There are still many challenges to overcome to make electric cars ubiquitous. We need a charging infrastructure preferably based on renewable energy as opposed to electricity generated by fossil fuels. We need to bring the electricity for charging to the spots where cars are recharged, which brings new challenges to the electric grid and to the connections to homes and businesses.

Still, it seems that most of these challenges can be addressed with technology that is available today. However, the weak link today is the energy storage medium, the battery powering the electric car.

Have a look at energy density:

• Wh/kg — Watthours per kilogram as indicator of how much energy is stored per unit of weight
• Wh / L — Watthour per liter as  indicator of how much energy is stored per unit of volume.

These numbers show that you need much more weight and volume to carry around when you want to drive an all electric car as opposed to a conventional gasoline car if you want to go the same distance without refueling stop.

Now, there are some mitigating factors: Internal combustion engines are inherently inefficient compared to electric motors, and while the energy density of gasoline has turned out to be stable for decades, batteries became much better and technological advancements are expected to continue. Combine this with charging stations at home, at work, at shopping centers, and other places, the Achilles’ heel of poor energy density for batteries might just become manageable.

Claus Schafhalter, Management Consultant @ Sunogos

A little known program to jump start solar energy projects on public land is a huge failure, according to an AP report “Feds fail to use land for solar power”.

In 2005 the U.S. congress mandated that by 2015 10 megawatts of renewable energy at peak time should be generated on public land.  The U.S. Bureau of Land Management set aside stretches of public land primarily in the south-west of the U.S., but so far not a single project delivered energy to the grid.

The idea was to provide land to private developers who would in turn build energy farms. Interestingly many of the leases for the land went to a firm better known for its role in the financial meltdown than its role as leader in renewable energy: A subsidiary of Goldman Sachs!

So, how did the Bureau of Land Management “manage” the process? All an interested party had to do was fill out an application, pay a fee and file development plans. Apparently the filings were not evaluated for technical or financial feasibility. And the applicants did not have to show that they are capable and willing to develop the sites.

So, many of the country’s best sites for alternative energy production have claims on it by organizations unable or unwilling to develop. This land is effectively taken away for productive alternative energy use, the total opposite of the intentions that Congress formulated in 2005.

Just to let yo know: In the same time period when the Bureau of Land Management managed to not manage alternative energy leases, the agency approved more than 75,000 leases for oil and gas. Which clearly shows where the priorities are.

So, can anyone explain to me why the Federal Bureau for Land Management leases sites to develop renewable energy generation to entities closely affiliated with the likes of Goldman Sachs?

Claus Schafhalter, Management Consultant @ Sunogos

There are many new wind projects under way, in the US and world wide.

What is said to be the world largest wind energy project is started in California’s Mojave Desert. Once completed as planned, the Alta Wind Energy Center (AWEC) will have the ability to generate 1,550 MW. Project proponents also claim that 3,000 jobs will be created. $1.2 billion are said to be injected into the local economy in Kern County, California.

Meanwhile in British Columbia, Canada, BC Hydro acquired about 3,300 GWh/year of clean energy.  Six wind power projects account for almost half of the clean energy, 434 GWh/year from Tumbler Ridge project by Capital Power Corp., 237 GWh/year form Meikle Wind project, and the rest from four smaller ones.

Portugal, EU, seems to be more than one step ahead. An initiative to reduce Portugal’s dependence on imported fossil fuels, started 5 years ago, shows results. In 2010, almost 45% of Portugal’s electricity will come from renewables. Land based wind power is deemed to be potentially competitive with fossil fuels this year, according to the International Energy Agency in Paris. And land based wind power generation  has expanded seven fold within 5 years.

But as you  can see, wind energy still has no price advantage when compared to energy generated by fossil fuels. The US average residential retail price for electricity was 11.75 cents in April 2010. This price to consumers includes a majority of electricity generated by conventional not renewable means. Wind project “Cape Wind”, Massachusetts, reportedly sold its proposed electricity for 18.7 cents per kWh to National Grid. This premium for renewable energy leaves the door wide open for critics of alternative energy and proponents of oil, gas and coal.

