Chapter 1 The Mega-Problems of Unsustainability



Example Problems TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Chapter 1 The Mega-Problems of Unsustainability PAGEREF _Toc29155243 \h 31.1.The Problem of Peak Oil for Spain PAGEREF _Toc29155244 \h 31.2.Saudi America PAGEREF _Toc29155245 \h 41.3.Carbon Tax PAGEREF _Toc29155246 \h 51.4.Your grandparent’s world and oil supply PAGEREF _Toc29155247 \h 61.5.Your Future and Carbon Emissions Trajectories PAGEREF _Toc29155248 \h 7Chapter 2. Problems of Unsustainability PAGEREF _Toc29155249 \h 102.1.Water use in electricity generation PAGEREF _Toc29155250 \h 102.2.Food and Water vs Fuel PAGEREF _Toc29155251 \h 112.3.Land Area Requirements for Electricity Generation PAGEREF _Toc29155252 \h 11Chapter 3. Complexity and Communication PAGEREF _Toc29155253 \h 143.1Energy Flows and Substitutions PAGEREF _Toc29155254 \h 143.2Energy Data – Identifying the Big Issues and Opportunities PAGEREF _Toc29155255 \h 173.3End Use Demand PAGEREF _Toc29155256 \h 183.4Renewable Energy Targets: Solar PV PAGEREF _Toc29155257 \h 193.5Carbon-Free Energy Generation: Wind PAGEREF _Toc29155258 \h 193.6Transportation Policy PAGEREF _Toc29155259 \h 213.7CCS Energy Penalty PAGEREF _Toc29155260 \h 213.8Do more oil field discoveries mean no peak oil? PAGEREF _Toc29155261 \h 22Chapter 4. Transition Engineering PAGEREF _Toc29155262 \h 244.1.Biofuel Mandates – Unintended Consequences PAGEREF _Toc29155263 \h 244.2.Energy and Lifestyle PAGEREF _Toc29155264 \h 244.3.Continuous Growth, Finite Resources and Perception PAGEREF _Toc29155265 \h 254.4.Historical Data PAGEREF _Toc29155266 \h 274.5.North Atlantic Cod Fishery Boom & Bust PAGEREF _Toc29155267 \h 27Chapter 5. InTIME Models and Methods PAGEREF _Toc29155268 \h 295.1 Transition Engineering Shift Project: PAGEREF _Toc29155269 \h 295.2 Energy Flow Analysis PAGEREF _Toc29155270 \h 295.3 Airline Travel in the UK InTIME Project PAGEREF _Toc29155271 \h 305.4 Sustainable Energy Oahu 2050 PAGEREF _Toc29155272 \h 345.6 Why Hydrogen is not a viable Technology Wedge PAGEREF _Toc29155273 \h 445.7 Example: How Mom in Denver does the Shopping PAGEREF _Toc29155274 \h 45Chapter 6. Economic Decision Support PAGEREF _Toc29155275 \h 476.1Cost of Electricity from a PEMFC PAGEREF _Toc29155276 \h 47Chapter 7. Transition Economics PAGEREF _Toc29155277 \h 487.1Input/Output Matrix PAGEREF _Toc29155278 \h 487.2How EROI Impacts Society and Economic Activity PAGEREF _Toc29155279 \h 497.3Inflation PAGEREF _Toc29155280 \h 507.4Managing Great Expectations: Urban Wind Power PAGEREF _Toc29155281 \h 507.5Appliance Energy Efficiency PAGEREF _Toc29155282 \h 51Chapter 1 The Mega-Problems of UnsustainabilityThe Problem of Peak Oil for SpainAll businesses and organizations like universities plan their spending and budgeting around one-year cycles. Many countries use the fiscal year from 1 January to 31 December. In 2006 the highest annual oil consumption in Europe and Eurasia was reached at 20,357,000 barrels of oil per day. 2006 was also the peak in oil demand for Spain at 1,613,000 bpd. (BP Statistical Review, statisticalreview )Make a plot of the world price of oil in the years 2000-2016. Calculate the largest “unanticipated” cost of oil due to the price spike in a fiscal year. Estimate the extra import expenditure in Spain due just to the oil price spike.Estimate expenditure on minimum wage workers in Spain in 2007-2008 and show that is about the same as the oil price spike. Elasticity is the relationship between price and demand. How did the consumption of oil change from 2000 to 2007? Does change in consumption correlate with price change?Comment on how this experiment with increasing “carbon price” should be used by policy-makers considering climate actions. Elasticity is the relationship between price and demand, the figure shows the world oil price since the start of the 21st Century and the demand in Spain over the same timeframe. Data from ANALYSISThere was a large jump in the price of oil from 2007 to 2008 of about $25 per barrel. At Spain’s peak oil consumption rate of 1613000 bpd, Spain’s economy would have to spend $40.325 million per day more to do exactly the same activities as in 2006. This is an extra cost to the economy of just over one billion US dollars with NO ADDED BENEFIT. We use google to look at economics information for Spain. Spain has a population of 48 million people. There was a lot of media coverage of Spain’s extraordinary high youth unemployment when it went over 50% in 2012. In 2007, however, the youth unemployment rate was 18% (1.6 million people), then it jumped to 40% by 2009 (3.6 million). The minimum wage in Spain is around 825 euro/month ($1100USD/mo). The 2007-2008 jump in oil prices is about equal to minimum wage salaries for about one million minimum wage earners. Young people in minimum wage jobs are the most vulnerable employees to lay-offs. It looks like the recession in Spain was a contraction of the economy because $1bn flowed out the country and employers cut back on the number of young employees by 1 million.Now let’s look at the oil demand decline in Spain. In 2000 the oil price was $28.50/bbl, and consumption was 1,420,000 bbl/day, and the country was spending $14.8 billion on oil per year. In 2007 oil price had increased to $100 /bbl, demand was 1,613,000 and Spain spent $58.8 billion on oil. Elasticity is %change in demand compared to %change in price. Between 2000 & 2007: Elasticity = (($100-$28.50)/$28.50)/( 1.613-1.42)/1.42) = (250.9%)/(13.6%) = 18.4Result: the increasing price did not cause demand to decline during that period. In 2008 the Spain’s economy fell into a severe depression, and that reduced the demand for oil. In 2014 the oil price continued to be around $100 /bbl and Spain’s consumption was down to 1,191,000 bbl/day, and the country’s oil spend was $43.5 billion.In 2015 the world oil price crashed to the $50 range, and Spain’s oil spend reduced to $22.4 billion. Carbon Price: If we use the experience of the last two decades as an experimental investigation of application of a carbon tax to reduce oil consumption, we would have to question whether adding a carbon tax to fuels would in fact reduce demand, and thus reduce emissions. However, the money raised by the carbon tax would not be removed from the country’s economy, so perhaps would not cause a recession, particularly if the whole tax was not added in one year. The evidence shows that reducing oil consumption is possible, but by changes in activity systems rather than by price rise. The exchange rate with USD in 2007 was 0.75 EUR/USD x- The price of oil today can be reliably found at: Saudi AmericaThe West Texas Intermediate oil price oil price hit $164.50/bbl (inflation adjusted USD) in August 2008. During this time spare production capacity for the conventional oil fields went below 1 MBPD and traders started out-bidding each other to ensure they had supply for their refineries. There had already been extensive exploration for more hydrocarbons. The “conventional crude oil” is the only profitable form of oil when price is under $20 /bbl. But after 2008 there was an explosive oil boom in unconventional hydrocarbons, including the tar sands in Alberta Canada, deep sea oil in the Gulf of Mexico and Brazil, and the tight oil in the USA that requires hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to open up more production surface area in the non-porous source rock. US oil production went from 1.8 billion barrels per year in 2008 to 3.4 bbl/yr in 2015. In the media the oil boom has been represented as a glorious come-back of the industry. Using the Hubbert model, and the oil data from the IEA, model the USA oil production curve. () 92126340951Nt=?ωNoexp-ω2(tp-t+exp?(ω/2(tp-t)^20Nt=?ωNoexp-ω2(tp-t+exp?(ω/2(tp-t)^2Reserves as at 1900 for conventional oil = 223,000,000,000 barrels, tp = 100, ? = 0.063Reserves as of 2008 for tight oil = 26,000,000,000 barrels, tp = 13, ? = 0.4 100520511557000ANALYSIS: Excel spreadsheet model using the given data shows remarkably good agreement between historical oil production data and the Hubbert production curve.Carbon TaxThe consensus view for achieving carbon emissions reduction is that a price on carbon is the main mechanism. The two ways to impose a price on carbon are an emissions trading scheme and/or a direct tax on carbon. Most attempts to apply a “carbon tax” have focused on somehow applying the tax to the emissions rather than to the fuel or to the extraction of fossil hydrocarbons. From the engineering perspective, carbon extracted as fuel equals carbon in the atmosphere. Thus it seems straight-forward to simply impose a “Transition Levy” on fossil fuels either extracted or imported into an economy and use the levy proceeds to capitalize the shift projects in public infrastructure. Higher priced petrol in the same market as new public transport, walkable developments and cycle infrastructure would produce the adaptive pressures that drive productive transitions.The oil price rise from 2000 effectively imposed a carbon tax on the world, except that the extra $75 per barrel was not collected by governments and used to help give transport users alternative transport infrastructure which required less oil so that they could benefit from the savings of not using oil. The high oil price has provided higher returns to oil companies and they do not invest in alternatives to oil. is a recommended site with a wide scope of oil and gas data, analysis and commentary. 1) Calculate the equivalent “carbon price” or “carbon tax” that would equate to $75 per barrel of oil. 2) Develop a government policy for applying a $20-$40 per barrel tax on oil while the world price is below $80-$60 in order to finance trains and subways and cycle infrastructure.ANALYSIS:In the case of Spain, nearly 40% of personal transport is done by walking, 34 % by Public Transport and the remainder by car. Cycling is not widely used in Spain, possibly because of lack of bike paths and parking. Barcelona is building 48 km of subway, costing $7.9 billion. Spain (population 48 million) spent more than $20 million per year on oil in 2016. The people of Spain can pay for the infrastructure and electricity cost of transport by subways, in which case they have a fixed future cost of transport, with options for people who otherwise would drive. A barrel of oil contains 5.8 million Btu = 1,700 kWh = 6120 MJThe crude oil coefficient carbon coefficient is 134 kg C/barrelThe conversion for combustion is 44 kg CO2 / 12 kg CTherefore 1 barrel of oil contains 0.43 metric tons of CO2Spain uses around 1,200,000 barrels of oil per day = 438 million barrels per year. The “carbon emission price” of $20 per barrel would raise $8.76 billion per year – Yes, enough to build that massive subway project in Barcelona. The $20 per barrel would be an equivalent carbon price of ($20/barrel) / (0.43 mt CO2/barrel) = $46.5 /mt CO2 statisticalreviewYour grandparent’s world and oil supplyConsider the perspective of people like your grandparents in 1950. At that time, the potential future oil supply would have been much larger than any conceivable demand, oil was abundant and cheap, air pollution in cities was pretty bad, but few people were thinking about global, irreversible climate change. In 1950 world oil production was 10.4 million barrels per day (mbpd) (Brown, 2010). All of the giant and large oil fields had been discovered by the 1940’s, and the estimate of total recoverable oil at that time would have been about 1,500 billion barrels. (a) If oil consumption had continued at 1950 levels without growing, how long with the world oil supply have lasted? (b) What would have happened to the oil use per capita between 1950 and 2010 if the oil production had remained constant but population had grown to the current 7.2 billion? (c) What is the current world oil use per person, and how