Enormous Storage In A Tiny Battery
August 3, 2010
The researchers who discovered it say it’s ”the most condensed form of energy storage outside of nuclear energy.” That’s big talk for something so small: a “battery” capable of storing a million atmospheres worth of pressure in a white crystal called xenon difluoride (XeF2).
By squeezing the xenon difluoride in a tiny diamond anvil (yes, that is exactly what it sounds like), researchers at Washington State were able to compress the xenon difluoride into a two-dimensional superconductor. When compressed even further, the substance formed 3D metallic “network structures” that stored the mechanical energy of the compression in chemical bonds.
The end result was an incredibly small “battery” (though based on a much simpler chemical reaction than the ones we’re used to) capable of storing an incredibly large amount of power. And storing power cuts to the heart of everything we’re interested in when it comes to new sources of energy.
Since renewable sources like solar and wind are intermittent, for example, they need energy storage to bridge the gap between periods of low sun or wind. In addition to conventional batteries, a host of solutions have been put forward, including water storage and even salt storage. But since there’s no telling how large a facility these far-out solutions could need, and since there’s a limit on how small and efficient conventional batteries can be, the idea of a battery so small and powerful that it could fit inside a two-inch by three-inch anvil is terribly interesting.
In the end, all energy research is ultimately about releasing or transforming energy: even fossil fuels are essentially storing sunlight that was converted into chemical energy by the organisms that have since decomposed. And, when it comes to storage, smaller really is better.
A Bright Idea: Keeping Things Dim
July 30, 2010
Since most of us aren’t ready to pack up our belongings and pitch a tent in the middle of the wilderness, the steps we take to reduce our environmental impact tend to be small ones. Government websites like the Office of Energy Efficiency provide a host of energy-saving tips like choosing low-energy lighting fixtures and checking the insulation on our windows, but these tips are still part of a recognizable pattern of energy consumption.
Even carbon offsets, those “get out of jail free” cards of the greenhouse gas world, aren’t 100 per cent effective in reducing emissions — The Christian Science Monitor published a damning six-part series in April 2010 that outlined many of the failings outlined in a similar report by The Suzuki Foundation and Pembina Institute.
But if the steps we’re taking are small, there’s at least some hope that they’re at least larger than we’d thought before. According to a study published in this month’s Energy Policy, the US government (and, therefore, likely the Canadian government as well) may have underestimated the CO2 emission savings of reducing electricity use by as much as 60 per cent. Because plants that burn fossil fuels are generally more able to respond to changes in use than their lower-emission counterparts (nuclear and renewable), lumping the two categories together skews the data. The authors recommend dividing electricity generation between low and emission-free sources and more variable, higher carbon sources, to give a more accurate picture of exactly what volume of emissions are being released.
Precisely estimating the volume of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions continues to be one of the largest problems when trying to estimate the environmental fallout from human activity. The environment is still an incredibly complex system that has both surprised us with its ability to process our emissions, and shocked us with the rapid effects of climate change, such as ocean acidification. It’s hard to get a firm grasp of the large picture, which might explain why we tend to want small changes that we can make in our daily lives. So, knowing that the small might not be so small after all is definitely good news.
Not Just A Bunch Of Hot Air
July 28, 2010
Air travel by dirigibles enjoyed a brief golden age in the early 20th century, evoking images of giant blimps crossing the Atlantic like airborne luxury liners. (There’s an urban legend that says the Empire State Building was even originally supposed to have a refuelling station built into its top, but as fanciful as it might seem, it’s also not true). But eventually, with the mounting logistical issues inherent in flying around in giant balloons, and the very public Hindenburg accident, the era ended. Now, when we’re talking about hydrogen fuel we’re talking about an entirely different way of travelling.
Still, the image of a lighter-than-air aircraft has continued to intrigue us, even if it’s not really feasible as a mode of mass transportation. That’s why it’s intriguing to see a manned solar-powered blimp designed to fly for an hour over the English channel. It’s a year behind schedule and will only carry a single passenger, but the Nephelios is slated to make its maiden, hour-long journey from Calais to Dover within the summer. Hope they get a sunny day.
