Visit http://www.greencitytimes.com for more on:
Vauban, Germany is a sustainable town for every other city in the world to emulate. Vauban is a “zero-emission” district in Freiburg, Germany.
The town is not completely carbon neutral, as cars are actually allowed, if you pay at least $23,000 USD for a parking spot on the outskirts of town. Thus, the majority of residents don’t own a car, choosing instead to use the tram, cycle or simply walk. Most streets don’t even have parking spaces.
The radical culture of Vauban has roots in its dramatic history. Ironically, Vauban was a military town through WWII and into the early 90’s. When the military left, the vacant buildings were inhabited by squatters. These vagabonds eventually organized Forum Vauban, organizing a revolutionary eco-community. Today, Vauban is modern, beautiful and represents the very cutting edge of sustainable living.
Careful urban planning helped to create a city layout which lends itself to cycling as the primary mode of transit. The terms “filtered permeability” and ”fused grid” refer to a plan that ultimately means connected streets throughout the town, as well as plenty of pedestrian and bike paths. Residents primarily live in co-op buildings, such as the “solar ship”, a large area of co-op buildings that run strictly on renewable energy…
Carbon cap and trade systems are plans in which countries, provinces, states and even cities set regulations (a cap) on the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions industries/ power plants can emit, and then implement an Emissions Trading System (ETS). Companies included in cap and trade systems, often companies that operate power plants, have a limit (cap) on the amount of GHG emissions they can produce that is set by the government. Governments may either “grandfather in” GHG allowances (essentially give away credits based on past GHG production) or auction allowances off. Companies with extra carbon credits because their plants go under the limits can then trade their excess carbon allowances to companies that need to buy carbon credits to avoid going over the limit.
Auctions for carbon permits (one carbon permit is usually = to 1 metric ton of GHG pollution) are an essential part of the carbon cap and trade system, helping to establish a price on carbon, and are much more effective than the system where credits are just ‘”grandfathered in”. The cost of carbon permits is essentially the price of carbon. As GHG emission credits are auctioned off, a price on carbon is established. Companies can also keep carbon credits for future use in trading or for their own allowances. For companies that run over their GHG emissions limits and don’t cover their allowances, a heavy fine is imposed. Carbon cap and trade systems are designed to lower the cap annually, gradually reducing the allowable limit of GHG pollution for those industries targeted by the cap and trade system.
There are trades that offset GHG emissions; trades for credits with companies that have forestry projects and that are reforesting areas or that limit deforestation, or companies that have livestock projects that incorporate sustainable practices, or companies that invest in clean coal technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) or other carbon sequestration measures. To make cap and trade systems even more effective, there should be more offset credits allowed for trades with companies that implement GHG emission saving and energy efficiency technologies like renewable energy, integrative gasification combined cycle (IGCC), and anaerobic digestion (AD), combined heat and power (cogeneration) (CHP) etc…
For some companies, it might make more financial sense and be more cost-effective to make the effort to reduce emissions through emission saving and energy efficiency technologies and/ or expanded use of renewable energy, and then sell their allowances to companies that are over their GHG limit. However, usually most companies tend to buy carbon allowances if it’s cheaper to buy them than to try to lower emissions. Carbon permits can be invested in by businesses, industries, or even the public in some regions, via a carbon futures market.
Carbon cap and trade systems are in effect in about 40 countries and 25 states/ provinces/ cities globally. The largest market for cap and trade is in the EU with the European Union Emissions Trading System. The EU ETS covers more than 11,000 power plants and industrial stations in over 30 countries, as well as airlines (for flights within Europe until 2016). The primary focus of the EU ETS is to fight climate change by lowering GHG emissions.
The EU ETS remains the largest (and first) international trading organization for trading GHG emission allowances. The EU ETS has successfully put a price on carbon, with its system of trading allowances of GHG emissions, and has also watched GHG emissions fall by a few percent annually since it began in 2005. The cap, or limit, set on GHG emissions will be, on average, over 20% lower on all power plants and industries by 2020 from 2005 levels (when the program started), as the EU continues to make efforts to reduce pollution. Clean, energy efficient, low-carbon technologies like CCS, IGCC, CHP and AD, as well as renewable energy, have grown in popularity throughout Europe, in part, because of the rising price of carbon resulting from cap and trade programs.
