Posted by Dave on March 30, 2010
Cheap, clean energy has been the goal of many separate companies over the years. In high school Economics (about 15 years ago) I researched Ballard Power (BLD.TO) which was supposed to provide energy using a hydrogen fuel cell and emitting only water. At the time, the company stood on the forefront of technology and had various contracts with car manufacturers and power providers, a quick view of how it’s stock has been doing since the technology crash 10 years ago shows that if it does have some kind of super technology, nobody is really buying it, which to me is a failure. On 60 minutes a few weeks ago I saw a feature on Bloom Energy. This company is making similar claims as Ballard Power (and other fuel cell companies have made) of clean, cheap power.
Fuel cells have been around since the 1830s – generally they require super expensive materials like platinum and are prone to breakdowns. According to the 60-minutes report, this fuel cell is different – it uses beach sand and cheap alloys as part of the box and the fuel cell uses various fuels, such as biogas, piped-in natural gas, and solar power, along with oxygen to create power. The creator of the box thinks that within 10 years, these boxes (assuming efficiencies gained through production) should cost approximately $3,000.
Here’s what I see as a few of the implications of this technology:
Energy costs could be fixed: Right now, consumers don’t know how much energy will cost in 5 to 10 years. If these boxes were able to do what is claimed, a “Bloom Box” coupled with electric vehicle technology could significantly reduce or at least fix individual and business energy costs, which is not the case right now. If oil were to spike to $200 a barrel, consumers could have the opportunity to insulate themselves from this cost.
Poorer areas in the world could have electricity: Much like many areas in the world never set up phone lines and skipped directly to the use of cell phones, this technology could have the ability to reach countries and communities that could not afford the initial infrastructure of power plants, lines, transfer stations and the maintenance of a conventional electric grid could perhaps afford these power blocks. The addition of cheap electricity to these poor areas could lead to a higher standard of living and the possibility of a better life.
Carbon Emissions could Decrease: The use of alternative fuels in what could be called “micro-generation” of electricity could decrease carbon emissions for by 40 – 100% vs. conventional power generation depending on what kind of fuel input is used.
To me, this technology is very exciting. Whether or not it works is a question that will take a few years to see, but the potential is enormous. Already private investors have poured $400 million into the company (where anything over $100 million is deemed extreme in Silicon Valley). I am generally a pessimist when it comes to technology like this, but I would like to think that we as a planet could come up with something better to power our houses then the current mix, which is pretty dirty. While wind, solar and other “clean” electrical generation methods work, they are not incredibly efficient – you need a ton of windmills or solar panels to power a small city – wouldn’t it be nice to have a “silver bullet” in the coming years, as peak oil creates significant increases in the cost of power?
Maybe I’m the only one, but does anyone else get excited about seeing projects like this? Would you invest in this company given the chance? Are there any “green” companies you are currently invested in that have interesting technology that are showing potential?
Posted by Canadian Dream on September 4, 2009
Today I’m doing a double book review. I’ll be covering two books by James Lovelock: The Revenge of Gaia and The Vanishing Face of Gaia.
Since The Revenge of Gaia was written first I’ll review it first as well. This was a very interesting book for a several reasons first off James Lovelock is an independent scientist who was in his 80′s when he wrote this book. So in general he’s straight forward to fault and has no problem hitting us over the head with a 2×4 to get his point across. I suspect at his age the concept of playing word games is so utter pointless he doesn’t really care is he crushes our illusions. So the fact he studies climate change and the feedback loops that have been holding it in check makes for a very refreshing read.
James is likely the most famous for proposing the Gaia theory where you can consider the planet is ‘alive’ in terms of a metaphor to explain the multiple feedback loops that the planet has to help keep the planet in a range that supports life. The concept and the feedback loops are very interesting reading about. For example, I didn’t realize algae growth in the oceans act produce water vapour that helps seed cloud formation which helps cool down the planet. So there is some scientific parts to the book, but nothing too complex.
What is interesting was his general point about climate change: we are very closed to screwed if not past that point already. He points out the IPCC predictions where done in a committee with heavy political influence so to expect us to have until 2050 to fix things he considers it laughable. If anything the most recent data say we might already be at the point of no return and if you expect the planet to fix it self, well that will happen after about 200,000 years or so. So life will continue, humanity will likely continue, but we can kiss goodbye civilization as a whole if we overheat the planet past it’s feedback loops ability to hold it in check.
