Heliotropic

Impressions Of Borneo

2008-02-01T21:16:00.000-08:00

Photos Of Borneo ----------- The Borneo Project (Donate!)

Borneo - for most, perhaps, the name brings up nothing more than impressions of a vague, far-away and exotic place; others might associate it with headhunting tribes or wild orangutans.

For myself, I had memories of intriguing silhouettes on the horizon - massive jungle-clad spires rising from azure seas, cloaked in mist. Passing the island in transit from the Solomon Islands to Bali aboard a tall ship in my late teens, I resolved to return to Borneo.

In researching more about this fascinating place, I learned more of it's history and natural wonders. The world's oldest rain forest, rapidly being destroyed; incomparable scuba diving and snorkeling; local peoples whose traditions still could be experienced first-hand, yet are rapidly changing; and the chance to see rare wildlife such as the Orang-Utan.

Lately, too, I had read much about the impact of palm plantations on the destruction of rain forest in this part of the world. In the media, this destruction has been linked to the rapid growth of the biodiesel industry - calling into question the very notion that biofuels will help our societies transition to a more environmentally responsible future. As an advocate of a sustainable biodiesel, I wanted to see and understand the impacts first-hand.

A few weeks before the winter holidays, my wife and I discussed possible vacation destinations. At one point we asked each other where it was that we most wanted to travel to, regardless of the practicality. Borneo came to mind, and on a lark almost, we looked into airfares and cost. Surprisingly, we found that if we flew on Christmas day, we could get a really good airfare. So, with only 10 or 12 days to go, we booked our flights and feverishly prepared to fly halfway around the world.

What we found was perhaps one of the most active frontiers between wilderness and traditional cultures, and the modern industrial world. As with so much of this tension, much of this revolves around questions of energy, so I wanted to write a bit in my blog about what we observed.

First, allow me to situate Borneo in some context. Borneo is the third largest island in the world, larger than Texas, and is shared (not always peacefully) but Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei. We visited the Malaysian part of Borneo, consisting of the states of Sabah and Sarawak, running across the northwestern portion of the island; with the exception of the Sultanate of Brunei, which is a small and wealthy pocket between the two states.

The interior of Borneo is the very definition of rugged. Never having been glaciated, the landforms are quite dramatic. The rain forest is home to many dangerous animals and even plants - including a tree who's sap can kill a man in minutes if it so much as touches a small open wound. Just moving through the forest is exhausting - even on a trail. The thin soil barely covers the uneven and razor-sharp limestone geology. Even on flat ground the pockmarked terrain conspires with thick tree roots that criss-cross the ground to create a forest floor seemingly designed to trip and twist the ankle of the unwary. The lowlands are largely submerged in a foot or two of tea-colored swamp, and are home to several different flavors of leech which inevitably attach themselves to inconvenient areas of the body. Massive walls of limestone rise at a punishing angles from the lowlands, creating ridgelines that are extremely difficult to traverse. A jungle trek in Borneo, even today, is an adventure.

This kept colonizers - first Indian Rajahs, then the English "white Rajas" - marginalized in their real control of the territory to the coasts. Many of the indigenous Dayak peoples that live in Borneo only had regular contact with the outside world (primarily missionaries) starting in the 50's. Headhunting was a regular activity of these peoples up until World War Two at least, with many invading Japanese soldiers losing their heads to traditional, barefooted warriors armed only with machetes and blowpipes (and it should be noted, many groups were systematically slaughtered by the Japanese in retribution). We met elders who had fought and taken heads as young men, and had the tattoos to prove it.

Because Borneo is so rugged, until recently all travel was on the river systems (river travel is still by far the easiest way to get around) and almost all of the peoples lived their lives on the rivers and forests immediately adjacent. As could be expected, the rain forest is a rather inhospitable place for outsiders wishing to exploit the resources. In contrast, for the indigenous peoples, the forest is their traditional supermarket, pharmacy, hardware store and lumber yard. Our guide, of Iban extraction, showed us dozens of unremarkable looking plants just off the trail, each of which had numerous uses. The semi-nomadic Dayak have lived in these forests for many centuries (at least) and their traditional culture is exquisitely intertwined with it. Our guide lives in an apartment, spends a lot of time of his cell phone, promptly answers his email, and flies between cities to meet his clients. Yet, as a youth, he learned to make fifty different kinds of traps and to hunt with a blowpipe. He estimates that he could survive for at least a month in jungle if he was dropped into it with nothing but the clothes on this back.

Nonetheless, exploitation of the forests has proceeded apace since the 1960's or so; beginning with logging of tropical hardwoods. The lowlands have been drained to allow access for bulldozers, lumber trucks and a massive amount of inexpensive labor (largely Indonesian workers). A lot of this logging is now on the third or fourth pass over the more accessible areas, with smaller and smaller trees being taken out. Now that the economically extractable timber is dwindling, much land is being cleared outright, primarily for palm oil plantations.

These plantations form the backbone of a tropical oleo-economy that may be as economically and ecologically significant as the corn and soy agricultural economy of North America.

Those of you that follow the debates over biofuels are no doubt familiar with palm oil. This crop produces very high yields of oil from its fruits. It is farmed as a monoculture, with oil extracted using industrial-scale processes to yield a wide variety of products ranging from edible oils to chemical feedstocks.

What most people seem unaware of, with all the hand-wringing about biofuels is that even without the influence of biodiesel, the spread of oil palm plantations seems inevitable.

Palm oil is a crucial source of cheap calories throughout the tropical developing world. Almost all fried food in Southeast Asia and India is cooked in palm oil, and proprietors of roadside stands and small restaurants thrive or fail by the market price of this commodity. The Malaysian Palm Oil Council indicates that 90% of palm oil is consumed as food, with the remaining portion used in non-food applications (including biodiesel). This is worth repeating - at present, less than 10% of the palm oil produced globally is used to make biodiesel. The vast majority is consumed.

While we were in Borneo, Malaysia was in a several day uproar over a rumor of palm oil rationing; of course, Malaysia is one of the largest producers of palm oil, but the export market had apparently squeezed domestic supply. Palm oil derived chemicals are found in many every day products like shampoo, cosmetics, and processed foods. Palm oil has even been proposed as (irony alert) an "environmentally sensitive" drilling fluid for deep-sea petroleum exploration .

However, that said, the demand for high-yield oil crops to serve biodiesel demand - predominately from Europe - has lead to something of a gold rush mentality among palm oil plantation owners, who are enthusiastically clearing land in preparation for exponentially increasing demand; it takes nearly 3 years from the time a plantation is put in until the point the palms bear the oil-rich fruit. The increasing demand for palm oil and lag time until the plantations bear inevitably leads to boom and bust cycles. The current high price of palm oil fuels two contentious debates with regards to bio-based energy - global warming impact (from forest clearing) and the food vs. fuel controversy.

Recently, the European Union proposed a sustainability certification scheme that would preclude the use of most palm-oil based biodiesel. This seems prudent and wise, but to date, is only a proposal.

So now to the situation on the ground, by air. As I noted, until recently, the only practical way to get around Borneo was by river. However, this is no longer the case. Malaysian Borneo is now served by an excellent and affordable network of airlines, mostly flying Airbus A300's on longer routes to the bigger airports, and twin-engine turboprops (Twin Otters and Fokker 50's) to the smaller destinations. Our experience with air travel in Malaysia is that it matches or exceeds one's experience in the US, both in terms of cost and comfort.

It is also an excellent opportunity to see the lay of the land. In many places, what you observe is oil palm plantations as far as the eye can see. The vastness of this is hard to overstate. One can see huge areas cleared to bare soil, with neat grids of access roads, ready to to be planted; and similarly, undulating rows of palms in various states of maturity, often surrounding isolated islands of jungle atop inaccessible spires.

On the ground, the experience is repeated. Driving from the airport in Tawau to the dive spot gateway of Semporna, about an hour away, one sees virtually nothing but these plantations. It is a sobering experience to think of the biodiversity that has been annihilated by these massive developments.

It is also difficult to overstate the impact on the Dayak both by the plantations and the logging. Many Dayak have moved to the cities and live very modern lives, and especially some Iban groups do enjoy political power and influence. Thus, there are certainly some cases where the indigenous groups have benefited economically - at least in the short term - by these activities. By and large, however, the lions share of the economic benefit has gone directly to the largely Chinese companies which run the logging operations and plantations, and indirectly to the mainland Malay who enable this exploitation from a political perspective. Most of the labor, as mentioned, is imported from Indonesia.

We visited a longhouse as part of a backpacking trip in Mulu park. This longhouse is a traditional structure where an entire village lives under one roof. In practice, this is essentially an enormous low-rise apartment building with a large common veranda in front.

The people of this longhouse still make much of their livelihood from the forest. The tourists that visit come to see the protected areas of the national park that abut these communities, even while some of the same people involved in the tourism trade illegally hunt wild boar inside the park boundaries (as they have for hundreds of years). One of the main cash trade activities is gathering wild fruit, particularly durian, from the jungle; as wild-harvested durian is considered to be the best of this sought-after delicacy and commands a high price in urban markets. The people who live in the longhouses still look to the forest, in short, for food, medicine, and building materials.

Thus, many logging concessions have met with significant protest by the indigeous people, including road blockades met with government violence. We spoke to one park guide who had been active in such a movement in his home village, who had been imprisoned and beaten. In turn, he and his compatriots fashioned handcuffs from sharp-edged jungle leaves and built a jail with walls of poisonous thorns, and informed the police that unauthorized incursions on their territory from them or any loggers would be similarly met with imprisonment.

In the end, such confrontation is only a delaying tactic, and this guide recognized that the only way to preserve the forest, is for the forest to produce economic activity for his village. Otherwise, there is temptation to fall prey to divide-and-conquer tactics on the part of the logging companies like substantial payoffs to prominent individuals to allow logging and plantations.

While one solution is official government protection of the lands, Malaysia has at times resorted to fairly heavy-handed tactics in the establishment of these national parks. For instance, on the outskirts of Mulu park there is a Penan "settlement" where the primary activity is sales of handicrafts (trinkets really) to tourists. The Penan are not there by choice. As a semi-nomadic people with a hunter-gatherer culture that has changed little since the Stone Age, they were judged by the government to not be compatible with the establishment of a national park and were enticed (or forced) from their traditional lands about 15 years ago. They were told to choose between being Muslim or Christian, the government built homes, a church (they chose Christian mostly because being Muslim would preclude them from hunting forest game), and a school and have tried to teach them to practice agriculture. They were the most economically and culturally depressed people that we met in Borneo.

Without a doubt, this sort of thing has lead to undeniable ethnic tensions in Borneo. Malaysia advertises and prides itself on being a multi-ethnic and harmonious state, but in practice relations seem strained at best. We met a ethnic Chinese taxi driver who told us not to trust any ethic Malays (as we would be ripped off); Malays who were horrified that we would hire an ethnic Chinese taxi driver (as we would be ripped off); and indigenous people who had no love lost for either group, or migrant Indonesian workers, and were deeply concerned about ethnic tensions and resource exploitation exploding into outright sectarian violence (as has occurred periodically in Indonesia). The ironic thing of course is that we were treated fantastically by everyone we met of every ethnicity; although of course, as Americans traveling in a majority-Muslim country, we were often offered direct opinions and confrontational questions about our government's foreign policies.

Even as the indigenous people fight to preserve and to have access to their traditional lands, it should be recognized that the tide of modernization is not, on the whole, leaving them behind. It was no coincidence that at the longhouse, we saw few men of working age; mostly old people, children, and some young women with families. One of the activities we participated in the longhouse was a presentation and participation in traditional music and dancing. During this, one of the few young indigenous men around was taking pictures of the dancing with his digital camera - he was clearly home on a break. We met a large number of youngsters that spoke flawless English and were getting ready for their big exams to get into secondary school and then, they hoped, into university. The interior of the apartments we saw were heavy with photos of graduates in caps and gowns; the resident's children and grandchildren. The longhouse itself - though poor by first world standards - had electricity, indoor plumbing, refrigeration, and satellite TV in many apartments. The level of material wealth present - compared, for instance, to rural Africa - was very high.

That Malaysia - even in these outlying areas - is not a poor country comes back to the theme of this blog once again. The petroleum industry in Malaysia is the engine. The Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpar are one of the most impressive man-made sights I have ever seen in my life. These edifices were not built on palm oil profits, obviously.

Malaysia's "asian tiger" status is largely a function of oil wealth. Their policies are leading to significant investment in education for its citizens, and economic diversification (towards the semiconductor industry for instance) which is wise. However, there is a clear sense of striving towards ever increasing material wealth that is already dramatically impacting the preservation of cultural diversity, as Malaysians of all ethnicities embrace a homogenized cultural mieleu, seemingly centered on American pop music, Japanese fashion, and the most impressive shopping malls one could imagine. It seemed to me that perhaps the most popular recreational activity for young Malaysians of any ethnicity is to spend the day packed like sardines into a "cybercafe" where they play games (Counterstrike, Grand Theft Auto, and World of Warcraft seemed popular), IM, and watch YouTube. At about $1 per hour to enjoy air-con, entertainment, and socializing it is indeed a good value.

It is, frankly, an open question whether the rain forest of Borneo can be meaningfully preserved in the face of this dynamic. Hand in hand with this, preservation of traditional cultural knowledge is in question; of course, the Dayak of Borneo have and will continue to adapt their cultural response to circumstances. It is likely, as in other circumstances, that the young Dayak will realize that their cultural heritage is fading and will work to reconstitute their traditions and identities. Still, inevitably much will be lost - especially if the forest is destroyed.

