Category: Carbon Opportunity

Innovators delight, Courageous insight

Illustration – LED technology triggers new value proposition.

Posted on Posted in Carbon Opportunity, Hot airTagged , , , , Leave a comment

Is behavior management key to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction? Demand management is a great place to understand GHG sources. Reasonable observations are they not?

Then in a discussion with Carbon Professionals was added an illustration of the view that maintaining interest in the effects of product life cycle is essential  – because the product itself can morph so quickly into another business matter.  If you think business then you will understand – “When things are going wrong in a supply chain, the first reaction is all too often ‘if we could forecast demand better, most of our problems would go away.’” CO2Land org speculates it is not the inability to better forecasting demand that is the main cause of what is ailing that company’s operations….it is the changing conditions that it operates under in creating the demand. It is the need to hold and speculate the demand for its inventory.

CO2Land then postulates the opening paragraph in this post and a position on this: Agreed, it is an interesting statement on the connects that occur with behaviour management and demand management. But: reinforcement can be more difficult after the initial effort, a diminishing return for the effort. Why? The initiative came from a policy and policy can be altered, definitions diffused and vested interests will separate DM and GHG as coincidental to each other. If you follow that you will understand that the business will settle on the economic differences – the measurable, and initially DM works to reduce GHG and then technology (like LED Lighting) removes the need to think about it any more – a new policy is then needed. Motivation must then be linked to another driver.

While discussing this issue a story was printed as

http://www.energymanagertoday.com/shift-to-led-lighting-may-trigger-cataclysmic-change-in-building-automation-industry-095407/

“Shift to LED Lighting May Trigger Cataclysmic Change in Building Automation Industry.”

The story overtly portrays “As we go forward, the case for retrofitting buildings with LED lighting will become very compelling and with it will come a much broader application of controls.

The key difference, though, is that these controls applications and projects will be lighting-centric rather than HVAC-centric and that will make all the difference. These lighting-centric projects will be motivated by LEDs but will naturally incorporate wireless and cloud technology. The result will be the emergence of new players, new technologies and new application delivery mechanisms. The existing industry structure and business models could easily come tumbling down.”

If technology shifts, the business model – what is the value?

Lessons learnt, and studied results suggest that industry structure will remain during the commencing and product development process of the evolutionary change, and this provides incremental gain in the existing value proposition of the company. Once that process markets the technology or change the technology enabled so changes the value propositions, and business survival requires changes in the industry structure.

The example for the building automation industry is that Digital controls were an evolutionary technology shift away from pneumatics, and now LEDs are doing more than making an evolutionary change they are enabling whole new value propositions built on the fact that light affects people and behavior. In this case you can predict the LED transition is and will be far more disruptive to the industry than the introduction of digital controls.

The impact of LED lighting is creating demand for coincident adoption of two other technologies, wireless networking and cloud services. Why? The incumbents in the traditional industries are not geared to extract value from the technology! It is very likely a small company will build a value proposition that is the right combination of business model and technology to drive the industry. Why a small company? Large companies need linear projection for outputs and evolution tends to be non-linear. A smaller company is more likely to be agile and able to adapt, and not shackled by conventional wisdom.  That is they attack with vision and gusto, and not defend with placards to impress the public.

Has the pace of change, changed? Business as usual for industry has powerful reasons for resisting change, and techniques are deployed to slow down the introduction of new technologies and systems. It is not unexpected for 10 to 25 years being considered reasonable for a company to adapt to new technology. But LEDs “come from an industry that moves very quickly, as do wireless networking and cloud services technologies. So, to the extent that companies in these adjacent industries choose to involve themselves directly in LED lighting and controls, the historical rate of change in building automation may be a poor indicator of the future.

It is worth noting that in 2005 there was no You-Tube. The cost and complexity of creating and posting video on the web was prohibitive for casual users. Now, only eight years later, almost anyone can create and post videos on the web … and millions of people do every day.”

The above quote does answer the question:  That is how fast things are changing. So, government policy has to get it right too – to survive another election – eh the needs of society!

 

 

 

Product design, standards and innovation

Posted on Posted in Carbon OpportunityTagged , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Product design is something that is no longer ‘just a good idea’. Creating a sustainable product is also an important trigger for your product design.  But then it gets boring – you start to take stock of the standards and think – we are trapped!

The backdrop is the lower slopes of Mount Kosciuszko (arguably the highest mountain in Australia), and it is winter. Looking into a log fire and being thankful we were warm and safe it was discussed that a better design and innovation are difficult to commercialise. The desire, the plans and even the Research and Development phase is proven. The issue at hand is the ‘bankable’, the intellectual protection and the confidence needed for the buyer of the new product. The buyer quickly becomes the focus. Then you divide it into whether the domestic market is different to the international market, and that leads to what standards might affect your design.

This means you either consider the process of manufacture as a pure design or as a managed procedure or both. Examples being:

The ISO 9000 series – It has a purpose of being a quality management system and China is issued the greater number of certificate holders in the world. Then comes the reasons for not adopting this standard and this would include the risks and uncertainty of not knowing if there are direct relationships to improved quality, and what kind and how many resources will be needed. Then there is how much certification will cost, the increased bureaucratic processes and risk of poor company image if the certification process fails.

The ISO 14000 and ISO 9000 series is similar in that both are concerned with the process of how a product is produced. However, it is worth noting neither is concerned with the product itself.

Importantly for this ‘fire side’ discussion ISO 14000 standards main aim is to assist companies in continually improving their environmental performance, whilst complying with any applicable legislation.

What is the better way to go? Why do it at all when you want to establish your reputation on product performance? Simple answer if you want to sell it on mass and to certain markets it is important that you focus on at least one standard. The decision required is whether to do it as a quality of process management or as a management focus on environmental performance and applicable evolving legal compliance and reporting duties.

If you have followed carbon management and the principles you will have understood the trends and the effects of the product needs to promote through Life cycle Assessment, the product footprinting, and governance requirements. In Europe in particular PAS 2050 cannot be ignored. If that is where you market is heading you might be even more interested to know ISO/TS 14067 is the story of today.

Product footprinting is standard ISO/TS14067 (ISO = International Organization for Standardization, TS = Technical Specification. The full name of the standard is: ISO/TS 14067 – Greenhouse gases – Carbon footprint of products – Requirements and guidelines for quantification and communication.

The genus: Built on ISO14040 and 14044. And originally they were known as LCA standards. LCA originated around 1997 and replaced around 2006. Academically and professionally, these are very well understood and in use.

