Over the next 30 years we will see automobiles fully electrify. Gas emissions produced by traditional cars are poisoning the air that we breathe: in big cities the situation is critical. We need to change, and electrified vehicles is the solution. But which one: Battery or Hydrogen?
A GOOD WORD FOR THE ELECTRIC CAR
Energy efficient, battery-powered cars will, by 2025, be cheaper to buy than conventional, gasoline-powered cars.
Bloomberg New Energy Finance recently reported that the price of the zero emission cars is largely due to falling battery costs. The report says that “batteries currently account for about half the cost of EVs, and their prices will fall by about 77 percent between 2016 and 2030.”
Automaker Renault predicts ownership costs of electric vehicles will, by the early 2020s, equal that of conventional gas-powered vehicles.
The report also noted that by 2025 14% of new car sales, or 100 million electric cars globally, will be electric vehicles.
For fleet operators, this is good news. In 2014, greencarreports.com reported that electric vehicle fleets could save operators an average of $16,000 each, compared to the traditional vehicles over a service life of seven years. Now, the cost savings is clearly larger.
One of the challenges, however, with electric vehicles is total energy demand. The energy demand created by fully charging an electric vehicle (EV) can be as high as total domestic electricity consumption for one household, albeit more concentrated over particular periods of the day as well as geographical areas.
The latest study by McKinsey* et al (Electrifying insights: How automakers can drive electrified vehicle sales and profitability) claim around 2030 or so, EVs will be price competitive with conventional cars, which was based on sound data.
The report states that consumer demand is starting to shift in favor of slightly. While more than 20 per cent of new car shoppers think about buying a new battery-powered electric car, less than 0.5 per cent actually does buy.
There is still a battery barrier.
The 2016 estimated pack cost of ~$227/kWh means that a 60 kWh battery becomes a $13,600 component of the car. We may have to wait between 2025 and 2030, when battery pack costs fall below $100/kWh, creating financial headwinds for Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) automakers. That’s a cost saving of $5,000 per car.
Relying on increasingly large lithium ion batteries to assuage range anxiety is not a practical long-term solution to eliminating greenhouse gases. Electric-powered automobiles are not a bad idea; pure battery-powered BEVs are a bad idea.
It’s going to take more than just cheap lithium ion to bring about the end of the internal combustion engine. Building an infrastructure to service this type of technology when there are quicker and more efficient recharging models available is a monumental waste of money.
Hydrogen vs. Electric: Which is actually more efficient?
Hydro power once averaged over 20% of U.S. electric power sector net generation in 1970. Over the past decade (2004–2013), hydro power provided an average of 6.8% of U.S. electric power sector net generation. Untapped non-power dam (NPD) resources will transform small hydro into a major energy source.
The U.S. Administration’s goal is to generate 80% of the nation’s electricity to clean energy sources by 2035 and lead the world in clean energy innovation.
The hydro power resource assessment by the Department of Energy’s Hydropower Program has identified 5,677 sites in the United States with acceptable undeveloped hydro power potential. These sites have a modeled undeveloped capacity of about 30,000 MW. This represents about 40 percentof the existing conventional hydro power capacity.
The 80,000+ non-powered facilities represent the vast majority of dams in the country; more than 90% of dams are used for services, such as regulating water supply and controlling inland navigation, and lack electricity-generating equipment.
An assessment of energy potential from new stream-reach development in the United States led by DOE’s ORNL provides a national picture of the remaining new hydropower development opportunities in U.S. rivers and streams. The assessment concluded that the technical resource potential is 85 GW of capacity. When federally protected lands—national parks, national wild and scenic rivers, and wilderness areas—are excluded, the remaining potential is over 60 GW of capacity or 347 TWh/year of generation.
Power stations can likely be added to many of these dams at a lower cost than creating new powered dam structures. Together, these non-power dam (NPD) facilities could power millions of households and avoid millions of metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year.
How can we deliver true energy transformation to the world?
“An investment in atrue energy transformation requires governments, research institutions, businesses, and private investors to work together.”
The world is going to be using 50 percent more energy by mid-century than it does today.
Bill Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft, has emerged as a force for innovation: “No Investor or group of investors can do this alone. Breakthrough Energy is committed to encouraging a broad network of public and private capital to work together to solve the problem. An investment in a true energy transformation requires governments, research institutions, businesses, and private investors to work together.”
“The Breakthrough Energy Coalition created BEVto address some of those challenges in the energy market. We are willing to wait a longer time for returns than other funds. Finally, the fund is committed to discovering breakthroughs, wherever they are.”