Again, from the perspective of this blog, the question is whether renewable energy is working as a constructive and destructive force. For the Dayak that have installed micro-hydro run of river systems and now enjoy electrification, this serves to strengthen their local economy and this in turn helps them preserve the forest. Conversely, if the West sources it's biofuel feedstock from palm oil, Borneo's transformation may be irreversible and complete. In this case, the fate of the Dayak may follow that of other indigenous groups who's values, lifestyle, and location are not compatible with massive resource exploitation.

Let us hope that this does not come to pass.

As a closing note, I can recommend The Borneo Project as a group that is doing great to help the various groups in Borneo achieve sustainable economic activity and thereby preserve the rain forest. Please donate (link at top).

Will Berkeley spark a solar revolution?

2007-11-07T21:55:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, the Berkeley City Council unanimously approved an ordinance that will finance PV systems and energy efficiency improvements for homeowners in the city.

Though the plan was announced last week, I haven't had a chance to blog so this is as good a time as ever to write a few words about it.

When I first heard of this, it struck me as one of those "only in Berkeley" type things and rubbed my libertarian streak the wrong way, leading to ornery thoughts.

It's been a long time coming, right? How come the private sector can't get it together to provide financing for residential PV? It has always seemed like a fantastic opportunity for an entrepreneurial approach, so it seems like Berkeley is competing directly with private enterprise here.

But can you usurp private enterprise, if the service isn't really being offered by the private sector? I guess not.

I've come around. The way this is structured is actually brilliant and everyone wins.

So in a nutshell, the deal is that the City pays the upfront cost for the installed system. Then, an assessment is added to the property tax, and through this assessment, the homeowner pays the City back with interest over 20 years.

So here are the main points:

First, (assuming the system is sized properly) the assessment is less than the utility savings, so
it is cash-flow positive for the homeowner; and of course after 20 years, it's free power.

Second, the system and the assessment belong to the property, not to the homeowner. This is critical. It means that value of the system will be properly appraised as part of the property, so there is no risk of losing the value of the system upon sale of the house. Moreover, whether an owner stays in the house for 1 year or 30 years, they still see all upside.

Third, the City is raising the money with a municipal bond; the lowest interest rate anywhere; passing this through to the homeowner helps make the economics compelling.

Fourth, the City gets a guaranteed revenue stream.

The biggest issue that I see is that demand in Berkeley is going to utterly explode. I have a hard time imagining that nearly every homeowner in Berkeley who gets wind of this won't try to sign up. I don't know how any of the local installers will keep up, in the short term at least.

This sounds like a nice problem to have, but of course the concern is that there could be a proliferation of naive, and in all probability (like in any "gold rush") some opportunistic new installers and service providers doing this work -- and doing a bad job. Of course most new entrants will be honest and competent, but it's the inevitable bad apples that worry me.

Balancing exceptional industry growth and the need for installers to support that growth are the realities that properly installing 30-year service life equipment is not easy, there is a rather complex set of reliability, safety, and regulatory / rebate issues to grapple with, and customers who may not have realistic expectations due to relentless solar hype are not necessarily the easiest to please.

The other substantive concern I have is if the contract with the City (and thus the assessment) includes periodic inverter replacements, or whether the homeowner is on the hook for it on their own. Modules are typically guaranteed to product at least 80% of their rated power after 25 years, but most inverters carry a 10 year warranty. This means it is very likely that at least one inverter replacement at the owner's cost over the system lifetime, and possibly two, will be required. At a couple thousand bucks a pop (depending on size) this has implications for system economics. An honest and professional assessment of system economics should assume these maintenance costs as well as the slow degradation in power output.

The inverter issue is quite problematic if a new owner moves in just before the inverter fails out of warranty, and then has to either shell out cash for the equipment, pay the assessment even though they are getting no benefit, or try to get the property assessment canceled (in which case the city is left holding the bag). The city says it will roll out the plan in about 8 months, so hopefully will have the foresight to address this issue.

All that said, assuming this doesn't get bungled up in red tape or political shenanigans -- and there's never a guarantee there, especially in B-town -- it seems inevitable that this idea will spread quickly.

One of the most interesting aspects of solar these days is the leadership of the states in successfully setting de facto national energy policy in the current leadership vacuum at the Federal level. It appears that Berkeley has taken this one step further.

Potentially, this initiative could serve as a seed crystal for a concept that could radically impact the way we produce electricity, nationally, even internationally - one town at a time.

Growing Fuel in National Geographic

2007-09-30T19:59:00.000-07:00

There is an excellent article on biofuels in the October National Geographic. It does the best job I've seen in any mainstream publication - perhaps in any publication - of elucidating the importance of feedstocks to the sustainability and ultimately feasibility of biofuels.

The article touches on both ethanol and biodiesel. With ethanol, the article focuses on corn, sugarcane (and the Brazilian experience), and celluosic feedstocks and the tradeoffs of each. For biodiesel, soy is discussed but algae also gets significant attention, including a rare behind-the-fence photo at the Greenfuels plant in Arizona.

I highly recommend picking it up for a read. It also includes a fascinating article about modern pirates in Southeast Asia. So you really can't go wrong.

In other news, Solar Power 2007 was great last week. It was fun to see old friends and colleagues and there was a fantastic sense of momentum.

My presentation on innovation drivers for balance of system components seemed a success, with some good questions, so that was very satisfying.

I only made a couple of the other talks, the CEO forum and the closing plenary. The forum was quite interesting, with some good questions and it seemed, frank answers. Main fact - national SEIA had a lobbying budget of just $20,000 last year and the goal this year is just $60,000. This was to me, just astonishing given the amount of money spent in Washington by the mainstream energy industry.

The highlight of the closing plenary was a tour-de-force presentation by the senior energy manager of Wal-Mart. I was not aware that they are far ahead of the pack in terms of energy efficiency in their stores, though of course I had heard of the solar roll-out. Apparently this is just a pilot and if successful, Wal-Mart has a policy and track record of rolling out energy innovations massively. That is truly exciting stuff.

Jobs in Solar

2007-09-17T22:49:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking about this next post for a bit now. I haven't had time to write anything lately but hopefully, I'll be able to post somewhat consistently over the next few months.

What's on my mind is giving some advice to the those that seek a job in the solar industry. There are lots of opportunities out there for the right people, and it's a good time to get your foot in the door. At the same time, as has been noted before, the hype machine is in overdrive. So buyer beware, especially if your livelihood is riding on it.

So let me first start with a cautionary tale. On Friday, the entire board of directors and CEO of Automatic Tooling Systems (ATS), the Canadian company that owned Spheral Solar (and conventional module manufacturer PhotoWatt), resigned in the face of "dissident hedge fund" shareholders demanding a turnaround. ATS's foray into renewable energy (as well as auto industry woes) was blamed for this sory state of affairs. Spheral Solar was actually shut down earier this year and ATS tried to spin off PhotoWatt in an IPO in late March, but failed.

Previously, Spheral was touted as the best thing since sliced bread, an amazing technology that allowed them to make flexible modules, with significantly less silicon, that (in theory at least) boasted near crystalline PV efficiency. Four years ago, the "New Scientist" wrote this breathless article about " 'demin' solar panels to clothe future buildings"; and Future Pundit wrote that Spheral would "start production in 2004" Yet as late as January 2006 the "Clean Break" blog opined, referring to a deal between building products manufacturer Elk (recently acquired by GAF) and Spheral to make building-integrated roofing materials with the technlogy, that "the product is sold before it's even been produced. Now that's the kind of certainty that investors like".

Well, maybe so, but of course that only works out if the company manages to manufacture their technology on a commercial scale. If you've been following the solar industry for any length of time, you come to realize that announcements from a company of the intent to produce, or the ability to produce, or even signed contracts to manufacture and install their technologies means very little if they don't have a track record of doing so (especially if they announced, and then failed, to go into production two years prior).

The point of this cautionary tale is that there are a lot of solar companies out there these days, and there are all sots of announcements and blog posts and what-have-you that make them look like just the greatest new thing. Be skeptical, and be smart, because in the next 5 years or so I think we're going to see a significant shake-out occur in this business.

If you are looking for a job, gut-check the risk level you are willing to take. If there are only a few employees, promises of lots of options, some venture funding and a prototype out in a garage - well, that's a high risk situation. Potentially high reward if it actually does work out of course. But a day of reckoning will come for all start-ups, especially if VC funded. There are a number of well known, seemingly reputable companies that have been around for years now and have yet to set up even modest manufacturing capacity or field a market-ready (i.e. all required certifications) product. There's even one which shall remain unnamed, based in Silicon Valley, which is infamous for being extraordinarily well funded - yet no one I've spoken to has even seen a prototype of their breakthrough technology. That's all well and good for a while but after several years have passed, one must begin to wonder.

Conversely, there are more established players with a reputation, products, vision, and great growth potential; but less speculative upside.

Look at the bigger pattern, the fundamentals, if you will. There's nothing new under the sun (ahem). Thin film was the the Next Big Thing five or six years ago, unfortunately, there were some serious reliability issues and so much for that. Now it's back in vogue. Not coincidentally, this new generation of thin film technologies (most of which is not yet commercialized) arose simultaneously with a rather prolonged shortage of polysilicon, the raw material of relatively high-efficiency crystalline solar cells. Same with concentrating photovoltaics, which saw a lot of effort in the '80s and up until the mid '90s, then largely abandoned as the price of 1-sun cells came down; but resurged with poly shortage driving silicon prices up. The high prices made thin film and CPV look good - trading significantly less silicon usage for low efficiency and mechanical / optical complexity, respectively.

So now it's two or three years later. Some of these new innovators have already fallen by the wayside, others are still working towards commercialization, and one German thin film company made it past the finish line in time and is raking it in (and good for them!).

But it seems that in the opinion of most analysts, the poly situation is already relaxing as many new plants come online. The question is, will these thin film and CPV solutions still be attractive in a world that is not silicon-constrained? In a world where the PV market is being flooded by low-cost, mid-efficiency crystalline PV technology from China while a few of the more technologically positioned crystalline PV players duke it out for high-efficiency dominance, and where vertical integration appears to bring some distinct advantages? Finally factor in that solar thermal powerplant technology (like the SEGS plants or, for a less proven example, Stirling dishes) looks pretty attractive for the really big centralized solar power plant market. In other words, who's going to win? It's a tough one but that's a question I would recommend answering to your own satisfaction before choosing to sign on the dotted line.

Now the foregoing was perhaps more focused on the tech-type jobs but there are other opportunities out there. For instance, there are any number of installation companies out there ranging from Mom and Pops to installers that are becoming regional or even national players, catering to the residential retrofit and commercial markets. It's physical, outdoor construction work. If you have the right skill-set it's a good job and you're bound to learn something about solar.

But still, do your homework, understand their business plan, and understand how the job might change if your employer goes public or gets acquired - and don't be shy about asking a potential employer about, specifically, what's in it for you in one of these cases.

So - the best of luck to all those interested in getting a job in this space. If you are serious, I can definitely recommend showing up at Solar Power 2007 in Long Beach (September 24-27) and getting your own impression of the industry. There's even a Career Center and a "Find Your Dream Job In Solar" seminar.

TED talks on Africa

2007-08-01T22:53:00.001-07:00

TED global recently posted some extremely interesting talks from the June, 2007 conference in Arusha, Tanzania. Among the featured speakers was William Kamkwamba, the young man from Malawi who built a homemade wind turbine for his family (see previous post).

I highly recommend the videos; two in particular are extraordinarily powerful and captivating. Moreover, they are primarily focused on identifying and strengthing positive trends, which is a refreshing change from the litany of negativity often found when Africa is discuessed.

George Ayittey, a Ghanan economist, takes no prisoners in his powerful indictment of the corruption of Africa's elites while lauding the progress made by a new generation of self-sufficient, resourceful African leaders, whom he has branded the "cheetahs" (of whom Mr. Kamkwamba certainly is one). He also relates an insightful viewpoint on how development in Africa is best framed in the context of traditional African economic activity, which while more collectivist in nature is nonetheless very much a market based and capitalist model.

Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, a former Nigerian Minister of Finance, is featured wrapping up the conference with a talk that links macroeconomics, to her own intensely personal experiences of war-torn Nigeria as a young girl in 1969, to the concept that foreign aid to Africa is nothing but payback for the incredible amount of aid, material and human, that Africa contributed to the development of the "first world". It is hard to capture her wide-ranging speech in a paragraph, but it is a tour de force.

William Kamkwamba's portion is brief but it is interesting to see him in person, introducing pictures of his village and family and describing the process of designing, building, and optimizing the windmill. The fellow who interviews him, unfortunately, did so rather badly. Of course, 19 year Kamkwamba is nervous onstage, before a large audience under lights, and speaking in English - and this is one of his first times outside of his rural village. However, what makes the interview difficult is more of a cultural problem. Mr. Kamkwamba answers all of the questions quite literally and exactly; he is very precise and to the point. Unfortunately, the interviewer seemed unprepared for this - which should have been, culturally, to be expected. Instead, he asked somewhat abstract or open-ended questions, and seemed to be depending on Kamkwamba to expound and expand; in short, to meet our cultural norms and make the most of his time in the spotlight. This, unfortunately, reflected somewhat poorly on the young man as the interviewer waited awkardly for him to go on into more details while Kamkwamba waited, smiling, for the next question.

My (short) experience in East Africa, especially in that kind of context -- which is almost analogous to a classsroom situation with the teacher asking a question -- is that the questioner is expected to ask precise, rapid fire questions; and the answerer is expected to respond concisely and to the point. The lack of that dynamic was, I think, confusing to all concerned.

All in all, it is a great group of videos from the Arusha conference (and there are other videos on the page from previous TED conferences focused on Africa), and they come highly recommended.

Surprise, surprise...

2007-07-26T23:59:00.000-07:00

Citizenre's plans delayed...until September...so they say...

