Renewable Energy Predicted to Boom, Surpass Natural Gas

Within the next three years, renewable power could surpass natural gas as the second most prevalent source of electricity generation globally, behind only coal, according to a new forecast by the International Energy Agency.

Hydropower accounts for about four-fifths of renewable generation and will continue to dominate the world's renewable portfolio into the foreseeable future, according to the IEA's "Medium-Term Renewable Energy Market Report" for 2013. But the gains made by the sector as a whole come from other sources of clean energy, particularly onshore wind.

Speaking yesterday at the release of the five-year forecast, IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said despite a dip in growth during 2012, the renewable energy sector continued to make impressive gains.

"The rapid rate of growth of renewables, at least in the electricity sector, is very much in line with that needed to stay on the trajectory associated with IEA low-carbon energy scenarios," she said.

The challenge to international climate targets, however, has been a simultaneous surge in the growth of fossil fuels. The growth in supply from North American tight oil and gas producers coupled with demand growth in developing countries means that despite technological development and international efforts, the carbon intensity of the global energy supply has barely changed over the past 20 years, van der Hoeven said.

In this context, she said, "the rapid growth of renewables continues to beat expectations and is a bright spot in an otherwise bleak assessment of global progress towards a cleaner and more diversified energy mix."

More than markets at work:
 

While development of new renewable energy technologies continues to be driven by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, demand is accelerating fastest in emerging markets. On its own, China is expected to account for nearly 40 percent of all expected global growth in renewables, followed by Brazil, India and South Africa.

These developments are not simply a response to government-imposed renewable energy mandates. As developing countries lay plans to meet future demand for electricity, renewables offer pollution-free, diversified supply. And in certain countries, the markets themselves have rendered renewables cost-competitive.

In Brazil, Turkey and New Zealand, wind now competes with fossil fuel power plants. In Italy, Spain and Australia, the cost of decentralized solar photovoltaic electricity has dropped below retail electricity prices.

But the entrance of new renewables to the world's electricity mix brings with it its own host of challenges, the report notes. In a number of European markets, high levels of renewables have run up against a lack of flexibility in the power grid. Smarter grids will be needed before new renewable generation can be added, a prospect involving both time and serious financial investment.

And the economic doldrums afflicting Europe have set a few countries on reverse course. Spain, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria have all reversed renewable energy programs or subsidies, actions that "totally destroy investor confidence, potentially for a long time," van der Hoeven said.

Spain had originally promised investors two decades of renewable energy subsidies but is expected to rein in its subsidies by 10 or 20 percent due to the global recession and a lackluster market for European Union carbon credits.

While a dip in growth during 2012 showed that renewable markets are vulnerable to outside conditions, the market segment continued to grow by 8 percent, the IEA report notes.

Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com

Another small step for reflow batteries

Having already entered into a strategic alliance in the last year, the Canadian company American Vanadium and Germany's Gildemeister announced this week that the former will market the latter's CellCube vanadium redox flow battery in North America. Flow batteries, though not a new technology as such, have the especially attractive feature of being scalable, whether to store energy from a single photovoltaic panel or to provide backup for a grid-scale wind farm. Gildemeister's CellCube series, with sizes ranging from 10-30 KW of power capacity and 40-130 kWh of energy storage capacity, is intermediate scale. Some 50 CellCube units have been installed this year, according to Reuters, and so the company and its technology appear to be coming on strong.

American Vanadium, based in Vancouver, British Columbia, brags of owning a large untapped vanadium deposit in Nevada and has been developing a mining process—unusual with this particular metal—of leaching it out, with the fortuitous effect of ending up with a leaching fluid containing vanadium that is nearly identical to what's needed as electrolyte in the flow battery. It remains to be seen, however, whether Gildemeister's granting American Vanadium CellCube marketing rights actually represents a vote of confidence in Vanadium's mining approach. (So far, Gildemeister has been unresponsive to requests for an open-ended interview.)