The fit: It uses the existing terminology, concepts and ideas from 14044 and builds from this and what you learnt before will be understood today. It is comparable to the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol and PAS 2050 and is related to many industry and government agency specific guidelines.

What is different:

Expanding from the original LCA to ISO/TS 14067 brings in the requirements for providing, quoted is

http://www.2degreesnetwork.com/groups/supply-chain/resources/four-reasons-why-you-should-get-know-isots-14067-product-footprinting/?goback=%2Egde_83858_member_263437238

 “principles, requirements and guidelines for the quantification and communication of the carbon footprint of products (CFPs).” Four types of communication are identified:

  • CFP external communication report
  • CFP performance tracking report
  • CFP label
  • CFP declaration

 

Of particular interest is that a performance tracking report …allows for the comparison of CFP results of one specific product of the same organization over time with respect to its original or previous CFP”.

The consensus: PAS 2050 was declared, ISO/TS14067 was built with international consensus representing about 50 countries through 12 working group meetings.

The importance of data:

A lot of data has already been collected for comparing product and categories are created that align with most products ‘norm’ for carbon footprinting. In short you can research if you don’t have enough data to start and the specification defines that the “best quality data available” should be used. Where site-specific data cannot be practicably collected, verified process data should be used. How good is that? A bit different to the ‘you shall’ or the sky falls in sort of thinking.

 

To conclude and quote Supply Chain: We should look at the standard as “

  • Something old = Built on the accepted ISO 14044 standard
  • Something new = Extends the scope of requirements for the communication of LCAs – which may be the next logical step for your current LCA work
  • Something borrowed = Utilises existing Product Category Rules concept that you may already be complying with
  • Something blue = Utilises process data that you may already have”.

 

In context to the original opening ‘discussion’ yes it makes sense that if you want to future proof you product or you want to move to markets where adopting EU stewardship rules, you have to consider it part of your plan to participate.  Just maybe that way you could break the ‘Business as Usual’ cycle and or hindrance to innovation.

 

Energy Utilities changing Models – A Battery of Choice

Posted on Posted in Carbon Opportunity, Carbon Risk, Hot air, Zero WasteTagged , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

As one would normally do, chat about renewables and impacts on the utilities business model while relaxing with friends. It was a case of too much uncertainty over how the consumer would be treated because of change. Central to the discussion was that a provider to the electrical distribution system could threaten the current regulatory and centralized generation models of ‘essential services’.

What does this mean?  The business as usual model is failing where supply centric economics demanded you build additional load capacity and transport the capacity to the place of need. This model also meant the assets, including the customer, was owned by the utility. If you think of it this way, Governments tend to discourage demand side solutions. Demand Management was tended to be more of a series of incentive programs for utilities to duplicate infrastructure to transport to the demand source.

So, what happened to change the balance? The obvious: Technologies improved, carbon became issues for society and clean energy and renewables were being shown as a better way to address the logistics of meeting demand where it was needed. As a result some of the conventional infrastructure was at risk of being a stranded asset and the need to build conventional infrastructure required incentives from Government to reduce the financial risk. For example, the Demand Side Incentive scheme (DIS) formulated at about 2004 is dramatically underspent but is comforting for utilities in being a facility to reduce the financial risk.

If we note the changes in the needs of society as a driver for change: Governments and their policies encouraged that traditional public ownership be phased out to pass the needs to private investment. Government was happy for this ‘fix’ as they see it as the asset is sold for a value and ongoing regulated charges and fees and taxes are being paid to treasury, and that is a public benefit. The perfect storm in Australia is this action is also one of the drivers for electricity tariff increases in Australia. Recently the state of Queensland announced a 21% increase to its general tariff.  A source, CO2Land identifies as SF said: “Therefore those consumers with solar PV are subsidising those consumers that don’t have solar PV”.

From that last statement we can assume government policy (Federal and State) is very much the catalyst that resulted in the model change. Whether the change was necessary was more of a political move in this instance. It followed that technology and innovation evolved and the model change was inevitable. If you follow the beliefs of the 5th Column existing, this was done by infiltration of the policy areas by a particular group. It follows, in contemporary Australia, Government policy is more reactive than before, and since the 1970’s the rule of law was modeled as to be reactive to the needs of the dominate influence. Below is an explanation of this view as posted by CO@Land.org on 3 April 2013. Where:

Co2Land org now asks: If we consider the four primary schools of thought in general jurisprudence :

  •   Natural law is the idea that there are rational objective limits to the power of legislative rulers.
  •  Legal positivism, by contrast to natural law, holds that there is no necessary connection between law and morality and that the force of law comes from some basic social facts although positivists differ on what those facts are.
  •  Legal realism is a third theory of jurisprudence which argues that the real world practice of law is what determines what law is; the law has the force that it does because of what legislators, judges, and executives do with it. Similar approaches have been developed in many different ways in sociology of law.
  • Critical legal studies is a younger theory of jurisprudence that has developed since the 1970s which is primarily a negative thesis that the law is largely contradictory and can be best analyzed as an expression of the policy goals of the dominant social group.

If you think of the debate of tariff increases. Then you should consider it may have been ‘an expression of the policy goals of the dominant social group’, as critical to that issue. We should then think about the set of claims that the “Renewable Energy Targets” (RET’s) had undesirable consequences, and how governments (Federal and State) now realise that the larger than expected number of early adopters who signed up for the long term contracts are now having a negative impact on state & federal budgets, and this is one of the dominate drivers for electricity tariff increases in Australia. For those needing an introduction to the scheme, the RET’s are a federal government initiative commencing during year 2001, and from those bills and legislation various states and territories introduced those targets as various incentive schemes for customers to invest in solar PV with generous feed in tariffs. This incentive had the effect of distorting the demand supply balance, and the popularity embarrassed and alarmed treasury. If we use SF as the source again; “Queensland Govt initially offered 44cents per kWh this has now been reduced to 8cents. That said the response from the customer was rapid with Australia now having 2500MW of solar PV with and average capacity of 3.5kW.”

CO2Land org chose to give an example of Queensland for convenience, as this states geography and population patterns influence the custom that those consumers with a service, are asked to provide subsidies to those that do not.  In the case of electricity you could argue the subsidy required is determined by the length of the extension cords needed. You might understand why that state found it Initially appealing that solar PV was a localized delivery point. However, managing the asset is a different matter.