Three Short Items

2007-07-23T22:35:00.000-07:00

First off, I just added MadKast to this blog. That's the little green icon by the post and it will allow you to to easily share posts with others, if you so desire. It's presently by invitation and in beta. Please try it out, and let me know if you like it or if it causes any issues.

Second, I mentioned blogging about Intersolar 2007 in Frieburg. It was certainly a very interesting show. However I've decided not to get into it to avoid any possible disclosure of non-public information about my company's direction and future plans. By the way, this is 100% my decision and my employer has applied no pressure on me whatsoever (in fact, I don't even know if they are aware of this blog).

Finally, it's as good a time as any to announce that I will be speaking at Solar Power 2007 in Long Beach. The unofficial title of the talk is “Off The Rack – Recent Innovations In Mounting System Design”. If you're able to make it, come up and say hi.

Inspiration in Africa

2007-07-17T23:10:00.000-07:00

Well, I've been away from the blog for quite some time. I just got married about a month ago and have been on my honeymoon since...well, we stopped through Intersolar 2007 so I'll blog on that too...but anyway that's kept me away from the computer! In the meantime Heliotropic has gotten a lot of attention as a "blog of note" - quite cool.

What I wanted to post on tonight is something quite incredible: The blog of a 19 year old Malawian secondary student, William Kamkwamba.

This is an extraordinary blog for many reasons. First, he started this blog only 2 weeks after learning about the internet at the TEDGlobal conference in Arusha, Tanzania.

Mr. Kamkwamba was attending this conference because of the work he's been doing in is village to provide his family with electricity -- building a wind turbine entirely out of scrap materials and wood, and armed only with his intellect, junior-high education and a book on electricity.

It's an almost unbelievable story...but it is also quite inspiring. Can you imagine what just a little help (books, light to read by, internet access) can do to help people in these communities that are already motivated to improve their lives and hungry for knowledge?

Now, it's clear to me that Kamkwamba is absolutely exceptional and actually something of a genius. Nonethless - there is no greater demonstration of the human potential that is tragically untapped in Africa due a lack of resources in education, basic health care, and infrastructure that we take for granted.

On the positive side, it is incredible to see people like Kamkwamba work with what they have to improve their own lives and it shows that there are any number of ways to solve a problem with the resources at hand. It is truly appropriate technology; if (when) the windmill breaks, he will readily be able to fix it, because he built it himself and the parts are readily available in his community. No need to parachute in expensive parts or specialists from Europe, the US, or even the capital city.

It's the very definition of appropriate technology.

Article Critical of Biofuels in NYT

2007-05-22T21:16:00.000-07:00

The New York Times recently published an article from the Council of Foreign Relations entitled "How Biofuels Could Starve The Poor".

This is a hot-button topic for me, having encountered any number of intellectually shallow and/or downright dishonest arguments along these lines.

However, this piece is different. It's well researched, and I largely agree with it's premise and conclusions. It contains a nicely summarized background on ADM's role in the biofuels industry, and how biofuel feedstocks came to be dominated by corn and soy largely by ADM's efforts.

There is an interesting take on the Mexican tortilla situation, highlighting the intricies of the global economy. The article notes that most tortillas in Mexico are made from locally produced white corn, but high prices for yellow corn - mostly used as a feedstock for processed products, including corn syrup, animal feed, and ethanol - led Mexican agribusiness concerns to buy white corn instead, thus raising tortilla prices.

Nonetheless, there are a number of significant flaws in the piece. Most glaring is that little attention is paid to alternate feedstocks and their significance, except to point out that they are not presently economical. Well, with corn and soy so heavily subsidized, what do they expect? It is also frustrating to see biodiesel largely lumped in with ethanol, despite significant differences that are mentioned but minimized.

Where the article really goes off the rails is not on the discussions of food security, which seem to be pretty sound, but instead where the authors attempt to make the argument that biofuels will provide little benefit to offset the food security impacts. First, they try to argue that biofuels take a significant amount of energy to make, thus, do not provide much benefit from the standpoint of reducing foreign oil dependence; then, they also try to argue that reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are insignificant. Yet, the numbers they cite in the text give lie to their own arguments.

First on energy balance. Excerpting at length:

"Nor is corn-based ethanol very fuel efficient. Debates over the "net energy balance" of biofuels and gasoline -- the ratio between the energy they produce and the energy needed to produce them -- have raged for decades. For now, corn-based ethanol appears to be favored over gasoline, and biodiesel over petroleum diesel -- but not by much. Scientists at the Argonne National Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory have calculated that the net energy ratio of gasoline is 0.81, a result that implies an input larger than the output. Corn-based ethanol has a ratio that ranges between 1.25 and 1.35, which is better than breaking even. Petroleum diesel has an energy ratio of 0.83, compared with that of biodiesel made from soybean oil, which ranges from 1.93 to 3.21. (Biodiesel produced from other fats and oils, such as restaurant grease, may be more energy efficient.)"

This use of language completely glosses over several salient facts. First, soy biodiesel is clearly much more beneficial than corn ethanol - by something like a factor of 2. Their parenthetic disclaimer that biodiesel made from resturant grease "may be more energy efficient" completely buries the lead. This feedstock results in a much higher net energy ratio, simply because it is being produced from a waste product; thus the only energy that goes into it is that required to collect and convert it, which is relatively very small compared to growing, crushing, and transporting soy oil. Finally alternate biodiesel feedstocks are simply not mentioned. Again, massively improved energy ratios are expected from dedicated feedstocks.

But this is a mild gripe compared to their egregious treatment of perhaps the most salient issue:

"Similar results emerge when biofuels are compared with gasoline using other indices of environmental impact, such as greenhouse gas emissions. The full cycle of the production and use of corn-based ethanol releases less greenhouse gases than does that of gasoline, but only by 12 to 26 percent. The production and use of biodiesel emits 41 to 78 percent less such gases than do the production and use of petroleum-based diesel fuels."

Again, ethanol and biodiesel are lumped together - despite a 3 to 4 fold difference in the magnitude of greenhouse gas emissions. I don't know about you, but I would consider a (conservative) 50% reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases from the use of biodiesel highly significant. From a climate change perspective, this is the functional equivalent of doubling the mileage of every diesel vehicle using the fuel! Minimizing this is basically irresponsible.

They cap it with this doozy:

"Another point of comparison is greenhouse gas emissions per mile driven, which takes account of relative fuel efficiency. Using gasoline blends with 10 percent corn-based ethanol instead of pure gasoline lowers emissions by 2 percent. If the blend is 85 percent ethanol (which only flexible-fuel vehicles can run on), greenhouse gas emissions fall further: by 23 percent if the ethanol is corn-based and by 64 percent if it is cellulose-based. Likewise, diesel containing 2 percent biodiesel emits 1.6 percent less greenhouse gases than does petroleum diesel, whereas blends with 20 percent biodiesel emit 16 percent less, and pure biodiesel (also for use only in special vehicles) emits 78 percent less. On the other hand, biodiesel can increase emissions of nitrogen oxide, which contributes to air pollution. In short, the "green" virtues of ethanol and biodiesel are modest when these fuels are made from corn and soybeans, which are energy-intensive, highly polluting row crops."

Where to start? First, the assertion that pure biodiesel is "also only for use in special vehicles" -- similar to flex-fuel vehicles for ethanol -- is obviously and patently false. Someone really fell down in the research department on this one. Second, again, we have this significant burying of the lead.

The article is stating that you can cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2/3 compared to gasoline with E85 made from celluosic ethanol - and again, nearly an 80% reduction using neat biodiesel! Even the 23% from corn ethanol isn't too shabby.

This is extremely significant and has enormous implications, but the authors characterize these gains as "modest". I challenge them to find another near-term solution that has the potential to cut total US CO2 emissions by over 18%*! I would hardly call that modest; it's a huge "wedge".

Finally, I must point out that the NOx issue is very unfairly characterized here. Stating that biodiesel "can" increase NOx emissions is technically true. However, the jury is very much out on whether it actually does increase NOx emissions in real-world driving. Recent research has increasingly found this to not the case; yet the NOx increase found in a old testbed engine study always seems to come up, with the more recent and more comprehensive studies rarely cited.

Well, it's not all bad; they do point out that:

"The benefits of biofuels are greater when plants other than corn or oils from sources other than soybeans are used. Ethanol made entirely from cellulose (which is found in trees, grasses, and other plants) has an energy ratio between 5 and 6 and emits 82 to 85 percent less greenhouse gases than does gasoline. "

Right...meaning that celluosic ethanol could cut oil imports for vehicles that are today gasoline fueled by something like, conservatively, a factor of 6. An 83% reduction. Oh, but wait:

"For now, however, the costs of harvesting, transporting, and converting such plant matters are high, which means that cellulose-based ethanol is not yet commercially viable when compared with the economies of scale of current corn-based production. One ethanol-plant manager in the Midwest has calculated that fueling an ethanol plant with switchgrass, a much-discussed alternative, would require delivering a semitrailer truckload of the grass every six minutes, 24 hours a day."

This just made me laugh. I mean, this sounds like an awful large volume of material, until you think about oil tankers and coal trains; a single large coal-fired powerplant requires 10,000 tons of coal daily; that's a hundred, 100 ton rail cars daily.

The question is not how much material needs to be transported in, but how switchgrass compares to corn. Presumably a significantly larger volume of switchgrass would need to be transported, but I doubt that this is really a deal breaker on the economics.

What is significant - and the article does an excellent job on this - are the massive subsidies given to corn and soy that make any other feedstock uncompetitive. Really, the purpose of the article is to point out that the incentives for corn and soy feedstocks to make biofuels are truly perverse. These incentives, in concert with speculative hedge fund activities, do have the affect of raising food prices for the poor by significantly affecting agricultural markets globally in highly complex ways. Moreover, the benefits -- both from the standpoint of petroleum dependency and greenhouse gas emissions -- are suboptimum with these feedstocks.

I completely agree with this assessment. What gets me is that the article does a poor job of distinguishing the current state of the biofuel industry from where it should go, and needs to go, which is actually extremely promising. The piece mentions, but fails to discuss in any depth, that these other approaches - based primarily on crop waste, wood crops, and dedicated biofuel crops grown on degraded land - will have negligible impact on food security.

From the title on, the piece gives the impression that biofuels are not a solution, minimizing the benefits and maximizing the spectre of the starving poor. Rather than encouraging excitment about the right way to do things, and highlighting why these approaches are different, it pretty much lumps all "biofuels" together as either destructive or infeasibile and undermines attempts to move towards more appropriate feedstocks by marginalizing biofuels in general.

*Transportation is 33% of CO2 emissions. Gasoline is 60% of this, or ~20% of total emissions. Cutting this by 66% reduces total emissions by 13%. Taking diesel to represent half of the remaining 40% of transportation fuel emissions (a swag), and reducing this 20% by 78%, gets another 5% of total emissions. So, about 18%.

The Shipyard

2007-05-17T21:54:00.000-07:00

I was remiss in not mentioning in the previous post that the current home base of the Mechabolic project - the Shipyard - is, at this moment, in grave danger.

Details here.

Please do what you can to help, in particular, emails to the City of Berkeley seem to be having an effect.

A Carbon Hat Trick?

2007-05-17T20:36:00.001-07:00

Terra Preta. I don't know where I've been, but I had never heard of it until last week. But I'm starting to get very interested in Terra Preta. "Dark Soil", in Porteugese. A sort of miraculous earth found in the jungles of the Amazon, and apparently, for quite some time posing a mystery to science as to how it was formed. No natural process explains it.

Well it turns out that the answer was under the nose of the scientists. It is, in fact, the creation of technology -- a technology of the native peoples of the Amazon, who effectively used it to terraform amazingly productive food forests.

Terra Preta was formed by a type of slash and burn agriculture, not the kind we today associate with the loss of biodiversity and destruction of the forests, but a technique that did just the opposite. In actuality, there was no burning - the technique seems to have involved allowing the biomass to smolder, creating an incredibly carbon rich biochar.

This method, of thermally converting organic matter in the absence of oxygen, actually absorbs prodigous amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and locks the carbon into the biochar. In other words, its an excellent carbon sink - something we need right about now.

Moreover, this biochar material makes for very productive soil, something else that seems pretty useful.

OK, now that's very cool. But what really got me going is yet to come.

You see, the method to produce this biochar - from organic wastes of any type, really - is pretty much precisely the same as the used to produce woodgas.

And woodgas, my friends, can be burned directly in a gasoline engine. Or it can be converted into liquid fuel. Or it can be converted into hydrogen.

So just to make sure I've got this straight. A fuel cycle that converts waste to usable, transportable energy while absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere and locking it into a highly fertility enhancing soil amendment. Wow.

So I got turned on to all this from the Mechabolic project, spearheaded by Chicken John and Jim Mason . The famed Burning Man artists / engineers / tinkerers have already built a gasifier in the bed of Chicken John's truck and drove it around Berkeley. But that's just the start. The Mechabolic project is audacious and super cool; check it out.

Meanwhile, hey, this is America. It seems like you could make a good living from something like this. Well, if I was the first one to think of it, would I be telling you? Seriously though, there is a company out there commericalizing this, Eprida. It looks like good stuff.

That said, the potential here is clearly enormous. From a commerical perspective, this may not be the most lucrative proposition - since the basic concept was put into practice thousands of years ago (talk about prior art!), and woodgas has been around for 150 years or so. But I'm sure there are tweaks to take it to scale.

Moreover, this is just the ticket for the Permaculture scene. And if the petroleum economy takes a dump, boy will gasification come in handy!

All that said, what I'm really excited about is witnessing the creations of these Burning Man folks; massively fire-spewing mechanical monsters that suck CO2 out of the sky and deposit in their wake fecund black earth.

Wild.