long will that continue?ANALYSIS:(a) Without growth in consumption we can easily find the time to exhaust the supply by diving the total supply by the annual consumption rate:Years of supply from 1950 = 1.5x1012 bbl / (365*10.4x106 )bbl/yr = 395 yearsThere was an industrial society with trains, planes cars, heavy equipment, tractors… in 1950. There wasn’t plastic yet, and in a great deal of the world use of personal automobiles was limited. But any of us transported back in time to 1950 would not find life much different from today. If people had decided to not increase oil production, then that society could have continued until 2445. (b) We can search the web to find world population data, for example the databank available from the World Bank () gives a wide range of statistics for most countries. We can find that world population was 2.4 billion in 1950 and current population is 7.2 billion. Per capita oil use in 1950 would have been:Oil per person 1950 = (365 * 10.4x106 )bbl/yr / 2.4x109 people = 1.6 bbl/yrWhich is about 253 liters of oil per person per year in 1950. Using the same calculation for today’s population we get half a barrel of oil per person or 84 liters. (c) We search the web for good data about the world oil production and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has a really useful website with down-loadable excel file: . We see that current world oil production (oil + condensate) is about 76.3 mbpd. We search around for current reserves and see that most of the oil reserves of about 1,500 billion bbl is held by OPEC countries: Current oil per person = (365* 76.3x106) bbl/yr / 7.2x109 = 3.9 bbl/yr = 615 lit/yrYears of supply from 2015 = 1.5x1012 bbl / (365*76.3x106 )bbl/yr = 54 yearsWe recognize this as a pressure for change within the useful life of most current infrastructure. Your Future and Carbon Emissions TrajectoriesIn 2011, the global emissions of CO2 from human activity was 31.6 Gt-CO2. The world’s climate science experts had estimated that if 565 Gt-CO2 more emissions by humans occur, then the build-up of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will result in heating of more than 2oC average over the planet. This is called the “carbon budget”. However, if we achieve this budget we will be bankrupt. In Transition Engineering, we call the addition of man-made emissions of 565 Gt-CO2 beyond 2011 the failure limit. Make an Excel spreadsheet with the second column being years starting at 2011. In the first column place milestones in your life, including finishing your education, and your plans for future years to retirement at age 65. Take your life-timeline out to the average life expectancy for your country. The third column will be the annual global Gt-CO2 emissions, starting with 31.6. For years beyond 2011 you can research and enter in the actual emissions for the years until now. For future years, explore the trajectory of a production retreat to stop the cumulative emissions from exceeding the failure limit. The fourth column will be the cumulative Gt-CO2 emissions from 2011, starting with 0. The cumulative emissions is just the sum of all the previous emissions in column 3. Explore different linear and exponential scenarios and gain an understanding of the downshift project objective.ANALYSIS:A future scenario can be modelled with a linear or exponential function. We know that emissions must decline. A linear decline would have a reduction each year of the same amount, and an exponential decline would have a decline each year of a certain percent. In the spreadsheet we explore a scenario where global emissions decline linearly by 0.6 Gt-CO2 per year. We compare that to an exponential decline scenario where emissions decline by 2% each year. We can see that in both scenarios the failure limit for global warming forcing greenhouse gas is reached in 2032, when your kid is 11 years old. This is not an acceptable scenario.337164430519100Now change the parameters to annual linear reduction of .8 Gt-CO2 and exponential decline of 10%.Emissions Decline Scenario??0.6Gt-CO20.02%?YearGt-CO2 Linear DeclineCumulative Gt-CO2Gt-CO2 Exponential DeclineCumulative Gt-CO222 Yrs201131.631.631.631.6?20123162.631.062.6Finish Uni201330.49330.392.9Start Job201429.8122.829.7122.7?201529.215229.1151.8?201628.6180.628.6180.4?201728208.628.0208.4Get Married201827.423627.4235.8?201926.8262.826.9262.7?202026.228926.3289.0Have a Kid202125.6314.625.8314.8?202225339.625.3340.1?202324.436424.8364.9Promotion202423.8387.824.3389.2?202523.241123.8413.1?202622.6433.623.3436.4?202722455.622.9459.3?202821.447722.4481.7?202920.8497.822.0503.7?203020.251821.5525.2?203119.6537.621.1546.3?203219556.620.7567.0?203318.457520.3587.2Advance203417.8592.819.9607.1?203517.261019.5626.5?203616.6626.619.1645.6?203716642.618.7664.3?203815.465818.3682.6?203914.8672.817.9700.5?204014.268717.6718.1?204113.6700.617.2735.4?204213713.616.9752.3?204312.472616.6768.8Kid graduates Uni204411.8737.816.2785.0?204511.274915.9800.9?204610.6759.615.6816.5?204710769.615.3831.8?20489.477915.0846.8?20498.8787.814.7861.4?20508.279614.4875.8?20517.6803.614.1889.9?20527810.613.8903.7?20536.481713.5917.2Retire20545.8822.813.3930.5?20555.282813.0943.5?20564.6832.612.7956.2?20574836.612.5968.7?20583.484012.2980.9?20592.8842.812.0992.9?20602.284511.71004.6?20611.6846.611.51016.1Die20621847.611.31027.4225488525146000The 10% reduction per year scenario is the only one that avoids the failure limit for global overheating. This is the reason for the emphasis in Transition Engineering of focusing on “Downshift” projects. Chapter 2. Problems of UnsustainabilityWater use in electricity generationWater at 60°F (15.6oC) is used to condense steam in the Rankine Cycle of a nuclear power plant. Given a condensation pressure of 4 in Hg (abs.) (135.5 mbar) the condensate temperature of the condensing steam is 125.4°F (51.9oC). This medium-sized plant is designed to produce 1000?MW of electric power at an efficiency of 31.5%. To eliminate the high cost of building long transmission lines and the additional associated losses, a central location is generally desired for any power plant. If the temperature of the cooling water returned to a river is not to exceed 110°F (43.3oC), estimate:(a)The rate of heat transfer in the condenser (MW).(b)The rate of flow of cooling water (lbm/hr).(c)Discuss the implications of putting such power plants in the interior of the country near a population center. Consider environmental and other concerns.ANALYSIS:(a) The definition of the cycle efficiency gives: The energy balance on the cycle gives:(b) The temperature increase of the cooling water in the condenser is obtained from an energy balance on the condenser freshwater flow:With the specific heat of water cp = 1.0 Btu/lbm°F, (4.186 kJ/kgoC) the mass flow rate of the cooling water is: (c) The water issues with the cooling water for this plant are the heating of the freshwater resource and the consumption of water if wet cooling towers were used. We would need a specific location with known water resources and aquatic ecosystems in order to proceed to quantify the issues posed by this water use for power generation. In many places, power plants on rivers must reduce generation capacity in the summer months in order to stay within their permitted heat addition to rivers.Food and Water vs FuelCompetition between agriculture and water for food vs. biofuels has become an issue that has effectively de-railed support for what are called “First-Generation” biofuels – Bioethanol and Biodiesel made from edible food crops. The issues are sustainable land use, water allocation and social responsibility. There are numerous analysis who have related the curtailment of corn exports from the USA to the Arab Spring, which brought totalitarian regimes to an end after food prices rose dramatically. EROI is an important measure of the energy profitability of biofuel, and we know that EROI for food-derived biofuel is already quite low. Recent research has shown that the so-called “Fourth-Generation” biofuels derived from wood cellulose or algae via various methods are substantially less than 1 and there have been no commercially viable processing developments. Use the given data to explore the implications of the US Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that requires 36 billion gallons of biofuel per year to be blended into the nation’s gasoline supply (). Given Data: It takes 4000 gallons of water to grow 1 bushel of corn, and an average yield of corn per acre is about 200 bushels, grown from about 15 lb of seed corn. It takes 26.5 lb of corn to produce an American gallon of ethanol, and the ethanol production process also consumes 3 gal of water per gallon of ethanol. The average household also uses about 200 gal of water per day. A Ford Explorer used by a typical American family has a 22.5 gal capacity fuel tank, and annual fuel use per household has recently fallen to the level of the mid 1980’s at about 1000 gal/yr (). ANALYSIS:3.8 liters of ethanol requires 12 kg of corn. Thus, to fill up an 85 liter fuel tank of a flex-fuel explorer with E100 (100% bioethanol) would require 270 kg of corn. The average diet for Western people includes about 23 g per day of grains. We can see that one fill-up of the Explorer could meet the grain dietary needs of 32 people for a whole year. People in Asia, India and South America eat more grain, 70 g per day, and less protein and fats. Thus, the 270 kg of corn could provide the tortillas for 10 people in Mexico for 1 year. If the 270 kg of corn were used as seed, it could plant about 40 acres and, with yield of 3225 kg of corn per acre, could grow enough grain for 5000 people in Belize for one year. If the USA fulfills the EISA mandate of producing 136.3 billion liters of ethanol, then the 432 billion kg of corn that would go into fuel tanks in the USA would have fed 51 billion people with Western diet. Land Area Requirements for Electricity GenerationA) CoalFossil fuels are extremely concentrated primary energy resources. Investigate the Garzweiler lignite coal mine in Germany’s Westfalia region. The giant Garzweiler lignite (brown coal) mine in Germany is nearly 50 km2 and has displaced several villages and several thousand homes (including Garzweiler) to produce a total of 1.3 bn tons of lignite over 30 years to supply coal fired power plants. Assuming the lignite energy content is 15 MJ/kg and the modern power plant conversion efficiency is 43%, the land area requirement for this example of lignite coal electricity production is:1.3 x109 tons / 30 years = 43.3 Mton/yr = 118,721.5 ton/day = 1.37 ton/sec1.37 ton/sec * 15 x 106 J/kg *1000 kg/ton = 20,611 MW of coal20,611 MW * .43 = 8,862 MWe electricity per 50 km2 land Coal Land Intensity (Garzweiler Lingnite) = 177 W/m2B) Natural Gas from Tight Shale Natural gas and oil have extremely high energy land intensity. However, on the lower end is natural gas from tight shale formation produced by hydraulic fracturing. In 2015 the USA produced about half of its natural gas supply, (13 Tcf ~ 13 quads) from fracking. In the state of Colorado, USA, in 2014 about 0.34 Tcf of natural gas was produced from 6,878 wells occupying 1,478,105 acres (6 x109m2). Several coal power plants in Colorado have been re-powered to use the newly available natural gas from fracking. Re-powering involves using a gas turbine and the exhaust from the gas turbine is used to fire the steam boiler, or heat recovery steam generator (HRSG). These plants have overall efficiency of 40-50%. Thus, the land intensity for fracked natural gas in Colorado in 2014 is estimated as: 0.34 quads/yr * 293.1 x106 MWh/Quad * 1 yr/8760 hr = 11,372 MW in gas energyElectricity Production = 11,372 MW * .4 = 4,549 MWeShale Gas Land Intensity (Colorado) = 4.6 x109 W / (6 x 109 m2) = 0.8 W/m2 Use Google Earth to look at images of the