We are seeing similar issues being evident from around the world – business as usual is failing as the utility model. The danger is stranded assets and less control being possible. A story titled The Clean, Simple Solar and Storage Solution to US Utility Business Model Woes .

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2013/07/the-clean-simple-solar-and-storage-solution-to-us-utility-business-model-woes?cmpid=SolarNL-Thursday-July4-2013&goback=%2Egde_67258_member_256399748

Tells of an interview “ with former United States Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu on utility business models.  While the gist of what he said wasn’t new to me, the clean and elegant way he laid out what he sees as the future of utilities and solar power is worth sharing.

Similar to how in the past telephone companies – he specifically named AT&T – used to own the entire telephone system from the overhead telephone lines up to and including the phone in your house, Chu feels that utilities ought to own solar panels and energy storage systems that they put on their customers’ roofs and in their garages. He said if utilities could outfit homeowners with solar panels and a 5-kW battery system, they could continue selling that customer power just as they do now. The utility would own the system, maintain the system and the customer would have no out-of-pocket expenses for it other than continuing to buy power at the same rate or at perhaps an even lower rate.

 In the three-minute interview, Chu didn’t explain another huge reason that utilities should consider this option: distributed generation used in this way counteracts the need to build additional generation as the load capacity needs increase.  And lastly and most important, the utility gets to keep its customer.

Utilities should probably get clear on their approach soon. When it’s just a quarter or a half of one percent of a utility’s customers that have their own PV and are selling their solar power to the grid at the retail rate, the utility doesn’t care. But energy storage and PV panel costs are dropping, and once that percentage of utility customers’  that are zeroing out their bill goes to 5, 10 or 15 percent then “it’s a big deal” said Chu.

Chu said he told utilities that PV and energy storage is going to come and they should “form a new business model” NOW so that what today is a potential revenue loss, could become an area of growth for them in the future.  Plus, he said this model would eventually lead to a more stable grid for us all. “

CO2Land org is finding it difficult to solely blame the RET Scheme as the problem. The evidence is the splitting of the RET’s scheme into a ‘small scale’ offering for predominately solar PV is the problem. It is appropriate to say any change to the utility models would and did have a cause and effect disruption on the industry, and cause and effect type of disruption suggests any intervention will introduce more shocks in the industry, and we can expect that ideologies will continue to influence the Governments policy advisors who are without a full understanding the implications. It also follows that a large dependence on small scale or residential solar PV services implies a need for significant workforce skills shifts to cater for the growth and scope of the model change for utilities to take control of the assets at a domestic level to be to be effective. That is a significant cost driver, and it is reasonable to ask why should the utility be the provider of choice for these services where it would serve to drive up prices?

In defence of RET’s large scale systems, it follows that large systems do not directly affect the utilities mechanism to preserve the current regulatory model, but they shift the balance so that the model needs to be reviewed of the purpose and objectives in the delivery of the product. It follows that centralised generation models are what utilities do very well, and large scale transportation and distribution are well established capabilities of the industry. Expanding that capability to large commercial rooftops and installations might be a good idea. However, it too is not without the need for change. Albeit less dramatic than small scale.

CO2Land org is not proposing we should concentrate on picking winners for the model change.  However, ‘the battery concept’ leads to deeper thinking. The demand initiative needs to be expanded and a battery concept is not just a means of storage of an electron! It can mean tools and equipment that is readily available to balance the total load needs, and not just peak demand requirements. We know solar’s great weakness is peak availability profile and traditional batteries concepts take up rare earth minerals to manufacture. Are they already defunct? A far more sensible battery concept is something that can utilise what we have already consumed and discarded to be returned to there natural elements while producing energy and balancing the supply needs.  If you prefer think of it as a provider it can be an insurance tool for a supply imbalance, So can what they do be a source of energy rationing and balancing that fits neatly into the traditional delivery mechanism.

One such battery concept is the waste to energy gasifiers and their products including pyrolysis retorts. These can easily be written into the current infrastructure and be part of any new regulatory mix – even provide a result for policy without implications – it is not creating anything new – just making something old new again!

For the future, CO2Land org can see a lot more independent renewable sources becoming the norm, and utilities will be using energy exchanges to sell power to customers. This differs from ownership of customers in that bidding could be managed power purchasing agreement with give and take provisions in the price. What regulators will have to deal with is that nationwide and globally installing microgrids for Businesses and Communities will need to fit into economic as well as technical delivery models. A real power of choice if you prefer to think that way.

Falling Short – F.I.T. in renewable power

Posted on Posted in Carbon Opportunity, Carbon Risk, Hot airTagged , , , , , , 2 Comments

A desire to improve the competitiveness of Renewable Energy in Australia’s power mix is problematic and it is not necessarily technical limitations that hamper the project or is it financial limitations despite bank risk concerns. Especially if the later is supported by the Government bringing forward $160 million in Clean Technology Investment Program (CTIP) funding to 2014-15 to increase manufacturing investment and boost productivity and competitiveness – The budgets key message that CTIP program demand is strong and growing, and there is no change to the funding commitment.  It also is possible the coalition could maintain the $1 billion commitment to the investment programs, albeit it may be called something else for branding purposes.

Co2Land org argues it is not sufficient to be experience in, or have an understanding of the challenges in the design or deployment of renewable energy solutions. That is referring to only the infrastructure, energy output, utility area of responsibility, power capability, transmission and distribution capacity, or even storage technology as the solution set.

The more dangerous issue is the means that an uncooperative energy utility can muster a political wedge and creates sufficient doubt of the effectiveness of the program that will lead to a fall-out with the community. Recently in Australia Co2Land org has been given information that a bitter war is engaged between parties over such a Queensland power line duplication proposal and it all seems so unnecessary. As an observation there is room for both sides to move on this one. However, the agenda may be more complex and looking further afield Canada has some lessons we could learn from over the growth of renewables and why utilities might be so sensitive to the growth of such. It could be our problems in Australia are similar to the following as the Pike Research report that says energy is becoming increasingly democratized and the role of utilities is changing, from producing power and supply markets to purchasing it from distributed sources. We also know in Queensland the State Government has a large ownership stake in generation and supply – albeit they are not alone from the other states and it all gets down to variation of the model as opposed to opposition of the models of operation. Regardless each has ample opportunity to hamper success of ‘buy local’ feed-in into the grid system as the rules stand.