California Solar Incentives...Revisited

2007-05-09T20:51:00.000-07:00

Gov. Schwartznegger today announced sponsorship of legislation to fix the California Solar Incentive program in Southern California.

For months now, there has been a flaw in the program that virtually shut down the solar industry in Southern California Edison (SCE) territory. An article in the LA Times yesterday gives background on the issue. Interestingly, the announcement from Schwartznegger's office came late this afternoon, but actually advocacy groups (CalSEIA, PV Now and Vote Solar) have been working behind the scenes since January.

This is a major serving of humble pie the the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), who really should not have launched a program with such a glaring flaw.

The problem, basically, is that SCE required PV customers to go on time-of-use (TOU) rates. TOU basically means that you pay significanylu more for electricity in times of peak demand. In theory, this actually works quite well with solar as rates are generally highest when PV systems put out the most energy. However, SCE's rates stayed high until relatively late in the afternoon, when output would start to trail off. This made PV uneconomical unless you could put in a large enough array to ensure electricity usage in the late afternoon was adequately offset by generation. Unfortunately this proved impossible for most small customers, who were constrained either by space or available capital.

Schwartznegger's bill will immediately and retroactively allow PV customers to go back onto the standard rate.

It is good to see this problem resolved. However, it could just be the tip of the iceburg for issues in the CSI program. Many of the concerns raised previously about the New Homes program have yet to be resolved. Since no systems applied for under the program have been fully signed off on to date, the system has yet to be fully tested. There are also a number of inconsistancies between, and hiccups within, the performance modeling packages used in the New Homes and retrofit programs. Meanwhile, in the large commercial program the performance-based incentive program seems to be going more smoothly, even as installers adjust their product mix to best take advantge of it's structure.

The hope was that the CSI program would be a shining example of an optimized incentive program, but unfortunately it's rollout was rushed due to a legislated start date of January 1, 2007. Meanwhile, the understaffed PUC and CEC, were heavily dependent on consultants who worked with limited oversight. Some of these were not actually PV experts and others brought their own agendas to the table. Additionally, the PUC and CEC efforts were not well coordinated (if they were coordinated at all). All in all, the concept was good but the execution and details rather half baked. Now everyone is trying to sort out how these programs will actually operate in an ad-hoc manner, and the PV industry will pay the price for the CEC's and PUC's bungled rollout. The added overhead and churn effectively reduces the incentives by increasing the costs incurred by the industry to comply.

Schwartznegger's bill is a step in the right direction. It will hopefully resolve this one major problem, but it seems likely that other issues will shake out of the woodwork as the year goes on.

Citizenre - Brief Follow-UP

2007-03-19T18:27:00.000-07:00

No, I am not totally Citzenre obsessed but a recent comment on a previous post got me thinking.

The DOE just awarded $168 MM in their Solar America Initiative (SAI). The goal of this initiative is to stimulate PV R&D and manufacturing, with the goal of PV generated electricity being the same cost as conventional energy (grid parity) by 2015. It specifically encourages US-based PV manufacturing.

Now, Citizenre has been claiming that they will effectively be able to accomplish grid parity much sooner, with a fully integrated US-based cell, module, and inverter plant.

However, they were not awarded an SAI grant.

Either they did not apply (dumb move, because all of their competitors did; and were awarded between $3.6 - $20 MM over the next three years); or, they couldn't convince the DOE that they are for real.

I don't know which is the case, but either way I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for these guys to bring down the cost of solar.

Controversy Erupts Over Citizenre

2007-02-15T20:53:00.000-08:00

All is not harmonious in the solar world after the publishing of an article about Citizenre in Renewable Energy Access.

The highly critical opinion piece, entitled "Citizenre: A House of Cards?" accuses the secretive renewable energy start-up of setting impossible expectations in the minds of it's "Ecopreneur" sales force and for potential renewable energy customers.

REA has followed up with a highly informative and balanced Podcast on Citizenre.

Citizenre's business model has been one lightning rod of criticism. Rather then selling PV systems, their model is to rent them to consumers at the same cost they are currently paying for electricity. Claiming that they will be able to start doing this in September 2007, in any state with net metering, implies that Citizenre has found a way of achieving "grid parity" -- that is, solar electric generation that is the same cost of buying energy for the utility.

Adding to the furor is the fact that Citizenre is employing the technique of "multi-level marketing" (MLM) to sell their systems. Amway is the best-known company to employ this technique. Independent Ecopeneurs who sign up with the company are given some training, then go out to and get customers signed up and build their "downline". The more levels beneath them in their "downline", the more potential money a Ecopeneur can make on the "residual" income streams passed up the line. This model has it's share of critics.

Adding fuel to the fire, an internal strategy memo was leaked this week that calls into question the underlying economics and marketing strategy. Claiming that the organization has lost control of it's sales associates and their claims - now posted all over the web, of free solar power and millions to be made by signing up - the memo posits a major PR disaster looming for the company. Said PR disaster appears to be unfolding at a rapid pace.

It is quite clear that most informed commentators simply can't get their heads around how it's possible that Citizenre can lower their costs enough to achieve grid parity all the way down to utility rates at $0.07 / kWh.

Citizenre claims the following will allow them to do this:

1) Vertical integration. Citizenre will build out a 500 MW cell and module plant (the largest in the world), coming online in 100MW phases. They claim that Phase 1 will be online in September and 500 MW will be online in 24 months. They will also be building their own inverters, and will standardize the installation systems. They claim this will increase efficiency and reduce the amount of markup in the value chain.

2) AC modules. Each module will have an inverter and this will save installation time, eliminate DC redundancies, and improve efficiency.

3) Low-cost, unconstrained silicon supply. Citizenre will be making cells from ingots that are produced partially with metallurgical grade silicon rather than solar grade polysilicon, which is in relatively short supply due to production constraints and high demand.

5) Claims competitors are not focused on reducing costs, and are trying to rake in "feast year" profits after "famine years" in the industry.

6) Claims they have $650 Million in funding.

Much has been written about the financial aspects of Citizenre's offering. Let me just state that their model implies, in most states, an installed system cost of around $4.00 / Wp. It seems quite a feat given that the average retail price for PV modules in the US is $4.80 / Wp.

Keep in mind that this is before the cost of installation, balance of system components, overhead or margins. I know, but can't tell you wholesale module pricing to a large integrator; and what it costs us to put in systems of all sizes (efficiently). I also know, but can't tell you what it costs a module manufacturer to make a module. However, I can tell you that no amount of vertical integration or standardization gets you to $4 /W installed, in 2007, using crystalline modules. It's not even possible to get there using the most inexpensive thin-film technologies, because they are so inefficient that all of the fixed costs are spread out over fewer installed watts.

Also, I have to point out the $650 million is a lot of dough, yet no investors have been announced, and despite many requests Citizenre has yet to confirm that they actually are in possession of the funds. This has led some to believe that the funding does not exist.

However, assuming for a moment that Citizenre is totally legit and aboveboard, I'd like to focus on some of the technical issues implied by these claims.

First, lets get this out of the way: a new company with no track record in the industry claims to be building the largest solar module production facility in the world. They have not yet selected a site for said plant, never mind started construction nor even gained permits.

From this facility, they say they'll be able to produce UL Listed modules at the rate of 100 MW per year within 8 months. These will be AC modules - PV modules packaged with small integrated inverters of the company's own design.

For reference, industry experts say that in normally would take 18-24 months to bring a 100 MW plant online. Typically, it takes about 6 months to obtain a UL Listing on a module (after production on a pilot line produces product to test). I am speculating that Citizenre may be considering the use unconventional materials in their PV laminates in order to lower costs. If unconventional materials are used this could stretch out UL Listing further. Presumably getting an AC module approved could significantly complicate the Listing process.

Moreover, one would expect that anything done differently along the lines of module construction would also significantly delay product roll-out because of the long-term testing required to validate the reliability of the product. Even with conventional laminate construction, introducing AC modules is a very significant change from normal practice and there will be a steep learning curve; taking customers along the ride up that curve can be painful, if not fatal for any company. Taking shortcuts on reliability testing, while tempting, would be a major mistake. Even small changes in module construction have resulted in major issues, BP's recent experiences being a prime example - they have had two recent recalls, one due to a fire hazard and another due to shorting from a minor production process change.

Most PV manufacturers are extremely focused on quality and reliability because they are on the hook for 25 year performance warrenties, and their brand is at stake. However, reliability is particularly crucial to Citizenre's model. In order for their finances to work, they must be vey confident that their systems will actually produce what they are predicted to produce. This means these guys need to be very sharp with their energy modeling capabilities (which is difficult even for experienced industry players) and they need excellent reliability from their products, both in terms of avoiding physical failures and performance degradation. In order to keep their costs down, they will need to avoid service calls.

Getting back to the AC modules for a moment, let's recall that inverters are the Achille's heel of any grid-tied system. Well engineered power electronics, like inverters, typically demonstrate a Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) of 100,000 hours -- which is to say about 11 years. Like many systems, failures tend to lie on a "bathtub curve". The rate of failures is relatively high for newly installed products; this is often referred to as "infant mortality". Any slight defect in power electronics tends to be revealed quickly once energized (the magical go-genie typically escapes from the device in the form a of a puff of smoke). Over time, failures stabilize at a low level. Then, as the 100,000 hour mark approaches, there is an accelerating frequency of failures as the old dogs lie down for a last nap.

This is relevent because with AC modules, 10-20 of these devices will be deployed instead of one. This means that there is a 10 - 20 X chance of failure. Now, it is true that ACPV will degrade more "gracefully" in case of failure - one failed inverter doesn't take the whole system out of commission. This seems at first blush to be an advantage, but consider a few things. One, if a central inverter goes down it is very obvious if you are paying the slightest bit of attention to system performance. Two, swapping out a centrally mounted inverter is pretty easy. It's mounted in an accessible location and is designed to be readily installed. Three, once you swap out an inverter, it's very unlikely to fail again at that location unless there is a separate problem (i.e. dirty power on the utility side).

Now imagine that you have 20 inverters on a roof. If one fails, system output decreases by 5%. It might be hard to ascertain that this has occured due to normal variations in the weather, but if you are Citizenre, it's hitting your bottom line. The loss will continue until the problem is discovered and technicians are dispatched to fix it - in most cases, said technicians will be from local installers who will be more likely inclined to do a higher margin job, like putting in a system, on any given day. To service it, you have to get on a customers roof, figure out which unit has failed and partially disassemble the array to access and replace it. It all costs time and money. Not only that, but your chances are then 20 times higher that you will have to go back to the same house to replace a different inverter, also a vicitim of infant mortality, a week, a month, or 6 months later. If there is a secondary problem like dirty grid power, it will probably take even more service calls, and scrapped inverters, to figure out what's going on.

Moreover, module-integrated inverters will be operating in a harsher thermal environment -- i.e., much hotter. This will result in reduced lifetime.

Something else to point out on costs - in order to have a fighting chance of determining that an inverter has gone down in a timely fashion, and determining specifically which one has gone down without a snipe hunt, requires that there be fault monitoring & communication capabilities in each inverter; that will add cost. From what I've seen in my time in the PV industry, it's almost always better to have fewer, bigger inverters than many small inverters. The redundancy just isn't worth it - it only leads to deferred replacement and ends up costing more money in the end. There are advantages to AC modules, but the idea has been around for years, and the advantages have never outweighed the liabilites.

So, my point is that the use of ACPV really cuts against their business model, where reliability has to be absolutely paramount; any small gains in efficiency (and these are questionable) will quickly be overwhelmed by reliability problems.

Onto another issue - Citizenre's claim that they will be using metallurgical grade silicon. This means they will be using a silicon source that has no commercial track record and which will result in low efficiency cells and modules -- this will drive cost per watt up, not down. Moreover, it poses both schedule and reliability risks. Let's be clear about this - no one has ever made photovoltaic cells from metallurgical grade silicon outside of pilot lines. Dow-Corning is currently producing this type of silicon from the first factory of it's kind, in Brazil, but it is not intended to replace polysilicon, rather it is typically blended at only 10% with polysilicon. If Citizenre is truely building it's plant around this technology, it is an audicious move indeed - especially given that polysilicon prices are set to fall dramatically starting in 2008 as expected production comes online.

As far as the solar industry not being "lean and mean", I can tell you from experience that at least where I sit, the solar industry is cutthroat about cost reduction. Standard efficiency PV modules are becoming a commodity, with low cost Chinese cells and modules flooding into the market (still significantly more expensive than the cost Citizenre requires). Standardization is not yet a reality in the retrofit market, because it is quite difficult to accomplish. However, successful large system integrators have driven the costs of large-scale PV installations downward very aggressively through standardization and sophisticated logistics; still, costs are significantly higher than Citizenre claims it can achieve in the much more difficult to serve retrofit market. The PV industry is highly competitive at every level of the value chain. It consists of many large, well funded entities staffed with extremely savvy technical and business people, as well as a multitude of small, scrappy, hungry (and increasingly well funded) startups, all competing for market share. Citizenre is correct in identifying the residential retrofit installation market as fragmented and relatively inefficient. However, the fragmentation that exists is a response to market conditions. Small, agile companies with low overhead, a laser-like focus on their local market, a desire to do quality work, and a committment to educating their customers are successful; word of mouth referrals are key. An attempt to parachute in with "standardized" offerings and a slick marketing approach is likely to collide messily with the facts on the ground.

Finally, some thoughts on the use of MLM by Citizenre. This method of sales and marketing is normally used to sell customers on the emotional value of products. Products typically offered by MLMs are things like cosmetics, vitamins, water purifiers, and motivational books - which often have little inherent value, aside from the extent to which the customer (and the salesperson) believe they "need" it. The technique tends to encourage hype and sales for sale's sake.

