In 1998 researcher at the ETH Zurich released a vision of a society consuming only 2000 Watts around the clock (48 kWh a day). The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (ifeu) released an interesting table comparing today’s energy usage in Germany to these targets.

I did not look up actual energy consumption numbers for the US, but it is save to say that we use much more energy per person in the U.S. than they use in Germany.

Now, if you look at the numbers in detail it becomes very clear that reducing energy consumption to the 2000 Watt level means significant changes to our live style. Say good bye to a single family home, a Hawaii vacation, and cities built into the dessert. So, I am not so sure if a 2000 Watt society can be accomplished.

But is the 2000 Watt target a reasonable objective?

I don’t think so. The problem we have is that we consume the wrong form of energy. Per definition, fossil fuels — the mainstay of our energy consumption — are limited and will be used up at a certain point in time.  But let’s look at it from a different perspective:

The sun (our only real source of energy) radiates about 1.37 kW per square meter to the outer atmosphere of our earth. Looking at Germany, about 800 kWh reach the ground per square meter and year. If we also say that we use a solar cell with an efficiency of 15% the typical German could generate about 120 kWh per year and square meter. So, to generate usable electric energy each German would need about 440 square meter solar collectors to satisfy all his current energy needs (6000 Watts around the clock). That sounds a lot, but not out of reach.

The 2000 Watt target would reduce the necessary area to 146 square meters. So, that would make things easier.

However, once we add hydro power, wind, other renewables, and assume increases in energy efficiency of devices, homes and cars, the total shift to renewable is not out of the question using technologies that are available today!

So, what should the target be? Reducing our energy consumption or changing where we get our energy from? Well, it should be both, and we should start to switch now!

Claus Schafhalter, Management Consultant @ Sunogos

In an earlier post I was writing about electric cars and their batteries. I talked to a couple of people and I witnessed one seemingly wide spread confusion: What is “energy”, what is “power”, what does  “Watt” stand for and how is this different to a “kilo Watt hour”.

Let me try to explain:

First, most of what I write today is based on the SI system (“Metric System”), with one (confusing?) exception.

But let’s start:

Energy:

Energy is the capacity of a physical system to perform work. Energy comes in different forms, i.e. mechanical energy, electrical energy (for instance stored in a battery), heat energy, and so on.

The SI unit of measure for energy is 1 Joule (1J).

1 Joule is the energy expended in applying a force of 1 Newton through a distance of 1 meter ( 1J = 1 Nm ).

Power:

In physics, power is the rate at which work is performed or energy is converted, i.e. energy per unit of time (second).

One Joule per second equals one Watt ( 1 J/s = 1 W)

And here is the confusion:

To describe power we often use Watt or kilo Watt (1000 W).  A  100 Watt light bulb uses power of 100 Watts (100 Joules per second).

To understand how much energy we use in — say, 1 hour of using the light bulb, we just add the “hour” to our power: Energy used for our light bulb in one hour is 100 Wh (Watt hours), or 0.100 kWh (kilo Watt hours). As you can see, kWh is widely used, but regrettably not an SI unit of measure, and this is where I think a lot of confusion comes from.

So, the bottom line: If you use power of 1 kW (10 pieces of 100 W light bulbs turned on) for an hour, you just used energy of 1kWh (kilo Watt hours).

(The correct SI expression would be power of 1 kW for 3,600 seconds equals  3,600 kJ energy used).

Does this help?

Claus Schafhalter, Management Consultant @ Sunogos

On September 9 2010 a high pressure natural gas pipe ruptured and sent a fireball into the sky a few hundred meters away from my house in San Bruno, CA. At least 4 people died and many homes were damaged and destroyed. When I took my boys into the car and evacuated our house I saw black smoke coming our way. There was also an eerie orange glow behind the smoke. This was less than 15 minutes after the initial blast, and at this moment everyone thought that an airplane went down causing the fire. It was a reminder of the risks we incur using fossil fuels to drive our standard of living.

As I have written earlier I am critical continuing to use fossil fuels as the main source of our energy. But as a person used  to the benefits of modern society I do also know that we cannot shift our energy production from fossil to renewables over night.

I am convinced that two things have to happen:

1. A long term shift to renewable energy sources accompanied by a much more efficient use of the energy produced.
2. A short term focus on safety to ensure that our current energy production and distribution system is as save as possible.

In 2010 we had a few wake up calls  showing us that we need to rethink our behaviors, processes and methodologies. BP lost Billions of Dollars when their oil well in the Gulf of Mexico blew up. Comparably little money would have been necessary to prevent the accident from happening in the first place, if the risk and its consequences had been taken seriously.

Similar things can be said about the San Bruno gas explosion. It becomes more and more evident by the day that PG&E knew about the risk of these gas pipelines running through densely  populated residential areas. But short term it is cheaper to take an elevated risk and hope that nothing happens. Mid and long term this is almost certainly the wrong decision, but if no bad incident happens just long enough then executives and shareholder can cash in on short term profits, while their successors will have to struggle with the consequences of unaddressed risks.

The day when the disaster hit home made me think. Why is it so difficult to change things before something happens? Why is it so seemingly easy to change things after something bad happened? At least four people died on that day in San Bruno. In the days and weeks after the explosion the Public Utility Commission, State and federal law makers come up with proposals to enhance inspections, replace old pipes, and enhance technologies meant to lower the risk of another blast.

What will need to happen that we take the risk of burning fossil fuels as the main source of our energy source more seriously? And will we be able to change before something really bad happens?

Claus Schafhalter, Management Consultant @ Sunogos

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