Future Energy

Green Oil?

Source: Fast Company

Newsweek recently ranked 500 U.S. companies on their environmental credentials (see The Greenest Big Companies in America, September 28th).  Only one oil and gas company, Marathon Oil, is included in the top 100 companies and it was number 100. 

After Marathon, you would have to travel down the list to the 154^th spot to find the next oil and gas company, Baker Hughes, an oil and gas service company.  Notably, the coal fired utilities grabbed 13 of the bottom 20 spots in the ranking - NRG Energy ranked 499^th.  Clean coal anyone?

Newsweek relied on three partners to construct the ranking, including:

• Trucost - calculated environmental impact scores;
• KLD Research & Analytics - calculated green policy scores;
• Corporate Register.com - conducted a reputational survey.

The overall scores combined all three of these components and from the limited information on the methodology each partner followed, the scoring looks to be fair.

Back in February 2008, Fast Company magazine went through a similar exercise and ranked the sustainability of the world's 10 largest oil and gas companies (see Fast Company Looks At Oil, February 4, 2008).  In a subsequent post I put together a table comparing Fast Company's rankings with those from the Dow Jones Sustainability Index and the Global 100 Most Sustainable Companies.  I've updated here to include the Newsweek rankings.  Not a lot of overlap.

Companies	Newsweek	Global 100	DJSI	Fast Company
BG Group		√	√
BP			√	1
Royal Dutch Shell		√	√	2
Chevron	√ (371)			3
Marathon Oil	√ (100)			4
ConocoPhillips	√ (238)			5
Total			√	6
ExxonMobil	√ (395)			7
Encana			√
Eni S.p.A.				9
Neste Oil OYJ		√	√
Nexen		√	√
Petroleo Brasileiro			√
Repsol			√	8
Saipem		√
Sasol			√
StatoilHydro		√	√
Suncor			√
TransCanada		√
Valero Energy	√ (332)			10
Woodside Petroleum			√

 

Climate Change Affects Beer? Now its getting serious!

Source: Irritated Tulsan blog

The New Scientist reported last week that a Czech climatologist has concluded that higher temperatures are reducing the quality of the Saalz hops found in the region's classic lager beers (see Climate Change Depresses Beer Drinkers, September 13, 2009).  And this effect is being felt in the traditional hop growing regions of Germany and Slovakia as well. 

Warmer air temperatures are blamed for reducing concentrations of alpha acids in the hops - the element that provides the slightly sharp/bitter taste of good lager - since 1954.

And to add insult to injury, in a somewhat dated article, the Australian Broadcast Corporation, reported that the price of beer is likely to rise as some sources of malt barley are lost to changing temperatures and water shortages (see Scientist: Climate Change to Impact Beer Production, April 8, 2008 and Climate Change Will Impact Beer Production: Scientist, CTV.ca, April 8, 2008).

Achieving Nirvana .. oops, Sustainability ... or Something Like That

Source: Fast Company

Looking around these days, its hard to be optimistic for the future ..... global climate change, ocean acidification, declining freshwater resources, deteriorating world fisheries, growing concentrations of environmental pollutants, peaking oil, concerns for agricultural productivity .... and the list goes on.  In a world with 6 billion people growing inexorably to 10, a little stress is to be expected, but are we doing enough to manage them?

Yvon Chouinard doesn't appear to think so.  In a recent interview with Fast Comapny magazine (see Patagonia's Founder on Why There's "No Such Thing as Sustainability", July 2009) Chouinard had this to say:

“If you keep your eyes open as you travel around, you realize we are destroying this planet. I'm very pessimistic about it."

"Patagonia now exists to put into practice all the things that smart people are saying we have to do not only to save the planet but to save the economy."

"In the broadest sense, working on causes rather than symptoms. If you get down to the real causes, a lot of our society's biggest problems are happening because we're destroying the planet. As we cut down the forests in the Congo, diseases start jumping over to humans. The Pentagon says new wars are going to be resource wars. We're a long way from having a sustain-able society. That's why One Percent for the Planet gives strictly to environmental causes. You can give money all day long to symptomatic things and you're not going to solve the problems."

  "There's no such thing as sustainability. It's just kind of a path you get on and try .... each day try to make it better.”