There is no silver bullet. Costs of renewable energy generation might come down, but as long as we do not include environmental costs into all forms of energy, renewable energy will stay to have a price disadvantage compared to fossil fuels.

Claus Schafhalter, Management Consultant @ Sunogos

Today I read a report by Bloomberg Businessweek that the Senate climate bill, which aims to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 17 percent from the 2005 level by 2020, could cut U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) by $452 billion , and cost the average household $206 annually from 2013 to 2035.

I do  not want to discuss the merits of the Senate climate bill in its current state — if there are merits at all, but I cannot wonder if we are really measuring the right things.

The problem that I see is that GDP calculation measures and weighs everything the same way, without accounting for effectiveness. A simple example: After we change a power generating process  to use less coal to put the same amount of energy into the grid, GDP goes down. Being more efficient means a negative impact on GDP. Because we consume less, even if we get a better outcome.

GDP rewards waste. Once we increase waste, GDP goes up. This is totally contradictory to any lean management approach, where we try to reduce waste to get more efficient, and where we measure the output of a process by its effectiveness.

To do more with less is sane, responsible and should be rewarded. Measuring the wrong things punishes otherwise useful initiatives. Should we not come up with other metrics than plain GDP to make sure we go into the right direction?

Your thoughts?

Claus Schafhalter, Management Consultant @ Sunogos

A new study issued by the German “Umweltbundesamt” comes to the conclusion that Germany should be able to switch energy production to 100% renewable sources within 40 years. Interestingly the head of the agency, Jochen Flasbarth, states that this is doable with technology that is available today. Building the necessary infrastructure would need decisive action and investment money.

One shortcoming of the study is that they do not include a quantitative cost — benefit analysis. Jochen Flasbarth is quoted “he feels on the save side, as the cost of the switch to alternative energy should be less than the cost of climate change.”

Here is my take: Switch to alternative energy can not come fast enough. Any economy that acts on a well thought out master plan to make the switch could very well be the leader in a wide range of energy technologies and reap economical and ecological benefits. Studies that concentrate on technological feasibility are very well, but not sufficient. There has to be a convincing business case that shows that this switch is beneficial so that  investors and entrepreneurs will invest. The German Umweltbundesamt would be very well advised to augment their study with cost — benefit scenarios and to come up with firm recommendations to the political leadership in Germany. It is very likely that other institutions like the European Union or other sovereign governments could take up the ball and advance the move away from a fossil economy to a sustainable economy.

Leaves me to wonder what the decision maker in our country will be able to do. Looks like any energy plan is stuck in the same old politics between the major parties as so many other things are stuck today. Will the US Administration and Congress be able to come up with a plan to lead us to a sustainable future? I do not hold my breath just yet, looks like climate change, Gulf oil spill and the huge amount of money for fossil fuel paid to foreign countries is not enough to initiate meaningful change.

Your thoughts?

Claus Schafhalter, Management Consultant @ Sunogos

It is no secret that many cities in Europe are bike-friendly, with dedicated bike lanes, paths solely for use by bicyclists, and generally a higher acceptance of bicycle in general traffic.

Still, if you are a person of the more lazy kind, the idea to work out just to get to work or do your shopping, might not be that appealing to  you.

Bring on the E-Bike, a (usually) two-wheeler powered by a small electric motor (and still by your muscles in many cases).

Stuttgart, Germany, known as the city where the Mercedes cars come from, will have a meet of 500 e-bikers on July 4th. This seems to be the biggest e-biker event so far. In Austria, the state of Upper Austria has a successful program to spread e-bikes to its citizens. Applicants can get a small subsidy from the state and enjoy their effortless movements.

Many holiday regions offer e-bikes for rent to discover scenic routes. I remember years ago when my family did a vacation bicycling from Passau to Vienna along the river of Danube. Although the route follows the river downwards all the time, there are many hills and side-trips where the help of an electric motor would have been very welcome. So why not try it out on you next vacation?

Sure, the e-bike will not solve our carbon addiction and use of fossil fuels for most of our transportation needs, but it is a small step into the right direction and has the ability to make m0re people comfortable with electric propulsion.

