Musk a modern day Edison? Batteries take a step up.

1 May 2015

Could these be a thing of the past?

Could these be a thing of the past?

One of the common refrains about solar and wind is that the sun doesn’t always shine (actually it does but not always on us) and that the wind doesn’t always blow. In short, solar and wind can’t always provide power when we need it.  Often that means that solar and wind have been consigned as a supplemental resource in our just-in-time power system.  It also has caused many problems between early adopters of these renewables and the power companies as they fight over the price of sales to the grid (net metering) vs charging solar users extra to help support the grid.   The problem has been power storage – our system and technology do not let us generate power and store it for when we need it.

Last night (actually this morning), Elon Musk announced that he wanted the entire United States to convert to batteries – for home, office and business use and that he further wanted the entire United States to fuel those batteries with solar power.  Now, most of us would think that was an amazing futuristic projection. However, Musk is the CEO of Tesla – the high end electric car manufacturer – so he knows about batteries.  Further, he’s the cousin to the CEO of, and a major investor in, SolarCity – a firm that is leasing rooftops for solar panels (and then selling the electricity to the roof-owners. So, when he says he wants to get us off coal, oil and natural gas and onto solar and wind, he’s worth listening to.  He says we can eliminate the grid.

He is now offering for sale the Tesla Powerwall which is a lithium ion batterypack for $3,500 each. It would take about 3 of them to power a whole home but these could be hooked up to a house with solar panels and the panels could be used to charge the batteries which then could eliminate the need to be on the grid at all. He actually thinks we can eliminate all fossil fuel use in the United States – he said that it would take 2 billion battery units to do it but that equals the number of cars driving on the planet today – his thinking being if we can have 2 billion cars, we can have 2 billion batteries.
He’s got a “gigafactory” going up in Nevada to make these batteries and says there will be more. This could change everything about our economy and our environment and could unshackle our economy in ways not seen since the industrial revolution.  Have all the questions been answered about how much this would cost and how long these batteries will last? Not yet, but that was one intriguing announcement and it could lead to some really interesting and positive changes for the planet and our economy.  It looks like the Tesla was merely the wrapper and the battery technology may be the true gift. I, for one, will be watching.

What will be the top stories of 2015?

23 Jan 2015

edit_calendar_ssk_47433454Happy new year!  I know it’s almost February but as this is my first blog post of the year, I thought (particularly after hearing the State of the Union and the State of the State speeches)  I’d predict the big stories of 2015 in no particular order:

  • Wetland Rules – the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers finally proposed rules in 2014  to address the fallout of the Rapanos case.  The proposal was met with a firestorm of disapproval, particularly from the farming world.  Will they ever finalize them?
  • Brownfield TIF Legislation – after all that work last year, will the Legislature take up streamlining this program and expanding it to allow Michigan to be even more competitive in redeveloping brownfields?
  • EPA Greenhouse Gas Rules vs. Congress – in September, 2013, EPA issued a proposal for carbon pollution from new power plants; in June  2014, EPA issued a proposal to cut carbon pollution from existing power plants – the GOP and coal and oil interests in Congress have fought this for some time.  Will the rules be adopted and enforced?  Will there be enough time for electricity generators to get alternative plans in place before being forced to shutter their oldest, least efficient and most polluting plants?
  • Keystone Pipeline – President Obama and Congress have been locked in a politically charged dispute over the Keystone XL pipeline for almost 3 years now – he seemed to indicate in the State of the Union that he’d veto legislation – will he?
  • Energy Policy – Governor Snyder has pushed for an energy policy, legislation is expected this year and the Governor recently mentioned an intention to develop a new energy agency that would make Michigan more competitive for business.  What that will entail in light of the likely changes due to federal regulations will be interesting to see – will Michigan upgrade or discard its renewable portfolio standard? Can Michigan reduce electrical cost while improving both reliability and environmental performance?
  • Water Policy – the Governor’s long-awaited great lakes policy is expected this year.
  • Pipelines – in addition to the Keystone pipeline, there has been a lot of interest in pipelines in, under and around the Great Lakes – could there be federal and state changes there?
  • Detroit’s Water Authority – it is supposed to morph into a regional authority – as I said previously, the easy part was getting to the agreement last year – will the hard work succeed or will it fail, causing major shockwaves for roughly half of the State’s population?