land use of fracking natural gas, which includes building well-pads spaced about every mile, the access roads, and connecting small pipelines and pumping stations. Locate the city of Durango, Colorado, and look at the satellite image of the landscape to the south of Durango. You will see what the aptly named Paradox Basin gas field looks like. Also do some research on fracking production wells leaking methane and the growing problem of abandoned wells. Could this affect the land impacts of fracking oil and gas production? C) HydroelectricityHigh density renewable electricity is generated from hydro resources developed by damming a river and creating a reservoir. Research the reservoir area and power generation capacity of a hydropower plant in your country. For example, the Three Gorges hydro project in China is designed to produce 18,000 MW from 26 turbines. The dam is the biggest in the world, and the reservoir displaced more than one million people. The reservoir consumed 632 km2 of land which had been continuously inhabited for more than 3000 years. Thus, this largest of all hydropower projects has a land area requirement of:Hydropower Land Intensity (Three Gorges) 18,000,000,00 W / 632,000,000 m2 = 28 W/m2A few hydroelectric generation facilities are built at the outflow of natural lakes or on “run-of-the-river” dams which do not create large reservoirs. New Zealand’s ?hau power plants use the outflow of natural glacial lakes, and the Waikato river on the North Island of New Zealand has 12 run-of-the-river hydropower plants. Shale gas and oil reserves and “plays” meaning development areas D) GeothermalGeothermal is an interesting case. The land needed for geothermal power generation is quite small, about 0.5 – 1 km2 for the power plant, well heads and steam field pipes. Geothermal power plants range in size from a few hundred to a thousand MW. Consider the example of the Te Mihi geothermal power plant near Taupo, New Zealand. The generation capacity is 166 MW and the land used is about 500,000 m2. Te Mihi Geothermal Power Plant Land Intensity = 166,000,000 W / 500,000 m2 = 332 W/m2 Chapter 3. Complexity and CommunicationEnergy Flows and SubstitutionsThe Sankey energy flow chart gives us our first important clue about a transition to sustainable energy; Transition involves massive demand reduction because no conceivable increase in renewables can bring about the required carbon emission reductions (IPCC 2007). The value of wind and solar is essentially in the error margin of the values for oil, coal and gas. The manufacture of solar panels and wind turbines requires energy input from fossil fuels and nuclear power due to the energy intensity of the materials manufacturing. The renewable energy transition can only be accomplished with massive demand reduction. Energy efficiency upgrades shift some of the rejected energy to useful energy services. Conservation reduces the amount of consumer energy needed for the same energy services. Transition will also have to include re-designing and re-building the end use sector infrastructure to reduce the bulk of the demand for fossil fuels. Web resource for energy data: (a) Compare the Sankey energy flow diagram for two different states in the USA: Wyoming and Hawaii. Can you explain the differences? USA energy mix is dominated by oil.Wyoming has one of the highest wind power densities in the USA, and flat topography with plenty of available land. Coal completely dominates the energy mix Hawaii has steady Pacific Ocean breezes and geothermal and of course sun. But imported petroleum completely dominates the energy supply mix. (b) Explore the diagrams for different countriesChina’s Energy MixFrance is known as the world’s largest producer of nuclear power. Notice the streams of imported oil and natural gas.Energy Data – Identifying the Big Issues and OpportunitiesThe International Energy Agency (IEA) and individual countries collect large amounts of data on primary energy extraction, electricity production and distribution and end use consumption. Each transaction is taxed, so the data can be collected and used in analysis of the performance of the economy and development of policy. The ability to graph data in different ways has become extremely important in both understanding what is happening, but also in convincing others of different points of view. The examples given here are from the US Energy Information Administration.A) Find data from your own country’s energy ministry or energy agency and graph data in different ways. Use the data to postulate relationships between historical events, price, policy, consumer behavior and energy production and demand. Notice that different primary resource have different lead times on increased production which can occur in response to price signals. The longest lead time would be increasing coal production, and the shortest would be fracking of natural gas, in particular the natural gas “rush” that occurred at the end of the 2nd Bush presidency where regulations were relaxed for Clean Air and Clean Water Act and low-cost leases on public lands were granted without environmental impact assessments. B) There have been no new nuclear power plants commissioned in the USA since what date? How old does that make the current nuclear power plants? Have any been shut down and decommissioned yet? The EIA data shows that nuclear electricity generation has been steady since 2000. If you were to look at future scenarios, how much longer would you project the current level of nuclear power production? USA Primary Energy Production by Resource USA Coal Price History USA Natural Gas Price HistoryUSA Crude Oil Price HistoryEnergy production and price data.End Use DemandThe objective is to carry out projects that have high impact on hydrocarbon use, greenhouse gas emissions and security of energy supply to meet the essential needs of the society. It is important to be able to use relevant data and find out what the biggest end uses are, and how that use feeds into the economic activity through production of food or goods or transportation of goods for supply of populations and trade. Sometimes “supply” is the same as “demand”, but remember that all countries who are members of the IEA are required to hold strategic stockpiles of oil and finished products. Sometimes these stockpiles are being drawn down and sometimes stocked back up. The IEA agreement is that countries should hold 3 months of storage. The idea is that this will prevent the worst aspects of an oil shock from causing civil break-down and economic collapse as happened in the 1970’s oil shocks when there were no strategic reserves. Some of these reserves are held in depleted, highly porous oil or gas producing structures. Find the sources of data for your country for the “demand” or “consumption” of oil, coal, and gas. Pick one of the fossil fuels and find out what the largest end use is. Look at this end use, and make an estimate of what the value to the economy and to the people is. Is the end use essential? necessary? important? optional? or convenient? Is anything produced by using that fuel? Is that product essential? Make a pie graph of the end uses of the energy resource. Rank the end uses according to productivity and essentiality. -76206350000Personal Transport and Resources = largely Convenience and non-productiveAir Travel = non-productive, some freight, mostly ConveniencePipelines, Barges, Ships, Railways = productive penalty, no energy or goods can be delivered without use for pumping or transporting. NecessaryConstruction & Maintenance = constructive. NecessaryAgriculture, Logging = productive. EssentialUSA end uses of oil by purpose. Values in PJ/yr.It seems clear from this analysis that shift projects should focus on the wicked problem of 80% reduction of private vehicle use. Don’t freak out, the next chapters will explain how to do that. Renewable Energy Targets: Solar PVRecently, the Arizona legislature passed a law requiring that by the year 2025, 15% of all the electric energy generation be from renewable sources. Calculate the collector area required and estimate land area for this target to be met by solar PV.ANALYSIS:From the Arizona Energy Commission website, we find that in 2009, electricity demand was 30,800?GWh/year and growth to 50,000?GWh/year in 2025 is expected. From the NREL U.S. Solar Radiation Resource Map, annual average solar radiation impinging on a flat plate facing south and inclined at the latitude is 5.5?kWh/m2/day, which is equivalent to about 2 × 103 kWh/m2/year. Assuming a PV efficiency of 12%, the amount of electric power delivered per year is 240?kWh/m2. Hence, the collector area isA= 50000GWhyear×0.15 ×106kWhGWh240kWhyear?m2 =7.5 ×109 kWh/year240kWhyear?m2 =3.1 ×107m235306007810500The rule of thumb for PV installation to avoid shading is spacing so the total area is twice the collector area, giving a land requirement of 6.2 × 107 m2. The land area of Arizona is 2.95 x1011 m2. For reference, the city of Phoenix covers 1.4 x109 m2. Using Figure 1.15 we can estimate that the cost of such a system would be about $40 billion today. People have built roads and buildings over a larger percentage of the land than this required solar panel density as seen in the image of all the roads in Arizona. ( ) Discussion: Are there any sustainability issues with the proposed PV solution? One of Arizona’s biggest electricity loads is summer air conditioning. Is this resource a good match with end user demand? Studies have shown that shading of windows and walls in Arizona can reduce cooling loads by 15-30%. If the cost of shading louvers, awnings and screens is about $2/kWh saved over the year, then discuss the cost of reducing energy demand. Carbon-Free Energy Generation: WindOn July 17, 2008, former Vice President Al Gore proposed that by 2018 all US electric power generation be carbon-free (Transcript at ). Senator John McCain later suggested that nuclear power plants be installed in order to reduce the effects of global warming. In the summer of 1979 at the height of the energy crisis, President Jimmy Carter suggested that Americans should conserve energy, and ordered the speed limit on highways reduced from 70mph to 55mph. Assume that conservation could reduce fossil generation demand by 25%. Estimate how many 2.5 MW wind turbines (average yearly capacity factor of 30%) would meet Mr. Gore’s suggestion. Then estimate the total costs and land area of these wind turbines assuming that wind turbines cost about $1100/kWe installed. Then estimate how many 1000 MW nuclear power plants with a 90% capacity factor would be required and what would be the capital cost if nuclear power installation cost $7000/kWe.ANALYSIS:USA Projected Electricity Generation 2008 from the EIA—Annual Energy Outlook gives:Fossil based electricity generation in year 2020: 31.53 quads (31.53 × 1015 Btu)Total electricity generation in year 2020: 45.18 quads (45.18 × 1015 Btu)The 25% conservation would be 7.88 quads, so assuming conservation can reduce the 2020 electricity needs by 8 quads, we are left with 23.53 quads of electric energy that must be produced by renewable sources.Wind power: Given a 30% annual capacity factor, the 2.5 MW wind turbine would be expected to generate: requiring over 1 billion wind turbines! We can now determine the total land area required for these wind farms with about 50 ac of land area needed per turbine:At $1100 per kW for wind turbines, the capital needed for the installation of these farms isNuclear power: The yearly electric energy produced by one 1000 MW nuclear power plant operating at 90% capacity isThis would require 875 power plants, and at $7000 per kW for nuclear plants, we determine the capital investment for the construction of these plants:Transportation PolicyExplore the relative merits and costs of different transition change