Claus Schafhalter, Management Consultant @ Sunogos

An Oekom Study looking at 27 leading oil and gas corporations rates organizations regarding their sustainability. The study’s authors granted that corporations try to do the right things, however overall their activities are not focused enough and lack tangible results.

On a scale from A+ to D-, the small Austrian company OMV ranked first with a “B”, followed by Snam Rete (Italy) and Total (France).  Norway’s Statoil is rated only “C”.

What about the company behind the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? BP is also rated “C”, and the authors of the study stated problems with save operation of assets and higher than normal risk for workers to get injured.

While the Deepwater Horizon — the oil rig that exploded and sunk killing 11 people — was owned and operated by Transocean, BP is said to had a major role in making decisions that lead to the tragedy and the catastrophic oil spill that followed. Maybe a “D” would have been in order for BP?

Claus Schafhalter, Management Consultant @ Sunogos

In ear­lier posts I wrote about “Define”, “Mea­sure” and “Analyze” as part of Lean Six Sigma’s DMAIC cycle. The example I used in these previous posts showed that our office is not energy efficient, and we also analyzed where and why. Remember, the most important results of the Analysis phase are well determined problem causes.

Within the Improve phase, creativity techniques are used to find and evaluate ideas to address the problems.  Let’s assume one of the issues we want to tackle is the waste of energy due to offices that are heated or cooled, even when they are not occupied. Ideas to improve might be installation of occupancy sensors (motion sensors) that turn off heating or A/C when no one is there.  Or maybe a connection to the light switch — no light, then no heating or cooling. A different approach could be to control temperature based on daytime, weekend and holidays. And there maybe many more ways to reduce energy (more efficient heating / cooling system, better insulation, etc.).

Once we have collected ideas, we need to evaluate these ideas against benefits, cost, risk, time to implement, and other criteria suitable for our situation. We select the best improvement ideas, and — using plain old project management tools — implement the improvements.

Some advice: Especially if your organization is new to structured improvement processes, it is better to concentrate on solutions that can be implemented fast using small (or no) investment money. These solutions should show positive results very soon, and therefore motivate employees to go along, prepare for future changes, and convince management that the solutions are worth while.

Lean Six Sigma improvements should be seen as part of a targeted continuous improvement process, and the really successful organizations are in for the long haul. They set an overall goal, and break this goal down into smaller targets to be accomplished along the way.

But how do we know if our improvement efforts are successful? Lean Six Sigma has the answer in Step 5 — Control, which I will describe in a following post.

Claus Schafhalter, Management Consultant @ Sunogos

Many builders attending the National Green Building Conference stated that they have been able to sell sustainably built homes considerably faster than the traditionally built new homes that have been languishing in today’s tough market. Especially energy efficiency remains the feature most important to consumers interested in green buildings.

Good news is also that the price gap between green and standard housing is closing, helped along by tax and other incentives.

One of the problems builders have is to get the green features appraised correctly. If appraisers do not factor in the value of green features, the loan a potential buyer can get will be lower and maybe not sufficient to buy the house. And this in spite the savings in monthly expenditures, which means that borrowers are able to pay somewhat higher mortgage payments instead of spending the money on higher utility bills.

Does building green pay off? Research is still in its infancy, but there are numbers cited that each Dollar in annual energy savings adds $20 to the value of a house.

If this holds true, then we have another example where doing the right thing for our environment is also the right thing for our pocket books.

Claus Schafhalter, Management Consultant @ Sunogos

I am still concerned about what’s going on with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Previous estimates were that 800,000l oil spill into the sea every day. Some scientists come to the conclusion that it is more likely to be 10 times more! It seems to be consensus that right now nobody knows exactly how much oils streams into the Gulf.

This is what  BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles had to say:

“This data is not easy to capture,” Suttles said. “We actually have to assign some of our technicians to gather that data.”

Yes, clearly someone has to look at this. Does it matter how much oil is leaked?

Well, you can’t control what you can’t measure. This begs the following question:  If BP cannot measure the spill, how do they think they will be able to stop the spill?

Claus Schafhalter, Management Consultant @ Sunogos