Food or Fuel taxes?

It is undisputed that our consumption of goods - including sometimes wasted food - is contributing to global warming. On the other hand CO2-taxation mainly focuses on the energy consumption and on passenger cars in most countries. It is now time to discuss an overarching taxation for goods and energy. Goods might consume energy or contain energy in grey form from the craddle to the product in the warehouse shelf. The point is now whether we should tax each good related to a calculated CO2-emission or pure taxation of energy will suffice. INMHO it would be sufficient to define goods which lets say consume 10-times the production energy and set up CO2 taxation for them. For all other products including food taxation of energy shall be the only CO2-related steering. There might be some exemptions however to close gaps. This relates to transport for example or energy intensive exterior production. So for example PV-panels from China which were produced using power from brown coal should have import duties related to their CO2-emission in China. Same applies to imported fruits or wines because shipping and air-transport on an international level is seldom taxed for CO2. WTO with the help of science now should elaborate standards for international CO2-related import duties.

What PV may learn from the downturn of SDHW

Of course PV is now on the verge to big business, but may be before entering the highway it makes sense to look back and try to harden the business models before accelerating. Solar Domestic Hot Water has a longer history and we may learn from it. In the beginning the real hurdle was the welding of the tubes to the fins. Otherwise DIY was a perfect idea for building your own solar instalment. Industry took over, collectors got better and better, quality standards were introduced. Unfortunately there are some build in problems which were overlooked:

• Solar energy usage is low, when no hot water is needed.
• tanks located in the attic or cellar, do not directly contribute to room heating with their losses, and create high costs for piping and pumping.
• legionella problems require high water temperatures and reduce efficiency as well as usage of solar energy
• anti freeze protection reduces efficiency of the system in several ways, mainly regarding pumping energy

So the afterwards highly qualified systems got to expensive and delivered too few savings. A new attempt to boost business needs new ideas solving the problems at the source and a full understanding how economy could be improved for the customer. This might include:

• cheap polymeric systems with embedded stagnation control
• additional energy users for peak shaving- allowing also a smaller tank
• a flow through system avoiding legionella problems
• a circulation system not needing a pump nor having freezing or stagnation problems
• making use of energy losses for room heating

A survey of a research project is disclosing some potential solutions:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/isole


But coming back to PV. What lessons may be learned?

• Smart affordable controllers should allow to make use of the expensive panels, even if they are mounted sub-optimally (at different inclination or orientation, partially shaded...); but in-string controllers not neccessarily need to be 230V, this is only useful for a system split on two orientations.
• Some times, lower cell efficiency is the better choice, if mounting area is cheap and diffuse light dominating; Solyndra pioneered a cheap support system for gravel roofs this might be a good idea if strong wind is not a problem. a-Si will then deliver the better economy.
• Efficiency is to be measured in practice and not under standard conditions (standard cell temperature), design should allow for cell cooling (venting) and use of the reflected sun if feasible (lakes, snow, reflecting skyscrapers...)
• Islandic systems should be avoided, because of the high storage costs. Small systems could be connected to smart decentralized energy resources. Collaboration amongst users is useful.
• While cells are becoming cheaper more focus should be put on the erection cost. Tracking might be less economical and standardisation needed to allow for cheaper mounting systems.
  

The new energy law

COP15 was may be no a big thing, lets think future. What would be if each new generation of products will earn its energy needed for production in a couple of years back. This way consumerism will automatically heal the energy crisis which never may be solved by shifting to alternative fuels alone. So stakeholders are called to implement this new sustainable production rule in international trade.  Lets have some examples. Each new lightbulb may save the amount of energy neded for production within one year, for household appliances like dish washers or fridges this timespan may be longer. For Photovoltaics it might be a little longer but proves that this rule is also applicable when investing in new gadgets. Lets spread this rule and see how our energy demand and at the same time CO₂-emissions will decrease. In paralel eco-labeling may co-exist securing that energy saving complies with environmental standards. Yes, we can heal the world carbon wise by enforcing  energetic amortisation.  

