Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts

Friday, July 23, 2010

China Tops US in Energy Use - IEA


China became the world's largest consumer of energy, passing the US in 2009, according to calculations done by the International Energy Agency

The Chinese National Energy Administration (link) disputed the calculation, asserting the calculations are in error, and though China may become the largest producer, it is not the largest user.  The Paris-based IEA stands by its data. 

The IEA estimates that in 2009 China used 2.252 billion tons of oil equivalent, a measure of the total energy used - from oil, coal, renewables and all energy sources - while the US used 4% less.  However, on a per capita basis, the average American still uses far more energy than the average Chinese.

In response to a question asked at an energy policy seminar in Sacramento, Lynn Price, a senior researcher at the China Energy Group at Lawrence Berkeley Lab said, "It does not matter whether China passed the US this year or last year or next year but that China's energy use is growing extremely rapidly."

Indeed, in 2000 China's energy use was only half that of the US.   But in the last decade, the US energy use grew slowly, declining since 2008, while China energy use has continued to grow rapidly and now matches the US.

Even if the exact timing is not important, the significance may be a harbinger.    The US passed the UK in energy use 100 years ago and went on to become the leading economic power of the 20th century.

China's rapid increase in energy use has already had ramifications in world energy markets, diplomacy and seemingly mundane issues like the positioning of international pipelines.

Yet China may not welcome the scruntiny and possible responsiblies of being the leading energy consumer.   The IEA has often complained about the ambiguity in Chinese energy data.   China, for its part, prefers to emphasize its energy efficiency or green energy policies.  

Whatever the issue at the moment, a natural question might be,  given China's voracious and growing energy appetite, just how high can its energy use go?   

In the next 15 years, China may expand its energy production by an amount equal to half of what the US consumes today.   China may eventually have a fifth of the world's population, but consume a quarter of the world's energy

As much as China works to be green and energy-efficient, including higher auto fuel efficiency standards than in the US,  its citizens also want to have simple modern conveniences, which means more energy.


July 18, 2010
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720504575376712353150310.html

July 21, 2010 (China disputes IEA)

July 4, 2010

Saturday, June 19, 2010

California and China - CPRA Update


6/19/10
Jiangsu-California MOU Update

As I posted before,  California and Jiangsu Province signed a landmark, subnational agreement on energy cooperation in October 2009 (MOU, here, here, here),  Since then, California has quietly initiated a range of activities, bodies, work plans.   At least 2 Calfornia delegations have visited China and in April there was California-Shenzen  conference.   Nanjing University and UCSB have begun cooperation on efforts to effect community energy reductions.  NRDC will do a building/DSM study in Jiangsu.

Although the Calfornia governor's legal office has blocked release of all documents related to the MOU (also here), some of the pieces can be put together through information obtained from various State agencies via CPRA requests, the California Public Records Act.   Early on, Susan Kennedy, of the Governor's Office, and Dian Grueneich of CPUC, acknowledged knowledge of the MOU and activities but did not returned repeated phone calls or emails.  

CalEPA and CARB have dragged their feet for months, including accusations of defamation, but did release limited information on June 8 in response to an April CPRA request.   They have not explained omissions or  responded to subsequent emails to obtain the remainder.  They also redacted a document while I was looking at it, which said in part "I don't think I can put him off much longer", a reference to me.  


Similarly the Energy Commission and CPUC have released limited information, but only under the CPRA.  

Below is a brief summary of some of the California-China activities.   The original goals of the MOU are quite good: to work together on policies, technologies, standards that would lower GHG and energy.   Some of projects (NRDC, UCSB) seem quite encouraging.  As information beomes clearer on the State's polcies I will update and post on this  DOE energy wiki. 
  
Besides the State of California, several non-profit organizations play active, but poorly understood roles in California-China relations: Ex:  CFEE, iCET, ecolinx.    

CFEE's Study trips abroad are reported by Tom Knudson of the Sacramento Bee. (7/26/2009).  Ecolinx.org is a foundation of Margaret Kim, China Program Director for CalEPA.

The reason for California state government's acute sensitivity to an energy and environmental MOU is not known.  The situation at this moment is to obtain missing information from CalEPA,CARB.   I think preferable the State of Government disclose all of its China efforts and include public participation; unfortunately, it has chosen this route.

Caution:  Much of the following information has been obtained by CPRA, and I have reason to believe that the State of California is withholding key information which may shed additional facts and interpretations  to this information.   However, what I write I have physical paper to back up or credible second or third-party websites to support.  Nor is this a complete list of activities.  
Clarification is needed.



October 2009
-California-Jiangsu MOU signed

-Calfornia Regulatory & Legislative Delegation visits China and Jiangsu, includes Jeffrey Bryon  (CEC) and Michael Peevey (CPUC), California business leaders, legislators.   Trip paid by CFEE, includes:
John Perez $7,847 gift
Bonnie Lowenthal $8037 gift
Carol Liu, $7469 gift
Curren Price, $8259 gift



November 2009
-UCSB and Nanjing University researchers report on opportunties (under MOU) for coordinated, joint research.  (Based on visit to Suzhou Industrial Park and Nanjing on October 28-30, 2009) 

December 2009
-CalEPA, NRDC, WRI meet in Copenhagen to discuss MOU implementation

-Chinese delegations visit CEC (several each year)

Februrary 24, 2010
-C3 (and earlier?) organized by CalEPA, meets privately at Energy Foundation in SF. [I was not allowed to attend, listen or obtain information.] Sponsors?

March 2010
Following verbal request to CARB and Mary Nichols, Margret Kim, China Program Director, released minimal C3 information, accused me of 'defamation.'  Neither she nor Mary Nichols return emails seeking additional C3 or MOU information, or the role of Ms. Kim's non-profit ecolinx.org.

