark laws to force big western names to pay large sums for the rights to their trademarks in China. Such problems also exist in the west, but less complex language issues and a more experienced court system has made the squatter problem far less significant there.

China has taken big steps in its effort to stamp out the squatter problem, bringing the country more in line with global practices. Companies that can prove they were already famous brands in China when a local squatter registered their name can use that defense in the courts to win back their trademarks. But legal experts say Tesla may have difficulty convincing a judge the company was already famous in China when the Chinese businessman registered the company’s name in 2006. Hermes has had problems for similar reasons.

China should be commended in its recent efforts to boost trademark protection and more broadly for its moves to protect intellectual property, which have created a more level playing field for all businesses. But as the latest Tesla case shows, there are still a number of loopholes that need to be closed to improve this important area that is critical for orderly development of a private sector that plays an increasingly important role in China’s economy.

Bottom line: China needs to further improve its trademark registration system to stamp out the problem of squatters who register western brands.

Doug Young has lived and worked in China for 15 years, much of that as a journalist for Reuters writing about Chinese companies. He currently lives in Shanghai where he teaches financial journalism at Fudan University. He writes daily on his blog, Young´s China Business Blog, commenting on the latest developments at Chinese companies listed in the US, China and Hong Kong. He is also author of a new book about the media in China, The Party Line: How The Media Dictates Public Opinion in Modern China.

Read More

Fuel Cell With Mystery Catalyst Aims To Conquer The World

Cars

Published on November 21st, 2013 | by Tina Casey

CleanTechnica came thisclose to unraveling the mystery behind CellEra’s new platinum free fuel cell last week during a visit to the Fuel Choices Summit in Tel Aviv. Company officials weren’t giving away any secrets, unfortunately for us, but we did get a chance to see the new fuel cell first hand and we can tell you how it fits into the big picture of the emerging hydrogen economy.

The CellEra exhibit was part of an expo attached to the Fuel Choices Summit. The expo included a score of up-and-coming alternative fuel and mobility companies, showcasing technologies ranging from synfuels made from sunlight and carbon dioxide to a portable (as in, handy suitcase on wheels portable) electric scooter for multi-platform urban travel. We’ll try to get to some of those in a later post but for now, let’s dig into the platinum free fuel cell.

A Platinum Free Fuel Cell For Electric Vehicles

Platinum free hydrogen fuel cell courtesy of CellEra.

The CellEra fuel cell is designed for a variety of uses including electric vehicles and stationary purposes, but before we get to that let’s take a quick look at some recent history in fuel cell development.

The now-retired Space Shuttle used first generation alkaline fuel cell technology, which is all well and good for outer space and other uncontaminated environments. However, alkaline technology is highly susceptible to carbon dioxide “poisoning,” which makes it a costly endeavor here on Earth.

One second-generation solution has been PEM (polymer electrolyte membrane) fuel cells.  The sticky wicket here is the catalyst that separates the electrons and protons in hydrogen. Typically it’s made with platinum, which costly because it is platinum, and extra costly because it is sensitive to carbon monoxide poisoning and requires additional systems to prevent that.

CellEra has come up with a fuel cell that deploys a catalyzed, solid polymer electrolyte (polymer refers to a form of plastic) which renders platinum unnecessary, hence the name Platinum-Free Membrane (PFM)

https://plus.google.com/102291313118764969093/posts

// ]]>

As described by CellEra, platinum is unnecessary because the polymer electrolytes conduct hydroxyl ions  rather than protons. That means the PFM cell is mildly alkaline, which enables the use of a low cost transition metal catalyst rather than a noble metal such as platinum.

Which transition metal? That’s a good question, so we asked it. The answer given to us by company officials at the expo is simple: that is a secret. Oh, well.

For an added bonus, the alkaline environment is non-corrosive, enabling PFM cells to use a light weight aluminum infrastructure.

But wait, there’s more. Also contributing to lower costs is a conducting membrane made of a relatively inexpensive polymer.

The Hydrogen Economy

If the back of your neck started tingling when you heard “hydrogen,” join the club. Hydrogen fuel cells run on hydrogen, and a main source of industrial hydrogen currently is natural gas, which opens up a raft of issues relating to the impacts of fracking (a natural gas drilling method).

Those impacts range from local air and water pollution to earthquakes, fugitive methane emissions (methane is a potent greenhouse gas), and fracking wastewater disposal issues as well as direct economic impacts on and near fracking sites.

CellEra suggests ammonia as a source for hydrogen, but that only defers the problem, since industrial ammonia is produced mainly from natural gas and to some extent from petroleum sources.

However, looking ahead to the near future, far more sustainable methods of hydrogen production are already in the works, which will take hydrogen fuel cell companies like CellEra up to the next level.