All countries deal with cap and trade differently. Most have cap and trade for industry and power sectors. South Korea has cap and trade for heavy industry, power, waste, transportation and building sectors. China has six provinces testing out cap and trade, and along with South Korea, represents a very large carbon market (with just those 6 provinces China is a large market, the entire country represents the single largest carbon market, by far). The U.K., Ireland, Iceland and the Scandinavian countries Norway, Sweden and Finland have legislated both a carbon tax and cap and trade programs.
The nine state agreement in the U.S. northeast (the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, RGGI) is another major carbon cap and trade trading pact, and is, at least partially, based on the pioneering EU program. These states have auctioned off carbon allowances to industries in RGGI states, and have thereby collected well over $1 billion from carbon cap and trade programs, much of which has been reinvested in energy efficiency, renewable energy and other clean energy programs. Since carbon cap and trade has started in the U.S. northeast, GHG emissions have steadily dropped. Like the EU, this in part due to investment in clean energy technologies, but also because some companies in the U.S. northeast have switched from dirtier fossil fuels like coal to cleaner natural gas generators in power plants, or to renewable energy.
Some carbon cap and trade markets are:
The U.S. Northeast region:
“To comply with the federal Clean Power Plan’s requirements for cutting carbon pollution from power plants, states have several options—including joining RGGI or similar schemes such as California’s cap-and-trade system.” – from: Cap & Trade Shows Its Economic Muscle in the Northeast, $1.3B in 3 Years (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative offers blueprint to all states as they begin to think about how they will comply with Clean Power Plan.) By Naveena Sadasivam, InsideClimate News
The RGGI states and California are ahead of the curve as far as complying with the Clean Power Plan.
Please also see: Carbon Tax – a levy on pollution whose time has come
Combined heat and power (CHP, also known as cogeneration) is the simultaneous production of power (electricity) and heat from: natural gas (dominantly), coal, oil, biomass, biogas and waste heat (recovery), among other sources. Waste heat can be heat from waste incineration, waste heat from power production and/ or industrial/ commercial/ even residential waste heat. Fuel sources vary from project to project, country to country.
For example, in Iceland, the dominant source for CHP is geothermal. Over half the energy use in Iceland, which has the highest energy use (per capita) of any nation in the world, is geothermal, and much of it CHP. This is energy production for electricity and heated water/ steam for fish farms, pools, etc… and also for geothermal district heating and space heating in general.
CHP can be seamlessly integrated in a number of energy technologies. Often, systems are developed exclusively for onsite generation of electrical and/ or mechanical power, in addition to HVAC and water heating. CHP is most often developed with a gas turbine and a heat recovery unit or a steam boiler with a steam turbine. CHP exists in industrial and commercial buildings, institutional campuses, municipal facilities (district energy systems, wastewater treatment facilities, etc…) and is also implemented for residential properties.
CHP significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 1/3 to ½ or more, and is significantly more efficient, requiring less fuel to produce a given energy output. CHP can produce electricity and thermal energy on site, avoiding the grid and avoiding energy losses that occur via standard transmission and distribution, as well as power outages. The high efficiency inherent in CHP saves consumers money on their utility bills, offering a reliable source of high-quality energy.
Community solar refers to energy generated by a solar farm that is invested in by a relatively small portion of the estimated 85% of residential customers who can’t have solar panels on their rooftops or property due to their roofs being physically unsuitable, because the roof/ property is often in shade by another building or trees, because they are renters, or for some other reason. The solar farms are constructed by individual developers, or a group of investors (the construction can also be done by the utlity itself), in select areas that are suitable for community solar, have a demand for the service, and can range from a few dozen panels to thousands. The customer invests in a few or more of the panels, receives credit for the power they consume at a fixed rate (usually fixed) per kilowatt-hour that is then deducted from their utility (electric) bills.
Net metering, on the other hand, is for residential customers who have PV systems on their rooftop/ property that may generate more electricity than the home uses when the sun’s out. The PV systems are connected to the grid via the owner’s service panel and meter. The owner of the PV system is credited when excess energy is generated than is needed for the home, i.e. times when the meter moves “backwards”. The customer then pays the “net” of the meter moving in both directions – forwards to measure power purchased (when the home demand is greater than the power generated by their PV panels), and backwards when power is returned to the grid. The net consumption is then charged on the utility bill.
Both community solar and net metering encourage power consumption in homes by means of solar energy. Both are great ideas for states in the US (where both of these ideas have found some success), and for countries all over the world. Both represent concepts that enable renewable energy to reach more of the public (illustrated more in the case of community solar) and make solar more desirable (highlighted in the case of net metering). Whether the purpose is to spread clean energy or to reap the financial benefits of the solar boom, both community solar and net metering are undeniably positive ideas.