April, 2010  (CalEPA omits April information from CPRA request; many questions)

-California Delegation visits China, led by Linda Adams, CalEPA, and James Boyd, CEC.
includes at least these 3 distinct conferences
-members of California delegation - unknown; 
-other activities in China - unknown; 
-who pays - mostly unknown; 
-objectives, outcomes - unknown
-process by which CalEPA approves these activities is unknown, not public

April 16-18, 2010  - "2010 International Low-Carbon Development Forum - Shenzen - California", including "deliverables": [from CPRA response]
-"California-Shenzhen PKU Energy Efficiency Research Centers" [established by State of California, University of California (Davis) and Shenzhen City.]
-"California-China Clean Tech Initiative (C3) hub in Southern [sic] China" (State of California is 'partner')
- Low Carbon Sister City relationship between Shenzhen city and Sacramento, California
- "US-China Low-Carbon Industries Alliance (UCLCIA) formed, includes the State of California, 
-Shenzhen signs C3, R20?
-Keynotes include:
Dan Sperling, UCD, CARB
Michael Siminovitch, UCD
Linda Adams, CalEPA
Nancy Skinner, California Legislator [Rep Skinner's office said she did not visit China; emails and phone calls were not returned]

-April 19 - 20, 2010 - "energy and clean transportation conference and strategy meetings" (UC Davis - Institute of Transportation Studies),  CalEPA requests Boyd attend (Shanghai, Chongming Island - ZEV), payment by UC Davis.  MOU pending?
-April 21 - 23, 2010 - study tour, Jiangsu & Beijing, solar PV, manufacturing, joint venture discussions.  CalEPA requests Boyd attend, paid by iCET 


May 2010
(NRDC &  Jiangsu Research Institute of Building Science Co, Ltd & State Grid DSM Instruction Center) to be completed by 12/2010 - thanks to Barbara Finamore of NRDC who provided this.

(2 year workplan - details coming - CPRA - CalEPA)

-MOU Steering Committee formed (1 member ?? -   James Boyd)

June 2010
Bren School, UCSB and Nanjing U. begin cooperation
(also CPRA info)



===

Organizations mentioned in this article (partial)
CFEE
C3 (invitation), C3 (ecolinx)
NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council - US NGO)

JRIBS
Bren School of the Environment, UCSB  also: http://www.bren.ucsb.edu/

Links mentioned in this article (partial)
Open energy wiki, (The Open Energy Information initiative (OpenEI) is a platform to connect the world’s energy data. Run by US Dept of Energy; public)


Monday, June 7, 2010

California Energy - Game Change?


The massive Gulf oilspill was a called a "Game Changer" by Catherine Reheis-Boyd, of the Western States Petroleum Association, an oil industry group, at a recent Climate One - Commonwealth Club event on May 21, 2010.

Four panelists and a moderator spoke on a wide range of energy policies and technologies.  They were

-(DM) Dan Miller, Managing Director, Roda Group
-(CRB) Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President, Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA)
-(MB) Michael Brune, Executive Director of the Sierra Club 
-(JB) Jim Boyd, Vice Chair, California Energy Commission (CEC) [Mr. Boyd and Ms. Reheis-Boyd are related by marriage.]
-(MOD) Greg Dalton, Moderator

Although Michael Brune (Sierra Club) and Catherine Reheis-Boyd (WSPA) disagreed on many things, both did agreed this oilspill is  "Game Changing."   At least as interesting  were the nuanced policy differences between Jim Boyd (CEC) and Michael Brune (Sierra)

The full audio is here plus some video clips.  Climate One website is here.
A few summaries by topic:

Off-Shore Drilling
JB: Did support off-shore drilling; now is cautious; but seems to like new slant technology oil drilling which would generate State revenues, including funds for education.
MB: Wants permanent off-shore drilling ban.

Plan to move away from oil
JB:  "our most optimistic projections show that we are going to be using petroleum for a long, long time."  And added it be nice if all domestically produced, but not realistic.
MB: We will use oil as long as we allow ourselves to use oil.   Instead, he suggested immediately create policies - policies to electrify transportation (rail, cars), switch heavy trucks to natural gas, green the grid.  

Electric Vehicles
JB - Likes PHEV (ARB opposed?), likes Chevy Volt, says he wanted 40 mpg in 2003
MB - electrify transportation, beginning with fleets (like postal service)

California ZEV policy
JB - Was instituted on his 'watch.'  Battery technology disappointed. Favors PHEV.  [California pioneered ZEV regulations; but withdrew and car companies removed models.  It may now be making a comeback at ARB.]

Biofuels
JB - insufficient but likes; hydrogen is in the future 
MB - environmental concerns about water use and full life cycle GHG emissions
DM - With right rules and investment, can be done by 2015.
[CEC was criticized at recent Biofuels workshop]

Canadian Coal Tar Sands
JB -  Better we use it then send it to China  because we will get air pollution back because of their unregulated use.
[Mr. Boyd led a Calfornia delegation to China in April to discuss low-carbon economy, solar, ZEV, policy, etc.]
MB - Global problem, need global leadership

Natural Gas - fossil source
JB - cleanest fossil fuel, wants Combined Cycle (heat & power), use as bridging fuel; concerns about shale gas
MB - natural gas industry must be cleaner; increase regulatory standards for drilling and production

On energy policy
JB - Target #1 in California is building -not just home - efficiency
MB - Wants goals and use criteria: fastest, cleanest, cheapest, quickest

On electricity generation for the grid
JB - defers to MB
MB - No new coal; retire old coal plants; loading order is (1) energy-efficiency (2) small scale distributed generation (solar, wind, etc.) (3) large scale solar/wind (4) if necessary, large Natural Gas 
[CEC has a policy of supporting CCS]

Investment
MB - $1 Trillion will be invested in the energy in next 10 years.  How to apportion it?

Nuclear
JB - against for waste, cost 
MB - nuclear comes in last on his criteria (fastest, cleanest, cheapest) - so no nukes
DM - nukes vs. coal - which is worse?

I think the game change is presence of Michael Brune.  He seems to have clear objectives.