American Vanadium and Gildemeister are by no means the only significant innovators pursuing flow battery technology. Others include Beijing-based Prudent Energy with its trademarked VRB-ESS vanadium redox flow battery, Japan's Sumitomo Electric Industries, and EnerVault, ZBB Energy and Premium Power in the United States. In that larger context, the American Vanadium-Gildemeister link-up is but a small step, but it may turn out to be an especially significant one, nonetheless.

ZNE Buildings

In the world of building codes and standards zero net energy (ZNE) design and construction principles don’t get much notice. In fact, it’s so early in the evolution of ZNE buildings that it could be considered a stretch to call ZNE a standard. But this may be rapidly changing if forward looking public sector officials in California and the Northeast have their way.

California has aggressively pursued energy efficiency for decades and its per capita electricity consumption is the lowest in the nation resulting in a savings to residents of more than $56 billion since the 1970s. Although California has long held the top spot in energy efficiency, just this last year - and for the first time - according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), their State Energy Efficiency scorecard ranks California in second place behind Massachusetts.

Pushing to advance their respective leadership positions, both state governors, as well as other officials, have embraced zero net energy as a bold and comprehensive strategy. For starters, ZNE supports and expands energy efficiency standards (and building codes). ZNE buildings interact with the electricity grid and are a driving force in making them smarter. They also increase the installation of renewable energy sources and the management of energy to, in and from the building to the grid – intelligent building systems. Tied to this will be the collection, aggregation and analysis of streams of data related to energy load, costs and availability. In the IT world this is know as “big data” and smart buildings will demand similar analytic software, management tools and information dashboards to make the data useful to a new generation of facility managers and building owners. 

The Massachusetts Approach

In 2008 Massachusetts Govenor Deval Patrick directed the creation of a Zero Net Energy Buildings Task Force and charged it with providing recommendations to point the way to universal adoption of ZNE buildings for new residential and commercial construction by 2030. He also asked for a new state standard for its government buildings and at least one state ZNE demonstration project.

Ian Bowles, then-secretary of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs reported back, “Over the past year, the Task Force, made up of more than 70 experts in various building and energy related industries, programs, and agencies, has deliberated over hundreds of ideas and proposals. The result is a visionary document that draws on the leading programs around the world, adapting the best ideas to the specific conditions in the Commonwealth.”

Recommendations from Getting to Zero, Final Report of the Massachusetts Zero Net Energy Buildings Task Force “attempt to do what no other state has yet done—establish a comprehensive set of policies, mandates, and programs that can dramatically improve building performance, reduce regulatory and financial barriers, unleash the market for technology and design innovation, and provide the necessary education and training to create a pathway that will lead to the universal adoption of zero net energy buildings and deep energy reduction retrofits throughout Massachusetts.”

Expanding on the work of this Task Force and focusing on public sector buildings the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships issued a “Roadmap to Zero Net Energy Public Buildings” as recommended steps for the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states.

The report recognized that ZNE buildings “remain, in large part, more of an aspiration than a reality” but goes on to state, “Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP) believes the road to a full-scale deployment of zero net energy buildings starts with the facilities our states and communities construct. This report was developed in collaboration with a group of regional building energy stakeholders and outlines key steps the public sector can take to facilitate the eventual broad adoption of zero net energy building practices throughout the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states.

California's Direction

In 2008 the California Public Utility Commission issued its ZNE goals as “Big, Bold Energy Efficiency Strategies” and called for zero net energy construction for all new residential construction by 2020 and for commercial buildings by 2030. 

More recently California Governor Brown’s Executive Order B-18-12 and accompanying Green Building Action Plan puts state government building construction and operations squarely on a new zero net energy (ZNE) standard.

California has had a Green Building Action Plan in place for state buildings since 2004.  This included LEED Silver for new construction over 50,000 sq feet, reducing grid based electricity use, and environmentally preferable purchasing. EO B-12-18 adds many new directives ranging from mandated demand response programs to building commissioning and pursuit of future electric vehicle charging stations and infrastructure.  Most notable among elements of this Executive Order is the ZNE building standard that is charting new territory for state agencies and departments.  ZNE buildings combine an aggressive pursuit of energy efficiency with renewable energy. They require new technology, innovative design and smart energy management systems.  Not to mention training for building professionals in their design, construction and operations. And financing.