The creation of syngas (or synthetic natural gas) is a technology based on coal gasification for the majority of plants, although it can also be based on biomass or other, fossil, fuels. Since it is also usually based on a nonrenewable fossil fuel, and usually involves the emission of greenhouse gasses like CO2, it can’t be described as a “green” technology. However, when coal gasification is used in conjunction with carbon capture and storage (CCS), or a green technology like integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC), or when syngas is created using biomass, the technology is certainly “greener” than burning a fossil fuel. IGCC is a fairly new technology that uses a gasifier in converting coal and biomass into syngas, and has come to be known as “clean coal”. Syngas plants use coal gasification for the most part, but to make the production of syngas greener, use of IGCC or biomass must be implemented.
Lignite, a brownish type of coal, is most often used as a source in the process of creating syngas. Gasification uses the coal, steam and oxygen to create syngas — mostly hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The syngas can then be burned directly to create energy used to generate electricity or heat homes and businesses, convert the syngas into “substitute natural gas”, or can be used to create products including methanol, nitrogen-based fertilizers and hydrogen for oil refining and transportation fuels. Coal gasification is sometimes called “clean coal” because it can create energy with less harm to the environment than traditional fossil fuel use.
A significantly more environmentally friendly version of gasification, other than coal use, is available in biomass. Biomass gasification uses a feedstock as in agricultural residues (like wheat and straw), energy crops (like switchgrass), forestry residues and urban wood waste (for example, from construction sites).
The leading region in the world for syngas production is Asia/ Australia, in particular China. China mostly uses coal for its syngas production, relying on their vast coal deposits, thus still producing significant quantities of greenhouse gas emissions. China is trying to rely more on domestic sources for gas and less on importing liquefied natural gas. A significant number of gasification plants are found in India, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore.
The Africa/ Middle East region also produces a significant quantity of syngas, more than Europe. However, production of syngas in Europe uses a wider selection of feedstocks, technologies and products than other regions. The coal-based units primarily utilize IGCC technologies. There are petroleum, natural gas and biomass plants that produce either power or chemicals. A fairly new plant in Swindon, England illustrates the advancements that European nations are making with gasification. Methanization is used to transform gasified biomass into grid-quality syngas, the biosynthetic natural gas then providing power to the grid.
Most syngas production in North America lies within the United States. These plants include: natural gas facilities that primarily produce chemicals, coal and petroleum plants that produce either power, chemicals and fertilizers or syngas, including a couple of IGCC plants. In Canada, gasification is used to produce hydrogen and power to upgrade synthetic crude oil from the tar sands.
Anaerobic digestion (AD) can used for farms, businesses and municipalities as a productive solution to a growing waste problem throughout the world. Instead of waste simply ending up in landfills, or being incinerated, waste (and purpose grown crops) could be turned into energy. AD is the process of turning agricultural waste (such as livestock manure), or municipal, commercial and industrial waste streams (such as food processing waste), into energy using micro-organisms to transform waste into a productive material used to create biogas and digestate.
An anaerobic digester generates biogas (or biomethane) which is burned on-site to generate heat, power or both (so, combined heat and power – CHP) or to generate biogas for use as an energy source for the grid (or biomethane used for heat or transportation). Also produced in the process is digestate, which is a source of nutrients that can be used as a fertilizer. Organic waste finds a purpose as it is put in a digester, such as a biomass plant, along with various types of micro-organisms to produce methane, the useful part of biogas. The anaerobic process also occurs naturally, in addition to the man-made construct in a biomass plant.
AD in a biomass plant is a cost-effective way to produce renewable energy. AD also leads to less landfill waste and is a constructive way for farms, businesses and municipalities to dispose of waste. When used for heat or transportation, as biomethane (biomethane can be used in place of diesel, given modifications to the vehicles in question), there are tremendous greenhouse gas reductions.
The entire bus fleet in Oslo, Norway, is run on biomethane from sewage treatment and organic waste, and they see a dramatic (around 70%) reduction in GHG emissions compared to fossil fuel burning vehicles. Food waste and other waste processed through AD also reduces GHG emissions substantially. Energy produced by AD has a very low carbon footprint.
The AD plant at Cannock, Staffordshire, England (called the Poplars AD plant) is an example of a successful, large-scale AD plant. The £24 million project treats commercial and industrial food and waste to create around 6MW of renewable energy for the national grid. The Poplars plant shows that large-scale AD can be successful.