Climate One at the CommonWealth Club




Sunday, May 30, 2010

California - the 1960s and 1/2 day of gasoline

Growing up in the 1960s, certain radio headlines seem to remain engrained in my pre-mp3, auditory memory:  Wayne Morse, James Meredith, murders of civil rights workers, Diem, Medicare (yes, Medicare).

I understood neither the context nor parental answers ("He wants to go to school"), but I am certain the hourly news and daily repetition on classical WQXR (hey, I didn't have choice) created a permanent mental image not unlike an image etched into an old CRT monitor.

Recently, other distant names have surfaced:   permafrost and Alaska pipeline,  Torrey Canyon  and a very far-away place with beautiful birds and beaches called Santa Barbara.

It was a long, long time ago, so long ago that only aging sailors had tatoos.  But I remember.

Rather than complain about the relative guilt of BP, George W Bush, Obama or our addiction to oil, I want to do a calculation - something useful to get a feeling about how much oil has spilled into the Gulf.

For example, if all of the spilled oil had been gasoline, how many gallons would every California car get?  Let's try.

How Much Oil Has Spilled in the Gulf?

BP said 1,000 then 5,000 bbls a day.   After BP released a short video, NPR started reporting that scientists thought it was 20 -80,000 bbls per day.

Let's assume oil is flowing at a rate of 20,000 bbls each day.   There are 42 gallons of oil in a barrel and it has been spilling for 40 days.  If you multiple this out, it is about 34 MM gallons of crude oil.

Since the explosion on April 20, 2010, today's papers say about 18-40 MM gallons oil have spilled, so I in the right ball park.   Let's split the difference the assume the real number is 29 MM gallons of crude oil have spilled into the Gulf.

Ok, 29 MM gallons of oil sounds like a lot. 17% of Louisiana jobs are related to oil. If you are a Louisiana Brown Pelican, it is an awful lot of oil!   But what does 29 MM gallons mean to us?

Crude Oil to Gasoline?

A gallon of gasoline is not the same as a gallon of oil.  Both are mixtures of all kinds of chemicals and hydrocarbons.

Gasoline sold in California has about 100 different molecules.

But let's assume each gallon of crude oil results in 1/2 gallon of gasoline, give or take.  This is a "guesstimate."

So the 29 MM gallons of oil in Gulf, comes down to about 15 MM gallons of gasoline.

15 MM gallons of gasoline


Ok, we are get close.   Now California consumed 360 MM barrels of gasoline for transportation in 2008, i.e. all of us in California collectively consume 1 MM barrels gasoline EACH DAY (360/365) for our cars.  This is 42 MM gallons of gasoline each day in California.

Here we are then:  the total amount of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico would power every California car (yours and mine) for less than 1/2 day (15/42)!  Morning rush hour, barely!



May 30, "Plans for the Worst" New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/31/us/31spill.html?ref=global-home

WQXR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WQXR

Louisiana & Energy, the Pelican State
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana#Energy

California - 360 MM Barrels Gasoline, Transportation (2008)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/hf.jsp?incfile=sep_fuel/html/fuel_mg.html

Permafrost and Alaska Pipeline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Pipeline#Conservation_objections

1962  James Meredith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Meredith

1967 Torrey Canyon Disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrey_Canyon

1969 Santa Barbara Oil Spill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Santa_Barbara_oil_spill

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

UC Davis - Energy for the Future Initiative & Nature's Secret Sauce

Coaxing plants to yield automobile fuel not may have been nature's original plan.

At last Friday's Energy for the Future Symposium at UC Davis, ten young faculty members presented a snapshot of their investigations into basic chemical, biological, physical mechanisms that may someday yield breakthroughs in rapidly developing fields of biofuels, higher efficiency solar panels, fuel cells, batteries.

Straight Answers from Smart People

How young?   All were hired since 2005 under the Energy for the Future Initiative and none appeared to need coffee to function.  Their talks were focused, precise, driven by careful questions about the science and data.  They were genuinely excited about peering over the edge in their fields, and unafraid to probe and then give honest, mature assessments, an increasing rarity in our world.

They run "labs", which means people:  postdocs, graduate students and undergraduates.  They are must seek collaborators; find funding; publish.  And they teach, worry about tenure, get their lives in order.

Difficult science

And they must think.

Nature does not yield secrets easily.  For example, the actual chemical and biological steps in Photosynthesis are quite a bit more than what I learned long ago (  sunlight + nutrients + CO2 = plants and O2).  They are asking clear questions about the underlying subtle, complicated processes, i.e. they are trying to convince nature to give a hint or two about each ingredient of a very  'secret sauce'. (Here is an excellent paper Professor Jeoh gave me to read.)

But understanding nature's 'secret sauce' isn't good enough.  Nature didn't have automobile fuel or solar fluids in mind.   The nature of their work appears to be, to this layperson,   to understand the basic processes and then use modern tools and knowledge (catalysts, DNA, enzymes, bacteria, modern materials) to improve: make processes work faster, more efficiently, cheaper; or substitute new a new process.


Only Part of the Equation

As difficult as this is , basic research is only part of the whole problem.   Quantum mechanics was understood by the 1920s and 1930s, but lasers, computers and twitter took took decades longer to emerge.  

We don't have this kind of time with energy.  Just some of hurdles:

First, these researchers are doing this in the lab, someone else will then need to figure out how to make billions of gallons of the stuff at price or enough batteries to hold ample energy when the 'sun doesn't sunshine' at price we are willing to pay.

Second, I am not sure how well legislators or regulators really understand the state-of-the-art.   But they must make many of the funding decisions, set GHG targets now.  It is not just what "stakeholders" wish.

And ultimately, there is the public, who must accept the conclusions of these scientists.


Why Not ...?

I am sure UC Davis and every other university would like to have hired 20, not just 10 for an Energy Initiative.    And whatever each new faculty costs, it is a bargin.  The US is lucky that we can pick the best from almost anywhere in the world.   So Why Not?

