IEA Says $ 5 Trillion needed to Prevent Global Warming

International Energy Agency (IEA) was established in November 1974 in response to the global oil crisis created by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil embargo. Its primary mandate was to promote energy security amongst its member countries by organizing a collective response to future oil embargo's or other disruptions in the oil supply. Over the years the mission has evolved to include holding global warming at 2°C by providing policy recommendations for ways to ensure reliable, clean energy for its 28 member countries (which includes the United States). The IEA has become a tracker of carbon dioxide releases and investment in carbon control technologies. They released their annual progress report to member countries on implementing clean energy and carbon dioxide controls worldwide geared to preventing global temperatures from increasing more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels called the Energy Technology Perspectives 2012 2°C Scenario Report, EDP 2DC for short .

Though filled with cheerful statement about accomplishments in installing solar panels and the growth in wind turbines, the report tells us that the world is not really doing that well at instituting clean energy technologies. The EDP 2DC, states that it is still feasible to prevent the earth’s temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius if “timely and significant government policy action is taken, and a range of clean energy technologies are developed and deployed globally,” but we’re pretty much out of time. The government action required is spending more money, much more money. The money is to be spent for the development and implementation of clean technologies to reduce Energy related CO2 emissions by over 5 billion metric tons before 2020 and continue to fall thereafter to less than half of the current level while world population continues to grow. The IEA estimates that the  additional investment cost of achieving these carbon reductions would cost $5 trillion by 2020, but the countries would save $4 trillion (in future dollars) in fuel not burned from the scenario where the world just marches forward on its current path and doubles it’s fossil fuel use by 2050.

Worldwide CO2 emissions are up 6% from 2009, to over 30 billion metric tons, in 2010. Thirty billion metric tons of CO2 is an increase of 40% above the 1990 levels and it seems impossible that any group of policy recommendations will stop the increase in energy use in the emerging markets from continuing. The IEA estimates that the since 2000, China has more than tripled its installed capacity of coal power plants, while India’s capacity has increased by 50%. Unfortunately, they have not used to most efficient designs and technologies available in those plants. In addition, while the IEA strategy includes doubling the nuclear power capacity by 2025, almost 440 nuclear reactors in operation across the world remained virtually constant over the past decade, with 32 reactors shut down and the same number added to the grid. Overall, nuclear capacity increased by 6%, due to installation of larger reactors and power upgrades in existing reactors.  However, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and Japan have developed plans to phase out their nuclear reactors in the next decade in response to the damage to the nuclear reactors that occurred in the Japanese tsunami. Finally, while wind and solar power have enjoyed significant growth in the past few years, the world economic climate has forced many nations (notably Germany and Spain) to reduce or eliminate solar incentives and IEA doubts that the growth rate in this area can be sustained. 

The worldwide level of CO2 is higher than the worst-case scenario outlined by climate experts just five years ago, but fortunately temperatures have not (yet) risen as projected by the climate models.  The relationship of climate change to worldwide CO2 levels may not be the one assumed in the climate models, nonetheless, the IEA report assumes the projections of the climate models are the absolute trajectory of global temperatures.  Recently,  the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced total gross US emissions of CO2 equivalents in 2010 was to 6,822 million metric tons of carbon dioxide gross,and 5,746 million metric tons of CO2 net of the carbon sink of our forests. The peak of CO2 emissions in the US was 2007 and though emissions have increased since 2009, they are still below 2007 levels. This is true for most of the older first world nations whose carbon emission have already peaked or have slowed their growth significantly. Now the developed world is struggling with huge budget deficits, how to implement austerity measures and how to fund the entitlements programs, pensions, health care and other government promises. The emerging nations are sprinting to build power infrastructure in their nations where significant portions of their citizens do not have reliably available electric power or yet have cars. This does not seem to be a scenario where the recommended policies and strategies are likely to be implemented.

The IEA report talks about how technologies from electric vehicles, solar panels, nuclear generators, to wind farms and technologies to sequester carbon can make a decisive difference in limiting global temperature rise to 2°C above pre-industrial levels. EDS 2DC provides policies for nations on how to spend their way to a cleaner energy future. The IEA believes that the technologies with the greatest potential for energy and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions savings are making the slowest progress: “carbon capture and storage (CCS) is not seeing the necessary rates of investment into full-scale demonstration projects and nearly one-half of new coal-fired power plants are still being built with inefficient technology; vehicle fuel-efficiency improvement is slow; and significant untapped energy-efficiency potential remains in the building and industry sectors.”