Looking further to the problems of Canada and the utopian belief that all would embrace the new world, it is reported by www.energymanagertoday.com, on 21 May 2013:

“Ontario has fallen short of its goal of creating 50,000 jobs and 5 gigawatts of renewable energy power with its ‘buy local’ feed-in tariff program, despite gathering early momentum by generating 31,000 jobs and turning one in 7 farmers into energy producers, says a report by the Institute of Local Self-Reliance.

Hydro One, the province’s largest utility, has been a major roadblock to progress says ILSR report author John Farrell, since it set a limit of sourcing just 7 percent of its energy from distributed renewable sources, compared with 15 percent for most US utilities. In US states where the cost of power is high, like Hawaii and California, utilities have upped the limits even further, at 25 and 50 percent respectively.

Farrell says Hydro One did not prepare to accommodate the boom in distributed power from the FIT program and missed deadlines to link up to new sources of power. As a result, despite overwhelming demand for FIT and contracts being signed for most of the 5 gigawatts, only 10 percent of the projects are producing electricity now.

Because of the demand for FIT, Ontario will actually be able to shut down all its coal-fired plants next year, and meet most of its 2030 renewable energy goals 12 years early – but its notable success has come at a price, since unprepared utilities were not able to bring the contracted energy on line.

The slow development led to political backlash that nearly toppled the ruling Liberal Party in the 2011 elections. It did lose its majority, which Farrell says jeopardized support for FIT. The Great Recession also stymied progress.

Since then, Ontario has reviewed the FIT program and revised its rules last year, doubling its focus on local ownership and participation. Farrell believes the move, which he says should have been adopted two years ago, will reduce political angst and local opposition and increase return on investments.

Farrell suggests that the Ontario Power Authority needs to streamline its process for developing renewable power with existing contracts and push utilities to get better at determining grid capacity. It should also review whether utility-scale mega projects make sense, given the difficulties in getting it to market. With these changes, “the FIT program may still live up to much of its early promise” he says.”

Sometimes you have ask – why do we ignore the obvious in Power Play? I answer is it is the nature of things to only see our side as a team play, and there is no I in team. ‘I’ referring to the society as a collective, and it has no advantage to be a collective outcome.

 

Good News for CFI

Posted on Posted in Carbon OpportunityTagged , , Leave a comment

Good news for those following the Federal Government’s Carbon Farming Initiative.  The bipartisan support in the Federal Parliament will continue for approved carbon storage – and that is also a key component of the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan. As such those committed under the CFI legislation as farmers, land owners and land managers are able to generate carbon credits by storing carbon on the land or reducing greenhouse gas emissions with a greater degree of confidence.

In a show of faith the Federal Government has awarded the tender to develop the learning materials for the new CFI skill sets. In a press release, 8 May 2013, Carbon Training International (CTI) – www.co2ti.com – has announced that they are the successful tenderer for supplying CFI skill set training materials.

Co2Land org is aware that persons CTI are interested in to participate in the industry reference groups and the pilot courses have been contacted to run the programs later in the 2013 year.  It follows that those that would be able to give good input would still be welcome to do so to the sessions.

Below is a copy of the press release distributed by CTI:

————————————————————————–

Press release – Carbon Training International wins tender for Federal Government’s Carbon Farming Initiative Skill Set Training Materials Program.

The Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) introduces a specific new set of job roles into the Australian workforce to assist the establishment of carbon abatement and sequestration projects linked to the land. This requires a new set of skills and knowledge that give the workforce confidence to complete their roles and land holders the confidence that the people whom they are contracting have reached an acceptable performance benchmark. CTI has been selected by the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research & Tertiary Education (DIICCSRTE) following a competitive tender process to develop the training and learning materials to support the training of this important emerging workforce. “We were selected above other training development tenders in a very competitive field” said Bill McGhie CTI’s CFI Program Director.

The CFI is a legislated scheme which has bipartisan support in the Federal Parliament and is also a key component of the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan. Under the legislation farmers, land owners and land managers are able to generate carbon credits by storing carbon on the land or reducing greenhouse gas emissions from land based activities such as landfills & piggeries. These credits can then be sold to individuals or organisations who have committed to offset their emissions or to meet their liability under the carbon pricing mechanism.

The CFI skill set training focuses on building the knowledge and skills that carbon service providers need to assist farmers and land holders assess, evaluate, plan and implement complex CFI projects. The training is designed to enable individuals acting as CFI project advisors, originators or developers acquire or affirm the skills to supply reliable, credible and consistent technical information on CFI projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or sequester carbon in the landscape leading to carbon credits being issued.

Once produced the CFI Skill sets training products & course materials will be made available to universities, TAFE colleges and private training providers (RTOs) to deliver the CFI training and accredit people with the skills to support CFI projects.

“It is integral to the integrity and the credibility of the carbon service sector that those individuals with the knowledge, skills and experience for planning and implementing CFI projects support farmers and land managers on how to participate in the CFI effectively” said Carbon Training International’s MD, Robert Nicholls. “The establishment of accredited CFI training is an important development for the farming and land management community as it provides them with a means to easily select carbon service providers whose CFI knowledge and skills has been independently assessed and confirmed to be to a particular standard. It provides some peace of mind that the individuals undertaking project feasibility and CFI methodology selection for the deployment of carbon offset projects on behalf of landholders have the required skills.”

“The Clean Energy Regulator, which oversees the administration of the CFI is considering a register of accredited providers to provide more certainty of contractor capacity to make sure genuine service providers are differentiated from the cowboys.” said Carbon Training International’s CFI Program Director, Bill McGhie.

Accredited training will provide a firm footing for carbon offset projects to have a better chance of success and thereby generate important economic benefits to regional communities and indigenous Australians.

“The CFI offers an important opportunity to landholders, however the CFI projects need to be set up properly and that is why this training is essential” said Mr. McGhie.

Carbon Training International is the leading developer of accredited carbon management training and has already trained over 600 candidates in its Certificate IV in Carbon Management course. Its programs are taught in Australia, online and overseas through its international partner network, including the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA).

  Regards

Bill McGhie
Director
Organisation Capacity Building & Training
Carbon Training International
GPO Box 3414
Sydney, NSW 2001, Australia
m: 0408 207 820
www.co2ti.com

build a carbon-responsive workforce

 

 

Danger in oversimplifying energy savings – built environment

Posted on Posted in Carbon OpportunityTagged , , , , , , , Leave a comment

When organizing energy procurement opportunities you can experience frustration with the need to use simplified language in order to tell your client how they will make the cost savings. The danger in presenting over simplified information is the data might be clearly shown the distortion of savings that may occur. However, the simplified information package cannot illustrate the effects when small but significant changes to operations, occupancy rates of building, seasonal variations, how government policy changes will impact on the cost equation.  What comes to mind immediately is the Carbon Price in government policy, and the opposition in Australia stating they will retrench that price – it then becomes important to consider how different energy retailers might treat it in the energy agreement – something very few thought about until recent times.