Ethanol is traditionally made from food crops like corn and sugarcane, but it can also be made from cellulosic feedstocks, non-food crops or inedible waste products. Examples of sources for cellulosic biofuel are crop residues, Miscanthus, switch grass, paper pulp, packaging, cardboard, sawdust, wood chips, rice hulls, corn stover and the byproducts of lawn and tree maintenance.
Technically, almost all plants have the lingocelluloses needed to produce ethanol from cellulosic material. Once glucose is freed from the cellulose using enzymes, fermentation produces ethanol, similar to how ethanol is traditionally produced from 1st generation biofuel sources. Lignin is also produced in the process, which can be burned as a carbon-neutral fuel for local processing plants, businesses and perhaps even homes.
There are tons of cellulose containing raw materials that could be used to produce ethanol that are simply thrown away each year in the U.S. alone. Examples of this are over 100 million dry tons of urban wood wastes and forest residues and over 150 million dry tons of corn stover and wheat straw. That material plus just a fraction of the other paper, wood and plant products that could be used to create ethanol instead of garbage would be enough to make the U.S. independent of foreign oil. This theme is true in other parts of the world as well.
Financial concerns stop cellulosic biofuel from really taking off and providing a consistent source of fuel. This type of ethanol production involves an additional step, the breakdown of the raw material into glucose with enzymes, which translates into a higher cost. However, the raw material is abundant, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from cellulosic biofuel can be up to 90% compared to fossil fuel petroleum, significantly greater than those obtained from traditional 1st generation biofuels. Cellulosic raw material can be easily grown in land marginal for actual agriculture or simply be diverted from landfills, in order to make the production of cellulosic biofuel more cost-effective. Cost-effective processes, such as using inexpensive enzymes to break down the cellulose, are being researched and developed as well.
Most biofuel in the world today is sourced from 1st generation crops like corn, sugarcane, soybean or other crops from traditional sources. In reality, most current biofuel sources are inadequate to meet rising global demands. In addition, much of current biofuel is derived from food products, needed to address hunger from the global food crisis.
One solution to producing biofuel, especially ethanol, without using crops that are usually designated as food, is to use algae. Algae, especially microalgae, production is becoming more and more economically feasible. This is because of its exceptionally rapid growth rate. Algae grow 20–30 times faster than many food crops, contain up to 30 times more fuel potential (in the form of oil) than soybean or even palm oil, and algae farms can be located anywhere.
One great feature of algae that makes it ideal for biofuel production is that up to 60% of its mass is oil. Another is that algae requires CO2 to grow, so it essentially sequesters CO2 from the atmosphere as it grows. Algae reproduce quickly, needing only sunlight and water, are non-toxic and biodegradable. As algae grows, the oil is harvested for fuel while the remaining green mass by-product can be used in fish and oyster farms.
Algaculture has proven, based on current algae production technologies, that it can provide future global energy needs while being economically viable and sustainable. Algae production also creates useful co-products, such as bio-fertilizers. If the production of these products is made part of the goal of algae farms, biofuel production from algae will become more economically competitive sooner. Algae offers a great source for a more sustainable transportation fuel, but also offers a range of other benefits and co-products, such as carbon sequestration and fertilizer.
New battery chemistries that represent a higher energy capacity are being developed in li-ion batteries. Li-ion batteries that can double the capacity of current batteries, last up to 20 years and charge in minutes, often while cutting costs, are being introduced to the market. A few examples of such new technology are li-ion sulphur, li-ion metal, li-ion silicon, li-ion cobalt oxide, li-ion manganese oxide and li-ion phosphate. Batteries based on li-ion solid-state chemistries could revolutionize battery technology for electric vehicles, grid storage and much more.
Other advanced next-gen battery types have varying degrees of research, and are at different levels of marketability. Li-ion batteries remain the most prominent in today’s market. However, sodium-ion batteries represent a much cheaper, more abundant material that could produce a less expensive battery with similar performance to li-ion.
Vanadium flow batteries have high capacity storage, a long lifespan (up to 20 years), can be idle when solar and wind aren’t producing and then discharge instantly. They have the unique ability to charge and discharge simultaneously and to release large amounts of electricity quickly. As they are inexpensive to scale up, vanadium flow batteries represent an opportunity for reliable, affordable large-scale energy storage.
Lithium-vanadium phosphate batteries are a next generation battery solution which shows promise, as they can extend the range of electric cars to compete with gasoline ones. These batteries not only have greater power than batteries found in the latest electric vehicles (such as lithium-manganese oxide), but also greater safety than the batteries found in cell phones and laptops..In addition, recharging lithium-vanadium batteries is faster than batteries currently used in EV’s.