projects. The US ethanol fuel program costs more than $4.00/gal and replaces 8% of personal transport fuel. This amount of fuel could be saved by VMT reduction of 2.5 miles per car per week at an average fuel savings of $150 for the year. A dis-incentive tax on light trucks for city driving could drop the sales of SUV’s and trucks for personal use to 20% of sales. This policy would not require investment in any alternative vehicle technology, would collect new revenue from a gas guzzler tax, and in the first year would reduce fuel use by 9040 million gal, saving $33.9 billion (at $3.75/gal). In the 1970’s lowering the speed limit to 55 mph resulted in a 7% fuel savings. If we use this figure then the savings to the US economy would be in the range of $34 billion, not to mention the savings in accidents and loss of life. The potential carbon emission reduction, fuel demand reduction and economic savings from modest, low cost changes are truly astounding. These types of transition projects are obviously effective – the problem is how to achieve them in the political and cultural context. Keep this in mind as we turn to discovering and developing down-shift projects. Use of gasoline and diesel in personal vehicles for travel is not a productive use of this high grade energy in the economy, it provides few health and safety benefits and produces many social costs. The high economic cost is partly because nearly 45% of US petroleum consumption is imported (as at 2011). The inelastic economic dependence on oil caused a wealth transfer out of the US and GDP losses combined amounting to at least half a trillion dollars in 2008 due to the oil price rise. When the price fell to an average of $60 per barrel the oil dependence costs fell to the range of $300 billion in 2009 and 2010 [28]. Thus, the rate of return on projects that reduce oil dependence is potentially very large. CCS Energy PenaltyA new IGCC coal fired power plant is being explored. Without CCS the power plant design would burn lignite coal with an energy content of 10.5 MJ/kg-CO2 with a plant efficiency of 40%. The plant would generate 1000MW using brown coal (28.5 MJ/kg). The CCS system would divert steam from the power plant boiler to re-generate the MEA solution (0.5 MJ/kg-CO2), and electricity to run pumps and fans (0.47 MJ/kg-CO2), a compressor to 2 MPa (0.3 MJ/kg-CO2) and cooling (0.33 MJ/kg-CO2). What is the energy penalty for the CCS system? How much more coal would have to be mined and burned for the plant with CCS to provide the same power as the plant without CCS?ANALYSIS:The power plant produces 0.4 x 10.5 MJ/kg-CO2 = 4.2 MJ/kg-CO2 without CCS With CCS the power plant produces 4.2 – (0.5 + 0.47 + 0.3 + 0.33) = 2.6 MJ/kg-CO2. Therefore, the energy penalty is:EP= 1004.2-2.64.2=38% The plant without CCS is burning coal at a rate of: (1000 MW/0.4) x 3600 MJ/MWh / 28.5 MJ/kg = 315,789 kg per houror 316 kg coal per MWh electricityWith an energy penalty of 38% the plant with CCS would need to have a generation capacity of 1380 MW in order to deliver 1000 MW to the grid. Thus the coal consumption rate with CCS would be:(1380 MW/0.4) x 3600 MJ/MWh / 28.5 MJ/kg = 435,789 kg per houror 436 kg of coal per MWh electricityThus, the plant with CCS burns 120 more kg of coal per MWh electricity.Do more oil field discoveries mean no peak oil?The Excel spreadsheet can easily be used to model growth and depletion. Understanding of the effects of different parameters on the future can be explored by setting different scenarios side-by-side and plotting the results. As an example, set up a spreadsheet with a worksheet to explore growth of number of semi-trucks on the roads.(a) Use the internet to find the number of trucks registered over the past decade in your country. Put that data into the spreadsheet, using the first column as the year. Use Equation (1.1) to determine the growth rate. Then model the next two decades if that growth rate continues into the future. In the second column, use Equation (1.6) to model the production over the next 30 years from a new gas well that has initial estimated resource of 100 units. Set the peak year at 12. Vary the shape parameter from 0.1 to 0.6 and observe the effects on production each year. In the third column, calculate the remaining resource by subtracting the sum of the previous production from the initial resource. World oil production data 2013 Think about the things that people are arguing about like the actual date of peak oil or the total recoverable reserves and observe how sensitive the overall lifetime and annual production are to these factors. Finally, copy and paste the production curve data (select paste special and tick values only) into subsequent columns and play with the drill rate you would need for production from new gas wells in order to keep the supply growing the way it started out with shape factor = 0.2. For these gas wells, production starts at 1.5 units grows exponentially for 10 years, then starts to peak. So you need your second well to come on line in year 13 in order to keep supply growing. But then, the next well needs to start producing in year 18, and the next in year 21. You should get a model as shown in Figure E1.11, and you should understand why increased drilling doesn’t secure a “future” of growth. Adjust the production dates for your three new wells and see if you can maintain a plateau in production around 5 units without letting it drop below 4 units for 70 years. How would the investment in infrastructure and end-use appliances differ between Scenario A: 30 year peak to 14 units with steep decline, and Scenario B: 60 year plateau at 5 units? 229997028638500-5905527686000 An Excel spreadsheet model is used with Equation (1.6) to explore the production of oil or gas from different fields (a) 4 oil fields with total reserve of 100 units each, peak year at 12 and shape factor 0.2. (b) 4 oil fields with total reserve 180 units each field has different reserves and production rates.Chapter 4. Transition EngineeringBiofuel Mandates – Unintended ConsequencesBefore the ethanol mandate, the USA exported about half of the annual corn harvest and much of that was consumed directly as food. After the mandate, US corn production industries had increased profits as the price for ethanol feedstock was better than exporting to the world as food. American grain-fed beef (e.g. feedlots) use about 12 kg of corn per kg of red meat on the grill (). After the ethanol mandate, there were severe shortages of feed for cows, pigs and chickens, and increased prices for food in the USA as well. Explore news articles and see if you can find stories about the impacts of the USA ethanol mandate, or of the similar mandates in Europe. Look at the price of ethanol, the price of gasoline, and prepare a one-page policy advice letter for the government in your country. Does the evidence show that the ethanol mandate has been a good policy in the USA? Should your country see importing biofuel from other countries as a way to reduce carbon emissions or secure fuel supply?Energy and LifestyleKrumdieck and Hamm (2009) carried out a detailed study of the energy and activity systems on the remote island of Rotuma, Fiji. The daily energy requirement for a family living a traditional lifestyle is two coconut husks, dried for two days in the sun, that are used cook the day’s taro in a pit fire and fry the day’s fish catch on a simple grill. On the same island there are homes connected to village electric grids and the island water supply. Their daily energy demand is two coconut husks plus 72 Wh for 2 small lights for 6 hours per day when the village generator functions and a small share of the 20 liters of diesel fuel used to run the island water pump for 3 hours each day. Also on the same island, a home built by an Australian has a much different lifestyle with continuous electricity, a refrigerator, TV, lights in every room, and air conditioning. This home supplies its own 11 kWh per day by solar panels, a small wind generator, a large battery bank with several diesel generators, and compressed natural gas is used for cooking. While the needs of this house are only about half the average in Australia, they are still vastly different from their neighbors on the island. The standard of living for all of the island residents is roughly equal in that they all have adequate nutrition, access to the same quality of air and water, access to medical treatment and education, and the same life expectancy. Clearly, the energy use of the traditional lifestyle is sustainable while the Australian lifestyle depends heavily on imported fossil fuel, and even though about 1/2 of the energy is provided by renewable sources, the technology was manufactured using fossil fuels and using depleting minerals (Krumdieck and Hamm 2009).Note that more than half of the world population lives on less than 250 kg oil equivalent (kgoe) per person, meaning that they have few energy services. This level of energy use is much less than the current US average per capita consumption of over 9000 kgoe. However, in quantifying carrying capacity, we are not considering lifestyle, we are considering necessity. The pre-industrial, predominantly agricultural or fishing society used about 250 kgoe per person, primarily in wood biomass for cooking, heating and processing, with motive power provided by food biomass for animals and walking, and some processing power supplied by wind and water mills. All of the historical energy systems were orders of magnitude less energy efficient than current capabilities, perhaps even a factor of four so that today, 250 kgoe of primary energy could provide 1000 kgoe of energy services. Clearly, the world’s resources cannot sustainably support 7 billion people consuming 9000 kgoe of energy from any source. This leads to the conclusion that reduction in demand in high consuming societies is an absolute necessity and should be the priority for shift projects. DISCUSSION:If you are living in the high energy lifestyle of OECD countries, you have access to affordable education and your opportunities for employment provide income enough to access the normal benefits of energy in your lifestyle, then what else do you need? Form a discussion group and critically examine the lifestyles of your families. What energy services do your families not have access to? If your family home gets solar PV panels, what other purchase would be roughly equal in cost? (e.g. the USA average 4kW solar PV package runs about $10,000.) What else in your family’s lifestyle costs this amount and would any of these other expenditures result in “savings?”