And, it appears universal that the common mistake in the information delivery is the over simplified explanations that can be interpreted as all actions the client takes is a linear function in terms of costs. When in reality the issue is the bigger the contract in terms of dollars the greater the impacts of what you do to affect energy used will affect your price paid for the total energy consumed.

Then we find we are not alone: It is common to make mistakes, and it all comes down to oversimplifying the estimates when presenting the cost savings.

When researching the phenomena it was found Lindsay Audin wrote  “Common Mistakes Made By Energy Managers” recently and we share much of his thoughts. So similar in fact, it is also what Co2Land org has been discussing with Ecoprofit Management (www.ecoprofitmanagement.com.au ). What we need to exercise care in is the data has a message, and to paraphrase into simplified information may miss very important part of that message:

1.    Beware of using averaged electricity rates. Customers in a tranche other than domestic tariffs will be rated for electricity charges for both how much electricity is used in terms of kilowatt-hours (kWh) and for how fast electricity is used in terms of kilowatts (kW) – The  “peak demand charge” and the variance of how fast you use electricity can be as much as 50% of a total bill change.

Note a) The danger in using averaged electricity rates as a simplify in estimating dollar savings from energy upgrades, is it is likely you might calculate an average electricity rate by dividing the total cost of electricity in a month by the kWh used in the same time period – therefore the rate includes the cost of peak demand in it.

Note b) Some upgrades to equipment may fail to reduce peak kW demand – examples are using motion sensors to control lighting needs and such measures will save kWh, but may fail to reduce peak kW demand because of changes to occupancy rates and timing of production loads changing to operational needs to be met. It also follows that controlled lighting might also only happen when the peak of energy use has already passed. In the case of motion sensors for lighting if they don’t cut peak demand, they won’t reduce the kW charge of the bill.

Note c) “This same problem arises with photovoltaic (PV) panels that generate power. A system rated (for example) at 100 kW will, at some point, provide that level of capacity – but not necessarily at a building’s peak time. Full PV output occurs when the sun is highest (between noon and 1 PM), unless the panels are mounted on a motorized platform that follows the sun. Commercial buildings usually peak between 3 and 5 PM, at which point PV output may have dropped considerably.” – Audin.

Note d) “Under a power purchasing agreement (PPA), a PV vendor owns the system and sells the output to the host customer at a small discount off the average utility price, typically for 15-20 years. Once again, that averaged price assumes all the PV power is being provided during the building’s peak. Studies have found that is often not the case. Depending on how much of one’s bill is for peak kW, the true value of the kWh from PV may be significantly lower than the vendor’s price.” – Audin.

Note e) It is then obvious that an averaged electric price overestimates dollar savings, and in all likelihood and unless there is data to prove otherwise, only savings based on the kWh can be assumed as a simple measure.

2.    Beware HVAC savings might not result from a lighting upgrade. Do not assume a watt for watt drop in cooling or assume a heating constant to replace the lamping output. It will not be a proportional saving of kWh in a linear fashion.

Note f) “Reducing lighting kWh cuts fixture heat output, but – for several reasons – that may not always translate into a proportional air conditioning (A/C) savings. For example, chillers run for only a portion of the year, while lighting is on most of the year. When lighting wattage is reduced in a room served by a constant volume air system containing electric reheat coils, a drop in cooling load may be made up – watt for watt – by an increase in reheat output. Not only will there be no cooling savings but even the kWh savings from the lighting upgrade may be negated.” – Audin.

Note g) “A 100% outside air system (e.g., serving a lab) may remove a significant portion of fixture ballast heat in its exhaust air instead of returning it to the cooling coil, thus mitigating some of the assumed A/C savings. If any of the upgraded light fixtures are outdoors or in uncooled spaces (e.g., stairwells, bathrooms, basements, mechanical rooms), their reduced heat output will never be seen by the A/C system. If, on the other hand, that reduced heat output necessitates an increase in winter heating through electric resistance baseboards, the net winter electric savings from the lighting upgrade may also be minimal.” – Audin.

3.    In Co2Land org’s mind the greater mistake is assuming maintenance savings will occur.  Repeated again and again are claims that new equipment will need less maintenance. It may be true, but in all likelihood it will have a cause and effect that might not be adequately assessed.  Consider this scenario: A new boiler is fitted with inverter technology and will require less maintenance. Staff will be cut because of this, or retrained, or reassigned elsewhere. But when maintenance is required of a harmonic distortion occurred the building’s maintenance budget will blow out and little or no actual measurable savings from new equipment will be reported. Admittedly it will most likely be in the preceding budget periods that this affect will show itself.

Note h) Research you case studies thoroughly, and do not assume marketing is telling the truth, the whole truth.

Our underlying message is to exercise caution when you try to explain with too little detail, and do not assume the other party is wanting you to explain all as a simplified explanation.  It might even pay to ask – can you make the time to understand all the implications?

Not selling – suburban transport EV dream.

Posted on Posted in Carbon Opportunity, Hot airTagged , , , Leave a comment

The evidence to date suggests the socio-economic structure of suburban life is partly to blame for car dependent suburbanites rejecting electric vehicles. It might also explain the lack of patronage for City of Sydney recharging facilities infrastructure. And, now we have a political bidding war for public infrastructure in Western Sydney it will be even more difficult, or more correctly a major barrier is being put up to suppress the EV market even more.

The reference to City of Sydney patronage can be read on a previous post – Posted on February 27, 2013 by co2land – ‘Not selling – no better place to charge your EV!’ In particular the quote  “the first two power point stations were installed in September 2012: ”We haven’t had a customer yet,” but there have ”been a few drop-ins”.

When CO2Land org was researching the uptake of EV’s in suburbia it started with the premise of electric vehicles being a favoured solution, the dream technology is another way of putting it, and the best fit to solve our a families transport challenges and mitigate them from the economic and environmental impacts from oil dependence and how our lifestyles pose significant environmental threats. No such evidence exists that it will happen this way. The sales of EV’s are not happening as hoped, and the technology use indicates the problem occurs in a social context, and seemingly the discussion of electric vehicles has not included suburban social patterns among which electric vehicles might be adopted.