The development of carbon sequestion technology is a one of the big leaps of faith, but the implementation of energy saving strategies like insulation, efficient lighting and higher efficiency heating and air conditioning systems, on commercial and residential buildings are seemingly easy improvements because they show a short term and immediate return on investment and are simple to do. Commercial and residential buildings account for 32% of energy use and improved insulation and changes in temperature settings, lighting efficiency and other small choices could reduce world energy use 8-10% yet nations have failed to adopt regulations and implementation strategies to promote this. We have failed to accomplish even the most straight forward of the policy goals while spending huge amounts of money on renewable energy incentives. The IEA continues to pursue a mirage of a future where renewable energy and carbon sequestion will save us. Instead, IEA needs to spend their brain power and resources in developing strategies for living in the world we are going to find ourselves in. 

Promising a Wind Turbine to Get their Building Approved in Fairfax

Pohanka Stonecroft, LLC, wants to build a new car dealership and repair shop in Fairfax which requires rezoning an industrial property to commercial. The Fairfax county staff reviewed the original request and recommended denial. If you want to look it up the case is RZ 2011-SU-024 / SE 2011-SU-009. The request was initially denied because the Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for green building practices for new uses were interpreted to require USGBC LEED certification and did not lend itself to car dealerships which due to the heating and cooling requirements per person of a car showroom do not fit easily into the LEED guidelines. The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) currently offers a set of voluntary green building standards known as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) by far the most popular and well-known green building certification program in the nation. LEED operates as a point-based certification system, where building developers can reach the Certified, Silver, Gold and Platinum levels of ‘greenness’ in different ways hopefully appropriate to the local conditions. While the LEEDS point-based system allows flexibility for building developers, it has limitations for unusual uses. Also, LEED certification requires an investment of money to pay for third party verification and periodic verifications.

Ultimately, Fairfax County decided that actual certification through the USGBC LEED program was not a requirement for County staff approval. Instead, the county staff agreed on what they term a “realistic and equitable commitment to green building practices from the applicant and ensuring that the resulting development contained substantial energy saving technologies.” The revised plan that was approved contained guarantees for specific energy-efficient technologies, materials, and construction practices that the applicant intends to use in building a car dealership that will hopefully be the most energy efficient care dealership in Fairfax. Most notable among these was the commitment by Pohanka to install an electricity-generating wind turbine on site to meet the energy savings requirements of Fairfax County by generating renewable energy. The news of a wind turbine in Fairfax made the Washington Post and peaked my interst.

Wind energy accounted for 2.3% of energy produced in the United States in 2010 more than doubling in capacity since 2008. New technologies have decreased the cost of producing electricity from wind, and growth in wind power has been encouraged by tax breaks for renewable energy and payments in some states for renewable energy credits, the size of a wind turbine will determine the amount of power generated and the amount of wind necessary to turn the turbine. Large industrial turbines require huge prevailing winds to spin the blades. The higher the wind speed the greater amount of power that can be generated. However there is also a growing market for small wind turbines for residential and small commercial use. These units generate between 38 kWh/month at 12 mph to over 500 kWh/month at 12 mph. My research found that for these turbines to generate power the wind speed should be at least 7mph for them to generate their minimum amount of power.

The U.S. Department of Energy's Wind Program and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) published a wind resource map for the state of Virginia. According to data collected for the Department of Energy by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, there are areas in Virginia that have prevailing wind speeds consistent with community-scale production, the Sully district of Fairfax is not one of these windy locations. Several areas of the state are estimated to have good-to-excellent wind resource. These include the Atlantic coast along the Delmarva Peninsula and the Virginia Beach area, the ridge crests in the north-central part of the state, and ridge crests near the borders of West Virginia and North Carolina. For forty years the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, has monitored the monthly and average annual prevailing wind speed at Dulles Airport. The average annual wind speed at Dulles has been 7.4 miles per hour which is equal to 3.3 meters/second in wind speed.

According to the submissions made to Fairfax County, the Pohanka proposal included installation of a Renewegy, LLC VP-20 turbine to generate 1% of the site’s electricity. According to the Renewegy product literature, these products can be very effective at 6.0 meter per second and with state incentives at 20% and federal savings at 30%, depreciation, renewable energy sales at $20/REC, and electricity savings the payback would be in under 8 years. However, with average annual wind speed at 3.3 meters per second the Renewegy VP-20 will generate less than 5,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per year. The annual energy savings for the unit would be only $500-$600 per year. In Virginia there is no mandated Renewable Portfolio Standard, RPS, so while RECs are purchased and sold the going rate is $15. Virginia does not currently have any money in state incentives so only the 30% federal tax credit would be available to subsidize this purchase. My quick estimate is the payback period for the wind turbine in Virginia would be in excess of 20 years. Pohanka should consider smaller turbines that can run optimally at the prevailing wind speed or solar panels.

