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

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

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

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

Will we learn before it is too late?

Watch the mess off the Louisiana coast. On April 20th 2010 an oil rig exploded and took 11 workers down to the sea floor. Initially it was said that there is no oil spill, then they said about 160,000 l (1,000 barrels) of oil spill into the sea per day, and on Wednesday April 28th the Coast Guard raised the estimate to 795,000  l (5,000 barrels) oil spilled per day.

Today, 2 weeks later, the well is still spilling, and initial efforts to stop the spill have failed.

In the meantime fish, birds, oysters, plants, reefs, beaches, businesses, kids, women, and men are impacted by the spill. For some animals it is a matter of live or death, for people it is a matter of economical survival.

Well, hopefully the spill will be sealed soon. And then — of course — BP will stand up and make everyone whole again, will they not? Well, maybe they cannot rescue the fish or the individual oyster, or the contaminated wetland or beach for that matter,  but at least the fishermen and oyster farmers will be reimbursed. Right?

Remember the Exxon Valdez?  In March 1989 the big tanker spilled about 40,000,000 l (250,000 barrels) of oil into the Prince Williams Sound, Alaska. Exxon says they spent 2.1 Billion Dollars on clean up costs. In 2006, 17 years after the spill, it was ruled that Exxon has to pay 2.5 Billion Dollars in punitive damages. It is unknown to me how much Exxon spent on lawyers to get the ruling delayed and cut from 4.5 Billion Dollars to 2.5 Billion Dollars. However I do know that Exxon Mobile reported profits of 6 Billion Dollars for the last Quarter 2009. Just one Quarter.

Do we learn something? Like to wait 17 years until big oil corporations get “punished”?

We need to learn something, though: Burning fossil fuels ruins the Earth as we know it! We need to change to renewable energy, drilling is no alternative. Sure, for practical reasons we cannot switch from Fossil to Renewables over night. But we can start today to seriously work on the shift. And dare I say it: Charging real cost for the impact of burning Fossil fuels is one of the most effective first steps. But of course making gas more expensive for Americans is a big no-no in real U.S. politics.

I have learned one thing from the spill in the Golf of Mexico: Hoping that nothing bad will happen is like playing with matches next to to the fuel tank: Eventually it will ignite and blow up.  As long as we drill we will have spills. As long as we burn Fossil fuels the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere will go up.

And please, you know who you are, stop with the false argument that there is no scientific evidence that global warming is real. If you really believe so, show me the evidence that more CO2 in the atmosphere does not change our climate.

Will we be able to clean up our mess once we see what we brought over our Earth? Or will it be too late?

Claus Schafhalter, Management Consultant @ Sunogos