Unlike vanadium flow batteries, which currently supply a great battery alternative, lithium-air batteries mostly theoretically represent a great battery alternative. Lithium-air batteries could triple the range of electric cars and could give electric cars the same range as gasoline ones. However, whereas vanadium flow batteries can charge and discharge repetitively with no problem, lithium-air batteries have been notoriously difficult to re-charge.
New batteries are being made from everything from graphene & silicon, magnesium & zinc, sodium & aluminum, manganese & vanadium – all which show great promise. Advancements in next-gen batteries will help add renewable energy storage to the grid, get used in our cell phones and laptops, and help extend the range of electric cars to compete with gasoline ones.
A carbon tax is a levy on pollution, for the relative cost to humanity of the use of fossil fuels. This cost cannot be tabulated in exact terms, for it’s the accumulated cost of the damage to the environment, human health, and related costs of the use of fossil fuels that can only be estimated. The carbon tax itself is a fee on the production and distribution of fossil fuels. The government sets a price per ton on carbon, then that translates into a tax on oil, natural gas or such things as the electric bill.
Businesses and utilities then have the incentive to reduce consumption, and/ or maintain the market price and absorb the cost of the tax, or pass the added fee on to individual consumers. Individuals would then have the incentive to reduce consumption, increase their energy efficiency habits or face a steeper cost for energy and gas.
The principle of mitigating negative externalities (such as the damage caused by fossil fuels), and having the relative costs of pollution paid for, is the primary purpose of the carbon tax. Who bears the ultimate burden of the tax is a hypothetical question that has a couple of answers. The businesses that produce and distribute fossil fuels should consider bearing the brunt of the tax. In practice, individuals pay more.
A carbon tax is enacted to lower greenhouse-gas emissions. Public transportation, energy efficiency products, and things like clean coal technology become great alternatives to traditional means. One other benefit of a carbon tax, besides the incentives to reduce consumption and increase energy efficiency, is the increased attractiveness of the cost of alternative energy, which is made closer to cost parity with fossil fuels.
Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK have all successfully implemented a partial carbon tax on some goods and services, while not being able to implement a broad, universal carbon tax. Generally, reports of lower greenhouse-gas emissions follow the passage of a carbon tax. In addition, India and Australia, among many other countries, have also successfully enacted carbon tax policies. The province of British Columbia, in Canada, has reported drops of around 5% annually of greenhouse gas emissions due to its aggressive carbon tax policies.
Home Energy Management (HEM) refers to technology that helps homeowners improve home energy efficiency while also giving them access to household products from tablets, smartphones and computers. HEM systems save people on energy consumption (thus money) and time. With the remote controlled access, one can control thermostats, lights, other appliances or home monitors via the internet.
HEM systems include smart thermostats, smart appliances that regulate energy consumption, smart outlets and smart plug strips that turn completely off when not in use. An increasingly common addition to HEM systems are home monitors, including ones that provide home security systems. However, the product that best exemplifies HEM is the programmable thermostat.
Of the smart thermostats, The Nest (the pioneer of this technology, introduced to the mass market in 2011), continues to be the most popular brand. The Nest makes it simple to change the temperature of your home from your computer, mobile device or tablet. Another popular and innovative smart product, the Ecobee3, is an example of a smart thermostat that offers an additional unique feature. With the Ecobee3, thermostats can be programmed to control the temperature in up to 32 rooms (with additional sensors). If the temperature in a multistory home varies from room to room due to a standard HVAC, the Ecobee3 offers a solution. These are two examples of user-friendly smart thermostats.
Another HEM product is the smart outlet. With the smart outlet, the power of any home appliance can be measured. Through a tablet, smartphone, or PC, the outlets can also be used to set schedules for lights or electronics. The schedules can be coordinated with the grid to have a reduction in energy consumption during peak energy production hours, if the utility offers such data. Smart appliances (like a smart washer/ dryer) can reduce their energy consumption during peak hours as well. In addition, the latest in HEM offerings is a complete home monitoring system with smart outlets, combined home alarm and security system and a a remote controlled thermostat.
Today, service providers other than utilities are at the forefront in the smart grid, in part due to HEM products. Companies that provide cable, internet and smart phone services are now adding energy monitoring, control and optimization services to their offerings, pushing utilities into a supporting role. Utilities and service providers are both experimenting with different approaches. The service provider is a promising alternative to utilities to extend the smart grid into more homes.