It heavily depends on motivational themes and "positive thinking" to encourage low level sales associates to work hard for little gain, while often framing questions or dissent as negativity and a lack of will. Rob Styler, the current VP of Marketing at Citizenre, was formerly at Equinox - a MLM company that had numerous civil and criminal suits filed against it, and which eventually dissolved it's assets and setted with victims for $40 million. Interestingly, Equinox focused on "eco-friendly" consumer products. Styler has written a book about the experience. As MLM models often veer dangerously close to illegal pyramid schemes, many question this choice of business model.

This aspect of Citizenre deeply concerns many in the PV industry, because there is clearly a powerful emotional element. Most people who are in the business are "true believers". Those who buy the systems do so, in part, because they want to do right thing and help to solve serious problems. However, PV is fundamentally about technology and financials. Those who have been in the industry for a long time, seem to have a consensus that the right approach is to have a deep understanding of these fundamentals and educate their customers so that they have the facts. In contrast, it appears that Citizenre Ecopreneurs and executives are promising many things that are physically impossible to deliver, at least in the time frame that is claimed.

The problem is that if enough people are taken in by unrealistic hype, once it is revealed that they've been taken for a ride they may turn, not just against Citizenre, but against PV. Once people's trust has been broken, it is extremely difficult to regain it. The solar industry was incredibly burnt by the solar thermal debacle of the early '80s -- another era when the hype machine significantly outpaced reality, and fly-by-night manufacturers dumped shoddy products into an overheated market. That experience, and the long solar winter that followed, has led many to say never again.

For myself, I think that there are many interesting aspects to Citizenre's model. Offering no-money-down financing to residential customers would greatly accelerate PV acceptance. It's not a new idea, it's just that no one has gotten it to work in this difficult market segment. If Citizenre can do it, more power to them.

That said, I hope that if there are unseemly shenanigans frolicking in Citizenre's shadowy recesses, that they are brought to light now. Rumors abound that there are still other shoes to drop with regards to this story. No money has yet changed hands and Citizenre hasn't yet done any permant damage to the reputation of the PV industry. So, now's the time to get it all out in the open. It will be much to Citizenre's credit to transparently address these issues, move forward, and be successful in rolling out solar power to the masses.

SunTile on CNN

2007-02-03T12:01:00.000-08:00

SunTile was recently featured on CNN's Headline News. The video is here.

It's a nice short piece. And it features Ray Kurtzweil! Can't get much cooler than that.

SunTile has gotten quite a bit of media attention in the last six months, but it's very rewarding to see something I've spent so much time and effort on get some props as a featured "cutting edge design" - making "solar power, stylish power" - on a national news show.

Building-Integrated Wind Turbines

2007-01-26T20:51:00.001-08:00

turbine_up, originally uploaded by windswimin.

Blue Green Pacific is a renewable energy company that's working towards making microwind energy generation ubiqitous in the urban environment.

As an intial step, they've installed a small Windside turbine on a San Francisco residence. This is the first residental wind turbine installed in the city.

The heavily monitored, seashell shaped turbine is nearly silent, aesthetically unobtrusive, and does well in turbulent, shifty wind environments - all crucial in an urban setting.

It's a great first step in a promising direction. Blue Green Pacific will be collecting data on the turbine's performance to ensure that the economics are compelling. Let a thousand little wind machines bloom!

On a whole different scale, the recently announced "Zero Energy High Rise" in Guandong, China is also an exciting project aiming to bring renewable energy generation to high-density urban setting. The project, commissioned by the Guandong Tobacco Company (!?!) for their headquarters, will supposedly require no net energy to operate due to advanced energy efficiency features, integrated wind turbines, and PV. Hopefully, it will come to pass as envisioned by the architects.

One of the most intriguing possibilities that Building Integrated Wind Turbines (or BIWT) allow is the use of the structure's architecture to accelerate wind flow around and through buildings, and thence into the turbines, improving their performance. Conversely, wind machines could be used to absorb energy from the wind, in effect providing a mechanical shelter belt or wind break in areas where trees - used for millenia in this role - are impractical.

Biodiesel Council Of California

2007-01-07T12:46:00.000-08:00

I'm happy to announce my election to the Advisory Council of the Biodiesel Council of California (BCC). In this role, I hope to work with the BCC staff, general membership, and other AC members to guide the BCC's activities this year. I am also looking forward to continuing my education on all things biodiesel and what needs to be done to advance it in a sustainable manner.

On the Advisory Council, I particularly see myself as a consumer advocate - unlike most people active in the BCC, I don't make a living by producing or distributing fuel. If you are a California biodiesel user, I'd like to hear about your experiences and any concerns you may have. If you are interested in using biodiesel but something is stopping you from doing so, I'd like to hear about that as well. Please email me.

The BCC has declared 2007 to the "The Year of the Farmer", with an focus on working with the agricultural community to produce sustainable, local feedstocks for the California biodiesel industry. This is a very important piece of the picture and something I'm excited to learn more about.

I'll post on the BCC's activities regularly as things unfold.

If you are interested in the development of a sustainable biodiesel industry, please consider joining the BCC and supporting their work.

SunPower, PowerLight Merge

2006-11-15T21:16:00.000-08:00

As a PowerLight employee, I can't talk about it. But here are some good links:

CleanTech Blog

Energy Blog

Renewable Energy Access

SunPower

An Extraordinary Technology

2006-11-13T21:50:00.000-08:00

A brief article in MIT's Technology Review Online discusses a fascinating new method for the conversion of biomass into hydrogen. Something like this, if it can scale out of the lab, could actually make the hydrogen economy work.

The technology involves spraying a fine mist of liquid biomass - such as vegetable oil or sugar water (!) over a metal catalyst at 800*C. The result is a stream of hydrogen, or, if the flow of oxygen is adjusted, syngas that can be converted to a liquid fuel, or feedstock for plastics.

Perhaps one of the most fascinating aspects is that the reaction itself provides the energy to maintain the catalyst at temperature; once the catalyst is heated initially, there is no need for fuel input, other than the feedstock itself.

There are stumbling blocks, of course. It's not clear the process will scale well (although it may not have to in order to be successful in many applications). Also, the rhodium used in the catalyst mixture is a very rare and expensive metal, which may not allow for widespread implementation (much as the use of platinum in PEM fuel cells has hobbled that technology).

Nontheless, it is heartening to hear of new ways to extract energy, particularly for transporation, from potentially low-quality biomass.

The Midterms

2006-11-09T20:52:00.000-08:00

I've been very happy to see the Democrats win Congress for many reasons. But what does it mean for renewable energy?

Well, it certainly can't hurt. Yet, I suspect that there won't be major national policy changes. On global warming, public opinion certainly seems to be lagging the science (Al Gore notwithstanding) and a real commitment to reduce GHG seems like a long shot without presidential leadership. I suspect that the ever-popular "effort" to "wean America from it's addiction to oil" will mostly take the form of ethanol subsidies to ADM, which will do little but raise the price of your Corn Flakes and allow GM to paint itself green (or yellow, if you like).

Maybe I'm just being a pessimist but at best, I think we will see a modest increase in funding for renewable energy R&D and perhaps extension of the federal tax credits for solar and biodiesel.

I should note here that the latter is not necessarily a good thing. Kumar Plocher, the president of Yokayo biofuels, makes a compelling case on his Fueled For Thought blog that biodiesel tax credits as currently implemented are hurting, not helping, the sale and promotion of biodiesel.

Anyhow, the most exciting national election result, from the standpoint of clean energy, is the refreshing replacement of arch-ecoenemy Richard Pombo (formerly of California District 11) by wind energy consultant Jerry McNerney. Pombo claims that global climate change is a myth, helped to gut the endangered species act, and advocated for drilling in ANWR amongst many other acts openly hostile to our continued healthy future on this planet. Pombo also was the co-chair of the House Energy Action Team (HEAT), a house committee that ostensibly advocates for alternative energy solutions. Thus, even if Mr. McNerney does nothing, it will be an environmental victory. Of course, one can hope that McNerney's expertise and background will give him some influence over his new colleagues.

On the level of California, the defeat of Prop 87 was a bummer. I held out hope that the general popularity of renewable energy (not to mention Clinton and Gore) would win out over the flood of oil money that funded the opposition. However, the oil companies managed to convince voters that it would hit them in their pocketbooks, and most people like to complain about high gas prices as it is.

Nonetheless, this will not impact the California Solar Initiative (CSI) and the rebate program that it funds. California is still on track to be the 3rd biggest PV market in the world, at least. So thankfully, it's defeat will not cripple the progress being made; it will, of course, slow things down.

Finally, of course Schwarzenegger swept Phil Angelides for governor. I am grateful to Schwarzenegger for his leadership in pushing for the CSI, the Millions Solar Roofs program, and the California Climate Change initiative. These are very good things. However, there is little daylight between Angelides and Schwarzenegger on these issues. I am concerned that Schwarzenegger, haven taken a sharp turn to the left in order to preserve his political viability, could just as easily veer right after this election. It seems that he's pretty solid on renewable energy since he seems to view it as good for business and for maintaining California's leadership position in technological innovation (which is true). However, on many other issues I just don't trust the guy. At least not until he starts running his Hummer fleet on biodiesel.

Overall, a great victory for Democrats in this election. I sincerely hope that the excitement and yearning for change that characterized these midterms carries over to a serious re-evaluation of and change in our energy policies, which are after all at the root of most of the serious problems we face as a nation.

Time will tell!

Solar Power 2006 Wrap-Up

2006-10-19T22:05:00.000-07:00

Solar Power 2006 came to an end today. I was on the show floor yesterday, mostly just walking around, checking things out, and asking questions.

The scene was very buttoned-down and corporate, with a distinct silicon-valley tech feel. In years past such a conference would always feature the big players, but you could count on a reasonable contingent of of wacky visionaries touting their wild, and woefully underfunded, concepts. There was very little of that this year, as it seems many of the wacky visionaries have hooked up with venture capital - and there seemed to be quite a few VC reps working the floor, as well.

In fact, if anything the show felt a lot like the dot-com days come again; a bit long on cash and short on sense.

There were a lot of really nice booths. Sharp's was two stories, with a live installation demonstration, MC'd by a perky young woman in a very short skirt. Q-Cells and Suntech -- two cell manufacturers who recently made splashy IPOs, one out of Germany and one out of China -- each set up sizable "lounges" filled with uncomfortable post-modern furniture. Evergreen, a US based cell manufacturer with a unique manufacturing technique, set up one of their string ribbon pullers (not operational). Satcon brought in their 500 kW inverter -- a beast of a unit, about half the size of a bus, as if to erase any doubt that solar power can be utility-scale.

The point of all this is just to say that this show really brought home that the solar industry is just that - an industry - and also a sometimes messy but always fascinating mash-up of widely divergent disciplines and people. For me, the really cool thing about the PV industry is that it there are so many odd, and fertile, intersections.

First of all, there is the matter of scale. At one end, there was a company promoting it's line of 15W - 35W portable power packs, slick little aluminum boxes with cells encapsulated on top and white LEDS in a line along the side, equipped with a DC output and built in batteries. On the other end, you've got stuff like that Satcon inverter; that's 4 orders of magnitude right there. Then you've got PowerLight putting in powerplants that require 22 of those inverters.

Also, there's the sheer variety of personalities and expertise rubbing elbows. I ran into PhDs working on nanotechnology semiconductors, contractors looking at roof racks, VC lawyers, German polymer scientists, new home builders, utility reps, policymakers, and vendors promoting not just what you might immediately expect but also everything from industrial robots to monitoring software to custom module fabrication in Shanghai (promising 1 week turn-around - unless it's a government holiday).

There were a few interesting new products that stood out, although I hesitate to call them products because they were really just prototypes.

On the cell side, XsunX was showing off their roll-to-roll amorphous silicon cells, produced at lab scale. Transparent cells, deposited on plastic film. Very cool but clearly not ready for prime time. Konarka had a booth but wasn't making a big splash. If Nanosolar had a presence, it was well hidden; for all the buzz they've generated they are still staying out of the limelight, continuing to raise gobs of venture capital for a product that does not appear to yet have manifested on the earthly plane.

What with the silicon shortage, concentrators were all over the place. The most interesting one came from a company with a most uninteresting name, Practical Instruments (don't worry, you can still call your solar company Sensible Tools). Anyhow, their module-integrated tracker was pretty neat. I think Energy Innovation's rooftop tracker is interesting too, however, they didn't bring it to the show. I'm not entirely convinced that these concepts which require little plastic gears to turn for 20+ years on a roof are really going to pan out. Roofs are hot, wet, dirty places full of nasty surprises and my feeling is that before long these little integrated trackers are going to get something stuck in 'em. There was also a company pitching this massive mirror-trough system that they claimed could go on a roof, and provide both electricity and process heat with 1500X concentration. I forget what they were called but it's bold, I'll give them that.

BIPV for new homes was low key. Sharp, Kyocera, and Open Energy had products on display, but not prominently. PowerLight didn't have any products on display, focusing instead on presenting videos and photos. GE Energy had one booth space at the show - other big players had at least 3 spaces - and I didn't even notice them (so much for "Ecomagination"). On that note, if “Beyond Petroleum” had a presence, I didn’t see it.

For the most part, however, I was actually a bit surprised at how little was new, given the amount of attention (and IPOs) in the PV world this last year. There's been incremental improvement but not a lot of breakthrough technology. It seems to me that there's a lot of room for improvement with regards to module construction and mounting hardware. All of the big buzz, supposedly crystalline-killing technologies printed onto plastic are barely out of the lab; and the innovative concentrating concepts seem to be poised to break into the market just in time for the polysilicon supply crunch to let up as manufacturing capacity comes on-line.

On that note, SunPower continues to rock. They had a very busy booth and unveiled a quite spectacular 315 W module, larger but not by much than competitor's modules in the 210W range. They seem to still have improvements up their sleeves, and have continue to demonstrate that high-efficiency moncrystalline cell technology is not going to be an easy benchmark to surpass as far as value and reliability.