“We must stop looking for business plans and look instead at the innovation after all it is the innovation and not how the owner of the IP will run a business which will stop CO2 emissions.”
Which renewable energy source has the most potential?
The HUGis feasible, renewable and clean alternative for low cost power production. An estimated 10 million people live mostly in urban areas along the banks of the river in any under developed country.
Only 3 percent of the nation’s 80,000 dams currently generate power. An Energy Department-funded study found that 12,000 megawatts of hydroelectric generating capacity could be added to existing dams around the country.
There is wide consensus that fossil fuels will probably dominate the world energy mix until at least 2040, due to the lack of cheap, practical alternatives.
China is still building two coal power plants a week. In both India and China, air pollution and congestion in the biggest cities are already appalling, which will limit the scope for a richer population to buy ever more cars.
India still relies on coal for 58% of its primary energy needs. It hopes to reduce its dependence on oil (28% of the mix) by 10% by 2022, and plans to double the share of natural gas from 7% to 15%
OIL AND WAR
The Muslim world has become polarized into Sunni and Shia and it is fighting international Su-Shi Civil War. Minority Shia, which is only 10% of the Muslim world, are poking the other 90% Sunni in the eye with a stick. Over 95% of terror victims are Muslims. Nigeria, Libya, Algeria, Yemen, and South Sudan are hot new battle zones due in large part to their oil wealth.
Fracking is the most powerful weapon for geopolitical change in the past decade. It has bankrupted Russia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Brazil and the Arab World forcing deep political change and near revolution. Today terrorists are starved by the low price of oil–they cannot do their big plans. Weapons and training cost a lot of money.
MOST WORLD GOVERNMENTS
The US is importing half of its oil currently and it will only be the world’s largest producer of oil in a few years and Canada has oil reserves larger than Saudi Arabia.
Political pressure to “keep it in the ground” only works in developed western societies. Yet even Prime Minister Justin Trudeau commented that he knew no country that would allow its oil reserves in the ground to remain untouched.
Governments do not have the political will to implement their climate goals at anything like the speed the Paris agreement envisages. Fossil fuels are a major revenue earner for many governments, usually in the form of excise or hydrocarbons taxes.
If water is not managed better, today’s crisis will become a catastrophe.
As water becomes ever more scant the world needs to conserve it, use it more efficiently. Researchers from MIT predict that by 2050, more than half of humanity will live in water-stressed areas, where people are now extracting unsustainable amounts from available freshwater sources. We can expect a water crisis that will go viral into a catastrophe if we continue with business as usual.
Many people have a strong moral aversion to paying for the life-sustaining liquid. Some feel that water is a right, and should therefore be free. Others lobby governments to subsidize its distribution to favored groups. This results in vast, but preventable waste.
To make matters worse, few places price water properly. Usually, it is artificially cheap, because politicians are scared to charge much for something essential that falls from the sky. This means that consumers have little incentive to conserve it and investors have little incentive to build pipes and other infrastructure to bring it to where it is needed most.
Researchers from MIT predict that by 2050, more than half of humanity will live in water-stressed areas, where people are now extracting unsustainable amounts from available freshwater sources.
One reason is that as the world’s population grows larger and richer, it uses more water. Another is climate change, which accelerates hydrologic cycles, making wet places wetter and dry places drier. The World Resources Institute found that 33 face extremely high water stress by 2040 (see map).
And as the global population rises from 7.4 bn to close to 10 bn by the middle of the century, it is estimated that agricultural production will have to rise by 60% to fill the world’s bellies. This will put water supplies under huge strain.
In many countries people can pump as much water as they like from underground aquifers, because rules are either lax or not enforced. But it is unsustainable: around a fifth of the world’s aquifers are over-exploited.
People do not drink much water—only a few liters a day. But putting food on their tables requires floods of the stuff. Growing 1 lb of wheat takes 125 gallons of water; fattening a cow to produce the same weight of beef involves 12 times more. Overall, agriculture accounts for more than 70% of global freshwater withdrawals. Farmers in parched places grow thirsty cash crops such as avocados, which could easily be imported from somewhere wetter.
In many places water demand is high and the quality is also at risk: as in many of the most stressed watersheds, it is often compromised by pollution. A polluted water source increases the risk of sickness not just of the environment but of the people and communities that depend on it for their survival.Continue reading WATER CRISES: COMING CATASTROPHE→
There are many applications or spin-offs of the HUG, a new invention or a new good, which are named by their function:
The Funnel HUG, used in ‘Run-of-River’ (Run-of-River HUG), and in a waterfall (Waterfall HUG) and the Reservoir HUG used to house an array of Funnel HUGs.