Transportation continues to account for a huge share of our country’s greenhouse gas emissions (36 per cent in 2007), so it’s no wonder that even modest attempts at emission-free vehicles of tend to stimulate our optimism. Other public projects designed to produce solar-powered vehicles in recent years have included the Solar Impulse project and its round-the-world trip, and the University of Calgary’s Schulich I solar car, one of the participants in the North American Solar Challenge.
And while it won’t sail through the air like the Nephelios, or the fish-like prototype blimps we’ve covered previously, the Physalia, a floating river purifier and environmental museum, shows that the air isn’t the only place for fantastical vehicles powered by renewable energy. Even if the golden age of the dirigible never really did launch, there’s definitely room for emission-free transportation that could prove every bit as fantastical.
A little fit over microFIT
July 22, 2010
The Globe and Mail recently profiled a rising wave of resentment over a change in Ontario’s otherwise popular feed-in-tariff (FIT) program. A quiet change to the regime on July 2 reduced the rate paid to solar producers from 80.2 cents to 58.8 cents per kilowatt hour for ground-mounted solar photovoltaic, which has some producers up in arms. Solar PV hadn’t previously been separated into two distinct categories (roof- and ground-mounted).
The change won’t affect the rate being paid to existing producers, who sign a contract for at least 20 years guaranteeing a preferable rate, but it would affect those who are just beginning the process of singing up. That’s inflamed tempers faster than an efficient solar heating panel.
The Globe’s article quotes one would-be producer, John Verway of Copperhill Alternate Energy, in an open letter saying that the change is “a misguided and miscalculated change” that could “destroy the progress so many have made so far.”.
The guaranteed, relatively high rate being paid for renewable power is a cornerstone of Ontario’s Green Energy Act, designed to increase the production of renewable power and associated industries. Under the FIT program, the Ontario Power Authority guarantees that renewable power producers will be paid a subsidized rate in the long term. In the case of the microFIT program, these projects have to generate less than 10 kilowatts.
But while the contracts are meant to guarantee funding in the long term, the change to the payment schedule is happening immediately.
According to the announcement of the change, anyone wanting to comment on the change has until August 2. A subsequent announcement also outlines the government’s rationale for the change, and once the deadline has passed, any complaints made afterward will unfortunately just be hot air. And under FIT, wind power uses a different payment schedule.
A Bridge Not Too Far
July 20, 2010
Last month, the Canadian Centre for Energy, this humble blog’s (mostly) proud parent, wrote a newsletter about natural gas. In many ways, Canada’s energy future is going to resemble its present, with existing types of energy production, but unconventional sources are going to have major effects on that production.
As the country’s conventional reserves of oil and natural gas decline, we’re increasingly looking toward alternative sources like the Athabasca oil sands and unconventional natural gas. But if unconventional natural gas seems like more of the same, there’s certainly the chance that it’s actually a sign of changing energy use.
According to researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, natural gas electricity generation could be a “bridge” to future low-carbon energy production, replacing the carbon-intensive coal generation that dominates the US’s supply. Given natural gas’s lower carbon footprint (natural gas-fired plants emit about half as much CO2 as comparable coal facilities), and its increasing availability, the fuel makes sense for the heavy energy demands of the short term. While renewables are appealing, in Canada, for example, wind still makes up only 0.3 per cent of the country’s electricity generation. Getting that number up will require time and energy in the interim.
Unlike the US, our country’s electricity supply is already dominated by renewables, with hydro making up 61.7 per cent of electricity generation in 2007. Still, the federal government recently announced a plan to phase out the country’s remaining coal generation, retiring two-thirds of the country’s 51 coal plants by 2025. Provincially, both Manitoba and Ontario have already committed to going coal-free. Ontario has set a deadline of 2014, and Manitoba currently has only one remaining coal facility. Alberta, meanwhile, has nine coal-fired facilities. Electricity generation currently makes up about 22 per cent of the country’s CO2 emissions.