Mr. Chouinard talks about working on the causes not just the symptoms.  And while sustainability is generally considered to be a balanced focus on environment and social concerns and the economy, I interpret his concern for focusing on the "real causes" to mean a focus on the environmental aspects.

A recent article in the Harvard Business Review seems to agree with this approach, looking at how a company can become environmentally sustainable - and coming closer to Chouinard's "real causes" (see Why Sustainability Is Now the Key Driver of Innovation, September 2009) (Note: the link is courtesy of the NYTimes Green Inc. blog).

Ram Nidumolu, C.K. Prahalad and M.R. Rangaswami look at the benefits of environmental sustainability (e.g. cost reduction, increased revenues, new markets, etc.) and outline a five-stage pathway for companies to follow.  They conclude that sustainability is now the key driver of innovation among corporations today.  Briefly, their 5 steps include:

• Viewing compliance as an opportunity;

• Making value chains sustainable;

• Designing sustainable products and services;

• Developing new business models; and

• Creating next-practice platforms.

The article is good but if you are trying to figure out where to get started, it does tend to look at the issues from 60,000 feet. 

Losing a bit of altitude (but not much), the CERES Principles provide a "code of conduct" of sorts.  The Principles, originally released as the Valdez Principles, are the product of CERES (the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies) a coalition of companies, investors and public groups.  A key focus of the Principles is on the importance of regular reporting on corproate environmental management programs and results. 

If you really want to get your hands dirty (and actually make some changes), you will need to start digging into the specifics of the company and its circumstances.  The earliest practitioner I'm aware of is John Elkington and the UK consultancy he created, SustainAbility.  The Economist recently profiled Elkington/SustainAbility and their coining of the phrase "Triple Bottom Line" as part of a series on management gurus (see Triple Bottom Line, August 27th).  The "Triple Bottom Line" refers to a focus on people and the planet in addition to the usual focus on profits. 

While SustainAbility was the first, sustainability advice is a growth industry now.  Hopefully some of the practitioners and companies can begin to acheive some of the kind of progress that Messrs. Nidumolu, Prahalad and Rangaswami advocate (and that Chouinard seems to be making).

P.S. Today the NYTimes Green Inc. blog has an interview with C.K. Prahalad that focuses on the innovation portion of the authors' message (see Innovation at the Bottom of the Pyramid).  Its definitely worth a read.

 

An Algae Fuel Future? Not for a While yet.

Source: Sustainable Design Update

In October 2007, I looked at algae based biodiesel and several start-up companies that were attempting to establish commercially viable algae to biodiesel technologies (see A View to the Future: Algae-Based Biodiesel?).  At the time, algae based fuels looked to be on the bleeding edge of biodiesel development.  Two years later, has there been any progress towards something like a commercially viable product?  Based on recent commentary its tough to know. 

Last week the Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital blog highlighted an announcement by Solazyme Inc. of a contract with the US Defense Department to supply 20,000 gallons of algae based biodiesel (see Green Force: US Military's Interest in Algae Fuel Grows, September 8).  Solazyme is a privately held company that as far back as June 2008 claimed that it had  developed an algae fuel that met the specifications of the American Society for Testing and Materials for diesel fuel.  The contract is only for US$8.5 million but several articles I've read commenting on this announcement hint that with DARPA support, a viable fuel source is just a matter of time.

Robert Rapier, writing recently in his R-Squared Energy Blog, has a less optimistic viewpoint.  Writing in a post he entitles "Biofuel Pretenders", he has this to say ...

 "Like many, I was initially enchanted by the possibility of weaning the world away from fossil fuels by using fuel made from algae.  Proponents wrote articles suggesting that we could do just that, provided the necessary investments are made.

Sadly, the story is much more complex than that. The U.S. DOE funded a study for many years into the potential of algae to produce fuel. (For an overview of where things stand from John Benemann, one of the men who co-authored the close-out report of that study (see Algal Biodiesel: Fact or Fiction?) The problem is again one of needing to surmount multiple technical hurdles, and the close-out report states that reality.

While it is a fact that you can produce fuel from algae, the challenges are such that John has written that you can't even buy algal biofuel for $100/gallon.  He said that if you want to separate the reality from the hype, just try to secure a contract with someone to supply you with algal fuel."