What about finances? A number of the directives in the Green Building Action Plan have financial restraint clauses which makes sense in state government’s current challenging fiscal climate. On the other hand, government’s view of buildings as long-term capital investments make energy upgrades a logical strategy for saving money. As Amory Lovins notes, “Energy efficiency is cheaper than fuel”.  So, execution centers on getting upfront funding to catalyze the implementation of efficiency and renewable energy technologies with the payment coming through reduced energy and building operation costs.

While the Action Plan does not mandate any new construction it is designed to integrate in with the state’s ongoing construction and renovation efforts.

Most notably the Action Plan in section 2.1 states that “The State shall identify at least three buildings by January 1, 2013, to pursue Zero Net Energy as pilot projects. These shall include at least one new building to be designed and constructed, one major renovation, and one existing building.”

Statewide commercial and residential building construction and renovations will be guided by energy codes. These are now aligned with the goal of ZNE buildings and Governor Brown is intent on using the state’s building program to lead the adoption of zero net energy building practices in California.

As outlined in an earlier story, “California Launching Zero Net Energy Standard” a roadmap is already in place through the state’s energy and green building standards codes (Title 24 parts 6 & 11) to achieve the 2020 and 2030 ZNE construction targets laid out in the California Energy Commission’s recently issued draft 2011 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR). Current energy code is the 2010 edition of the California Energy Code and the 2013 Energy Code will be published in July. The 2013 Energy Code will reach 70% of the residential ZNE goal, the 2016 Energy Code 85% and the 2019 Energy Code will meet the goal of ZNE. The state will also link CALGreen and the Energy Code so that both are on the same path traveling at the same speed while providing access to successively higher levels of energy efficiency through the Tiers (voluntary reach codes) for local jurisdictions to adopt.

How does EO B-18-12 align and advance these objectives for state buildings? The order sets a target of zero net energy consumption for 50% of the square footage of existing state-owned buildings by 2025 and zero net energy consumption from all new or renovated state buildings beginning design after 2025.

Zero net energy consumption for all new state building construction after 2025 advances the ZNE timetable by five years over the 2030 requirement for general commercial construction in the state.

Independent of voluntary renovations by building owners (which are covered by Title 24), there are no existing or envisioned codes that will require ZNE for existing buildings.  So, this is clearly a major new initiative for the state to undertake.

A Standard in Search of a Definition

As for any standard, an important starting point is a definition. In 2006 the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) presented a paper, Zero EnergyBuildings: A Critical Look at the Definition that provided four definitions within which a building could be classified as ZNE:  1) zero net site energy, 2) zero net source energy, 3) zero net energy cost, and 4) zero net energy emissions.  

Too many options?  The NEEP Roadmap offers a practical approach that is insightful to practitioners and government officials alike:  “Previous discussions about “zero net energy buildings” have included spirited debate about what that phrase actually means. Points of discussion range from whether the appropriate measure is zero net site energy or zero net source energy, to the appropriateness of different forms of renewable energy, and whether renewable sources of energy must be building-integrated or at least on the property to “count.” Without dismissing the value of these discussions, NEEP adopts a simple definition – a zero net energy building produces as much energy as it consumes over the course of a year – and directs its focus to the simple premise that the path toward zero net energy begins with (1) significant reductions in as-designed building energy consumption, and (2) building operations that ensure as-designed performance. The near-term focus must be on creating conditions and incentives that promote these two goals. “At this stage in development the zero net energy standard is clearly a work in progress but there is little question that it signals a major shift in building design and construction practices. Based on Massachusetts and California state government commitments to a ZNE building standard there is every reason to continue to watch its evolution.