So, to wrap up, it was quite an interesting show. While there were no blockbuster technologies, it was simply fascinating to circulate through the show, meet with old collegues, overhear conversations, check out ideas and see aspects of the industry that I'm not normally exposed to.

Changin' The Rules

2006-10-17T21:20:00.000-07:00

So, as I mentioned previously, there are some pretty big changes in the works for the PV industry. In addition to the recent approval of a BIPV acceptance criteria, there are two other major shakeups in progress.

First, the adoption of a new incentive program in California is barrelling ahead.

On the large commercial side (systems over 100 kW), a Performance Based Incentive will be put into place starting January 1st. This is basically the European feed-in tariff model, with solar generation paid $0.39 / kWh. This was legislated in the California Solar Initiative (CSI) managed by the California Public Utilities Commission. It contains triggers that reduce the incentive amount based on the total rebate reservations in the system, so that as the industry grows the rebate shrinks. This seems like a good model, and hopefully will be as successful as the European and Japanese programs that it is based on.

For small commercial and residential retrofit, things don't change much. There is a declining incentive schedule, but it is still a capacity incentive, starting at $2.50 / Watt.

Where things get interesting is the New Solar Homes Partnership (NSHP). Unlike the other rebates, this is managed by the California Energy Commission. While still not fully defined, there is a draft guidebook. This program is for residential new construction, and it is still a "predicted" performance based incentive program with an up-front rebate computed based on system performance modeling.

Some of the issues that I identified earlier have been dealt with. Specifically, there is a provision for "flexible installation" where a blanket rebate can be taken for homes that fall within certain parameters. This reduces the problem with timing deals versus site planning.

One very interesting and positive aspect is that the PV incentives are linked to energy efficiency, allowing builders who implement energy efficient features (better than 30% lower consumption than already stringent Title 24 energy efficiency code requirements) to gain bigger rebates. Intriguingly, it also writes PV systems into Title 24 for the first time, treating them like any other energy-reducing measure.

Overall, however, the program is starting to look quite onerous, especially for BIPV. The way that data is gathered and BIPV is modeled, this technology is hit with a series of small performance penalties that don't exist in the real world. The resulting decrease in incentive is in effect an increase in cost. The program requires a series of inspections, both by the installer and a 3rd party - adding more cost. It will also eventually require testing to international (IEC) standards that are not currently part of the US certification process, something that will be unique to this market segment. Finally, there is fierce debate over a proposal that will require a unique module power rating system for this market segment.

The "dings" that BIPV takes are particularly problematic because many builders are unwilling to install solar, period, unless it is BIPV. By making BIPV more expensive, the simple and obvious end result is that less PV will be installed and the program goals are less likely to be met.

The intention is to protect the consumer, and ensure accurate system ratings, to which I say bravo. However, it seems to me that this is a poor choice of venue to tackle some of these issues.

The problem boils down to two things.

First, what is the acceptable deviation of an individual module from it's "nameplate rating"? As it currently stands, if you go out and buy a 200W module from company X, UL says that the module must have power within +/- 10% of that rating (or the tolerance on the nameplate - typically +/- 5% - whichever is less). It should be noted that PV manufacturers can readily hold tolerances within +/- 5%. So, according to UL, a 200W module that puts out 180W is perfectly OK.

The problem historically is that if you tested a whole bunch of modules, you would probably find that the "average" 200W +/- 10% module was more like a 190W +/- 5% module. You weren't likely to find any 220 W modules!

As buyers have wised up, this problem has diminished because they've insisted that the average power over some (large) sample meet nameplate specifications, while allowing for a reasonable tolerance.

The second issue, once you've defined how much power a module is expected to make under specific test conditions, is how much energy it will produce in real life. That's what people really care about. So, the question becomes how does one properly model PV system performance? This is quite complex, and as always, garbage in garbage out. The model may be properly designed but if the input parameters aren't collected in a well-defined, repeatable, and very well thought-out way there will be problems. Unfortunately, a lot of the testing protocols are effectively being defined in a committee process at the last minute; some of them simply have large inherent uncertainties; and many are fairly expensive and are not currently required. The CEC software model itself has not been publicly released, so no one has a had a chance to "test drive" it and see how well it predicts the performance of existing systems.

Attempting to implement back-door regulatory controls onto a relatively small subset of the global market, in order to steer the PV industry in a certain direction, is not a good idea in my opinion. There are other venues for this that, while slower, will make changes more uniform.

It should also be noted that in really competive markets, like Germany, manufacturers are guaranteeing very tight tolerances (such as -0% / +2.5%) on modules. This is not because of any government regulations but because consumers are educated and the PV manufacturers jockey to position their products in this manner. It seems to me that the issue will take care of itself as the California market heats up.

Nonetheless, changes are afoot at the national level as well. Currently, work is ongoing to "harmonize" the venerable UL 1703 PV Module standard with IEC 61215 and IEC 61646 . These latter standards are not just for safety, as is the case with the UL standard. They are also concerned with qualification and performance. That is, there is testing included which is designed to ensure that the modules perform as advertised, and will continue to perform for 20+ years. Performance will probably not be part of the scope ruled into 1703, but qualification probably will be.

In any event it makes sense to me that rather than requiring early adoption of IEC 61215 in a subset of California's market, that the CEC simply allow the changes of 1703 to take their course and then fill in gaps if required at that time. They will probably have to require a subset of the testing in 61215 just to gather performance data. This shouldn't be a problem for anyone. However, the full qualification sequence is expensive and time consuming.

The bottom line is that things are changing, and on the whole, in the right direction. However, the devil is in the details. Getting solar on new homes is far easier than retrofitting it later, and it would be a shame to see this powerful section of the market gummed up in red tape. Unfortunately, it seems as if that's a likely outcome under the current plan.

Solar Power 2006

2006-10-17T21:18:00.000-07:00

Solar Power 2006 is this week in San Jose. I'll be down there tomorrow - should be interesting.

Tanzania pictures up!

2006-10-15T21:46:00.001-07:00

TZ - 86, originally uploaded by windswimin.

I just got all of my pictures from Tanzania up on Flickr.

This one is from the solar training. I'm the white guy trying to avoid getting sunburned. I was co-teaching with Alex Mapunda, in the purple shirt, who is an auto electrican from Dar Es Salaam.

All photos are at www.flickr.com/photos/photonform

An Important Milestone In Maintreaming Solar Electricity

2006-10-07T11:26:00.000-07:00

Last Thursday, in Birmingham, Alabama, an important goal was reached in assuring the mainstream acceptance of solar power.

The accomplishment was the approval of new guidelines (called Acceptance Criteria or AC) by an organization called the International Code Council - Evaluation Services (ICC-ES). This document, AC 365, addresses the safety and performance of building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV) as a roofing material.

Now, this is all very boring and technocratic. In the big picture, though, it is a huge signal that the PV industry is maturing. It is extraordinarily important that as BIPV is rolled out in ever larger amounts, that it performs the way people expect it to. If sub-par products are being installed, the inevitable failures could cripple the entire industry.

Back in the late '70s and early 80's, badly designed incentive programs resulted in a lot of poorly made solar thermal systems being installed. The subsequent failures set solar energy back 20 years. Given the current state of the world, this cannot be allowed to happen again.

Now before getting into the meat of this, a quick primer is in order here. BIPV are PV modules that are integrated into the building envelope. Thus, they must function as a building material as well as an energy conversion device. AC 365 covers BIPV that is integrated into clay and concrete tile or asphalt shingle roofs. That is, it covers the BIPV products used in most residential new construction. My favorite example (because I designed it) is PowerLight 's SunTile.

This type of design is finding a favor among new home builders because the aesthetics are superb as compared to standard "rack and stack" PV systems, with the modules supported above the roof.

Despite builder's enthusiasm for the technology, it is often tempered with concern. Roof leaks are a huge liability for buiders and they seek assurance that the BIPV will be as effective a roofing material as the rest of the roof. Building departments are often even more skeptical. They require proof that these products will be safe in fires, windstorms, and hailstorms; that they won't break if someone walks on them or leak in heavy rains; and will be as durable as other roofing products.

This is where ICC-ES comes in. The International Code Council (ICC) is the semi-public body that writes what are known as model building codes - the International Building Code (IBC) being one example. Building departments then adopt these codes and they have the force of law in those jurisidications. The ICC itself is primarily made up of building code officials and the process of writing these codes is public (though not widely publicized).

ICC-ES deals with products which are not addressed by the building codes -- innovative products that, when local building officials are asked to approve, they scratch their heads. This has been the situation that BIPV installers have faced when trying to pull permits. It requires a lot of education of building officials on the issues, not least because many of the BIPV products on the market may not perform adequately as a roof. AC-365 specifically covers BIPV as a roofing material, and not electrical safety (which is already addressed by Underwriter's Laboratory requirements) or solar performance.

So when ICC-ES releases this draft criteria on January 1st, 2007, this means that there are a standard set of requirements that everyone can go by. Manufacturers can perfom testing, and if successful, obtain an Evaluation Report (ER) that proves to building officials and clients that they comply. This will significantly smooth the permitting process and facilitate the sale of these systems.

The release of this AC is the first step towards the eventual incorporation of BIPV requirements into the International Building Code. Hopefully, these requirements will be written into the 2009 IBC, which will have force of law in many jurisidictions in 2010. At that point, BIPV will be firmly established as a mainstream building material, on par with all other types of roofing.

On a more personal note, I am very happy to have been to be part of this precedant-setting process. I worked closely with ICC-ES staff in writing AC-365. While getting this acccomplished is clearly of great importance to my employer, I was also glad to see that one of our biggest competitors showed up at the meeting and spoke in support of the criteria.

Meanwhile, there are are couple of other very important regulatory issues being resolved at the moment. More on this in a future post.

Tanzania

2006-09-30T16:48:00.000-07:00

After a substantial hiatus, Heliotropic is back...

Well, 5 weeks in Tanzania. Quite an experience. When I get all the photos on flickr, they will be linked here...

My work with Engineers Without Borders was primarily to scope out the situation on the ground in terms of availability of PV and accessories, and also to provide training to villagers who will eventually be responsible for the care of a PV system we plan to install on the village dispensary (clinic).

From an energy perspective, I felt both hopeful and frustrated. Hopeful because Tanzanians have a real opportunity to implement a sustainable energy future, yet frustrated because these goals are elusive and just out of reach.

As I see it, most of the pieces are in place for a distributed, clean energy system - solar, wind, and micro hydro. The main thing that is needed is for distributors to extend their supply chains out further, and for ordinary people to have access to micro-credit. The technology exists and people are educated enough that training competent technicians should not be an issue.

The motto of SELCO in India - which has a model of setting up businesses to distribute micro-solar lighting systems - is that solar is expensive for the rich, but cheap for the poor. This seems to be true in Tanzania.

The energy intensity of Tanzania is low, even in urban areas, but especially in rural places. In Ngelenge, the village I worked in, people have very limited uses for electricity. Light is typically provided by kerosene, and some people buy dry cell batteries to power radios.

Kerosene and batteries are very expensive - more so than in the US. A simple PV system - enough for a couple of efficient lights and a radio - would readily pay for itself within a couple of years, yet could easily last more than 10 years.

In the cities, the vast majority of power is provided by hydro. Due to an ongoing drought, however, power is rationed nearly everywhere. So, diesel generators are common where there is grid power and these are used quite a lot.

Despite this, demand-side management doesn't seem to be a very high priority. In urban areas, it seems as if they could greatly alleviate the rotating blackout issue simply by switching to more efficient lights. CFLs are available, at least in Dar, yet are not common even in places one might expect them to be.

In addition, power quality is lousy. Every computer, photocopier, and A/C unit is plugged into small power conditioning devices to prevent them from getting fried. This adds a hidden cost for many end-users of electricity. Experience has shown that PV can be very useful for utilities, if located properly (near critical substations) to provide grid support at peak use times and thus prevent some power quality issues.

One piece of good news is that the government seems quite enthusiastic about PV. They've dropped the VAT (which at 20% is substantial) on PV imports and is working with Energy For Sustainable Development (ESD) and the National Microfinance Bank (NMB) to roll out PV systems throughout the country.

Our EWB chapter is hoping to leverage this as part of our project. The area we were working in has many PV projects, with equipment brought in and installed by European NGOs. Of course, they are all in various states of disrepair despite well-trained technicians. Why? It is very difficult and/or expensive to get parts. The supply chain just isn't there. So the projects fail.

Working with ESD, we hope to incentivize the extension of supply chains into the countryside. This is accomplished by stipulating in contracts to put in bigger systems (such as the village dispensary) that the winning bidder must set up a distribution center in a nearby town with the economy to support it. This would be a place where goods of equivalent value are sold, such as TVs and motorbikes. Also, such a contract would require the winning bidder to train local technicians.

So, many of the pieces are already in place. What is the role of US engineers in all of this? Rather than planning the installation, bringing in equipment from the States, and installing it, we prefer to utilize and reinforce the local resources. So as I see it, our role should be limited to helping NGEDEA - the local NGO - evaluate the bids, to provide expert oversight during the implementation process to make sure NGEDEA doesn't get ripped off, and training as needed. That's about it. Everything else can and should be handled by Tanzanians.

Meanwhile, the government is trying to make up for the hydropower shortfall by building a couple of coal plants. It seems to me that this is not the best call. On the other hand, that's a difficult thing to say coming from a place where I have power whenever I want to flick a switch and economy that isn't faltering due to a lack of reliable power.

There is a good model in the country for distributed generation, which is cell phones. The coverage is quite impressive and it is entirely private sector. They use pre-paid card system. A popular addition to many small street businesses is phone access - you pay per minute to use their phone.