I also thought each young faculty member should be allowed to add one question to California's written driving test.

But Davis is quite close to Sacramento.   I am hesitant to take people away from important work - the researchers, I mean.   Perhaps UC Davis could offer seminars to legislators and regulators.  But this would be with one condition: "attendees" would   be allowed only to ask sharp, science or data-driven questions (i.e. end with a question mark).

The young researchers would tell them the truth; or clarify what is known from what is not yet known.


UC Davis - Energy Institute
http://ei.ucdavis.edu/

Symposium May 14 - link
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://ei.ucdavis.edu/local_resources/Symposium%2520Notice.pdf

Biomass Overview
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B6bttjROtnvNMmU5ZTExMDktNmJlMy00NmZhLWJiN2EtNmU5NDIwZWU1ZjA5&hl=en

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

California Energy Commission - Last $21 MM EECBG/ARRA Grants, Calls For Data Analysis

Today, the California Energy Commission awarded the final $21 MM batch of ARRA funded block grants to over 100 communities across California. The 5 Commissions also discussed the need for analysis of the program, known as Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Awards (EECBG), in terms of GHG reductions, energy savings, jobs created, money leveraged to California etc.

Lighting, Retrofits and more

Most of the grant summaries use words like "retrofit lighting", "replace ... with LED's", "replace streetlights."   Several include new HVAC, pumps, motors or control systems. A few use use old-fashioned insulation or simple techniques that are both energy-efficient and financially efficient ("bang for the buck")

For example, the City of Yountville will use its $25,000 for old-fashioned building insulation, as well motion sensors, and the popular upgrades to HVAC, LED exit signs and streetlights.

I was very glad to see the 'cool roofs', tankless water heaters and "misers" on vending machines (healthy chips, I trust), PC power load management software among the more capital-intensive features of the $2.3 MM grant to San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. (It also won a separate $1.7 MM grant.)

It isn't immediately clear to me whether how capital-intensive projects compare to behavioral or best practices changes, in terms of kw-h savings per ARRA dollar.

But the most innovative appeared to come from Alameda County which will leverage funding from multiple sources, including $784,000 from the CEC, in an effort to improve "health and safety" issues in its housing stock, as well as retrofit roofs and join a PACE, municipal financing program for energy-efficiency home improvements.

Praise for the CEC Staff

With these EECBG grants, Commissioners normally vote approval as a whole and do not discuss individual awards, unless specifically identified as unique agenda item. 

However, today they did formally praise the Staff, most by name, in the year-long process of preparing ARRA grants.

Public praise, certainly welcome, should augment career training/advancement, sufficiently diverse projects, fair compensation and the wise management that all make it is easier to hire and retain professionals. I trust the CEC is a forward thinking boss.  The CEC staff are among the 'first responders' ('incubators'?) of the energy transition that the US must go through. I hope they will be able to share their insights with the public.

Attention to Detail

Legal Council reported on possible litigation from a grant applicant whose disqualified proposal arrived at 5:32 pm, on a 5:00 pm deadline. Ouch, $20 MM gone.

And one Commissioner was very careful to write down the full grant amount one application.

I do hope this level of care extends to verifying the need for $2500 computers or $300 per diem expenditures awarded and maximum 'profit' awards to non-profits under the various CEC grants.  In this painful era of cuts, maximum money should flow first to government, second to private or non-profit sector for management of public services and initiatives.

Calls for Data and Analysis

Toward the end Commissioners did discuss, but not vote, on an effort to collect data to tabulate the amount of energy, GHG reductions, jobs and other benefits. 

Commissioner Eggert suggesting asking a University to 'crunch numbers' on a pro-bono basis, but I hope this can be done in a transparent way and subject to reasonable rules to maintain independence.

Let's look to thoughtful resolution on a CEC agenda soon.

In closing, I would like to add a few of my suggestions on this. Financial integrity is, of course, crucial. But once this is established, the awards under this ARRA/EECBG grants will yield an enormous amount of data on technologies, products, vendors, PACE programs, policy decisions.

In short, what works, what doesn't, how to management energy infrastructure projects?   I trust the grants include provisions to report this back to CEC/ARRA.

-jobs, of course, is number 1 - how many? kind? how sustainable?
-leverage, for each dollar of CEC money, how much other money is brought to Calif ( 2:1, 10:1, 100:1?)
-to save 1 kw-h, how much CEC staff time? how much real cost?
-compare PACE programs
-vendor/technology/products data
-capital-intensity and kw-h saved?
-behavioral change and kw-h saved?
-overhead costs, for every dollar of funding, how much goes to project vs. overhead -best practices? best of the breed?
-data on infrastructure, Where should we invest first? How best to manage?
-did ARRA work?
-where to improve?

Friday, May 7, 2010

California Energy Commission - What's There Not to Like?


What's Not to Like?

Almost weekly the California Energy Commission gives away money, as part of its regular business meetings.  Today, $43 MM was awarded as grants or loans to cities, school districts, ports and university researchers across California for retrofits, alterative fuel job training and other energy projects.  (Less frequently new power plants are licensed, but not today.)

To get a flavor of the wide scope of projects awarded funding, here is a sampling:

- County of Marin got two hits, a $1.4 MM loan to upgrade county HVAC, insulation and lighting to reduce energy use and GHG emissions.  The County also received CEC approval to set building energy standards higher than California's own 2008 Builing Energy Efficiency Standards.

-Somis Union Elementary School District received a $254k loan to update lighting and put solar on the roof.  (Hopefully they can sell the energy when school is out.)

- UCSD received $1.3 MM to study 'black carbon' on snow which decreases snow's reflectivity, absorbs heat and increases melting, with possible signicant consequences for our snow pack and global warming.

- City of Del Ray Oaks received the smallest grant ($15,811) to retrofit lighting and install energy-efficient windows.

- $16.5 MM, the biggest grant, went to the California Rural Housing Municipal Finance Authority to establish a revolving loan program for low-to-moderate income, rural homeowners.  (A PACE financing program?)