Changes to energy are certainly coming, but if our country’s hunger for energy is any indication (13.8 quadrillion Btu in 2007), we’ll need something to sate demand in the short term. In the interim, natural gas could be that fuel.
Bigger And Biggerer
June 30, 2010
When we talk about solar power, we’re not always thinking big. It’s exciting to discover, for example, that there’s actually a species of ocean-bound bacteria that can photosynthesize just like land-based plants, and we’re always hearing about solar-powered devices like solar backpacks that can fit just about anywhere. But sometimes, bigger really is better — at least when we’re talking about megawatts.
At 100 MW, the Shams 1 solar power plant will certainly be producing more power than even the most incredible solar backpack. The plant will be built by Total (a French oil firm) and Abengoa Solar (a Spanish solar firm), and its 768 collectors will eventually cover 2.5 square kilometres. The project is intended to be the first of three, to be followed by Shams 2 and 3, and will take about two years to complete.
Despite being one of the world’s largest producers of oil, the UAE is no stranger to large-scale, headline-grabbing renewable energy projects. The largest of those, Masdar City, will eventually be the home of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), showcasing a variety of renewable energy and energy efficiency-related features.
Like Masdar City, Shams 1’s size provides two main benefits: a critical mass of energy production and, perhaps more importantly, a very public environmental offset to the emirates’ main export. But is it big enough?
When it comes to solar power, it can always get bigger: every day, the Earth receives the equivalent of 174 petawatts of energy from the sun (though over a third is reflected immediately by the upper atmosphere). The UAE are going to need a much, much bigger solar backpack for that one…
Polluters Pay To Promote Parallel Projects
June 28, 2010
No one’s figured out how to snatch money from thin air, but 30 Alberta companies recently cashed in by doing almost that: reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
From CO2 capturing in Exshaw to solar and wind power installations in 9,000 homes across the province, Alberta’s climate change fund is paying out for the first round of emission-reducing energy projects.
Launched in April 2008, the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund allows companies annually producing more than 100,000 tonnes of GHG emissions to pay $15 for every tonne over their allowed limit (companies must reduce the intensity of their emissions by 12 per cent). Companies can also buy carbon credits in the Alberta-based offset system, but the fund has proven to be a popular option: to date, it’s collected about $40 million.
Now, the province’s Climate Change and Emissions Management Corporation is providing the first round of funding, designed to support projects that will ultimately reduce the same GHG emissions that fuel the fund.
The corporation selected 30 projects from 223 project submissions. These include $8.2 million for a Lethbridge biogas cogeneration plant (ECB Enviro North America Inc.), $3 million for a solar thermal power project (City of Medicine Hat) and $1.8 million to develop a pilot plant to produce biofuel and utilize carbon dioxide (Enerkem Inc.). But the province won’t just be seeing carbon-reducing projects that generate power.
The 30 projects run the gamut from renewable energy generation, like Calgary-based Enmax’s plan to install 9,000 wind- and solar-generation kits in Alberta homes over five years, to energy efficiency and carbon capture and storage (CCS), like a CO2 capture facility at a limestone production facility in Exshaw. It’s a slate of projects that shows the diversity of the province’s carbon mitigation efforts, and the growing interest in unconventional approaches to energy. And even if it’s not exactly magic, pulling project funding out of invisible gases still isn’t a bad trick.
Making Waves With Tidal Kites
June 16, 2010
When you think about it, a lot of our renewable energy methods are basically just closely related technological cousins. For example: the humble turbine. Whether it’s being spun by a raging river, or a strong breeze a turbine is just a turbine, wherever it is. And that might be why, in the end, it isn’t so hard to imagine putting a kite in the water.
Manufactured by a Swedish company called Deep Green, these tidal “kites” are capable of capturing tidal energy at 10 times the speed of the surrounding water. Anchored to the sea floor by a 330-foot cable, these 39-foot-wide kites would each hold a turbine, the kind already used in existing tidal plants like the 20-MW Annapolis Tidal Generation Station.