This model is pushing telecom rapidy out into rural Tanzania, which is in the process of leapfrogging wired telephony. It seems natural that small-scale distributed energy should ride along with it. After all, people will need to charge their phones.

There's another aspect of PV that is perhaps less tangible, but extremely important. That is the feeling I got from rural people that one big reason they want to get PV is to for once, be on the leading edge of a trend instead of always getting the leavings from other societies; to get access to and knowledge about advanced technology.

In my trainings, people were incredibly grateful and enthusiastic aboout being taught about solar. They felt in the loop, empowered, with unique knowledge that they could share - and perhaps some day even get paid for (in the case of the technicians). Black market PV is available in Ngelenge, coming across form Malawi, and some people have spent a lot of money to get it. The simple act of doing some consumer education, to help people from getting ripped off, seemed quite worthwhile.

Meanwhile, as in the States, transportation energy is a huge issue. Again, Tanzania seems to be well positioned to transition itself to a more sustainable situation, economically and environmentally. Private vehicles are extremely rare, rather people mostly ride buses for longer distances and dala-dalas (small minibuses) in urban areas. Lots of people walk and ride bikes. Diesel powered vehicles are the norm; I saw very few gasoline-powered cars, even small ones.

Diesel, like kerosene, is extremely expensive - $6 / gallon in the city and more like $8 / gallon in the countryside.

Tanzania is an agricultural country with a tropical coastline and is well equipped to grow oil crops. With diesel prices where they are, biodiesel seems like a natural fit for their economy. Many people I spoke to were aware of, and interested in, biodiesel; yet no one was aware of any production, or plans for production. A ridiculous amount of Tanzania's GNP must go towards petroleum imports, to places that most Tanzanians are not too fond of (a legacy of Arab dominance of the slave trade, and more recently, the 1998 bombing of the US Embassy in Dar Es Salaam by Al Qaida). A solution is readily at hand. Is the probem a lack of awareness or know-how? A stranglehold on the fuel distribution networks (dominated by BP)? A lack of capital to start a new and unproven business? Perhaps all of the above...

In any event, I very much hope that in my work with EWB, beyond providing solar energy to a dispensary in one rural village, we will be able to implement a new model that empowers Tanzanians while rolling out clean electricity.

Visit to China

2006-06-27T21:39:00.000-07:00

I just returned from a week in China. A couple of days in Shenzhen (via bus from Hong Kong) with a quick visit to Guangzhou, and a couple of days in Shanghai and environs (mostly, the latter). Since it was a business trip I can't really say anything about what I was up to specifically.

I can say that it was not what I expected. Shenzhen is a bustling metropolis. In addition to being a manufacturing hub - especially outlying areas - what I didn't know is that it's a popular destination for Hong Kong hipsters and other local tourists. Shenzhen attracts them with it's lower priced spas, clubs, restaurants, and golf courses. The night life is non-stop; I couldn't even come close to keeping up (might have had something to do with 18 hour work days).

Everything is new, roads, buildings, cars. Lots of cars by the way (GM, Volkswagen, and Toyota mainly). You still see people hauling things around on bicycles and scooters but cars, buses, and trucks dominate the traffic.

Even in areas far from the "scene", though, one fascinating thing is that everyone seems so young. Shenzhen is without a doubt a boom town. I am guessing that young people from all over China are attracted there for work. The streets, even in areas that can't be tourist attractions, feel like a college town -- people strolling, eating, laughing, talking, late into the night, all well under 30.

We also visited a global engineering firm with an office in Guangzhou. It was a beautiful building, with better equipped and organized labs than equivalent organizations in the US. It was bustling with engineers, scientists, technicians, managers, and support staff; all well educated, competent professionals; and again, 80% under 30 I would estimate.

We are encouraged here in the US to think of Shenzhen and places like it in China as areas where people are exploited and oppressed. No doubt, this exists. But the vibe on the street didn't track with this idea. People seemed awfully glad to be there. There was, if anything, a sense of hope, opportunity, and optimism. People seemed and acted more freely than anywhere I've seen in the US. Now of course I'm not talking about their ability to engage in political activities. I'm only discussing how it felt to intersect briefly with their daily lives.

Everything in Shenzhen is new. Shanghai is old. Well parts of it are old. Everything else is new. Shanghai central has a very noticeable post-colonial, Western influence.

Shanghai feels much less rambunctious than Shenzhen, more established. Hard to explain but it just feels older and more laid back even though it is very busy. I didn't spend much time in Shanghai except in my hotel bed, and one night out at a club, which was a bizarre experience involving a band fronted by 3 tiny Chinese women which performed uncannily good covers of Dr. Dre and Guns n' Roses (among others...)

We traveled from Shanghai, on a new highway, about 1 1/2 hours out into the countryside, and it was beautiful out there - rice farms, nice houses. A lot of new development out in the countryside...business parks, condos that look like they were airlifted in from LA, world-class hotels.

This was in contrast to the highway from Shenzhen to Guangzhou -- also new, but through a gritty, grey megapolis dominated by belching smokestacks and abandoned looking (or were they half-built?) apartment complexes; punctuated by wide, lazy canals populated by massive self-propelled barges.

So there is another part of the story to China, but I didn't see it close-up. As part of my work, I did see several manufacturing plants. Of course, we are very selective about who we work with so they may not have been representative. But, they were top notch and working conditions were not very different from the US.

China is thinking big. I saw from the air (flying on one of China's new, Southwest airlines inspired domestic carriers) a project laid out in the countryside that encompassed perhaps 20 miles on a side, a series of concentric, 4 lane ring roads bisected by equally sized radial roads, each coming to an absurdly precise end at a farmer's field; the innermost ring surrounded a perfectly circular, enormous lake. Who knows what it was all about but it was planning on a scale I've never seen. If you build it, they will come, I guess.

So, to touch on energy. Obviously China is using a lot of energy now. The way it is growing, it will need much more in the future. Nothing new there. But I guess I saw a couple of positive things. Shenzhen has stopped issuing licenses for motorized scooters, to cut down air pollution (those 2-cycle engines are nasty). To me, this is indicative of a growing environmental awareness. Shanghai is advertising itself as the "solar city", and indeed, has a "100,000 solar roof" initiative. There is also some PV manufacturing in Shanghai. There are billboards advertising the Prius, and in fact I saw a couple on the road in China - one near Shenzhen, one near Shanghai. So one can hope that this development will be used as an opportunity to do some technological leapfrogging.

A couple other things. I don't think people would complain about exploitation if a company outsourced to Greece. Yet the general level of development and workplace conditions I saw in and around Athens (when I lived there) was significantly worse than what I saw in Shenzhen and Shanghai. I think that we hear a lot of propaganda about China. People are understandably upset about manufacturing jobs moving over there. Of course people are paid much less, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are exploited. The cost of living is also much less expensive. But anyhow, it sometimes seems like when China gets painted as being horrible to workers and the environment, that's to an extent a smokescreen for a protectionist agenda. Of course all is not peaches and roses in China, but again, there are a lot of places that we don't hear about which are similar. Finally, lest we forget, the US is hardly perfect on the "workers rights and environmental protection" scorecard.

Taken as a whole, what I would say is that as far as what I saw, China is well positioned to kick our butt. Their infrastructure is brand new and expanding; ours is disintegrating. Their educational system is producing highly educated, technically trained workers, who are rapidly gaining practical experience in the workplace. Our educational system is falling apart and it's rare that you find younger people with high levels of responsibility. China's manufacturing capabilities seem to be rapidly catching up to the US.

Finally, the food is really, really good. Just stay away from the water cockroaches and fermented tofu (take it from me).

Tanzania Fundraising Drive!

2006-06-03T21:12:00.000-07:00

Please click on the title to find out more about this project and how you can help make it a success!

CEC considers PBI for New Homes

2006-06-03T15:23:00.000-07:00

The CEC is proposing a performance-based incentive (PBI) for PV on new homes. It's still in the works; their proposal is here.

Is this a good thing? There are some serious problems with their proposal...but first some background.

Currently, incentives in California are based strictly on installed system size, in $/Watt - a capacity rebate. The California Energy Commission (CEC) uses a method developed by PVUSA to "derate" the manufacturer's nameplate PV output (at Standard Test Conditions or STC -- test conditions convenient for quality control) to estimated field performance. This is referred to as the PVUSA Test Condition or PTC rating. The incentive is presently $2.80 / Watt (PTC) .

Capacity rebates have advantages and disadvantages. The main advantages are that they are straightforward to administer, highly predictable (the decline steadily with time), can be taken by any party in the transaction, and act immediately to defray upfront system cost. The disadvantage, of course, is that the goal of any incentive program is to reward kWh on the grid, not estimated installed capacity (kW). Systems can (and do) receive full incentives even if installed North facing or heavily shaded. Sometimes installers are unscrupulous; sometimes the customer just doesn't care and wants to put on a big PV array. Either way it's counterproductive.

PBIs deal with the problems of capacity rebates directly by paying the incentive based on actual or predicted system performance.

The most extreme example is feed-in tariffs used in Germany and Portugal, where renewable energy projects are simply paid per kWh generated like any other powerplant but at a significantly higher rate. Making sure the financials work in this structure requires fairly sophisticated performance modeling capabilities. These have been pushed back onto the project developers and 3rd party verification companies, typically hired by project financiers. Also the upfront cost is not defrayed, requiring bankers who are willing to lend to this kind of project. It works fine for big projects in Europe (banks seem more enlightened) but it seems onerous for small projects and difficult in the US.

The CEC has a pilot PBI program where performance is measured over three years and based on this performance, the project owner gets quarterly checks. This is a bit better in that it at least accelerates the payment schedule but still has many of the feed-in tariff issues. The CEC has abandoned this approach for the proposed new homes PBI in part because there is a "split incentive" problem in new homes development -- the developer pays the cost upfront, but the homeowner gets the benefit over time and has sole control over some things that affect performance, like planting trees and hosing the PV off periodically.

For new homes, the CEC is developing a modeling program where all the relevant parameters (specifics on the PV modules, system orientation, shading, etc.) is input, and annual kWh are predicted, for every individual system. From this the rebate is calculated and it is payed in a lump sum after an on-site audit. Another aspect is that the CEC wants to eventually implement advanced metering that would allow homeowners to utilize rate structures that favor solar - such as much higher utility rates during peak periods, when the meter is typically running backwards.

As long as their modeling is accurate this sounds great, right? Well, maybe for retrofits. There are some major issues in new home construction.

The problem is that working with builders, ideally you want to structure big deals for large developments -- hundreds of homes. These are constructed over several years. The builders want to lock in the PV price at the time the deal is signed, to control their risk. At that point in the cycle, roof plans and the orientation of each house is still up in the air. This makes the rebate amount for each house impossible to predict in advance. So, in turn it is impossible to lock in price. This is a major disincentive to builders to think big with solar and lock in deals for entire solar developments. Instead they are forced to negociate much smaller contracts at multiple phases in the development cycle. This is bad for everyone.

Installers in this market should be predicting and monitoring energy output from each system. By making that prediction, and making real time data available to homeowners, they are putting their money where their mouth is. So installers do already have an incentive to make sure the systems are installed in the best orientation possible, and to set customer expectations properly if a non-optimal orientation is unavoidable. One huge advantage of doing PV in new developments is the prospect of repeat sales to the builder. In turn the builders want repeat sales from the homeowners (they want to move them up to bigger homes within their developments). So, if homeowners start to complain about underperforming systems this is a bad thing.

Perhaps if installers were simply required to predict and monitor system performance the issues around poorly performing installs would take care of themselves.

In any event, I expect that there will be some push-back on the CEC with this program. It should be simplified and somehow, the rebates need to be made predictable. There are models where preferentially higher capacity rebates are given for systems in certain orientations, for instance.

As for the real-time pricing, the solar geek in me thinks this is extremely cool - but how can you predict the actual cashflow? If you underpredict you lose sales; overpredict and you have unhappy customers.

The bottom line is this. Remember that the people selling PV-equipped homes are not solar experts, and the potential buyers are not solar enthusiasts. There needs to be a straightfoward value proposition. The intent is to create more incentives for homeowners to demand PV systems; to achieve this the economics need to be predictable and salable.

Different rebates for every home based on sophisticated modeling software and complex real-time pricing structures are attractive to the CEC because it improves accuracy and makes better use of the incentive pool. It also justifies their employment of a bunch of PhDs - my main criticism of the CEC is that it strikes me as the ultimate ivory tower. No doubt, there are merits to the approach, but on the ground it seems as if this proposal just muddies the waters.

Energize America

2006-05-22T22:28:00.000-07:00

The good folks over at Daily Kos have been working on a long term, strategic energy plan for America. It is a refreshing break from business as usual.

Read it.

Is Algal Biodiesel a Red Herring?

2006-05-20T18:21:00.000-07:00

OK, just one more biodiesel post (it's not a biodiesel blog, I swear!)

Looking into all these issues around sustainable biodiesel, I wandered over to the Green Fuel Technologies website.

What I found made me say -- duh!

So...we know that it makes all sorts of sense to grow algae at powerplants - it cleans up emissions and captures CO2. Biodiesel people mostly assume that this oil-rich algae will be turned into biodiesel.

But no. It looks to like it is much easier to just harvest the algae, dry it out, and co-fire the plant with it...really easy with a coal plant; a bit more complicated with natural gas, but you can gasify algae and send that right on down into the turbine. Plus, the plants will get to take the credit for putting renewables on the grid, because biomass cofiring counts towards RPS requirements.

This is as opposed to selling the algae to someone who will transport it somewhere, extract the oil, and turn it into biodiesel - in which case they get no RPS credit.

So will these plants ever make more algae than they need and sell it into the biodiesel market? I did the math so you won't have to.