Greening or Greenwashing of the Automobile Industry?

Everywhere electrification of power trains is used - in EU funding schemes like the green car initiative, in national programmes covering research and climate change. But is it offering a true solution or is it a hoax?
There are some concerns expressed by the following hypothesis':
1. The energy intensity of all resource deplenishing actions is influenced in the first order by the users demand, not the energy  conversion technology aka power train which comes only second.
2. The history of the automobile aka OEM industry came into age with mass production, thus offering cheap mobility - but this clearly stands in the way of sustainable transport, because of the competitive advantage against public transport and arising zero emission niche markets which both have very high initial costs for the operator/user.

ad 1. If you calculate the demand in primary energy the demand in use energy is divided through the energy conversion efficiency. Now we have cars consuming approximately 6-8 l per 100km (0.6-0.8 kWh/km) and pedal electric (electrically assisted) bicycles consuming 2-7 Wh/km. So even in case we have 80% efficiency with cars instead of 20% which we have now, the factor in between would be 0.175/0.0045=39 which is nearly 42! Yes the answer is always 42, whatever question you are posing ;-)


ad 2. Investment into individual mobility starts at 1500€ for a used five seater. There is no valid business model for the masses buying battery electric luxury cruisers. Battery cost would be a problem with cars, even after becoming massively cheaper - lets- say one tenth of actual costs!



Concluding, the only way is to invest more money in making the rides lighter consuming less use energy and only afterwards caring about alternative power trains! This will be manifesting itself in safer more acceptable tilting trikes and quads and microcars having a seating capacity matching the demand of 1.x and less with commuting.

Electric mobility deployment

The last days have again shown in Austria that utilities tend to oversimplify things regarding battery electric cars. They are tending towards the belief that they have only to provide charging spots and turnover will rocket. However it is not really wise to think so.
Existing OEMs are struggling themselves are not able to give away BEVs for little money and there is little hope that the state will pay the difference in price which mainly is caused by the big big battery. So what to do? Battery exchange is not feasible now for two reasons:

• OEMs should use similar batteries
• batteries should be a standardised product

Point 1: Reduce battery size as low as reasonable acceptable
In parallel the mobility system should adapt. There is little need for a 1.6 ton car which runs 10km a day at an average velocity of 35km/h. The system should allow choosing the right vehicle for the right task. Now this may be best done after sale because demand may change. There are may options to improve the sizing but OEMs should develop new modular concepts capable of been altered after sale in order to increase range and /or capacity.
Point2: rethink car concepts - from one box to building blocks
and utilities shoudl develop new support models covering all issues creating costs or inconveniences for drivers of BEV.
Point 3: offer users the possibility to exchange BEVs not fit for the task after purchase.
This will create thrust in the system.

This 1-23- way it will work.
First propulsion, then vehicle comtecst and last but not least extended customer care.

ecodriving

the first attempt to transport ecodriving info

Energy prices low - bad outlook for energy conserving activities?

There might be at least three reactions from consumers:

1. yes we can continue wasting fuel, since the real well to tank price for the energy is much lower than expected
2. no, we should not change our saving attitude, the next price bubble is on its way
3. wasting energy at home is pricey, but the installed kW power is to expensive for me with cars.

Some comments to that:
ad a) The crisis has shown what the temporary base price is but the exploration and use of new oil fields will be more costly and thus rising prices are to be expected. If the demand collapses reducing extraction beyond the optimum keeping the oil field alive will also cost money adding to the variable costs.

ad b) this is not reasonable for short term, since the demand is falling from both sides oil connected production and oil burning.

ad c) this might have been true in the past since no new power plant were build, but this will change while new power plants or energy storage facilities will be build. But of course investing in more power with cars will never pay off unless you have no speed limits.
What is now the conclusion:

We should not rank price as the main argument for saving energy for a couple of reasons. From an economic stand point the difference between the market price and the production cost for energy should be sufficient high that investment in renewable pay off. That will generate new jobs. Full stop.