He rightly points out that there is a lot of cherished ideas out there by environmentalists that are romantic in nature. The concept of producing all our energy from renewables is laughable since the technology isn’t develop enough and cheap enough to keep civilization running. Our civilization is based on cheap energy so to keep that you have really only one option to achieve massive CO2 reductions in the short term: nuclear. He then goes about breaking down the myths of nuclear power generation’s safety record (it actually has less deaths per GWh than hydroelectric by a factor of 500), the issues with waste (size wise all our CO2 emissions per year in a supercritical state would be a mountain 1 mile high and 12 miles in diameter versus a swimming pool to hold all the nuclear waste to produce the same amount of energy). Then to hammer the point home he says that if people want they can bury some nuclear waste in his backyard and he won’t mind at all.
So in general he calls for a sustainable retreat from our current methods of energy production. Where we get serious about really doing something with the facts of the situation rather than the romantic nature of some people’s ideas like running everything from renewables.
After that book James wrote another one a few years later called The Vanishing Race of Gaia: A Final Warning. Now in this book he does repeat some concepts from the early book, in order to introduce new readers to the critical concepts. So you don’t have to read the first one before this one.
What was interesting was he pointed out average air temperature is a poor measure of the earth’s warming since after you melt the ice caps, like an ice cube in a drink, the water stays cold for a while keeping things cooler than they really are around you. So in the end if you really want to measure warming you have to use rising sea levels since they can only rise from expanding due to heating or adding water from melting ice. At that point he points out an article in the last few years that showed sea levels were rising by 1.6 or 1.7 times that predicted by the IPCC.
So overall he feels we are past the point of mitigating our emissions to prevent things, it will happen anyway. It’s too little, too later. So he is calling for international plans to now include adaptation to our new climate, rather than just trying to reduce emissions. This leads us into the real issue with this point of view: we have very hard choices ahead of us. We won’t be able to support the current population in our current lifestyles and for those areas that will support us in the long run we will have to choose who will be let in and who will not be. He doesn’t propose how you would determine that but leaves that issue hanging.
He does repeat that nuclear power is still a good option and why. Then he also points out some positive developments with solar thermal power generation that could work in some areas to produce power.
Perhaps the most interesting chapter in the book was towards the end called: To Be or Not to Be Green. In this chapter he explored his own story of trying to be ‘green’ and how he learned how little he knew about the world and the best way to do it. So in short he realized we often think we could be stewards of the planet which is laughable due to our ignorance. Planting trees doesn’t make a forest, the interactions in a real forest are much more complex than just trees. In the end he points out the one item we tend to forget. We are part of Gaia, she’s the only home we have and just like a mother she can smack us upside the head when we’ve been stupid.
So overall these were very interesting books to read, but they will make you feel a bit depressed. Are we past the point of no return? To be honest it is possible, but I’m not sure. Unfortunately we won’t know that until we have past that point. I do know that just about any government in the world isn’t even close to meeting the recommendations of the IPCC so if they are really as wrong as James suggests it seems likely we are going to be in trouble sooner than later.
Posted by Canadian Dream on August 7, 2009
I have to admit I’m starting to understand why some people like nuclear power. I have been against nuclear power for most of my life, but I’m starting to warm up to it a bit as I’m forced to realize it does offer a means to seriously cut back on CO2 emissions in a medium term time frame.
My objections to nuclear power are mostly because of the waste. By using it you are basically creating a end product that will be hazardous for thousands of years, which strikes me a huge problem. Yet in the last year I was given presentations by a few experts in the field and I have to confess we do know how to store the waste without it being noticed in background radiation at the surface. Now weather the public is willing to accept that is an entirely different issue.
My recent warming to the technology is really about buying us time to nail down more efficient ways to generate power from renewables and convert society over to less power usage per person. Right now power is generally cheap across Canada, should that suddenly change (ie: triple the price) it would be a disaster for the modern lifestyle. We need people to change their habits, but we can’t expect them to do it overnight. A phased in approach is likely going to meet a lot less public resistance.
In the mean time we can continue to develop renewables and use them, but we need to get off burning coal as soon as possible if we are serious about reducing our emissions. Assuming clean coal technology will help is a bit of a false hope. It’s never been used at the commercial scale yet and unless a breakthrough occurs soon it is too expense at least compared to traditional nuclear.
So I’m willing to consider nuclear technology, but if these costs are right, nuclear might be just a bit too expense and perhaps we take the risk on clean coal. It’s never an easy decision.