. If your family purchases a solar PV package, is there any new energy service or essential activity that they will be able to have because of the solar? How about even a new convenience? Now let’s look at a family in Rotuma. They currently have either no electricity, or the electricity they have is supplied by diesel fuel that has to be brought in on a boat that is a 3 day trip from Fiji and only comes twice per month. Thus, they are very unlikely to expect that they would have all-day electricity at any rate. Solar PV does not have a great EROI, but if a village of 60 households were to somehow raise the money for 4 kW of solar PV panels, what difference would it make to have access to energy services? Discuss what you would want to do with 4kW of solar PV if you had no other electricity? Battery storage is expensive, so what end uses would be worth investing in storage? Our research with remote, traditional societies indicates that the most important use would be a shared access to communications – that is, having access to legal and political and educational services, emergency and weather communications with the rest of the country. Look up how much energy that would take. The next most important end use is a small amount of light in a kitchen area and in a gathering area. Next is a small refrigerator or ice maker so that medicines can be kept cool, in particular insulin. Another common end use is a community television/stereo and DVD player where the village gathers to watch movies. Discuss how the use of a small amount of low EROI energy can provide essential services in some situations, essentially multiplying the return on investment. Continuous Growth, Finite Resources and PerceptionIn 1950 the city of Fort Collins, Colorado had a population of 15,000 and occupied 3750 acres. The city was surrounded by 50,000 acres of prime farmland within a 20-minute drive, which grew most of the food sold in the city markets plus grains, fruits and vegetables and dairy, which were transported to the capital city of Denver. Like the rest of the country, Fort Collins was about to experience a prolonged period of population growth at an annual rate of 4.2%. New housing for the population was typical suburban single-family homes and 158 acres were converted from agriculture to urban use in 1950. In 1950, people started to wonder; if this current rate of land conversion continued, how long until the farmland was consumed? The answer ((50,000-158)/158) is 317 years. No worries! But the next year 164 acres were developed, and the next year 171 acres. A professor at Colorado State University used Eqn. 2 and determined that the city seemed to be increasing its land use by 4.2% each year, the same rate as the population growth. If the 3750 ac of urban land in 1950 were to increase apace with population, then Eqn. 4 gives the year that the city would have grown to 53,750 acres and consumed all of the farmland as 64 years later in 2014 as shown in Figure E1.12. The professor in 1953 would surely have looked at the map and the farmland around his city and not really been able to picture 118,000 people living there and all of the farmland gone. The mathematical model is clear but the professor’s perception of the issues associated with future growth would likely be limited by her lack of experience with this kind of situation. She might think that something would change in the future to slow the growth or manage the preservation of some of the agricultural productivity. The professor would have been called an alarmist if she suggested that population and land use was an issue. The mayor would not appreciate the suggestion that population growth could be a problem when it is actually necessary to pay for the new schools, sewer system and library built to meet the needs of previous growth. In 1997 there was still half of the farmland remaining around the city. But in fact the steady, “healthy” growth rate of the city continues to the present day and all of the original farmland is now within urban city limits. Let’s say the professor had argued for more “efficient” urban development and championed regulations to increase the housing density so that the land use per person could be cut in half? If the council had taken this advice, then today a bit less than half of the farmland would still remain. However, if the population growth rate continues unabated into the future, the farmland would still be consumed by 2035. The improved efficiency would have bought 23 years before total consumption of the farmland resource, but it would not have changed the inevitable outcome. The use of the simple growth models would have modeled this outcome in the 1950’s. This modeling could have informed sustainable development policy.Clearly, the only way to preserve farmland would be to set limits on the land use conversion as was done historically in Europe. In USA, Canada and Australia, cities have sprawled onto productive farmland and the urban development pattern is low density. Constraints in land use conversion did not stop economic prosperity in Europe, but it has created higher density, more diverse, and more walkable cities. As a comparison, in 2014 the population of Fort Collins was roughly the same as Grenoble, France. However, Fort Collins covers twelve times more land than Grenoble. Use GoogleEarth? to observe the different urban forms of these two cities. Example 1.2. Annual population growth of a city is 4.2% resulting in consumption of agricultural land for urban development.Historical Data We should remember how important hydropower was for industry prior to steam engines. The Domesday Book recorded more than 5500 water mills in England in 1085 A.D. Carry out research into the history of hydropower in your country or state. Was hydropower first developed for residential or industrial use?North Atlantic Cod Fishery Boom & BustFor hundreds of years the North Atlantic Cod was a seemingly unlimited source of food and income [7]. The annual cod landings are estimated to have been below 0.2 tons per year, increasing slightly in the first half of the 20th Century. In the 1950’s new technology in the form of large factory trawlers and refrigeration equipment led to a dramatic increase in the tons of fish landed by the countries surrounding the fishery; the USA, Canada, Iceland, the UK and Spain. New technology facilitated larger catches, as well as access to much wider markets through an expanding transport network and refrigeration. The rapid growth of the industry meant booming growth of fishing industry towns, equipment suppliers, employment and a rapid expansion in the fishing economies. The Canadian and US fish management systems attempted to limit the catch to 20% of the resource per year, but the assessment of the resource became highly political and it is now thought that the catch was actually more in the range of 60% of the resource. The science was too optimistic and was censored by the economic belief in unlimited resources, and by politicians, whose main objectives were continued economic growth. The fish populations had fluctuated in the past, and there was a belief that the fish stocks would simply recover if catch was down in any given year. European trawlers were caught overfishing and the new trawling technology actually ended up destroying the spawning grounds. A moratorium on cod fishing in 1993 has been followed by a permanent closure of the fisheries that were in fact destroyed and did not recover. The year that saw the greatest industry investment in bigger ships and new processing equipment to manage the massive growth in catch was 1968, the year that the fish landings peaked. There is no question that extracting all the cod from the North Atlantic made some people very rich and provided some jobs for a period of time. The political fight was focused on the figures produced by industry scientists regarding the total size of the resource in order to determine the size of the quotas. However, in retrospect, the only thing that could have saved the resource was regulation of the technology – basically limiting the size of the ships and forbidding the use of trawlers. How could that have been accomplished?3144002101404100 The actual annual North Atlantic Cod landings and the modeled depletion curve for different values of total resource. Anticipated future demand drove massive investment in capacity just before the collapse of the fishery. Data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ( HYPERLINK "" ).Chapter 5. InTIME Models and Methods5.1 Transition Engineering Shift Project:Imagine that Transition Engineering was a mature field in 1949, what would the Global Association for Transition Engineering (GATE) have done to set standards for the fishing industry and issue permits for manufacture of fishing vessels to ensure sustainable prosperity? In our revisionist history experiment, the GATE would have recognized the potential for a cod boom and called an extraction rush moratorium (ERM) on manufacture of new fishing technology and new boat capacity until a production plan was established. The GATE would have gathered facts, species reproduction models and data from scientists, marine biologists, and industry. The GATE working group on Fishing Technology would have developed a production standard for any new types of boats or equipment proposed by manufacturers based on balancing the catch capacity and externalities against the resource availability and ecosystem requirements. The special working group on cod would have learned about the spawning and lifecycle of the species and the ecosystem. They would have modelled the future fishery landings using Eqn. (13.1) as shown in Figure 13.1 using the potential catch rates facilitated by the new technologies. The model parameters are tp = 18, ? = 14. The model shows that the peak value of the catch depends on what the assumed total resource value is, but the inevitable collapse of the resource does not. The destruction of the resource was ensured by deployment of technological capacity beyond the resource availability. The modelling would have been used to set the standard for the maximum size of cod fishing ship that could be manufactured, it would have set a quota on the number of cod fishing ships that could be manufactured and placed in service. It would have also placed a total ban on the dangerous and destructive trawler technology. The cod fishery would have still been prosperous at any level (as it was during every year that it existed) and the policy makers would have adopted the GATE standards as regulations and could easily enforce the regulations through boat registrations. In our revisionist history solution, the cod landings may have climbed to 0.5 million tonnes per year, there would be cod in the market today, and the GATE working group on fishing technology would have moved on to studying and developing the standards for phasing out drift netting. 5.2 Energy Flow AnalysisUsing the energy flow diagram below, compare the impact of different Transition Engineering Projects. Calculate the up-stream effect on reduced demand for extraction of petroleum, the capital cost, pay-back period and the EROI for each option. Option 1 is a substitution of end-use technology and transition to an alternative fuel stream. Option 2 is a demand management approach where the need to drive is reduced or the choice of mode is changed to cycle or walk. Option 3 is an energy efficiency improvement approach.USA Statistics and Data: 15,000 miles average travel per vehicle, average mileage 21 mpg, average cost of driving $0.60/mile for a petrol sedan. Nissan Leaf MSRP $36,000 + home charging station $2,000, 80kW motor. Anderson Oil Boiler MSRP $2,255, Average household oil use 730 gal/yr. Embedded energy: electric car = 161 MBtu, bicycle = 3.5 MBtu, Oil boiler = 6.1 MBtuProject (1) Invest in new electric vehicles and electric vehicle charging stations. The development goal is to replace 1 Quad of transport fuel demand with electricity.Project (2) Invest in travel demand reduction. This will require new innovations, systems, urban developments… that reduce miles travelled by 2% overall. You can research and brainstorm possible measures and costs.Project (3) Identify and replace 25% of the 8.1 million domestic oil boilers with the lowest energy efficiency (Pre 1970 A.F.U.E. = 60%) with new boiler with A.F.U.E. = 86%. Petroleum energy flow diagram for the USA in 2008 [quadrillion Btu].5.3 Airline Travel in the UK InTIME Project1. History 100 years ago, there were no commercial air passengers and no airports in the UK. The first flight by the Wright Brothers in the USA was in 1908. There were airplanes and there were aerodromes and of course military aircraft. But the idea of the public flying to destinations in Europe, America or further abroad was not known. People at all economic levels were highly interested in travel, but they mostly experienced adventure and discovery through the stories and presentations of professional adventurers. People with high incomes did travel internationally for leisure, but the main means was passenger liner (e.g. the Titanic), and trains. Pan American began transatlantic commercial flights in 1939. WWII and the cold war unleashed large amounts of public funding for fundamental science, materials and engineering research and development in aerospace. The fields of aerospace and aeronautical engineering emerged. The first commercial jet liner was the De Havilland Comet in 1952, and was joined by the Boeng 707 in 1958. In 1970 there were 15.6 million UK passenger flights. The technologies of passenger aircraft advanced as did air traffic control and security. The supersonic international flight started in 1976, and the last commercial flight landed at Heathrow in 2003. In 1978 the US deregulated airlines and nearly half of all flights worldwide took place in the U.S. Air travel grew rapidly in the US, with the advent of cheap fares, and the growth spread to Europe and then Asia over the next decades. 