- $6 MM went for job training in areas of alternative/renewable fuels and vechicles, to California Employment Training Panel



All the agenda items are here (http://www.energy.ca.gov/business_meetings/2010_agendas/agenda_2010-05-05.html) but I could not find the backup documentation for the projects.  There is also an mp3 file for the meeting.

The actual process at a CEC Business meeting is quick and clean, at least for the half dozen or so I have attended.   A CEC staff member gives a project summary, often with someone from the applicant organization, and the Commissioners vote 'aye' with few questions or much discussion.  The actual funding comes from a variety of sources, including ARRA or California money, many projects have several have matching funds. I've never heard a 'nay', anyone speaking in opposition, or much difficult questioning.  "What's there to not like?" one of the commissioners said about one project.

In all fairness, many of these projects have been percolating upwards for some time, so presumably issues or problems have been sorted out long before reaching a very public meeting.

But this raises a few questions about process, policy, patterns that are difficult for the public or those uninvolved to discern.    A few examples to illustrate:

-How does the public become involved much earlier in the process?

-What methodology does CEC use in reviewing funding requests?  And is there a "score" for each project?

-What are the specific policies of the CEC?   (For example, induction lighting vs. LED; CNG trucks vs. the latest diesel, using biodiesel fuels; full funding vs. requiring matching funds; 1-time projects vs. infrastructure planning, etc.)

-Which projects didn't make it for funding and why?

These were only intended as examples, but I am also aware that one problem the ver limited staff time in Sacramento and at local agencies.  Also, ARRA funding is new and short-term.   There is clear tension between "get the money out" and the niceties of a measured, consistent, balanced program to achieve society's and CEC's broader energy goals. (efficiency first, but parking light efficiency without a plan to reduce VMT?)


-So I must ask:   What are the CEC's checks and balances?  (both policy implementation as well as financial)  Who is watching?

Yet, another issue is 'transparency.'  Everything is supposed to be 'transparent',  but is it?  For example, we must be on guard for limitations of the "public-private partnerships," where the curtain can come down on 'transparency.' Most CEC is funding done though public agencies, which can  in turn 'partner' with a third-party.   But, to illustrate just one problem,  I saw first hand the County of Santa Cruz walk away from a state agency contract, unable (unwilling?) to answer questions and directing the questioner to its private 'partner.'    (http://greensc.blogspot.com/2009/11/santa-cruz-board-of-supervisors-0.html ) [And that same private organization recently won an even bigger role with the CEC!]

CEC has a very good reputation, and certainly its staff does work very hard, with abundant accumulated experience.   Greater public participation in the process, data review and overall understanding would only help.




CEC - May 5, 2010 Agenda (meeting available as mp3)
http://www.energy.ca.gov/business_meetings/2010_agendas/agenda_2010-05-05.html

(I could not find the backup documentation - 5/6/10)


CEC - Previous Commission Meetings
http://www.energy.ca.gov/business_meetings/index.html

Monday, May 3, 2010

California Energy Commission - Decertify a Refrigerator?

The California Energy Commission (i.e. California) is famous for setting appliance energy standards which result in decreased energy consumption (and electric bills) in ho-hum things like refrigerators, TVs, washers, lighting.

Numerous studies have shown efficiency is the cheapest and fastest way to lower our electric bills, energy consumption and GHG emissions. In fact, as much as 20% or more GHG reductions are possible through building efficiency (Efficiency Drive Could Cut Energy Use 23% by 2020, Study Finds - http://nyti.ms/cUIbEp). It can mean not building more power plants.

Even China has been influenced by California's work, especially the China Energy Group at LBL. This color coding on every Chinese appliance makes it easy, without knowing Chinese. [When looking for a new apartment in China, I used the refrigerator label to gauge how stingy the apartment owner might turn out to be. I didn't know the work had been done in California.]

Of course, in the real world standards, promises, labels are worthless if not verified. This includes California appliance standards.

So I was particularly interested in an "informal" public proceeding to decertify an appliance , held by the CEC's Efficiency Committee on Monday, April 26, 2010. The sole item was to consider decertifing two commercial refrigerators made by Turbo Air, a Korean manufacturer with facilities in Seoul and Qingdao, China.

No ruling has been issued yet, but the hearing raised a few flags which illustrates some of the issues CEC faces in enforcement.

The proceeding details  did not appear overly complicated. Two of the 5 CEC Commissioners form the Efficiency Committee and both were present. The CEC staff, the manufacturer, and a test company provided the background. The refrigerators in question had been 'certified' and placed into a CEC database in 2002 (search for Turbo Air) based solely on information provided by the manufacturer against standards in place at the time.

Under questioning, Turbo Air said the energy data had come from a test lab, and it had paid for the test. But the staff had noted that the manufacturer had actually sent slightly different versions of the data to 4 different regulatory bodies (Energy Star, for example), an apparent flag.

Turbo Air explained that in response to competitive pressures they had made a manufacturing change in February 2008.  At the time, they felt this was 'immaterial' to energy consumption (replacing 2 internal fans, with a larger single fan) and did not notify the CEC. It turns out that this simple change affected the temperature of the condenser and therefore the overall energy consumption. According to staff, however, any manufacturing change - even red to blue door - needs to be reported to CEC, a 2nd flag.

In April 2009, the CEC received an email complaint, which I could not find on the website, from a private group (Consortium for Energy & Efficiency http://www.cee1.org/; curiously CEC itself is a member.) CEC then asked its contracted test lab, BR Laboratories, to purchase a unit and test its energy use. (Manufacturer pays if a violation, CEC pays if not). Indeed the test lab, following accepted procedures, found violations, based on two units. To my surprise, both the manufacturer and the CEC are customers of the same lab! (a third flag)

So at time of this proceeding, 1 year after the complaint, 2 years since the manufacturing change, the manufacturer is still selling the unit! (A fourth flag; sources told me the industry norm is that manufacturers usually voluntarily immediately stop selling a unit, then fix or recertify it.)