International Energy Agency Doubles Down on Climate Change

The OECD's International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, issued a report and companion materials today squarely addressing the question of what to do about the blunt fact that the world is not meeting its goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The agency's new director general, Maria van der Hoeven, framed the question in notably simple and straight-forward terms: "We recently passed a grim milestone with the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere topping 400 parts per million at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. This is uncharted territory in the history of humans. While it does not represent a tipping point per se, that milestone is symbolic of our failure to respond adequately, and to fulfill our own national and international pledges to limit average global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius over the long term.

"If we continue with business as usual," van der Hoeven continued, "that rise could be 5.3 degrees Celsius, with potentially disastrous implications in terms of extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and the huge economic and social costs that these can bring. In short, we are drifting off-track, and global negotiations are not expected to yield agreement before 2015, and to be enforced after 2020."

Taking a constructive tack, the IEA proposes four ways in which countries could substantially cut emissions between now and 2020. These, the organization reasons, would make it possible—at least in principle—to eventually limit global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius even in the absence of any immediate international accord. Each of the four ways was selected because the IEA predicts that it would generate significant near-term emissions cuts without dampening economic growth, rely exclusively on proven technologies, and bring significant benefits besides reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Of the four elements in what the IEA is dubbing its "four for two" strategy, the one that brings by far the greatest benefit (accounting for half of projected near-term emissions reductions) is improved energy efficiency. Improvements in heating and cooling, appliances, and lighting could each account for about 30 percent of efficiency gains, and electric motors another 25 percent or so; interestingly, the IEA expects only 15 percent to result from gains in automotive efficiency.

The IEA's focus on potential efficiency gains is consistent with findings by U.S. energy authorities going back a decade or more, and gibes with the general consensus among experts. So too is its finding that phasing out the most inefficient coal-fired plants could bring substantial reductions, more than one-fifth of total near-term reductions. Cuts in fossil subsidies among the major oil producers could bring more than one-tenth. A little more startling, perhaps, is the IEA's conclusion that eliminating methane leakage from upstream oil and gas distribution could yield a whopping 20 percent reduction in emissions.

The IEA does not dwell, in summary materials or even in the report itself, on possible obstacles to implementation of its proposals. The summary material makes no mention, for example, of what energy economists call the efficiency paradox—that as the efficiency of any given item is improved, people use more of it, vitiating any net gains. But the body of the report seems to implicitly take such issues into account, focusing on gains achievable with standards and regulation, rather than just spontaneous technology improvement and market forces.

The agency might be faulted for taking a somewhat overly optimistic view of recent emissions trends. Van der Hoeven noted, for example, that China's 2012 increase in greenhouse gas emissions "was one of the lowest it has seen in a decade as a result of efforts in renewables deployment and efficiency gains." That statement, taken alone, is somewhat misleading when put into context with the agency's own summary points. For instance, China's 2012 increase in carbon dioxide emissions (300 megatonnes) accounted for three quarters of the whole world's net 2012 increase. It is an encouraging sign that China is considering a cap on greenhouse gas emissions in its next five-year plan, as the Financial Times reported last week, but even so, China will have a long way to go.

Still, some of the recent trends are indeed encouraging. While continued emissions reductions in Europe were largely cancelled out by post-Fukushima increases in Japan (because fossil energy replaced nuclear), U.S. emissions were down sharply and are now at levels not seen since the pre-Kyoto years of the mid-1990s. The 2012 U.S. decrease, at 200 megatonnes, was equivalent to two-thirds of China's increase. The United States, as the IAE implies, is in fact no longer the laggard in greenhouse gas reduction that it was during the first decade following adoption of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The country is in a position now to take a leading role in the climate diplomacy that, the IAE fervently hopes, will chart out a long-term post-2020 global strategy.

The agreement on hydroflourocarbon reduction reached by President Obama and China's President Xi this weekend is an encouraging sign. But it seems too much to call it a "breakthrough," as one environmental organization did, or to speak of its boosting the odds of a "global climate deal," as the Financial Times did today.

Source:  http://spectrum.ieee.org