2. Present Air travel in the United Kingdom in 2015 totaled 232 million, or about 3.4 passenger flights per resident of the UK. Congestion is already costing passengers more than 1 billion per year in the UK, a five-fold increase over the past two decades. The UK Parliament Transport Committee reports that Heathrow Airport was already operating at maximum capacity in 2009. Surveys show that 90% of the passenger travel is international. A study indicated that 75% of all passenger miles are carried out by the same 15% of wealthy individuals for leisure purposes. 3. Future ScenariosSustainability Limit: The total maximum capacity of all airports in the UK is estimated at 400 million passenger flights. The Business-as-Usual (BAU) scenario, continuing at the historical 6% annual growth rate would reach the physical capacity UK airports by 2025. Thus, the physical limits to growth in this activity system are being reached, and beyond 2025 BAU is unsustainable. It could be possible to expand the Heathrow airport and add another runway. The opportunity is the benefits of increased passenger numbers. The opportunity cost is the Technical Wedges: Winglets are estimated to reduce fuel consumption by 5% while cruising, and the new Boeing Dreamliner is thought to reduce long-haul fuel consumption by as much as 20%.Green Technology Wedges: Biofuels have been explored in the UK and around the world as a substitute for petroleum derived kerosene (Jet fuel). It is possible to make a biofuel kerosene. However, the current estimates of production potential are well below 1% of current consumption. There are also numerous studies showing that ethanol from biofuel fermentation, requires nearly the same fossil energy input as output of biofuel (EROI ~ 1) and thus does not decrease carbon emission overall. It is possible to find a reference to a solar powered electric airplane, and there have been news articles about hydrogen for airplanes. Solar airplanes are not relevant to commercial passenger services. Hydrogen and battery powered air planes have a probability of less than 3% of existing before 2050. Efficiency Wedges: Operational efficiency is easier with lower congestion, but measures like shorter approach and flight paths, carrying less extra fuel, reducing auxiliary power unit operation (the APU provides fresh air during time at the gate), reduced weight allowances, and increasing the number of seats per plane could possibly improve fuel efficiency per passenger by a total of 20% over the next 20 years. No Growth Scenario: It requires no further investment in runways or airports, but it would require replacement of airplanes as they reach the end of their life. Over the next 30 years, all of the current airplanes would be retired, so maintaining the current passenger travel levels would require investment in the replacement fleet and continued fuel consumption at the current level. Forward Operating Environment: COP21 80% Fossil Carbon Emissions Reduction. The emissions reduction of at least 80% would require reduction in the number of flights and thus reduction in passenger numbers to 33 million, the passenger travel levels of the 1980’s. The COP21 scenario could support up to 47 million (the same number as in 1990) if all of the logistical, technical and crowding efficiencies were to be utilized. The much lower traffic and congestion at all of the UK airports would result in more pleasant travel. The price for air travel would presumably have to be higher as airport taxes would need to be generated from fewer passengers. RISK – the risk for reducing passenger numbers is lower for the airports and for the airlines IF they have not invested in increased numbers. For example, the highest risk for Heathrow Airport would be if the 2.6 billion pounds were invested in the third runway and the extension of the terminals for low cost air travel for access to cheap holidays or second houses in Europe. When these low cost fares escalate and demand declines and airlines go bankrupt, consolidate and decrease airplane numbers – then the debt incurred for the airport expansion will not be serviced. This is called a “stranded asset”. Airlines would also have stranded assets of aircraft if they increased their fleet size anticipating growth and there was indeed decline. 4. 100 Years in the FutureThe energy transition is complete. All energy end-use activities are supplied from renewable resources, and all material consumption is life-cycle neutral. The global fossil fuel production was reduced in accordance with keeping global warming below 1.5 oC. There is some international travel to and from the UK, but there are not cheap commercial jet flights. 5. BackcastingPeople in 2117 are the same as in 1917 – they are quite interested in the natural, cultural and historical world, and are engaged with learning and discovering people, places and ecosystems around the world. They just aren’t physically going there in order to experience different cultures and natural wonders. What is the same is that people have the appetite for knowledge and exploration. What is different is that they don’t do it by quick cheap commercial airline trips. In the energy transition, there has been innovations in virtual exploration and connectivity that has more appeal in the market than cheap air flight. This is not surprising, as the experience of flying is increasingly expensive, time consuming, uncomfortable, congested and generally unpleasant. If some entrepreneur could come up with a “social media” version of exploration and travel that appealed to the market, and used new technologies and new types of experiences with favorable cost and “bragging rights” for customers to impress their friends… then maybe the decline in air travel would actually be experienced as the growth of a new market for holiday experiences without flying. This would be much like concurrent growth in air travel and decline in passenger ships in the past century. 6. Shift Project InnovationAir travel for holidays in Europe declines sharply. The price of air travel increases sharply. The airlines and airports are best placed to drive this by simply increasing prices and reducing flights. The airlines stand to improve profits dramatically by cutting operating and fuel costs and simultaneously increasing revenues. The airlines have a logistical, marketing and holiday business knowledge base that they could leverage to start to develop an innovative new offering in the market for holidays by UK customers. The shift project is to carry out the market research and search for a destination in the UK that could be developed for a new and modern type of holiday experience for different demographics. For example, all holiday makers want to “go somewhere” away from home and work. There are plenty of hotels and destinations in the UK. The mission is to create a “destination”. There is a large travel market for young Brits who go to a gathering place and party. There is a travel market for families with young children who want fund and learning. There is a travel market for elderly people who want safety and leisure. There is a market for young people who want to challenge themselves. There is a market across demographics for historical re-enactment and experiencing the challenge and drama of life in other times and in fantasy worlds. The airlines become partners in a new destination holiday conglomerate. They use their big data on travelers and work with the national rail and regions to identify destinations for different market sectors, the logistics of travel and goods movements, and the coherent development of the destinations, including ensuring that the destinations are part of the energy transition, e.g. no disposable plastic, renewable energy, low energy demand… Proposal - Medieval Abbey Farm and Village Reality Participatory Adventure and Web-series – historical parks and living museums are already popular, as are BBC programs where archaeologists and historians re-discover the details of life in another time. The inaugural shift project will be to design a 1-week and 2-week immersive adventure holiday experience that re-creates the Medieval world for 2500 paying holiday makers. The restoration and construction of a site, the interaction with customers to create their characters and choose their profession, their house, their clothes, their food ahead of time, and to follow the storylines going on in the village so that they slip into the story. When they arrive they are welcomed, integrated, taught, and followed by mentor characters who are part of the experience. Video crews follow the life in the village and post short videos. A crew of storywriters and creators work with historians to map out the continuous progress of life and dramas in the village and the Abbey of monks, and to plan for the festivals and challenges that will face the new adventurers each week. Proposal – Real Life Video Games – how horrifying would it be to go on your holiday and get stuck inside the Resident Evil video game? There are old coal mines in the UK that could be re-developed as immersive 3-D horror and struggle-filled adventure games. Can your team survive? 