Commissioners asked several questions, many addressed to staff about when model number must be changed and a unit recertified.

 But what about the four flags?
-no notification of manufacturing change
-4 versions of data
-the same lab hired by both CEC and manufacturer
-still selling the unit and listed on CEC website (based on 8 year old data?)

An member of the public was allowed to speak and asked questions of both the CEC, the Staff, the manufacturer.

 -Who has the burden to maintain the continuing accuracy of the CEC database?
 (I didn't catch the CEC's answer, and Commissioner Byron did not seem it was relevant to today's activity; I had the impression the people of California are somehow responsible; sources later told me that in practice competitors usually rat on each other.)

-How many units have sold since February 2008?
 (Again, Commissioner Byron felt this was not very relevant and did not need to be answered. However, sources later told me later that when a regulatory agency brings a case to the State's Attorney General this can be the first question the AG will ask. It is unclear if CEC has any penalty process or whether it is based on units sold.)

 -Since the equipment was manufactured in Seoul, Korea and Qingdao, China, the individual wanted to know if this model met Chinese standards.
(But even I can see it is not relevant.)

 Several sources noted that CEC has a limited experience and limited tools with enforcement. Although we agree, as the Chinese say, that the tiger should hide the claws, we do want to know know the tiger has claws and the tiger is watching.


 - CEC Consumer site http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/ ==

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

California and China - Rail

Again, I can write no better than this NY Times article:

China Again Hopes to Drive U.S. Rail Construction - http://nyti.ms/cybQGY

But wish to note:

-China is offering to help build and help finance California's High Speed Rail
-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California has closely followed progress in the discussions with China and expects to visit China later this year
-China is opening 1200 miles of high speed rail (this year!)
-China to spend $300 B next 3 years on rail; US to spend $5 B (next 5 years)
-Beijing to Shanghai will take about 4 hours (2011-2012); the same distance in the US (NY to Chicago) takes 18 hours.
-GE is a partner with China Ministry of Railroads.  

Friday, April 2, 2010

California and China - 3

In the first funding announcement under the new China-US Clean Energy Research Center (CERC), China is providing $75 MM in grants and the US DOE is providing $37.5 MM in funding  (matched dollar-for-dollar, to total $75MM).

Besides demonstrating scientific merit and pushing clean energy research forward, this program encourages Chinese and US researchers to work cooperatively, leveraging resources of both countries.  This is significant and is just beginning.

The 3 main areas of research encouraged by CERC:

-green buidings
-carbon capture & sequestration (coal is not going away)
-vehicles

I can not explain  it better than this NY times article. http://nyti.ms/bvpd83

However, I wish to add 2 points:

-California already has 1 or more than intergovernmental agreements with China to encourage similar energy research and cooperation with China.   I hope this State will leverage this federal program with its own efforts, at ARB or CEC.

-Last week, the Pew organization released a well-reported warning, yet another data point,  that US investment in clean energy is falling behind the world, especially China.

NYT
Boost for U.S.-China Clean Energy Research - http://nyti.ms/bvpd83

DOE-Press Release
http://www.energy.gov/news/8804.htm

DOE-CERC - RFP
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AabttjROtnvNZGNya2o3NDhfMjA4ZnY0NjdnZHc&hl=en

Pew Study on Renewable Investments:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.pewglobalwarming.org/cleanenergyeconomy/pdf/PewG-20Report.pdf

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/china-leads-in-renewable-investments/?src=tptw


Thursday, February 25, 2010

California and China - 2 - Why?



In an earlier post (http://greensc.blogspot.com/2009/12/california-and-china-1.html) , I introduced some of the government and NGO efforts to foster joint China-US  research and deployment in renewable energy and energy-efficiency.

But, of course, some Americans might ask, why cooperate with China?

It may be hard to believe now that China and US have a history of cooperation.  We were on the same side during WWII, a fact no middle age or older Chinese citizen would let me forget during my 5+ years in China, some who offered a 'thumbs up' and a toothless grin.

And the Americans are still singled out among foreigner powers for having helped Chinese education 100+ years ago, while other foreign powers seemed intent on carving up territory.  (Where did Madame Chiang Kai Shek go to school?)

And maybe hardest to believe is that before 2000, China was considered a "strategic partner" to America.   (Apparently, shortly before being selected as National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, a Soviet expert, authored a paper calling China a "strategic competitor."  I would like to find this paper.)


So why work with China on energy?


Here are some of reasons I've put together, some obvious, some may require a little getting used to, some debatable.   






  • we breath the same air, in particular air pollution in Calif  (Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/nature08708.html) 
  • we share an ocean, and the garbage now in it
  • the Chinese people respect the US, and will proudly point to the hotel Bill Clinton stayed in (you did know Bill Clinton went to China, right?)
  • together we emit 40% of co2 
  • China can learn from us, but we can learn from China (ask anyone who's been there)
  • China can be a new business model for developing countries: When China 'saturates' (everyone has a refrigerator), it will do so at lower energy use per capita then any previous developing country (and certainly lower than us)
  • Other developing countries (India, Brazil ...) look to China as the model 
  • This can be globalization in the best sense, sharing of complementary resources and talents
  • A little friendly cooperation?
  • A giant market to help jumpstart entire new industries, in which companies and workers on both sides of the Pacific and beyond will benefit.
  • A laboratory to test technologies,  energy policies and best industry practices
  • Combine China's lower cost labor, ability to get things done quickly with our own vast R&D, innovation and resources.  To maintain R&D, however we must build some here.
  • Cooperation builds trust in other areas (like co2 emissions or compliance, in general)
  • Competing for influence in Central Asia or Africa is so 19th century.  We can not afford a military or energy arms race - the stakes and economic costs are simply too high.
  • We need China - they have a lot of smart people, too.