The Pump HUG used in a river (River HUG), at a pylon (Pylon HUG), in an ocean current (Ocean Current HUG) and a tide (Tidal HUG)
The Wave Energy HUG: creating electricity from wave energy
The HUG pipe or HUG pipeline
The Recycle HUG to recycle gray water
The HUG Siphon for Waterfalls, Watermills and Dams
The Pump HUG uses the physics of the vortex to create a spiraling motion to accelerate the flow of fluid in order to generate electricity or provide irrigation pumps from the water flow from tidal flows, waves, rivers, rapids, ocean and other fluid flows using a helical turbine and to transfer this fluid like water, oil or natural gas at near zero friction.
The “prior art” helical turbine is used to provide rotation to either the submersible pump or the electrical generator. One of the companies—GCK Technologies Inc. has a patented turbine using the helical blade. Lucid Energy Technologies patented the same helical turbine in a pipeline, but there is no vortex claimed for either patents.
The Wave EnergyHUG utilizes an artificial reef in order to create a slab wave. The “prior art” artificial surfing reef has a filing date of September 3, 1991. The abstract reads: “The artificial surfing reef is a generally Y-shaped structure made of many large sized polyvinyl chloride pipes…”. As a swell moves toward the shore, its bottom is resisted by the artificial surfing reef to form the perfect surfing waves. The closest competitor is a system called Wave Dragon, which is as heavy as a ship of the same size: the waves are much smaller and the turbines do not use the power of the vortex.
All these prior systems do not use the physics of the vortex in order to increase the velocity of the laminar flow. Hence, many companies have patents for much larger and more expensive turbines, simply because the velocity of the flow has not been accelerated by a vortex. Typically they place their turbine directly into a tidal flow or rapids: the size is so large that maintenance becomes a big factor.
Imagine having a hundred such huge systems in a set of rapids and then having to raise each for maintenance. R.E.R. had such a prototype at the Lachine Rapids near Montreal and they were finally producing electricity at 2.3 kW/m2. The system was so huge that they had to replace the blades of the turbines with stronger alloys and their system required an underwater generator (you never mix electricity with water).
R.E.R. had to declare bankruptcy because they could not find a buy like ABB Inc. (Canada), who was already part of a consortium and who was willing to take on the guarantee of providing constant electricity.
There are ways a business communicates the value of innovation to financiers: industry benchmarks that allow the investor to compare the business to other similar businesses.
How the Technology Innovation is different than the Incumbent Technologies
Presently no patents exist to capture energy from fast moving rivers up to now. The Power Density of any pilot projects designed to capture energy from tides is 2.4 to 6.9 kW/m2.This Power Density is a measurement of the efficiency of a hydro electric system: the area The reason for the low efficiency is that the flow of a current treats all these turbines as obstacles to be avoided.
The HUGPower Density is an unbelievable 73.5 kW/m2. The Power Density increases to the cube of the velocity and the HUG velocity is four times faster than the competition. This is why the HUG can be small and modular.
The most important consideration is the HUG cost: the Cost of Construction for a 100 MW project is $88.5 million, which is 22% of the typical average cost . The HUGcost of $885/kW is unusually lowcompared to most other hydro electric generation systems. In 2009, Hydro-Quebec (Canada) was permitted to build a number of hydro projects totaling 4500 MW, with a total price of US$ 23 billion, which is $5,100/kW.
The present costs of generation of small hydro plants are in the range for small hydro of $45–120/MWh with an average of $83/MWh. There are still many ideal sites, which are close to the existing electric power converter/generators, thereby reducing these costs by a further 40%.
The cost per mega watt hour of the HUG is very low at the rate of $5.46/MWh, which is 360% on the low side and 1,100% on the high side. The Energy Availability Factor (power plant performance) can be increased by the same range
HUG can provide extra revenue from the upcoming sale of carbon credits: those companies, which exceed the emission limits, will soon be forced to buy $284,000 worth of carbon credits for every 1 MW of new clean energy.
The United States Department of Energy has approved a second round for Hydroelectric Production Incentives allow for up to 2.3 cents per kWh — indexed for inflation, which amounts to $180,000/MW.The maximum payments of up to $750,000 per year for energy generated by facilities (4 MW) during the incentive period.
The risk factor is low because the initial Prototype & Feasibility Study of the HUG costs only $750,000. New technology in the form of three-dimensional printing further reduces the risk of a high cost prototype. This 0.24 MW power project has an admirable cost recovery of $65,350/yr. The Return on Investment is 17.5%/yr.