7. TransitionThe most common destination for UK international holidays is the USA with over 4 million per year. Long haul destinations include 860,000 to Thailand, 688,000 to Australia and 223,000 to New Zealand currently each year. This gives an idea of the scale of shift that would be required to transition to making their holidays in the UK. It also gives an idea of the people who can afford the time and expenses of travel. The biggest destination in the world is Walt Disney world in Florida, which has 19.3 million visitors per year to its 4 theme parks and 2 water parks. It is possible to design and develop destination theme parks, and as the Germans have shown with the Duisburg Gasometer, it is profitable to re-develop industrial ruins into tourist destinations. If the airlines were partners in the development of destinations in the UK, and if they coordinated reduction in flights and increases of prices to drive up the demand for the UK destinations, then the transition could be accomplished 5.4 Sustainable Energy Oahu 2050281241513208000To illustrate the organization of the SACS matrix, consider the energy transition of the food supply on a Hawaiian Island. The target year is 2030. In the island food study, the current population of the island is one million. Thus, any diet and processing energy combination that could not support the population was marked as unfeasible. The BAU column was the current food supply system, which is mainly comprised of a diet high in beef and pork, canned and frozen foods, and processed foods with significant packaging shipped from the mainland through the supermarket and fast food systems common in the USA. The BAU end use energy for this system is 200 MJ per person per day with average 3800 calorie/day diet. Infrastructure options for energy intensity of the food processing. For example, fresh produce from market gardens eaten mostly raw after light washing would have the lowest processing energy with 16 MJ per capita, and local fish and produce, imported grains with 50% cooking would have 80 MJ, while imported frozen beef and pork but no fast food, and no imported processed food would have 140 MJ. One behavior row is simply an adjustment of calorie intake to the recommended level of 2200 calories, which reduces all energy intensities by 42%. Other behavior rows have different percentages of the population that choose dietary options such as vegetarian, pescatarian, and beef and pork diet. The technology options could include solar cookers or geothermal or wind power generation to replace diesel generation on a scale to supply refrigeration and water purification systems. The number of people who could be supported by the existing land and sea resources for each combination of options was calculated.Carrying Capacity AnalysisThe looming energy crisis on Oahu due to declining world oil supply is only one facet of sustainability. Sustainability is multidimensional and interconnected, requiring consideration of a wide range of elements. For this case study of sustainability we selected the small island of Oahu, which is rich in renewable resources, but lacks any fossil fuels. Thus, it provides an excellent example for such a case study. We focused in our study on five key elements generally considered necessary for a sustainable society: FoodEnergyWaterTransportation ShelterInitially we did not know whether any one the 5 would be the most important or if a combination of them would be the limiting factor on island population. Since each of them involved social and technical aspects of the question, each of the five elements was addressed by an interdisciplinary team of two students, one from within the engineering program and one from outside engineering. An analytic approach developed by Krumdieck and Hamm was used for the work. The approach entails developing a matrix of possibilities for each of the elements of sustainability. These matrices correlate possible resource supply and demand options and identify which combinations of supply and demand could be sustainable. These combinations are further evaluated for their energy impacts, costs, and risks. FOOD and AGRICULTUREAgriculture is one of the key issues when determining if a society is sustainable. Currently little agriculture exists on the island of Oahu because of the high land prices. All crops planted on the island are sold for profit, such as coffee beans. This section of the sustainability analysis will look at the arable land available on the island and develop a rough estimate of the population that can be sustained on the island with various types of diet.ASSUMPTIONSThe following lists the assumptions made for this section:The amount of arable land is estimated at 125,000 acres.Electric tractors and other vehicles used in harvesting and transport of foods will be available.The current diet and calorie intake of the population of Oahu was assumed to be the same diet and calorie intake as consumed by the people on the mainland.The diet of the entire population of Oahu is assumed to be uniform and identical.SYSTEM ANALYSISUsing data of the average yields per acre, calculations were done to find out if the current population of one million can be sustained on Oahu given several diet-calorie-intake combinations. It was found that Oahu did not have sufficient arable land to sustain a population of one million.To estimate the sustainable population the following table was constructed to see what population can be sustained based on the amount of land required per person per year. This number is dependent on the diet of the population. The acreage per person per year is listed in the table. The vegetarian diet was estimated to require 0.6 acre per person per year because the diet requires more land than the vegan diet to raise dairy cows. The pescatarian diet was assumed to require 0.4 acre per person per year because the diet allows fish to replace high protein vegetables, yet doesn’t require arable land. With these figures, the total sustainable population of Oahu ranged from about 200,000 to 300,000 people. For the purpose of this study, the higher figure was used because there are additional opportunities to grow food on rooftops and backyards. This population, along with the food energy multiplier and the calorie intake, can be used to calculate the energy required in the agricultural sector. The food energy multiplier is a measure of the behind-the-gate farm inputs, processing, packaging, storage and preparation energy in the food system. The food energy multiplier decreases as the calorie intake decreases because it was assumed that a lower calorie diet contains a higher percentage of nutritious food. Higher calorie diets were assumed to contain more processing, packaging, transporting and storage processes, which is why the energy multiplier is higher. The current food energy multiplier for mainland American diets is 10-12 times the actual food energy content.The chart uses the following color code to represent the possibility of implementing the diet-calorie-intake combination into Oahu’s society:Red indicates that the combination cannot sustain a population of 200,000 to 300,000.Orange means that the combination can sustain a population of 200,000, but requires a dramatic change in lifestyle.Yellow means that the combination can sustain a population of 200,000 with some changes in lifestyle and little exports.Green means that the combination can sustain a population of 300,000 with some changes in lifestyle and significant export of fruits and fish.Table 1: Agricultural Sustainability Chart. DEMAND?SUPPLY?27002500230021002000Calorie intake (kCal/person-day)Acres/ person-yr. requiredTotal sustainable population 1410752Food Energy Multiplier320921221367891340Energy Demand (GWh/year)Current Diet1.2104167??????Pescatarian0.4312500??????Vegetarian0.6208333??????Vegan0.5250000??????Pre-Industrial2.648077??????Arable Land (acres)125000Total sustainable population300000With a sustainable population of 300,000 people, a rough estimate about the total water required to produce the food for each diet can be found. For the vegetarian, vegan, and pescatarian diets, the required amount of water ranges from 26 billion gallons to 39 billion gallons. The latter amount of water is available as shown in Section 4.FOOD AND AGRICULTURE DISCUSSIONThe red boxes in the matrix show that the current U.S. diet and the pre-industrial diets which cannot sustain a population of 300,000 because it would require too much arable land. The orange boxes in the matrix show the diets that can sustain a population of about 300,000 people. This combination would require dramatic changes to the lifestyles of the inhabitants due to the reduction in energy use. Implementing this plan would eliminate refrigeration and storage, as well as processing and packaging of foods. The energy used would only be for cooking and minimal storage. Families would have to visit the outdoors market for fresh produce and fresh milk frequently. Daily fishing would also need to be done and food could not be exported. The yellow boxes in the matrix show the diets that can sustain a population of 300,000, and there would not be dramatic changes to the lifestyles of the inhabitants. This plan would allow enough energy for storage, some processing and packaging, and cooking. However, little to no fruits and vegetables will be available for export. The fish caught could all be available for export, except for the pescatarian diet. The green boxes in the matrix show the diets that can sustain a population from 250,000 to 300,000 people with some fruit, vegetables, and fish exports. This plan would only require a few changes in lifestyles. There would be enough energy to process, package, cook and store food. There would also be enough energy to freeze fish or coffee for export. The only change to the lifestyle of the inhabitants would be a change in diet. ENERGYIn order for the island of Oahu to be a sustainable system it will need to provide all of its energy needs from indigenous renewable sources. For the purposes of this project, solar and wind sources on Oahu will be assumed to be the sole providers of energy through wind turbines and solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity. ASSUMPTIONSNo storage for electricity production (although pumped storage sites are available). Flexible consumption to match the produced renewable electricity.An adequate electric transmission system.PV AmountWindAmountMaximum land available for PV production90,000 acresMaximum land available for wind production75,000 acresTotal rated capacity of PV on 90,000 acres14,000,000 kWTurbine rated capacity2 MWPV capacity factorRoughly 20%Wind capacity factor30%PV annual maximum production2.6E+10 kWhWind annual maximum production1.5 E+10 kWhSYSTEM ANALYSISUsing these assumptions, the chart below shows the feasibility of different annual production levels of electricity for Oahu (the x-axis) when produced by varying levels of wind and solar (the y-axis). Red squares indicate impossible or impractical scenarios (technologically and/or economically), orange indicates plausible but high risk and high cost scenarios, yellow indicates probable scenarios with some risk and cost concerns, and green indicates the most feasible scenarios in terms of supply source and production level. Table 2: Energy Sustainability ChartCurrent Total Energy UsageTwice Current Production CapacityCurrent Electricity Production CapacityCurrent Electricity UsageHalf Current Electricity Usage?6.0E+10 kWh/year3.0E+10 kWh/year1.5E+10 kWh/year8.0E+9 kWh/year4.0E+9 kWh/yearAll Wind2.00E+051.00E+055.00E+042.66E+041.33E+0475/25 Wind/PV2.00E+051.00E+055.00E+042.66E+041.33E+0450/50 Wind/PV2.00E+051.00E+055.00E+042.66E+041.33E+0425/75 Wind/PV2.00E+051.00E+055.00E+042.66E+041.33E+04All PV2.00E+051.00E+055.00E+042.66E+041.33E+04Values in table are kWh/person/year based on theoretical maximum sustainable population of 300,000Current consumption kWh/person/year – 6.00E+4ENERGY DISCUSSIONEnergy production would not be the limiting factor for the sustainability of the island. Using modern technology, 4.1E+10 kWh/year of energy could be produced by wind and PV, which is about two-thirds the current total energy usage, an amount of energy that could support the current population of 1,000,000 given some technical and lifestyle adaptations. A population of 300,000 instead of the current 1,000,000 would allow for higher per capita energy consumption and better quality of lifestyle. The middle column of Table 2, at a population of 300,000, is comparable to current per capita energy consumption, but is found to have high risk and cost. However, if energy demand can be reduced to the far right columns, then risk and cost fall to more reasonable levels. A combination of solar PV and wind, most likely relying more on the cheaper wind resource, could provide enough energy for a sustainable Oahu and the green boxes in Table 2 reflect this. The electricity then needs to be divided between all other sectors in the most efficient way possible. The over-riding conclusion is that using technically advanced renewable energy systems, enough energy for a more than adequate life on Oahu can be provided. The consequence of this level of wind development would be a dramatic industrialization of the landscape as even the Half Current Electricity demand would require numerous 3 MW wind turbines and solar PV panels.WATERTo evaluate the sustainability of water resources on the island of Oahu, five potential sources were investigated: rainwater, river water, desalination, recycled and other non-potable water, and aquifers. The ability of these resources to meet the demand of the current population of one million as well as the projected population of 300,000 for the island of Oahu was assessed on the basis of availability, cost, and energy requirements. ASSUMPTIONS:Water availability was estimated for populations of one million and three hundred thousand people.The effects of climate change are not factored into the estimates; however, climate change is expected to have adverse effects on water supply.Current per capita water use is estimated to be 180 gallons/person/day. This number reflects total island usage divided by the population.Larger per capita uses are investigated under the assumption that per capita water use will rise with increase in agriculture and industrial processes for a sustainable society. Fresh water is pumped from seven aquifers beneath the island with an estimated sustainable yield of 446 million gallons per day (mgd).Necessary infrastructure adjustments to allow for large withdrawals are for the most part planned or under construction currently.All wells are assumed to have a depth of 250 ft with relatively small exit velocities. The latter assumption reduces the calculated energy requirement of pumping water from the aquifers.Pump efficiency was universally estimated to be 85%.Energy requirements for inter-aquifer pumping were neglected.Rainfall is assumed to be 1 in of rainwater per month. 