That said, someone else said, on 14 Feb 2013, we have looked deeper for the reasons and provided evidence . This was taken up by The Conversation and we quote “what Neil Sipe, Terry Li and I have assembled suggests the socio-economic structure of Australian suburbia, in combination with the distribution of public transport infrastructure, constitutes a major barrier to the widespread adoption of electric vehicles, especially among the most car-dependent households.

Relying on electric vehicles as a solution to energy and environmental problems may perpetuate suburban social disadvantage in a period of economic and resource insecurity.

Australia’s five largest cities are the most car-dependent national set outside the United States. Our previous studies (Dodson and Sipe 2007; 2008 have shown that outer suburban residents, especially those with lower socio-economic capacity, are among those most exposed to the pressures of higher transport fuel prices.

Future transport fuel costs are likely to be even higher (currently oil is approximately US$100 per barrel). Unconventional oil sources such as shale or tar sands may be abundant, but they have much higher production costs than conventional light crude. Their current production boom is underpinned by expectations that global oil prices will remain high or increase further over the long term.

Higher oil prices and the need to constrain carbon emissions will likely lead to much higher transport fuel costs than have prevailed in the past decade.

Electric vehicles are often presented as the most likely way to resolve this transport conundrum. Australia’s 2012 Energy White Paper alludes to a transition to electric vehicles as the economy of conventional fuels wanes.

Much of the Energy White Paper and the rhetoric around electric vehicles assumes an unproblematic transition – consumers will change their behaviour in response to price pressures. There is little discussion of potential barriers and impediments to this comforting, convenient narrative.

It makes sense that households who are most car dependent and least able to afford higher fuel prices would be the most eager to switch to an electric car. But, it turns out, the social structure of Australian suburbia means these groups are poorly placed to lead such a transition.

In our study of Brisbane we created datasets linking vehicle fuel efficiency with household socio-economic status. In our analysis, high vehicle fuel efficiency, including hybrids, serves as a proxy for future electric vehicles. We linked motor vehicle registration data with the Green Vehicle dataset on fuel efficiency, plus travel and socio-economic data from the ABS Census.

Our analysis builds a rich picture of how the spatial distribution of vehicle efficiency intersects with suburban socio-spatial patterns, using Brisbane and Sydney as case studies.

We found that the average commuting distance increases with distance from the CBD while average fuel efficiency of vehicles declines. So outer suburban residents travel further, in less efficient vehicles, than more centrally situated households. Outer suburban residents are also likely to be on relatively lower incomes than those closer in.

The result is those living in the outer suburbs have relatively weaker socio-economic status but are paying more for transport. For example, one-third of the most disadvantaged suburbs in greater Brisbane also have the most energy-intensive motor vehicle use.

A socially equitable transition to highly fuel efficient or electric vehicles ought to favour those with the highest current exposure to high fuel prices. Yet our research finds it’s not likely to happen.

26 February 2013, Jogo Dodson, Associate Professor and Director, Urban Research Program at Griffith University “

CO2Land org still maintains it is the politics that drives community attitudes and where it may be immoral, it is not illegal. Thought of today – more politicians face charges with illegal activities each year than illegal immigrants! Source ABC.

Not selling – no better place to charge your EV!

Posted on Posted in Carbon Opportunity, Carbon Risk, Hot airTagged , , , , , , 1 Comment

The promise of electric cars is getting down to the power point. The promise of the dream technology solving our transport challenges is now best described as uneven! The problem might just be the socio-economic structure around us, and where the most car dependent households are distributed.

It seems at odds, that for instance, the City of Sydney is staunchly promoting a sustainable future, that the leading edge they wish to protect and serve with examples of what is the correct thing to do is also being meet with stern and robust opposition. If we put aside the concerns over the city’s trigeneration project and the claims and counterclaims. A very interesting story develops from an article published on http://www.drive.com.au under the heading “Not Selling”.

The story centres on the City of Sydney council having held a press event last week. The announcement being it had bought 10 Nissan Leaf electric cars, and it planned to buy 50 similar vehicles over the next few years. The story said “the event was supposed to be a shot in the arm for electric vehicles, which have barely registered a blip on the sales charts. But instead, it provided an insight into the failure of the Better Place electric vehicle-charging network”. Co2Land org is now very interested in the history of the Better Place network as Canberra and others also touted the wonderful concepts and the advantages of such a network.

What happened to the wonderful network at Sydney: Again, Drive.com published “In 2011, the City of Sydney put out a project to tender for 12 new electric car-charging stations – a perfect opportunity for Better Place to gain a foothold in Sydney. Better Place was considered, but ultimately the tender was won not by a multinational technology provider but a local electrician, who simply installed power points”.  It got down to there is no need for propriety displays and charge points – all based on subscription arrangements. What was needed according to the manager for strategy and assets at the council was 15-amp, 240-volt power points with a timer and flow meter. CO2Land org then though they already have them in most council owned caravan park around the country – interesting thought to think the old technology is suitable for the new, yet we were going to pay more without the need!

Council is also quoted as saying there is a lack of customers to even support installing the power points. The story continues to say after the first two power point stations were installed in September 2012: ”We haven’t had a customer yet,” but there have ”been a few drop-ins”.  Oh dear, or is it still too dear?

Fit for Purpose – assumptions in MSW and WtE

Posted on Posted in Carbon Opportunity, Zero WasteTagged , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

End to end solution for treating Metropolitan Sewage and Waste (MSW) is a hot topic, and very much in the fore of forums for 2013. So enthusiastic are the players it is very difficult to differentiate the fact from the ideals. Look and you will see a lot of justification and more than adequate presentation of the material. What is more difficult is to get a clear indication of the capability and improvements over current practices.

The culprit may be assumptions, and they are widely used under management scenarios. If we define assumptions as a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn. It might even be that as we rely more on big data an omission from the assumption can lead us to ignore the obvious. Take this example statement – Our machine can undercut all other in terms of power costs. Then if we find published a number of a competitors, but necessarily the same technology, we can quote that number and assume ours as similar or superior. Yet, as was said it is not the same technology.