Here's one example between California EPA and China
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B6bttjROtnvNZmY5MjU0YTEtNDg5MS00MDA2LWI0NDMtNDgxM2RjMTMxMjcw&hl=en

Another example,  developing a Climate Registry in Guangdang Province,  based on the one in California
http://greenleapforward.com/2009/06/28/the-energy-and-climate-registry-a-new-initiative-toward-carbon-disclosure-in-southern-china/

Next:   Lawrence Berkeley Lab and China

VIDEOS

Why Should Californians Care About Energy Efficiency in China?







Sunday, January 31, 2010

Real-time feedback for consumers

An engineering dean at San Jose State University Engineering Dept, Ms. Belle Wei, recently wrote a clear, organized article on the benefits of real-time 'feedback' when we purchase or use electronic appliances equipment or video games. (Or, drive.)

Knowing what things cost, over the full lifestyle, can guide us to more informed choices, i.e. usually lower cost, presumably energy-efficient selections that do not sacrifice features and, in effect, create demand (a market) for greener devices. This is the "cold beer, hot shower" theory of human behavior: if we can get what we want and pay less for it, we'll go for it.

A similar argument works for Sacramento's electric utility (SMUD) and others: simply giving consumers a monthly report on how they are doing relative to the neighbors can reduce overall electric demand. This is also called 'social norms', or roughly peer pressure.

It does work, but is also a form of 'market knows best'.

However, I think at least two more ingredients might help push along consumer behavior
  • carbon price
  • regulations
In particular, Dean Wei, sites benefits of more efficient appliances as a first step. And I am sure she knows the benefit to China's clear, color-coded refrigerator efficiency labeling - regulations - in its domestic market. (She is also a founder of China-US Green Energy Council.)

The California Energy Commission (CEC) in fact helped push the refrigerator market years ago (and now TV market) by requiring innovation. It worked in the US and brought down the price of refrigerators and increased their efficiency. (The problems begin when we start to buy larger refrigerators and ALSO keep the old ones.) It is no coincidence that China has refrigerator labeling (more in another post).

Industry, like we've seen with recent TV regulations, starts out by saying it can't be done.

Bottom line, we need everything going for us to reduce American energy use per capita and bring anywhere close to the Europeans.

  • feedback to consumer, social norms, etc.
  • regulations
  • carbon price

Article in San Jose Mercury:

More about Dean Wei

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

California and China -1

Not too many people know that Oakland, a port city, is a sister city with Dalian, China's 3rd largest port.
[Dalian (near Korea) is located quite close to where Japan destroyed the Russian fleet in 1905 at what was called Port Arthur, the northern most ice-free, strategically important port in what was then Manchuria. Today, Dalian is home to 4-5 MM people, the site of major new Intel fab plant, plus a major software park with tenants like IBM, HP, British Telecom, Citibank and with ambitious plans to compete with Bangalore. ]

Likewise, not too many people know that California and Jiangsu Province, 1 hour west of Shanghai, are also sisters.
[Nanjing, site of mass killings during WWII and once China's capital, is Jiangsu's capital and Suzhou is known for silk products, canals, and gardens. "Heaven is above, but on earth there is Suzhou and Hangzhou," another nearby city.] Suzhou is now known more for booming Singapore-Suzhou industrial park, home to companies like Delphi, AMD, cosmetics and, unfortunately, polluted canals. More on Jiangsu.

I know a bit about Suzhou because when I had just arrived in China, a complete greenhorn, a new Chinese friend took me on a bicycle trip - past the unversity, past the endless crowds, road building, dust and construction cranes, past the relatively tranquil, orderly industrial park and finally to a lake on the city's edge. To her, this was a nature break from a hot, noisy, teaming city to a place where you could see the (polluted) sky. To me, it reminicent of teenage bicycle rides to the New Jersey meadowlands, on 'oasis' of tall weeds, with unfettered polluted swamps, surrounded industrial New Jersey but yes, you could also see "sky."

At the very edge of Suzhou, by a lake, on a bicycle, in 2003, I began to count the high voltage lines converging, from every direction. "Power - a lot of power," it looked like industrial New Jersey.

Just a few months later in southeastern China, I talked to a Hong Kong businessman whose mainland factory had closed for the day. "There is no electricity." In 2003, like a thin hyper-active teenager, China could not seem to get enough power.

China - always a paradox to westerners - is a country in vast transition, a place where you can see "all the continents - the best of North America and Europe in parts of Shanghai; and the poverty of Africa in the countryside". China is filled with energy efficiency ( no kitchen ovens, wearing coats in-door, bicycles, "sun-dried" clothing, ubiquitous elevator-free 7 story residential buildings, almost no "to go" food, hot water "only on demand" systems) and energy inefficiency (buses belching clouds of black smoke, cold or unheated libraries and classrooms where students insist on an open window for "fresh air", insulation so poor that "To heat up your room in Shanghai, you first need to heat up all of Shanghai" and new portable electric heaters, crumpling State Owned Enterprises in need of captial, technology and new ideas, kept alive solely to prevent thousands from becoming unemployed.)

The "new China" began in 1949. What we see now is the "new, new China"; one which changes daily and a generation is 5 years. A place where for decades but 1 bridge spanned a river, now adjacent to one or even two new ones simultaneously under construction.

"We don't have time to plan everything. We have to build a new building as fast as we can; and then we must build another one - right away. We are behind and we need to catchup, " one Government official told me.

Just as California has led the way in US efficiency, with policies to keep electricity use per capita flat or to reduce automobile pollution, so too California has lead the way in engaging China.

In following posts, I will attempt to outline some of groups working with China and write about California's October 2009 agreement with Jiangsu Province, an important "sub-national" agreement. Universities or NGOs like the China Energy Group at Lawrence Berkeley Lab (LBL) or NGO Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) have been in China for years and done extraordinary work below the 'radar screen.'

I also want to follow developments at the national level: China-US Energy Clean Energy Council (CERC), announced during President Obama's Beijing visit in November, 2009. And along the way, I want to try to answer the question, "Why help China with energy and energy-efficiency?", which I believe is very important that Americans consider.