Gas taxes, electrics and hybrids – is Michigan paying attention?

17 Dec 2014

Tesla

A sharp, environmentally friendly car, but also a “free rider”?

Everyone agrees that Michigan’s roads are in awful shape.  Everyone seems to agree on the amount of money to get them into good shape and keep them there (an additional $1.2 Billion a year – although MDOT argues that it may be closer to $2 Billion/year).  What no one seems to be able to agree on is how to pay for that.  With a week left to go this year (and I wonder why they aren’t working through the 31st on this), the House has passed two bills and the Senate has passed another.

Michigan, desperate to fund much-needed road repairs, appears unwilling to take on this issue

The first House bill would amend the General Sales Tax Act to eliminate, over 6 years, the sales tax on motor fuels. The proposed exemption would first reduce the portion of the sales tax that existed before the approval of Proposal A on March 15, 1994. After January 1, 2021, eligible fuel would be exempt from the sales tax. The Legislature’s own financial analysis shows reductions in State and local revenue by approximately $1.1 billion by fiscal year 2021-2022.  The second bill would amend the Motor Fuel Tax Act to replace the current excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel with a single excise tax that would be adjusted annually.  The current gasoline fuel tax is 19 cents per gallon and under the bill, the tax rate could go up every year but could not exceed 32.5 cents.

the number of miles driven is a good proxy for wear and tear on the roads but I wonder if there should be some weighting based on, well, vehicle weight

(more…)

Electric Shaming – Part 2 – “I told you so”

15 Dec 2014

1368974_10201396380089655_297288408_nA year ago, I raised the question “has electricity shaming come to Detroit?”  This was after I started receiving the monthly “letter of shame” that DTE generates, comparing my family to our more and less efficient neighbors.  It appears I’m not alone in wondering about this.

Saturday’s Detroit Free Press asked the same question.  The answer appears to be about the same as mine was – most people wonder who are these “more efficient” neighbors and what are they doing that I am not?   Interestingly, the Free Press article says DTE and Consumers can document a decrease in electricity usage after these letters (and emails) start going out – albeit a relatively small decrease – 1%.  In the meantime. I’d appreciate better information on how to save energy rather than just the generic platitudes about switching lightbulbs (I’m working on it), vacuuming out my refrigerator (I do that)  and ditching the old refrigerator in my basement (not going to happen).

Water, water … recycling?

9 Dec 2014

6_weekWe here in Detroit  had far more rainfall this past summer than we usually get and between the long, cold winter and all the rain, our lake levels are nearing their normal levels.  Meanwhile, in the southwest, drought conditions continue to grow.  So much so that there’s a flurry of deeper well drilling in California. In Texas, some communities are installing mega-treatment and cycling water from their wastewater treatment plant back to their drinking water systems, under a trial permit.  San Diego’s Sea World announced it was using treated saltwater in its toilets.

I’ve blogged about so-called “toilet-to-tap” before.  At that point, it was more on the model of Orange County’s program – where treated water was discharged back into an aquifer from which drinking water was taken.  That program is a way of speeding up the water cycle we all learned about in elementary school.  Some call it “showers to flowers” and it is being expanded.  In Texas, it looks like they are taking a more direct approach.

At least one gentleman I know has decried this as dangerous due to the possibility of industrial and other contaminants finding their way into the public’s drinking water.  And, he’s right – there is a risk – but, as we have seen recently, there are risks to taking drinking water from a lake or river  which receive runoff and NPDES discharges.  Virtually all the water we see at the tap has been through a person’s body or has been impacted by some industrial or farming operation – it’s only a question of how much natural and professional treatment it receives prior to discharge, how long ago, how much dilution occurs and how much treatment before it’s put back into the drinking system.