Recently a post was read and it said in the US, under US Average Levelized Cost for Plants in the Annual Energy Outlook 2009 and 2010 and 2011, a typical generator running on Biomass has net requirement for a price of 11 c kWh to break even. Then came an assumption from the author that as these tables have no values for Advanced Plasma Conversion it is assumed a value of  $0.044/kwh is the value that you add for comparison. The difficulty is the published number for biomass is taken from experience and certain modeling under a list of data sources. The advanced plasma conversion unit was then part of a hypothetical assessment according to mathematical values that commence with an assumption, and will be correct until proven wrong. The fatal flaw in this is that facts are with the biomass and its testing included load scenarios and importantly it has a generator (that thing that produces electromotive force – electricity) attached. What is obscure is whether the Advanced Plasma Conversion unit is connected to a generator, or whether it needs one. For an investor this is a matter of concern, and for a professional in the industry it says embarrassing!

Another major issue is the maturity of the solutions put forward for you to make a project decision.  At program level you can take liberties and shuffle as you need to, at a project level on time and on budget can be you nemesis if you make the wrong assumptions – as said earlier – assumptions are a management scenario. CO2Land org assumes four scenarios are possible for waste handling solutions. It can be put forward to consider: Business as Usual, Gasification, and Pyrolysis, Plasma conversion.

  1. Business as usual (BAU) is an option fast running out, and in areas of rapid urbanization and rapid growing economies the time has already arrived that it cannot continue, not just because of the carbon issues but because it is an economic cost. This does not discount the importance of carbon, but indicated that developing countries needs the resource recovery as much as it is in need to develop.
  2. Gasification is an effective incineration tool, and innovations are proving to be effective in optimizing syngas recovery and returning additional products from the process for agriculture and raw material recovery.
  3. Pyrolysis is also an incineration tool, albeit at higher temperatures with the added benefit of being able to produce syncrude and chars to order. The process needs to be well managed to avoid the possibility of producing dioxins.
  4. Plasma conversion has been around for some years and has chequed history as an incineration method. Two particular issues have dogged the traditional designs. High and constant power requirement, and not being able to control temperature and ionizing across the plasma bed. Considerable claims are being made of advances in the technology. Confidence is continuing to grow on the refinement of the equipment and a number of sites across the world are being implemented.

The Cost benefit of each scenario indicates:

  • Point one is clear – the high cost of resource recovery weighs heavily when the budget is restricted for an authority and they would promote BAU until an incentive was put forward.
  • Point two and three are relevant and in more recent times the marrying of the two according to need is seeing this technology develop into a useful cost effective solution and should be the method of choice in most instances for the next 7 to 8 years.  By this it is meant it is the best technology to implement for most scenarios now and into the future in that time frame and it useful life for many more.  It also has an advantage of being complimentary to most commercial activities, and the ability to be scalable as required.  The strong point potential is to return a number of waste materials, especially plastics to virgin materials.
  • Point four will be the technology of the future; it has the potential (ideal) and the hopeful expect an almost unending product potential from this technology. The next generation is expected to be approved and producible in around 5 years. The scale of the projects required to cover the capital costs is the biggest limiting factor for future projects.

In more detail is this information the current Waste to Energy scenario suggests the difficulty is with the techno-commercial format. That comparing apples with apples may not be possible. An example is given by 
William G. Acker (http://www.ackerandassociates.com) where he looked for Advanced Plasma Conversion tables in the U.S. Annual Energy Outlook 2009 and 2010 and 2011. In these tables there are no values for Advanced Plasma Conversion. So he then said he must assume that what was claimed by another company representative was a value added to the values. He himself then assessed the closest estimate to which the technology is closest to be the figure for Biomass. This is not his definitive position, all he asks is someone to provide a value to share that is more accurate. However, in the mean time we make the assumption it must be correct until refuted

Then CO2Land org decides to ask a question in a forum on Waste to Energy (WtE): “Excuse the confusion, a lot of justification and adequate presentation of the material is provided. What is not clear is the capability from the production of an energy source to the actual electromagnetic force. In other words: what are the source, type and cost of the generator machine? Or, is your Plasma machine also a generator of electrical power in its own right without the need for other equipment?  The response: Good question!  The discussion then centres on whether matters were assumed or simply relayed on what was actually said on the capacity and nothing more.  Being that capability was not addressed is not the domain of the engineers for not giving you correct info, or how confidential agreement might stop you providing information. It may well be a simple case of the enquirers having no idea on what to ask. They do not ask because it was not obvious or lost in techno-commercial format of the communications.

In the quest for comparing apples to apples, and ignoring that baseline quotes may be flawed. To compare the possible in WtE from our view (to which we will assume you will be at odd. Information supplied illustrated:

A hearth gasifier with a reciprocating low Btu engine and conventional generator can be leased in Australia with an operating cost of 8.2cents per kilowatt-hours, with a 25,000 hours maintenance requirement. These costs are worked assuming a 1MW net unit and economies of scale suggest lower costs for larger units. If I combine the capability of the unit with a pyrolysis retort and produce syncrude and biochar, the offset pricing suggest a decrease in generation capacity will result, but the operating costs will settle at around 5 cents a kWh. The number will vary according to the feedstock quality.

Very recently an indicative quote that asked for capacity to handle MSW with1750 kcal as feedstock and input 300 tonnes per day for using advanced plasma conversion. What would be the project cost? The answer came back in the order of  $6.5m plus the cost of shredder activity and generator sets required – that is the cost to add capability is not in the cost mix.  The difficulty now is the assumption that must be made in the numbers.

In another example of a project where the project is not only proposed, is financed (and currently on hold to commence), is again supplied by William G Acker, of the MSW Plasma Gasification Facility for St. Lucie, Florida. This facility would use 686 ton per day of MSW and would produce 22 MW Gross and 18 MW Net of electricity. The installed cost came to $190,000,000. Amortized the project over 30 years with the Levelized Capital Cost alone (no maintenance cost, no labor cost etc.) comes to $0.0922 per kWh. If we add labor and maintenance costs the total may be ‘assumed’ to be around $0.14 per kWh. Then we must consider the money made for taking the waste off the hands of communities, or business that are paying to, landfill it we then could subtract around $0.03 per kWh from the operating cost resulting in $0.11 per kWh.

This results in CO2Land org asking: Will the actual plasma price to generate electricity please stand!  So we know without assumption forming the core costing criteria a project cost is capable of producing electricity for approximately 11 Cents per kWh, and the example hearth gasifier somewhere from 4.4 to 11 cents per kWh. Albeit other examples might swing wildly towards higher costs depending on the operating and technology vintage.  That said there is no doubt that given time and R&D plasma conversion in whatever form will be the way forward. In other examples plasma systems are doing OK for the job required, but academia and those in the industry say it is some way off being perfected and as efficient as it should be.