(The DARPA/Solazyme contract looks to be valuing algae based biodiesel at $425 a gallon - well north of the $100 level cited by Mr. Rapier)

Noteably, Mr. Rapier, who appears to know more about the difficulties and economics of producing biofuels than I ever expect to, ranks algae based biofuels with the "biofuel pretenders", i.e. those technologies unlikely to provide economic fuel sources anytime soon.

Despite R-Squared's scepticism, there remains lots of interest in algae biofuels.  PG&E's Next100 blog indicated last week that at least 57 firms are competing to develop algae fuels and they are joined by Exxon, BP and Chevron as well as the USDE and Bill Gate's Cascade Investments (see Algae: The Original Solar Cell, September 8).  (It looks like Next 100 gets the number 57 from a GreenPoint Media article entitled How to Rate an Algae Company, August 19).

And last but not least, Greg Breining, writing in Yale's Environment 360 blog, highlights a research project which looks at algae used to produce biofuel and at the same time cleaning sewage wastewater - two products in one process (see From the Sewage Plant, the Promise of Biofuel, July 1)  Maybe that's one way to side-step the difficult economics of algae.

I started my career as an aquatic biologist and I would dearly like to see an algal future at the gas pump.  However, with natural gas at US$3.20/MMBtu today (Henry Hub Spot - Bloomberg.com) and fields like B.C's Horn River likely to remain undeveloped for a while (see In a Glut, Encana's Big Find Untapped, Globe and Mail, September 12) I have a hard time seeing how algae fuels (and most other biofuels) can hope to reach commercial viability in the foreseeable future.  I have to agree with Mr. Rapier on this one.

A Smart Grid for a Green Future

Source: Treehugger.com

The Economist has provided a good description of the Smart Grid and why it is so important to a sustainable energy future in its current issue (see Building the Smart Grid, June 4th).

AROUND the world billions of dollars are being invested in clean-energy technologies of one sort or another, from solar arrays and wind turbines to electric cars. But there is a problem lurking in the power grid that links them together. Green sources of power tend to be distributed and intermittent, which makes them difficult to integrate into the existing grid. And when it comes to electric cars, a study by America’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) found that there is already enough generating capacity to replace as much as 73% of America’s conventional fleet with electric vehicles—but only if the charging of those vehicles is carefully managed. In order to accommodate the flow of energy between new sources of supply and new forms of demand, the world’s electrical grids are going to have to become a lot smarter.

Even though the demands being placed on national electricity grids are changing rapidly, the grids themselves have changed very little since they were first developed more than a century ago. The first grids were built as one-way streets, consisting of power stations at one end supplying power when needed to customers at the other end. That approach worked well for many years, and helped drive the growth of industrial nations by making electricity ubiquitous, but it is now showing its age.

The U.S. administration certainly appears to listening to the need to move towards a smarter grid.  In the Christian Science Monitor's bright green blog, Mark Clayton profiles Jon Wellinghoff, Chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (see Jon Wellinghoff, Obama's energy futurist, June 8th).

In Wellinghoff’s vision of the future, where the cost of carbon dioxide emissions is added to the price of coal-fired power plants and natural-gas turbines, it may be less expensive for consumers to set their appliances to avoid buying power at peak times. Or they may choose to buy power from a collection of microturbines, fuel cell, wind, solar, biomass, and ocean power systems.

“We’re going to see more distributed generation – and we’re already starting to see that happen,” Wellinghoff says. “Not only renewable generation like photovoltaic [panels] that people put on their homes and businesses, but also fossil-fuel systems like combined heat and power,” called cogeneration units.

To coordinate and harmonize this fluctuating phalanx of power sources, customers will need to know and be able to respond to the price of power, Wellinghoff says. They will also need a new generation of appliances that switch off automatically to balance power supply and demand peaks.

And so do the U.S. utilities.  In Green News, CNET's environment blog, Martin LaMonica covers announcements by Duke Energy and ComEd of their chosen Smart Grid suppliers (see Cisco, Silver Spring Networks land smart-grid deals, June 9th).

Duke said that it has chosen Cisco to supply an array of equipment for a planned smart grid program estimated at $1 billion over the next few years. Cisco, which unveiled its smart-grid initiative last month, is expected to supply in-home energy monitors as well as networking hardware for Duke's substations, the utility said.

North Carolina-based Duke aims to provide a digital upgrade to its 11 million customers in the five states it operates.