In Canada, most of the attention for tidal energy has been focused on a single province: Nova Scotia. And that’s because of a little bay named Fundy.
Each day, 100 billion tonnes of seawater flows through the Bay of Fundy. And because of its great tidal range — the vertical distance between high and low tides —the bay is considered a prime location for tidal power generation. The Fundy Ocean Research Centre for Energy (FORCE) coordinates the province’s research on tidal power, and would be the body that could ultimately allow technologies like Deep Green’s tidal kites into Canadian waters. While the current design for the kites is still in early testing, it’s a sure bet that an increasing demand for renewable energy across the world will bring a variety of interesting-looking devices into the Bay. And it won’t matter that some of these technologies look like they belong in the sky, rather than the water.
In fact, tidal technology has a long history with unconventional designs for its generators. A kite “flying” in the ocean might be an odd image, but it’s certainly a lot more comforting than the notion of 200-metre-long anacondas slithering through our waters. And in the end, when it comes to a comforting image for future renewable energy development, most people would probably prefer a lazy, sailing kite to an enormous snake, technological cousins or not.
Go Big Or Go Green Or Both
May 12, 2010
As we’ve seen with project like the United Arab Emirates’ Masdar City, there’s something to be said for raising a city’s energy profile with a splashy public display — like any huge public monument, it definitely makes it hard to look the other way. But when it comes to splashy projects, Rio de Janeiro’s got everyone else beat: Their latest design for the 2016 Olympic Games is nothing less than a giant, artificial waterfall.
Designed with embedded solar panels that provide power for the city and the games’ facilities during the day, the Solar City Tower will use excess energy to pump seawater into its upper recesses, 60 above sea level. At night, this water would be released with the help of turbines, producing even more power. To accommodate guests and tourists, the facility includes an amphitheatre at the tower’s base and an urban plaza with a glass walkway located at its top.
Though the structure’s “urban waterfall” display isn’t intended to be constant (no matter how much renewable power fuels the process, it would be awfully hard to justify building a giant waterfall for nothing but show), the effect it produces is undeniable — like Rio’s iconic Christ the Redeemer statue, it’s hard to look away from something so massive. And that attention, in turns, draws attention back to the city’s larger energy goals.
Greenhouse gas emissions continue to be a major point of discussion for contemporary Olympic Games and Rio de Janeiro has been drawing attention to its emissions since its original bid. When it comes to making big statements about energy use and emissions, it helps to make a big splash.
image RAFAA architecture and design
COP15 Day 2
December 8, 2009
To make sense of all the information coming out of the COP15 confence in Copenhagen, Flow will be running a series of daily blog entries to keep you up-to-date on the latest news from the largest climate change event in the world. Today is day two of the 12-day conference.
Certainly today’s most talked-about Copenhagen moment was US President Barack Obama’s announcement that greenhouse gases would now be considered a health hazard, giving the Environmental Protection Agency the power to to regulate industrial emissions. Given the difficulties of negotiating domestic GHG regulation (let alone on the global scale that the Copenhagen delegates are tackling), the fact that a single body in one of the world’s largest two emitters has the power to drastically affect industrial policy is a major coup. But while the US is certainly one of the most looked-at participants in the conference, it joins 191 other countries in the conference’s meetings.
Among others, today’s meeting topics include “China and the world: Solving climate change through practical, on-the-ground collaboration,” “Trade liberalisation and its role in technology diffusion: A look at the renewable energy, buildings” and “Developing Country Implementation Strategies and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs)”. Every day of the confernece also includes a variety of side events, including an update from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on its renewable energy reports and a four-part series on low carbon scenarios in Denmark, France, Germany and the UK. Renault’s Zero Emission Transportation – Taking a Step Towards the Future in Copenhagen, will be taking place in parallel with the conference today, highlighting zero-emission vehicles.