Among the more interesting projects we’ve been following is a major municipal wastewater-to-hydrogen demonstration project in California partnering up Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory with the company Chemergy.

In an interesting twist, another wastewater themed project in Colorado deploys a microbial fuel cell as part of a low cost treatment process that produces hydrogen as a byproduct.

Landfill gas and other renewable forms of renewable alternatives to natural gas are another promising avenue for sustainable hydrogen manufacturing.

On top of that you have a whole raft of R&D projects deploying solar power to produce hydrogen from water, ranging from a relatively affordable “artificial leaf” designed for household use to the potential for cost-effective commercial production of renewable hydrogen.

The Fuel Choices Summit

By the way, the aforementioned Fuel Choices Summit in Tel Aviv comes under the umbrella of Israel’s national Fuel Choices Initiative, which is aimed specifically at reducing the country’s dependence on oil for transportation.

Given Israel’s growing reputation as a friendly environment for tech start-ups along with its relatively small domestic market, the Fuel Choices Initiative also aims to export Israeli solutions to help meet global challenges, particularly in developing countries.

This week we covered some of the country’s solar power demo projects in the Arava region. Solar development in that area is expected to achieve 100 percent energy independence for the tourist city of Eilat and surrounding desert communities within a few years, with obvious implications for solar power in other desert environments around the globe.

Next week we’ll talk about some of the exportable low tech and DIY solutions that we got a chance to see in Israel, in the course of a tour sponsored by the Israeli organization Kinetis.

Follow me on Twitter and Google+.

Tags: CellEra, Chemergy, Fracking, Fuel Cells, Fuel Choices Initiative, Fuel Choices Summit, hydrogen fuel cells, Israel fuel cells, Israel solar power

About the Author

Tina Casey Tina Casey specializes in military and corporate sustainability, advanced technology, emerging materials, biofuels, and water and wastewater issues. Tina’s articles are reposted frequently on Reuters, Scientific American, and many other sites. You can also follow her on Twitter @TinaMCasey and Google+.

Read More

German Inventor solves permanent magnet motor puzzle - wants to 'give away' the discovery...

Thomas Engel is a successful German inventor with more than a hundred patented inventions to his credit. He - like many of his peers - does not look back at a successful school education, but evidently that is not necessary for success if you are smart and, as some say it might even be counter productive, stifling creativity.

Engel has figured out the working principle of a type of motor many inventors and tinkerers have been working on - so far unsuccessfully. He found a way to make permanent magnets do actual work, transforming their attractive and repulsive power into the true motive action of rotary motion.

A recent article in the German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (12 November 2013) recounts a visit of the paper's technology editors to the inventor's home and their impression of the new motor Engel says he wants to 'give away'.

While the article is carefully written to avoid trouble and while it quotes the obligatory university experts saying why such a motor is impossible, it does give enough detail to allow us to understand the concept. If you want to start experimenting, be warned: There is a lot of force in those rare earth magnets, they can be dangerous to the unprepared.

Here is a translation of the article...

It just keeps running and running...

Original published in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (November 12, 2013)

The inventor Thomas Engel demonstrates a motor to us that never runs out of fuel, because it works with the strength of neodymium magnets - leaving us a bit disoriented.

by Lukas Weber
translation: Sepp Hasslberger

Technical editors sometimes have to be impolite. There is a constant stream of people who want to save the world with their inventions - all they are missing is public support and the cash to further develop their idea. One has to tell those people that either no one needs their creation or that it won't work.

But what if it's different this time? There is a man who is seeking to contact us. He is going through a freelance photographer and says he's got a motor at his home that has been running since April without pause and that needs no fuel to do that. The photographer has seen it and is all enthusiastic. We have heard about such motors before, but have never seen a demonstration. Normally, you wouldn't even have to bother to read beyond this point, because something like this can't truly exist. But this time we're not talking about some crank with an idea. This one was honored in 1972 with the prestigious Rudolf Diesel Medal for inventors, he has well over a hundred patents to his name and has been lecturing at universities all over the world.

In the nineteen-fifties Engel developed a new procedure for the production of polyethylene making plastic pipes resistant to hot water. The Munich Olympia stadium has a lawn heating system based on this invention. He became a millionaire before the age of 30. He never even took the A-level school exam as in 1944 he was drafted into military air defense. After that, he did not have time any more. Our journal reported at length about his carreer as a diswasher exactly 13 years ago (on November 22, 2000). That is not the biography of a charlatan. The inventor lives in Baden-Baden and he has a place in Lucerne, Switzerland, where the motor is located. So we drive off with mixed feelings to beautiful Switzerland.