"Replacing our analog electric grid with advanced digital technology to create a 21st century electricity delivery system largely involves data, networks, and communications--all of it Cisco's expertise," Todd Arnold, senior vice president for smart grid and customer systems at Duke Energy, said in a statement..........

Chicago-based ComEd on Tuesday announced its recommended providers, including General Electric for smart meters and Silver Spring Networks, which provides wireless communications and software.

If approved, the smart grid program would bring real-time information on electricity usage and rates to consumers by installing 141,000 two-way meters in 11 Chicago suburbs.........

Seven-year-old Silver Spring Networks has emerged as one of the most successful providers, having secured deals with a handful of utilities, including Florida Power & Light.

Cisco, meanwhile, is making a concerted push around energy efficiency and grid modernization, developing a full line of communications products for utilities, consumers, and building managers.

So the question I have now is where are the Canadian utilities and technology suppliers?

Giving Energy Efficieny the Respect it Deserves

Source: McKinsey & Co.

"Energy efficiency is almost a no brainer in policy terms." 

(Jack Mintz, writing in the Globe and Mail May 27th.)

Jack may get the quote, but McKinsey and Co. have to get the credit for demonstrating why this is so.  McKinsey released its first cost curve in 2007, demonstrating why energy efficiency was both the most important option for curbing the growth of global emissions and the most cost effective.  The curve was based on research the firm had conducted in concert with many of its clients.

Since 2007, McKinsey has continued to refine and extend this work, culminating in the revised cost curve released earlier this year.  Along the way they have managed to construct a whole portfolio of sector and country specific curves and spawned a consulting tool that is widely used as a starting point for those who would advise individual companies on how to approach the as yet undefined beast that is climate change.

Essentially, McKinsey points out that when considered in concert with all of the available options for reducing greenhouse gases, energy efficiency for residential and comercial buildings, road transport and industrial processes is the most cost effective option available, often providing a positive payback.  And the emissions reduction benefits of improved energy productivity aren't small.  Out of 38 Giga tonnes of CO₂ equivalent (GtCO_2e) emission reductions estimated to be available with existing or likely to be realized technologies, 14 GtCO_2e would come as a result of energy efficiency investments.

Or put another way ....

"If all energy efficiency opportunities identified in our research were captured, annual growth in global electricity demand between 2005 and 2030 would be reduced from 2.7 percent per year in the BAU case to about 1.5 percent."

   Source: McKinsey, 2009

My goal here isn't to sing McKinsey's praises.  They're far more able to do so then I'll ever be.  No, I want to properly introduce a series of posts, articles and materials that I am increasingly coming across and will intermittantly link to here, all highlighting specific energy efficiency investments and achievements.

I'll start with a post on PG&E's Next 100 blog.  Writing June 2nd, Jonathan Marshall talks about PG&E's deployment of Smart Meters:

"One big improvement, in addition to giving customers timely and detailed information on their energy use, will be expanded availability of voluntary pricing programs that can save them money and help the environment. Such pricing programs reward customers for cutting back on energy use a few hours each year during periods of "critical peak" demand, typically on scalding days when air conditioners are running flat out."

Allowing consumers to understand and manage their energy demand is certainly a first step towards improved residential energy efficiency.

More to come.

Is Carbon a Real Commodity Now?

Source: Peter Nicholson, The Australian

Back in the day, I can remember arranging a trade in carbon emission reductions generated by company I was working for at the time, a Canadian natural gas utility, and thinking we were definitely riding the bleeding edge.  The trade was for 5,000 tonnes of CO₂ per year at $5.00 per tonne and it took a whole consortium of Japanese companies to purchase the "credits".

That was then and this is now.

Last week, the World Bank issued its annual State and Trends of the Carbon Market Report.  Looking back at 2008, the World Bank found that the market (or I should say markets because there a range of different markets in various levels of disconnect) had doubled in value over the previous year reaching a total of $,811 million metric tonnes of CO_2e worth an estimated US$126 billion.

While Kyoto based markets, including CDM and JI declined in value and activity over 2007, secondary trading in Certified Emission Reductions from CDM and JI projects increased by 382%.  Trailing behind, trading in EU Emissions Trading Scheme Allowances grew by only 87% and Voluntary Emissions Reduction markets increased by only 51%.