There are 5500 locations for a total of 11,000 MW in Canada alone where this technology can be applied according to studies done to support low head (1.5 m -3 m) turbines . It was estimated that as much as 3,400 MW of electricity generation potential could be exploited in U.S. rivers by small, unconventional systems such as free-flow (damless) turbines.( Hall et al. 2004)
Remote areas do not have access to expensive dams and so electricity is a northern company’s biggest cost after labor. Northerners use costly diesel. Mines in remote areas would pay premium prices for this technology.
HELPING SOLVE THE WORLD’S CARBON POLLUTION
New Trees are the only solution to soaking up Carbon Dioxide:
Our Mission: to help solve the problem of carbon dioxide build up in the world by growing and managing mature forests of foliage, fruit and nut trees that eventually are used in lumber — not firewood. The Carbon Tax Fund supports a Micro finance initiative to support women farmers and their families who will nurture fruit and nut trees over their lifetime. The Net Present Value of each tree is $0.49/tree plus $1.00/tree for auditing and maintenance for 25 years.
Green energy is the way of the future. Look at the Fossil Fuel and Renewable Energy Subsidies.
Coal, natural gas, and oil accounted for 87 percent of global primary energy consumption in 2012.
Our energy needs are growing to such an extent that we are forced to use whatever we have at our disposable without looking at the cost/damage. We are so dependent on conventional sources that the need to change often isn’t there.
Fossil fuel subsidies reached $90 billion in the OECD and over $500 billion globally in 2011. Renewable energy subsidies reached $88 billion in 2011. The IMF estimates that for 2015 the economic cost of energy subsidies worldwide will amount to US$5.3 trillion. This is not to be confused with actual amount of subsidies which are projected to amount to around US$333 billion for 2015. Without fossil fuel subsidies, the price of electricity by about 1.2 cents per kilowatt-hour.
There is no such thing as clean coal, it’s a lie. If you think coal is great, why don’t you go live in Beijing and soak up some of that super clean air.
Hydroelectric energyThis form uses the gravitational potential of elevated water that was lifted from the oceans by sunlight. At this time, most of the available locations for hydroelectric dams are already used in the developed world. Hydroelectric energy SUBSIDIES receive $0.01/ kWh.
Energy from wave energy, tides, the oceans and hot hydrogen fusion are other forms that can be used to generate electricity. These energy sources are often non-centralized, leading to greater consumer control and involvement.
The $6.5-billion Romaine ” big hydro” development in Quebec, Canada will produce 1,550 MW: $4200/kW. British Columbia’s plan to build a new $8.8-billion hydro project on the Peace River for 1,100-megawatt: $8,000/kW. Manitoba may be in the worst shape of all: it has green-lighted the $6.5-billion, 700-megawatt Keeyask dam: $9286/kW (9 cents per kilowatt-hour).
The average cost of electricity from a hydro station larger than 10 megawatts use to be $1,000-$5,000/kW (3 to 5 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour). The HUG: $954/kW
There are additional indirect costs: damming interrupts the flow of rivers and can harm local ecosystems, and building large dams and reservoirs often involves displacing people and wildlife.
Cheap and abundant U.S. natural gas, with its lighter (than coal) carbon footprint, is eating Canadian hydro’s lunch. Export prices averaged 6.5 cents per kw/h in 2008. By 2012, that was down to 3.1 cents per kw/h – far below the production costs of any new hydro projects being built now.
Comparisons of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions or global warming, which uses the global warming potential unit, the Carbon dioxide equivalent(CO2e)/kWh: 400 for natural gas and 700 to 1000 (without scrubbing) for coal.
Climate change is the most difficult problem the world has ever faced: it is huge in its global scope and they are the biggest challenge of the century. We have far more oil, coal and gas than we can safely burn. We can only avoid devastating damage if most of the world’s coal, oil and gas are left in the ground. We can’t burn them if we care about climate change. Is this the Burning Question?
Here is the problem: even if we gave up on all the obscure and unconventional fossil fuel resources that companies are spending billions trying to access and just burned the “proven” oil, coal and gas reserves – the ones that are already economically viable – we would emit almost 3 tons of carbon dioxide. No one can say exactly how much warming that would cause, but it is overwhelmingly likely that we would shoot well past 2 C degree and towards 3 C degree or even 4 C degree of warming.
The book, Burning Question reveals climate change to be the most fascinating scientific, political and social puzzle in history. It shows that carbon emissions are still accelerating upwards, following an exponential curve that goes back centuries.
The simple truth is that tackling global warming will mean persuading the world to abandon oil, coal and gas. For all the uncertainty about the detail, every science academy in the world accepts the mainstream view of man-made global warming.Continue reading The Burning Question→