The World Economic Forum has identified water as a key issue for the future.  There simply isn’t much freshwater on the planet as this video shows. As the video shows, some 80% of our water gets used for power generation and farming.  How we protect and conserve and, in some cases, recycle, this resource may be the story of the next 50 years.

Free Riders, the United Nations, “Affordable” Water and the Daily Show

18 Nov 2014

waterEt tu, Jon Stewart?  I was dismayed to read of the United Nations’ visit and evaluation of Detroit’s recent, well publicized water shut-off initiative.  I suspect that it’s a waste of time; interesting, but a waste.   First of all, the federal bankruptcy judge supervising the Detroit Bankruptcy refused to rule against the City on its now-revised shut-off program.  I am not certain what authority the UN has in Detroit (I suspect none), it is possible that the UN could assert that the United States has violated some treaty.  It is interesting that the UN human rights declaration does not discuss water.  A commentary to that declaration does state that  “the human right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses“ and notes that it can be a violation when arbitrary or unjustified disconnections occur or when there are discriminatory or unaffordable increases in water tariffs.

that the shut-offs fell disproportionately on the poor while ignoring those businesses with the ability to pay seems backward and should have been the protesters’ focus

It is the word “affordable” that is crucial here.  The UN documents do not state that government provided water must be free.  In fact, as I noted in my earlier blog post and as the New York times noted previously, not letting market forces set water prices can lead to, in some cases, dramatically bad outcomes.  Water in Detroit cannot be provided for free without a dramatic shift in how we pay for municipal services (i.e., raising taxes).  At present, a significant segment of the population has been taking water for free and leaving the rest of us to pay for it.  This is a classic “free rider” problem and it has led to exactly the sorts of problems that economists predict – an inability to provide the good (in this case water and sewer service) at a reasonable cost.  The bottom line, getting the water to drinkable state (see this video which estimates that it takes $9 Million/year) isn’t free nor is the cost of maintaining the delivery system. So, if we want to have a world class system (vs this sort of jury-rigging), we need to find a way to pay for it.

(more…)

Detroit’s Carbon Footprint – now what?

18 Nov 2014

Not a carbon footprint

Not a carbon footprint

A couple of years ago, my son was watching a cartoon where one character discussed his villainous carbon foot print (a giant foot).  This showed me both how widespread the use of the term “carbon footprint” had become and how little anyone seems to know what to do with or about that information.  A group at the University of Michigan recently released findings calculating the City of Detroit’s cumulative carbon footprint and presented their report to Mayor Duggan’s office.

Not surprisingly, the study reported that some 66% of the City’s emissions come from stationary sources including residential and commercial buildings and another 30% result from transportation. Those are known to be large sources of emissions.

What I found interesting is that 41% of the city’s total emissions are produced in just 4 of the City’s 33 ZIP codes – primarily from the City’s southwest, midtown and downtown areas. Citywide, greenhouse gas emissions totaled 10.6 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents in 2011 and 2012. According to the report, if you drove from Detroit to Ann Arbor 60 times, your car would emit roughly one metric ton of CO2.  Also interesting is that, on a per capita basis, Detroit’s 2012 emissions are below average when compared to data previously collected from 13 other U.S. and Canadian cities. Detroit’s per capita emissions ranked 9th-lowest among that group—below Cleveland, Denver, Pittsburgh, Ann Arbor and Washington, D.C.  Per capita emissions were lower in Baltimore, Boston, Minneapolis, Chicago, Philadelphia, Toronto, Seattle and New York City. That one always surprises, but New York with its many tall buildings is surprisingly efficient on a per-capita basis. The report shows that electricity use contributed 45% to 2012 citywide emissions, in large part because of DTE Energy’s fuel mix, which includes 76% coal.

Now that we know where the City’s “low hanging fruit” of CO2 emissions can be found, the City may be able to work on assisting its property owners and businesses to reduce those emissions, which typically go hand-in-hand with cost savings.  That’s often the best way to sell such changes – not based on an environmental change, but based on an economic one.  One more thing for Mayor Duggan’s team to work on.