If the plant was burning 100% algae, it would in essence be a solar power plant.

NREL says you can get 1 quad (10^15 BTUs or 293x10^9 kWh) of biodiesel annually for every 780 square miles of land (hat tip to Mike Briggs). How much energy there is in the algae itself is not easy for me to find; to get biodiesel from algae you crush it (losing some biomass), you add some energy in the form of methanol and process heat and take some energy out in the form of glycerin.

But for hand-waving, let's use the NREL number and call that the energy yield for algae instead of biodiesel. This implies a production of 375 x 10^6 kWh per square mile.

A "typical" 400 MW combined cycle plant running at 80% capacity factor, 50% efficiency and a gasifier operating at 80% efficiency would use 7 x 10^9 kWh in fuel energy annually. It would require nearly 19 square miles of land area to grow that much algae. This is basically 30 acres per MW. For contrast, single axis PV tracking systems require about 6 acres / MW (here's an example). Now my numbers are probably +/- 50% because I use biodiesel yields a a proxy for algae yields. However you slice it, though, it's still a lot of space!

Bottom line, it is very unlikely that any power plant would grow any more than a fraction of it's fuel needs on site; and it certainly seems to make more sense to me that this algae would go right in as biomass fuel rather than being turned into biodiesel.

Now in the big picture, using algae as fuel in power plants is really cool, and is probably equally beneficial as turning it into biodiesel.

However, biodiesel advocates shouldn't pin their hopes on power plant grown algae. At least if my math is right and I'm not missing something.

Some thoughts on the California Renewable Fuel Standard

2006-05-20T17:27:00.000-07:00

Biodiesel on my mind, lately!

Following in the footsteps of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) policy with regards to renewably generated electricity, comes what seems to be a groundswell of Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) for biodiesel.

These are mandated, low blends - B2 or B5. Minnesota, Washington, and Iowa have passed RFS bills that include biodiesel. SB1675 is pending in California

Eric Bowen has gone deep on this.

I haven't seen much discussion, however, on whether this is a good thing or not. I have my doubts. So do others, and I have reproduced some key comments to the bill at the end of the post.

I wrote, in a post to the Biodiesel Council of California email listserve:

---

On the face of it, the bill supports biodiesel but I for one am quite ambivalent about these low-blend mandates.

As a practical matter they favor the least sustainably produced, lowest quality, and most highly subsidized biodiesel. In other words, this bill will incentivize the expansion of the biodiesel production capacity that we least want. Most probably, the biodiesel that the refineries will buy for blending will be imported from the Midwest and made from GMO soy.

Because of this it also runs against the grain of the California biofuels roadmap.

It's great that biodiesel is getting attention in the legislature but I urge caution in support of this bill, in it's present form.

The solar industry has had to withhold support or even lobby against "pro-solar" bills in the past written by well-meaning but uninformed legislators (or watered down by other lobbyists seeking to undermine the legislation).

---

RPS's have worked well for the renewable energy industry in part because they have "set-asides" for a certain amount of energy produced a particular way. For instance, most RPS bills have a 20% set aside for PV. This recognizes that although PV is more expensive than other renewable sources (like wind and central station solar thermal electric), it also has certain external benefits - namely, coincidence with peak load and the benefits of distributed generation (less T&D, substation upgrades, etc.)

I think the biggest issue with the current RFS is that it does not recognize that all biodiesel is not in fact created equal. It should assign different values according to the sustainability and other external benefits of the feedstock. It should also include R&D funding for sustainable feedstock development in California, and incentives for biodiesel production based on sustainable & local feedstocks.

It is too easy to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, so I'm not coming out against this bill. However, I would love to see it modified to take these issues (and the ones following) into consideration.

Other publicly posted comments to the bill:

I am the fuel buyer for BioFuel Oasis in Berkeley, a biodiesel retailer in the San Francisco Bay Area. While I am in favor of the use of responsibly produced biodiesel, I am troubled by any bill that mandates the use of biodiesel at this time. My fear is that we do not have enough consistent, reliable sources of biodiesel to meet a mandate. Biodiesel was not available to us during the week after Katrina hit because of increased demand in other states. If suppliers cannot find locally produced biodiesel they will have to import more expensive fuel from across the country, or worse, fuel made from oil crops that have displaced rainforests in places like Malaysia and Brazil.

While I believe that biofuels have an important role in the energy supply of the future, that role comes with limitations. There is not enough arable land to grow nearly enough biofuel to replace the amount of petroleum that we currently use. We have to look at the broad picture so that our mandates do not create worse problems than they solve. I believe that more emphasis should be placed on finding ways to reduce the amount of energy we use. This will result in both cleaner air and a reduction in our dependence on petroleum.
--Gretchen Zimmerman (04-27-06)

I am a biodiesel 99% user and have been since sept 05. I have had no issues with the fuel or my vehicle, other then it is old. I look forward to buying a new diesel when they are going to be sold in CA again. I support this bill in general but would liked to have seen this bill as part of a package of incentives to all biodiesel parties needed to meet the mandate. I want biodiesel use in CA to be a economic boon to the state not a additional drain of money to imports, be it OPEC or biodiesel plants in TX or CO. This mandate would require a minimum of 60million gallons of biodiesel to meet 2% mandate. We only produced 5 million this year. We do not have farmers here growing seed crops, what we do have for feed stock is waste grease, but 90% of that is going to cattle and hog feed not fuel. We need incentives to the rendering industry to look to biodiesel first as a sale then buy the co-product of glyercin to use in thier feed products. We need research happening in Davis and Fresno as to what seed crops will grow the best in the various farming locations in the state. This movement in the state has to to start with the feedstock and production incentives. It takes 2 years to get production facilities built in CA with the regulatory process as it is, in MN is takes 6months, Iowa 8months, IN 8 mos, from planning to production.
Please lets do this smart and plan the growth and development of this new industry. Yes a mandate creates demand for fuel and venture to fund it, but we need a plan for all the parts of the industry to be built at the same time, in the correct order. Thank You
--Kari Lemons (04-17-06)

-----

Goin' To Tanzania!

2006-05-20T12:00:00.000-07:00

It's official! My finance, Christianna, and I are off to Tanzania in mid-July with Engineers Without Borders.

The San Francisco Professionals chapter has been working with the people of Ngelenge, Tanzania for a couple of years now through a local NGO called NGEDEA. The goal: to improve water supply quality and quantity, agricultural productivity, and public health in rural southwestern Tanzania.

The project includes the construction of a dispensary (health clinic & birthing center), rehabilitating some old wells and drilling a new well, a water filtration technology assessment, an agricultural pilot project involving an appropriate technology solution for micro-irrigation, and an extensive health survey to help us measure the impact of the project on the community.

This is a really great project. The nearest health clinic is 7 km away and there is no transportation; women must walk or be carried there to give birth. The dispensary will alleviate this situation and serve not only Ngelenge, but surrounding villages which are significantly closer to Ngelenge than to the current clinic. The improvement in the water supply has obvious implications for people's health; the agriculture project will improve the economy and standard of living of the people there. NGEDEA, the local NGO, is grassroots. NGEDEA consists of Ngelenge villagers who are working to improve their community, as well as several people from the village who live in Tanzania's main city, Dar Es Salaam. EWB-SFP is also grassroots and volunteer run, and was invited to the community by NGEDEA. Our mission is to serve and empower NGEDEA by providing engineering and public health expertise. Working closely with NGEDEA helps greatly in assuring the sustainability of the project by ensuring that it is aligned with community needs and by having local people with a real stake in the project's success, and the resources to make sure the improvements remain functional. To the maximum extent possible, we buy our equipment and supplies in Tanzania, and hire people from the village to help implement the projects.

Part of the dispensary project is outfitting it with a solar lighting system, with an eye towards possible expansion to power a vaccine fridge. I am leading this project. The PV system will be simple, about 120 Wp, with a sealed battery and DC fluorescent lighting. This will be a huge improvement over the kerosene lanterns that are usually used for lighting these dispensaries.

The dispensary won't be ready for the full system this year, so this trip will focus on laying all the necessary groundwork - sourcing equipment and parts, a detailed site survey, and training. We will be bringing a small demonstration system to train some folks on PV fundamentals and maintenance.

My fiance is on the health team and will be carrying out the baseline health survey, not an engineering function but a critical component of the project nonetheless.

We are taking some extra time to see the sights, because once the project starts we expect to be very busy. It's pretty expensive to get to Tanzania but fairly cheap once you're there, so we wanted to take advantage of that.

In the next couple of weeks we will kick off a fundraising drive for the project. We (EWB-SFP) has raised some money, but not enough to cover all of our goals. Also, the volunteers have all paid out-of-pocket for airfare which is a pretty big hit, and it would make a big difference to defray some of those costs as well.

Please help out if you can. It is a great cause and there is no administrative overhead -- all donations go directly to the project. Donations in any amount are helpful and assistance in reaching out to more potential donors is also much appreciated! EWB-SFP has a Paypal link. Please select the "Tanzania" project from the pull down menu...the other projects are also great, but not immediately in need of funds!

If you would prefer to help Christianna & I out with the airfare directly, that would be very much appreciated. EWB-SFP isn't set up to route that kind of donation through to the volunteers at present, so it would not be tax-deductible. Please send me an email if you'd like to help in this way.

Bioenergy - Gettin' Some?

2006-05-13T10:08:00.000-07:00

Bioenergy is receiving renewed attention in California with the release of the final California Bioenergy Action Plan.

Bioenergy, particularly when it comes to electrical generation, has gotten the short end of the stick. It just isn't sexy. PV is sexy (and full of sexy people, of course!) and so is wind. Guess where the money goes?

This action plan is a good start to rectifying that. Bioenergy is really important to our sustainable energy future because it can play a role that other renewables don't naturally lend themselves to - base load generation. Bioenergy plants are, for the most part, very similar to conventional combustion powerplants. They can run 24/7. You can bring them online or take them offline as needed. It's very valuable.

Bioenergy plants can also be small to take advantage of combined heat and power (CHP) and the benefits of distributed generation.

The Bioenergy Action Plan indicates that the technical potential of biomass, almost entirely from waste products, is 18% of total statewide energy consumption by 2017 - 60,000 GWh from 7100 MW of powerplant capacity. This is enormous. For perspective, the biggest PV powerplant in the world is 10 MW; a typical large coal or nuclear powerplant is about 1000 MW. In other words, waste biomass has the potential to avoid the construction of 7 nuclear powerplants in the next ten years - or more realistically for California, 24 natural gas fired plants.

The really great thing about this plan is that it strongly emphasizes sustainable feedstocks, primarily materials that are currently going to waste. Dedicated energy crops, in general, are less desirable - but not necessarily unsustainable, as some would argue.

The main complaint that I have about this report is that it does not mention, never mind support, sustainable feedstock development for biodiesel such as algae.

It does recommend support for development of Fischer-Tropsch diesel from waste biomass. This is all well and good, but I would argue that supporting sustainable biodiesel feedstocks is the quickest path to a sustainable, low emissions petrodiesel substitute, with the potential for major secondary benefits (also see this article).

One frequently heard argument against bioenergy is that it will literally steal food from the mouths of the poor by dedicating arable land to energy, instead of fuel. This assumes the use of dedicated energy crops on productive farmland.

First, it should be noted that a substantial amount of energy can be generated from waste products, as we've seen. This is also true of biofuels.

It also ignores the fact that dedicated energy crops can often be grown on land that is unsuitable for crop production, and even be part of remediation strategies that bring unproductive land back into agricultural use - such as where soils are contaminated with salt (a growing problem in California's central valley). Energy crops have even been proposed to remediate the effects of radioactive fallout.

Now it's clear that today, the majority of biodiesel and ethanol is produced from soybeans and corn respectively. This is not ideal, but it isn't stealing food from anyone. US overproduction of soy and corn due to subsidies results in "dumping" of agricultural products on the developing world at low prices, destroying local agriculture and promoting dependence on US food exports. Finding an increased domestic use for these crops actually works against this trend. In the long term, it's not sustainable to use corn and soy for fuel. However, it also will not be economical, so those who shoot down the possibility of biofuels solving our petroleum addiction based on the current feedstocks are tearing down a straw man.

Speaking of which, the other commonly leveled charge against biomass energy is that it may take more petroleum energy to grow and process it into fuel than the end product provides- most recently in the infamous Pimental / Patzek study in reference to ethanol and biodiesel. This has been widely refuted as bad science. NREL and UC Berkeley's EBAMM project are two respected peer-reviewed studies that have taken Pimental and Patzek out to the woodshed. Just for fun, check out where Patzek works, and who funds his research.

The biggest problem I see is the trend towards energy plantations (sugarcane and palm oil) in the developing world to feed the demand for biofuels in the developed world. This means tearing out rain forest and a continuation of the exploitative pattern so evident in the petroleum economy. This is all the more reason to accelerate R&D into sustainable domestic feedstocks, and make such activity uneconomical and irrelevant.

So. It looks like California is headed in the right direction as far as biofuels - and as goes California, often, so goes the nation. Hopefully state sustainable biodiesel advocates can get the CEC to pay more attention to sustainable feedstock R&D, and the perverse incentive created by the soybean lobby in the Federal biodiesel tax credit that provides double the tax credit for biodiesel made from "agricultural" (virgin soy) oil than from waste oil.

Why this blog?

2006-05-06T11:44:00.000-07:00

Anyone who's found this blog is probably interested in energy issues, and familiar with the various types of renewable energy. There are plenty of blogs out there that keep up on the latest innovations in renewable energy; as well as the energy issues that face society.

My focus here is to provide more in the way of discussion and analysis of these issues. I work in the solar industry and give energy issues a lot of thought. I expect to explore various facets of the nascent green energy system from both a critical, and encouraging perspective.

Hope you find it valuable.