The World Bank has issued this report since at least 2005 ( or at least that is when I first became aware of it).  Looking at 2004, the 2005 report estimated the size of the carbon markets at 163 million tonnes CO_2e.  In four short years, the market has grown almost 30 times, mostly as a result of the initiative shown by Europe in developing their Emissions Trading Scheme.

Imagine the growth if the U.S., Canada and Australia are able to overcome their foot-dragging and begin to act on the growing concern for climate change?

Figuring Out Smart Grid

Google's PowerMeter

Source: Google.org

I've been spending some time lately reading about the "smart grid" and trying to understand what it means.  The short answer seems to be that the smart grid is whatever you want it to be, with companies ranging from General Electric to Google each staking their claim to some part of this marriage of electricity transmission and IT.  I intend to write a couple of posts about it and the companies involved.  In the meantime, you might be interested in Google's recent announcement of home energy software for the delivery end of the grid.

"Google PowerMeter receives information from utility smart meters and energy management devices and provides customers with access to their home electricity consumption right on their personal iGoogle homepage. We are currently testing Google PowerMeter with a number of utilities and plan to expand our rollout later this year."

For more information, the NYTimes Green Inc. blog tells the story better than I can.

Eco-Driving Revisited

Source: Dot Earth Blog (NYTimes)

I suggested yesterday that the Obama Administration's announcement of new emissions limits and a single national fuel efficiency standard for U.S. vehicles bbeginning in 2016 was arguably the most significant environmental step taken by a U.S. government in almost 30 years.  By comparing the proposed standard with European vehicle fuel efficiency standards, Andrew Revkin presents it in a different and negative light.  As illustrated in the graph above, in 2016 the U.S. will only be matching current European fleet efficiency levels.  Not so much of an achievement after all.    

Continuing on my re-visit of yesterday's post, I combined the various eco-driving tips lists to come up with what seems to be the most popular (and practical) suggestions.  My (not very original) top five list includes:

• avoid jack-rabbit starts and braking;

• avoid idling, switching off your engine for short (and long) stops;

• maintain recommended tire pressure;

• slow down and keep your highway speed to 55 mph (90 kph);

• maintain your vehicle and its engine.

I would have to say that Ford's 10 Eco-Driving Tips for Everyone is the best of the three lists I provided yesterday.

 

 

Obama brings on eco-driving?

Source: Sustainable Energy Europe

Today, the U.S. took perhaps the most significant environmental step by a federal government since George Bush the elder ushered in the Acid Rain program for U.S. utilities with amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990.  President Obama's Administration announced that it will put in place regulations that will require vehicles sold in the U.S. to meet stringent greenhouse gas emissions limits and a new federal standard for fuel efficeincy by 2016. 

For passenger vehicles, the standard will require average fuel efficiency of at least 35.5 miles per gallon (or 6.62 litres per 100 kilometres) but is expected to increase average auto costs by US$600 per vehicle over what already existing standards would require. 

By putting in place a single national standard for fuel efficiency, the President has met the demands of the auto makers.  By setting the standard at a level sought by California, he has brought that state and thirteen others that had wanted to implement California's proposed standard, on board.  He has provided certainty of direction for auto makers who surely knew that more efficient vehicles would be required and he has dragged the issue out of the courts and into the realm of political negotiation where it properly belongs.

Not bad for a day's work.

Looking at the news stories reporting on this morning I was reminded of the Eco-Driving movement that has emerged in recent years.  Is the U.S. on the path to becoming a nation of eco-drivers? 

If so there is a host of information on how drivers can significantly improve their fuel efficiency every day.

First of all, apparently May is eco-driving month, at least according to ecoDrivingUSA and the Auto Alliance, an industry group of 11 auto manufacturers.  ecoDrivingUSA provides Quick Tips and a detailed brochure on its Education page.

Ford tested drivers who had taken eco-driving training and found that on average they could improve their fuel economy by 24% simply by changing the way that they drove.  Ford provides 10 eco-driving tips that anyone can follow.

And finally (among the sites I am aware of - I am sure there are many others), Ecodriving, a European organization, offers workshops and simulations to teach eco-driving skills.  They also provide 17 tips for drivers.

But if you get rerally enthusiastic about improving your car's fuel efficiency, perhaps you can qualify as a hypermiler.   An article in Mother Jones explains (see This Guy can Get 59 MPG in a Plain Old Accord.  Beat That, Punk.  January/February 2007)