Engel's motor is running. During the three hours we are there, it is chugging along quietly, interrupted only by some experiments we will be talking about later. There is no noticeable development of heat. The seems familiar, the motor obtains its power from neodymium (NdFeB) magnets. Those are the strongest permanent magnets known, a disk as little as a one-Euro coin can hold about kilograms of weight. Neodymium is a rare earth element, much used in electronics. Magnets made out of this material are used in nuclear spin tomography and in wind generators, they drive water pumps of heavy trucks and keep tools steady.

The magnets are manufactured using a mixture of neodymium, iron and boron which is pressed into form and sintered. They are then magnetized with a strong electric impulse. The energy used for magnetization, however, is not what keeps the magnet working. Several suppliers of those magnets have assured us that the power of the magnets doesn't diminish - even after years of use. So it seems that the magnets can do work constantly without getting degraded. The only thing those magnets don't like is great heat.

Engel's idea was that it should be possible to convert that power of the magnets into rotary motion. He built a machine made of brass, resembling a miniature lathe. The rotor is a disc with magnets fixed to it. The shaft turns in ceramic bearings. A disc magnet fixed at the correct angle and distance from the rotor but which itself is able to rotate (Engel calls it the mirror) can affect the rotor magnets. There is attractive and repulsive force, depending on the orientation of the poles: the rotor can thus be set in continuous motion, as long as the mirror keeps rotating. The mirror's rotation regulates the speed of the rotor.

The inventor and his motors. The older version on the left
was constructed from an old watch maker's lathe.

The exact form and disposition of the parts is difficult to ascertain, Engel had to experiment at length with those parameters. If the mirror is a tad too distant, the magnetic field breaks down. On the other hand, if it is too close, the neodymium magnets will rip the construction apart. The mirror hangs in a kind of outrigger. Two electric wires connect to the lower end with crocodile clips. There is a tiny electric motor that rotates the mirror. So it isn't possible to do without electricity altogether? The inventor signals his disagreement. "Eight milliamperes at nine volts", he says. That is only a control mechanism. The power at the shaft is much greater. Engel also thought about a mechanical drive for the mirror directly from the rotor shaft, but opted against this as it would considerably increase mechanical complexity.

We wanted to know more. The rotation is about 400 RPM. We don't have an instrument to measure mechanical power. So we are having to use the finger brake. It is difficult to stop the rotation by grabbing the shaft. The motor only comes to a standstill after considerable heat developed on the calluses of our hands. A little hand made propeller out of plexiglass doesn't impress the motor at all; we would really like to know how much power the machine turns out. With a bit of dexterity, one can turn the mirror by hand and set the rotor in motion. There is hardly any resistance when turning the mirror. We therefore hazard an assertion: The output felt at the shaft is clearly greater than the input needed to give the impulse. Of course measurement was only done with human sensors.

It would be possible to put a second rotor on the opposite side, to be addressed by the same mirror. Holding a screwdriver between the mirror and the rotor in operation results in an oscillating motion of the screwdriver between the magnets, without however touching them. Mr. Engel would like to do more experimentation with the number of magnets and their form, but he says he lacks the strength for further development.

Science is skeptical. A motor which produces more energy than it uses up is impossible, says Markus Münzenberg, a professor for experimental physics at Göttingen University. Because in closed systems, the sum of energy is always equal. The apparently high torque at the shaft could be a consequence of inertial mass of the machine which, once in motion, is difficult to stop. Professor Ludwig Schultz, the director of the Institute for Metallic Materials in Dresden agrees. While it would be possible to imagine magnet configurations that periodically attract and then repel other magnets, but in that case the potential energy would periodically bleed off without there being a gain in energy.

The inventor's reaction to the question whether his motor is a perpetual motion machine is somewhat resentful: "That is rubbish", he says. "There is no such thing". Mr. Engel is convinced that his machine uses the enormous energy which is inherent in quanta, those inconceivably small components of atoms which were first described by the physicist Max Planck in the early part of the last century. He therefore calls his machine an "quantum deviation apparatus". Somethings are still unclear, also for the inventor himself. Somewhere in Germany, a businessman has a second such motor at his company, which runs with 1200 RPM. The man called some days ago he says, and recounted that, when the motor was covered with an acrylic hood, its rotational speed diminished. Engel does not know the reason for this.

The expression "quantum motor" brings some bad associations with it, since some cheats, about a decade ago, used that name to collect money for a machine which never materialized. Engel's motor is quite different from that, apart from a similarity in the description. The inventor does not need money. He says he wants to give away the motor because mankind needs affordable energy. It has to be further developed until some years in the future, we will be making electricity with it in the basements of our housing units.

What is the next step now? Engel wants to attach a small generator to the shaft and show that his motor delivers more electricity than is needed for its control. If he could do that, we'd really have some sensational news.

Read More