Sunday, November 29, 2009

California Energy Commission stands up to lobbyists, 5-0

Despite strong lobbying and opposition from the Consumer Electronics Association, the California Energy Commission (CEC) voted to require TV manufacturers sell sets in 2011 33% more efficient then now and by 2013 49% more efficient. The rules apply to sets smaller than 58 inches. (Regulations will be coming for sets larger than 58").

Almost 1000 TV models now comply with the 2011 standard, and even 300 sets comply with the 2013 rules; some argue the standard is really targeting the laggards.

Many CEC energy efficiency regulations have been adopted by other states over the years. California is a leader in efficiency and one reason by electricity use per capita has been flat, given the state's generally robust growth since the 1970s.

The new regulations will:
  • reduce energy use (i.e. save us money)
  • encourage other states and federal government to follow
  • encourage the industry to innovate
Even some of these new TVs still use over 200 watts. (Can you cook an egg?)

Californians replace their 35MM TVs about once every 9 years.

More information in this SJ Mercury Article. and one from Sacramento Bee.

Here's a guide to TVs from NRDC.

And here is a video from Newsy TV, which presents a few viewpoints:
http://www.newsy.com/videos/california_makes_tv_energy_standards_more_stringent


By the way, who is the California Energy Commission? Can you give one fact: During the 1970s energy crisis, Arthur Rosenfield, now a Commissioner, walked around Lawrence Berkeley Labs at night turning off the lights and discovered one of the golden rules of energy savings: conservation.

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Cash for Appliance Clunkers, Clothes Lines in Santa Cruz

Rebates for Energy Efficient Home Appliances
Beginning next April, California expects to receive about $35MM under the ARRA (stimulus) Act to offer rebates for purchasing energy efficient home appliances. It will be first come, first served, with $100 for new washing machines, $75 new refrigerators (sorry, no wine coolers) and no dryers (more below). Manufacturers can add additional rebates. You must recycle your old one. New appliances must meet the EPA's Energy Star rating and possibly even higher state requirements. (Note: $35MM means about 375,000 appliances; 1 for every 32 households in California; we have 10MM households)
More from the California Energy Commission.

No Dryers - Back to the Clothes Line
Why no dryers? Dryers are energy hogs, using 6-10% of household electricity.
Here is a SJ Mercury News article about a Santa Cruz woman claimed to reduce her monthly electric bill from $100 to $40 just by using the clothes line. [But, um, she does 14 loads a week!]

1000 flags
Digress to China for a moment, where everyone is buying new energy efficient washing machines, air conditioners, but no dryers. Everywhere I went in that country, north or south, east or west, I got the same answer: "We like the fresh smell." In fact, almost all Chinese apartment buildings have some kind of terrace (open in the south, enclosed in the north) that is always filled with laundry. That's laundry hanging over the side or handing in the hallway, rooms, everywhere.

When I said to one friend that terraces are often considered a luxery in the US, she immediately burst out: "Where do you dry the clothes??" (Needless to say, few outdoor BBQ in China.) By the way, Chinese rinse clothes nightly and never wear torn or dirty clothes. (I didn't say they were designer clothes.)


Giant TVs and California Energy Commission
Good news (?) is you can have a big TV, but the bad news is only if it uses less than 142 watts. [Depending on your viewpoint you might not see any good or bad there.] In any event, the Consumer Electronics Association, with 5 minutes before the deadline, submitted a request for a review, thus halting a vote (NRDC) by the California Energy Commission on this energy saving measure. 142 watts is doable, would save us money but the CEA is an example of an industry doing everything in its power to turn "back the clock."

Here's an interested Blog on No Impact Week
When DOE Secretary Chu talks about low-lying fruit sitting on the ground, he's probably referring to turning hot water from 140F to 120F (saving 500 lb of CO2); replacing incandescent bulbs with CFL (or LED); checking insulation - all of which SAVE money, as well as reduce energy use per captia in this country which is 4 times EU or Japan! This NRDC Blog is more interesting and useful than I am.

Friday, October 30, 2009

Banning Single-Use Plastic & Paper; PG&E; LED; Energy Star; Vaclav Smil

Banning Single-Use Plastic Bags & Paper Bags
Very glad to read Supervisor Stone is planning to write legislation to ban both single-use paper bags and plastic bags in Santa Cruz.  Sounds like he's being cautious and aiming for April, 2010 and only in non-incorporated areas of Santa Cruz County.  San Jose is apparently doing a Environmental Impact Report (EIR).   Full article: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_13674516

Use Social Norms!!
PG&E's "Climate Smart" program, which takes a monthly fee of less than $5 from any of its opt-in 5MM billing customers (15MM actual users) and then uses the funds to buy "offsets" which do presumably do good, has had poor subscription rates.

Many environmentals are opposed to offsets because they do not reduce total CO2 emissions and are a way to "cheat" by buying something from an unregulated second market.
PG&E should adopt a "social norm" strategy, supply usage information & neighborhood averages without charge.   This is has worked successfully in Sacramento and elsewhere to reduce energy use.

Full article in SJ Mercury News.

LED Lighting comparison
SJ Mercury

Table below came from this San Jose Mercury article on Oct 19 , which I added a few summary facts to bottom:
Full article:  LED vs. CFL Light




LED bulbs offer potential advantages over older technologies — but at a price
Technology
Incandescent
Compact fluorescent
LED
Cost per bulb (approx.)
50 cents
$2.50
$40*
Power use, standard bulb
60 watts
13 watts
7 watts*
Typical lifespan
1,000 hours
10,000 hours
25,000 hours*
Market share, medium-screw bulbs, 2007
77 percent
23 percent
N/A




- 20% of average household energy use is for lighting (DOE)
-LED light price is decreasing rapidly and will be new products
-DOE has offered an "L" prize to speed up LED development.
-Incandescent light bulbs may soon face bans
-CFL contains mercury and must be recycled the correct way