If we go back to the influence of assumptions the problem for the industry is that laboratory results and mathematical equations don’t often become reality, as not everything is scalable. In the mean time it is “danger danger, Will Robertson” as borrowed from ‘lost in space’ which was entertaining series a little while back. We also need to be fully aware of the smoke and mirrors approach that do a wonderful job with customers who are not normally that knowledgeable.

Another factor of our times is that despite each supplier wanting to win each job, they are fighting for funds within an economy where funds requiring $50M or more are highly competitive. In these instances those projects where the technology is still to be proven it will take second place to those known to do the job.

Evidence of uncertainty in the accuracy of a useful lifecycle may lead you to consider that you might want to lease the plant, it could be a lower risk in these times. The more popular in these circumstances are suggested as those that offer an operational lease rather than a financial risk.

We trust that has covered off on the choices – if you feel too much assumption is made or if you know better – please show yourself!

Closing 21 Feb – excluded

Posted on Posted in Carbon Opportunity, Carbon Risk, Hot air, Zero WasteTagged , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Closing 21 Feb 2013, Community Renewable Energy Projects: Message  – Innovations excluded and technology chosen must be commercial. This is despite many innovators being able to prove an environmental benefit at least cost.  It is not a new issue it is a matter that is a symptom of measures providing a pathway regardless of the evidence. Albeit, justification for this approach can be found by some oblique reference to some far away story.

As the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory explains “One of the most serious (and valid) criticisms of subsidies for “renewable” energy is that they heighten the perception (but not the reality) that wind and solar are less expensive and more energy efficient than conventional fuels”.

If we single out the NSW Renewable Energy Precincts Program and the expression of interest for funding the wording says “EOIs will only be accepted for projects proposing to use renewable energy technologies that are commercially available and have been demonstrated in operation at a similar scale generation capacity for 12 months or more. Solar photovoltaic technology and wind are the two most common, and commercially available, renewable energy technologies. Most CRE projects internationally use one of these two technologies”. This is interesting as world wide, and in Australia, there are technologies that offer a better power capacity ratio. It is also interesting that in Australia at least one public entity has taken legal action to restrict (Suppression) the opportunity for a commercial opportunity with alternative renewable energy. When the reference is made to power capacity ratio it simply means – coal fired can be replaced by this technology as base load. It should also be said at a lower cost than wind and solar. AKA – cost benefit is superior.

It is difficult to understand why a ‘community’ program is directing a bias in this way towards wind & solar. CO2Land org feels this is a shame because more than a few communities would be able to scratch together sufficient green waste and other biomass resources to run a genuine base load or peak lopping plant, from what is waste with the added advantage of also having very useful co-products and creating more permanent local employment.

It follows that local government have obligations for services and various industry is within the boundaries they manage. Industry does two things: 1) They tend to consume more of the fuel resources available in the geographical area, and 2) Produce waste that is often toxic or hazardous in the environment.

In a growing trend around the world (being a reference was made in the NSW REP EOI), and since 1980, as far as CO2Land org can see, major industry is increasingly looking at methods for recovering the fuel value from many wastes.

CO2Land org can identify some of the different methods to do so and each is superior in their own way, and certainly make use of existing problems of waste and remove much of the need for virgin material in the products they offer. The point is made – not one product such as electricity generation of wind and solar, but also other products that make up the needs of society.

To give examples: Gasification, Pyrolysis, Plasma conversion are increasingly being piloted or in production in other parts of the world. Not surprising is that many of the leading work was from Australia, then ‘discovered’ by America, India, China and other countries determined to solve their resource and waste problems. If you were to argue it is cost that is the problem. As a single product produced wind and solar can argue they the high ground. “But consider this case of cement kilns converting waste: The ash in waste fuels becomes part of the cement product in a cement kiln, this system is one of the very few that actually consumes all of the waste material – both organic and inorganic turning all of the waste into product – no ash, no change in emissions and no impact on product quality”. Patent Number 8268073 System and method for making cement and cement derived therefrom

Inventors: Burton J. Kunik, James C. Berns, David G. Gossman

More recently, engineered fuels (Synfuels) are carrying on to advance the latest step in the process that started over 30 years ago. Some might even recall or have read that in World War 2 years the need to ‘invent’ devices to get the family car around as fuel was rationed. The new advances present the real potential for using a wider variety of waste materials, including treated medical wastes, to consume waste materials instead of coal and other natural resource based fuels in the manufacturing process.

Then there is products from the treatment of medical waste including sharps: Embodiments of this invention provide methods for converting a used healthcare material including a complex mixture of components including pulp materials, polymer materials, metal materials, and/or other material such as ceramic materials, ash materials, etc. directly into a burnable fuel, Without the need for component separation. Patent Number 8163045 Method and system of making a burnable fuel Inventors: Burton J. Kunik, James C. Berns, David G. Gossman

Still struggling in Australia is Real Power Systems. Peter and Kerry Davies have built a considerable amount of bench testing conducted (circa 2009 to now) and are successfully testing, including onsite pilots of their gasifier and pyrolysis retort and this success continues to lead to product identification not previously considered. They started being most interested in bio-char production for agricultural purposes, and the range of fuels that can produce and the range of waste they can treat under various water saturation condition is striking. And, they can produce syngas, synfuel, syncrude and have solved problems such as “Cavitation Phenomenon at the Reactor Chamber” that plaqued or was the reason for more expensive offering in the field.

If you can consider the cost savings when compared with traditional fuels it can be enormous. The environmental saving through the use of engineered fuels (syfuels) is a significant reduction of GHG emissions. So much so that engineered fuels, are getting overseas regulatory approvals and are meeting EPA definitions for “sufficiently processed”.

We are saying we should compare complimentary and alternative solutions to our energy problems, and being we should be very conscious of the traps involved in the development of technology, It can be very hard to stay focused when development is proving there is so much flexibility and opportunity in direction.

Possibly this is why the 21 Feb 2013 closing EOI has chosen to stay focused on wind and solar, but then something more needs to be done in keeping with the developments and as such building on advances to ensure uniform characteristics can be judged to gain a higher level of understanding and open whole new avenues for applications of otherwise problematic materials. What could be better than the local government waste dump having onsite production capability of syncrude made from waste tetra packs and plastics? it does make things oddly enough, a tad more difficult…but not impossible.