Windmills

Windmills are a familiar image associated with farms and Holland and are a special class of a wind turbine. The blades or propellers on a wind turbine are built to capture the wind and move, generating electricity. The constant wind blows the angled blades of the familiar windmill pushing them in a circle. If the mechanical energy thus captured is used directly to pump water, or grind grain, the machine is called a windmill. If the mechanical energy is instead converted to electricity the machine is called a wind turbine. The basic concept of a wind turbine is the wind turns the blades, which spin a shaft, which connects to a generator and makes electricity. This is the opposite of a fan, where the electricity is used to create a breeze. There are two main types of wind turbines, horizontal-axis and vertical axis. Horizontal-axis wind turbines (HAWT) have the rotor shaft and electrical generator on top of the tower, and must be pointed into the wind. The horizontal axis is the most familiar type of wind turbine. Turbines used in wind farms for commercial production of electric power are usually three-bladed and pointed into the wind by computer-controlled motors. Vertical axis wind turbines have the rotor shaft arranged vertically and the wind blades lined up horizontally. This type of turbine does not need to be pointed into the wind to be effective and may be suited to smaller installations. Vertical-axis turbines may be able to solve the main generation problems for home users including aesthetic concerns, space requirements and sound levels. This website lists all the micro wind turbines currently available, though I warn you the list is mind boggling. http://www.allsmallwindturbines.com/

The wind turbine is an attractive idea for renewable power generation and might fit into my goal of reducing my purchased power by an additional 50%. However, before you jump to buy one, you need to determine if your site is suited for a micro turbine. Ed Begley Jr. who is involved in marketing a new wind turbine design was dismayed to find his own home was not suitable for a turbine. In order for a wind turbine to work, the wind must blow at a sustained and consistent level. The economics of a wind system are very sensitive to the average wind speed in the area. As a general rule of thumb even for a micro turbine 8-10 mph average wind speed is necessary to produce any meaningful amount of electricity. The US Department of energy has a map so that you can get a general idea of the wind, but wind is a totally local phenomenon. Winds are created by uneven heating of the atmosphere by the sun, irregularities of the Earth's surface, and the rotation of the Earth. As a result, winds are strongly influenced and modified by local terrain, bodies of water, weather patterns, vegetative cover, and other factors. Though I live in an area rated as having poor wind potential by the DOE, I think I may have a prevailing breeze (wind?) to the river. The only true way to know if your site is a candidate for a wind turbine is to actually monitor the wind for an extended period of time.

Installing monitoring equipment can be an expensive exercise, but actual measurement of the wind speed could determine if any of the micro turbine designs coming onto the market might be suited for my site. Before choosing which type of turbine is best for a particular site, some sort of wind speed measurement should be taken for a few consecutive months (or ideally, a full year). With long term wind measurements an accurate average wind speed can be calculated, as well as determining likely maximum wind speeds. Armed with this information, a turbine can be chosen that will maximize performance at the average wind speed, as well as one that will withstand the likely maximum wind forces to avoid catastrophic failures.

In addition to adequate wind (or too strong wind), there are other issues involved with wind turbines appearance; danger to birds and sound. Wind energy is seen as a ‘green energy solution’ that is renewable and generally good for the environment. These turbines, however, also emit infrasounds. According to Rosemary Stephen PMed, EOH, IPM, Elements: Environmental Health Intelligence, “In general, humans can perceive audio frequency ranges between 16 to 20 Hz (cycles per second) at the lower limit of hearing ... Infrasounds are in the lower range, at or below, the 20Hz frequency range…A small percentage of the population have a very acute sense of hearing A 1998 study done in the Netherlands “indicated that 15% of the population is possibly involved (affected), 3% definitely” experiencing “sensations that may be attributed to low frequency or even infrasound.” For the segment of the population who can perceive infrasound, the frequency resembles a loud, continuous, highly irritating noise.” This small portion of the environment is impacted by proximity to wind turbines. As for appearance we all have to deal with neighbors and family and because wind turbines generally need to clear the tree line, they are not subtle. My solar panels can not be seen by my neighbors under normal circumstances, but a wind turbine could be viewed by anyone on the road.