1 in of rain over 1,000 sq ft will provide 600 gallons of water.A total of 440,000 homes with an average roof size of 1,200 sq ft.20% of water demand can be met by non-potable sourcesSYSTEM ANALYSIS Table 3: Water Sustainability Chart for One Million PeopleWater Demand (gallons/person/day)30020015010050Potential Water Supply SourcesRainwater---------------Aquifers10068513316Desalination260018001300880440Rivers---------------Recycled/Non-Potable Water362318115.3Note: The numbers within the colored blocks reflect the estimated energy input the corresponding water supply requires in units of kWh/person/year.WATER DISCUSSIONRivers would not be a good source of water for the population. This is primarily due to their perennial nature. Rivers cannot supply any consistent amount of water, so its role as a water source was rejected. Rainwater is an equally unattractive option as a water source. While some areas of the island receive a lot of rain, most of the populated areas do not get very much. Using the assumptions listed above, rainwater could supply about 6 gallons/person/day for the average citizen. The 50 gallons/person/day block was left orange given the possibility of heavier rain fall in some areas. Desalination is another source of water without a promising outlook. Current desalination capacity is only about 5 million gallons per day (mgd). The plant was designed to produce 15 mgd, so it can be assumed that this additional capacity could be gained at a relatively low cost. However this leaves a 35 mgd gap that would need to be filled to meet the minimum of 50 gallons per person per day. Since the capital cost required to build and operate additional plants is significant, more desalination would not be economically and energetically feasible.The recycled/non-potable water source is more attractive. Current estimates suggest a supply of about 40-70 mgd, of which about 40% is recycled. The amount of recycled water could increase if more treatment plants are constructed. However, given the high capital cost of the construction of such plants, it seems unlikely that this sector will provide more than 100 mgd. That being said, should additional treatment plants become necessary for the water that aquifers provide, recycled water capacity could be increased. Given the limitations of the other sources, it becomes clear that aquifers would have to be the primary source of water in this society. Even at 300 gallons per person per day, the aquifers will be a sufficient source for one million people for the foreseeable future. Additionally, as noted in the assumptions, the current infrastructure to supply this level of water demand are already funded or completed, meaning that the capital costs will be a non-issue. Considering that only 300,000 people can be sustainably fed here, sustainable water supply is more than adequate for Oahu.TRANSPORTATIONThe goal of this part of the project was to develop the concept of a transportation system for the population of Oahu that the island can support, assuming a resource limitation with no available fossil fuel for transportation support from outside of the island.ASSUMPTIONSOahu can support a population of 300,000 due to agricultural limitations.Electric vehicles such as cars, scooters, and buses will be available to island inhabitants. Therefore trade for these vehicles outside of Hawaii will be possible for the purposes of this project.Food and industry transport was not considered.All Oahu citizens are willing and able to bike a distance of five miles.Buses take 40 people per trip, cars take 1.8.SYSTEM ANALYSISNo liquid fuels are available and transportation will be dictated by the amount and type of available energy on Oahu.Table 4: Transportation Sustainability ChartkWh/person/yearKey2000150010005000Walk & Bike?????Opportunity?Electric Rail?????Feasible?Electric Bus?????Not Possible?Electric Scooter?????Electric Car?????Walking and BikingWalking and biking were combined due to their similar energy needs. Both walking and biking require virtually no extra energy. Since energy needs have been broken down into kWh per person per year, and since walking and biking require little to no extra energy production, any amount of energy supply will meet the transportation needs of a walking and biking population. Because of this, all energy demands are feasible. Although this is the case, it is not reasonable to assume that all travel needs will be met through just biking and walking. If a person needs to travel a large distance, biking will not be sufficient to reach the destination in a reasonable amount of time. Therefore, not all transportation needs can be met through biking and walking alone.Electric RailHawaii is already in the process of installing a rail system that will span twenty miles around Pearl Harbor from Kapolei through Honolulu. The energy needs of rail are extremely low once a rail system is installed. From a kWh per person per year approach rail seems like a winner, but for Hawaii there are a few problems. The current rail being installed costs at least $4.34 billion. When broken down into cost per mile of rail, the installation is at least $215 million per mile. A comparison is a proposed rail system in Michigan for a magnetic train. The cost of this railway is expected to be about $15 million per mile or about 14 times less than the cost of Oahu’s rail system. Because of this, rail has been deemed feasible but not a realistic opportunity and will not be recommended as a mode of transportation. Furthermore, rail would have to be extremely cheap to even justify its use based on its ability to alleviate the load (total amount of person miles traveled) of the transportation system. In an optimistic scenario for rail transportation, it would not provide any more than a 0.5% reduction of the total travel need.Electric BusOahu already has a great bus transportation system imaginatively called TheBus. TheBus travels to almost every main location of the island. Routes include most of the coastal regions, airport transit, and extra routes to major locations such as Honolulu and Waikiki. Because of this, no extra transportation system will need to be developed to make an electric bus system viable; they can simply take over the existing gasoline-based bus system. Electric buses can have an average equivalent of 24 mpg as compared to 7 mpg for a regular school bus. This is a large improvement in efficiency compared to current rates. It was found that the population of Oahu could support its transportation needs through a bus system that used less than 500 kWh per person per year. This is by far the best option for energy use per person, aside from rail. One problem with a bus system is that residents would have to rearrange their schedules to account for the schedule of buses. Since many Americans tend to be somewhat impatient, Hawaiians would need to develop a patient lifestyle.Electric ScooterElectric scooters are a great option for personal transport. Currently available electric scooters have an equivalent of over 250 mpg. If every resident of Hawaii used scooters for transport they would be able to use less than 1500 kWh per person per year. Scooters are relatively cheap compared to cars and would be able to meet the personal transportation needs for any citizen of Oahu. Some disadvantages include the inherent increased danger of driving scooters and their inability to transport large amounts of materials, such as groceries for a large family without a side car or trailer.Electric CarElectric cars are the worst option when looking at energy use. They require more than 1500 kWh/person/year assuming the whole population of Hawaii uses them at an average 1.8 people per car trip. Although they are energy intensive, their benefits over scooters include safety and the ability to transport larger amounts of material. That said, scooter safety is greatly improved when not sharing the roads with cars.Proposed Transportation SystemThe most sustainable transportation system is also the most energy efficient. In this respect, it would be best to include the maximum amount of biking and walking as possible and then subsequently utilize the next most efficient modes of transport. It is estimated that roughly 41 percent of work commutes are shorter than five miles. From a calculation using the population of Hawaii and the vehicle miles driven per month, it can be shown that the average Hawaiian travels roughly 25 miles per day. Using these two pieces of information, it is assumed that 41 percent of all citizens will bike ten miles of their commute per day (five miles to, and five miles from work). This leads to an approximate 16 percent of the transportation needs being met by biking or walking. The bus system currently on Oahu services 311,000,000 person miles per year. This accounts for about 2.5 percent of all travel for the current citizens of Oahu. It is assumed that a lifestyle change can increase bus use to 10 percent of the population. For scooters, a ballpark estimate of 50 percent of transportation usage was assumed because any individual trips would be possible for scooter. This would give every citizen of Hawaii 12.5 miles per day of scooter travel, a reasonable amount for personal use. All previous transportation methods were estimated to meet 76 percent of travel needs, leaving 24 percent of the transportation requirements for the island to be met by electric car. Under the current average distance travelled in Hawaii, this allows a family of four to travel more than twenty miles per day for any need. An electric car is required for things such as family trips, grocery shopping, and transporting large numbers of people or goods anywhere a bus does not go. Under this system, an estimated 1000 kWh per person per year would be needed to support the transportation demands of an Oahu population of 300,000 people.SHELTEROf the many ways to decrease energy use and costs on the island of Oahu, sustainable building technology is very important. In the United States, residential and commercial buildings consume nearly 39% of the nation’s primary energy, 71% of its electricity, and accounts for nearly 38% of its the total carbon emissions. Although sustainable building technology is available, a systemic shift in both lifestyle and use of energy efficient technology is necessary to implement it. This study presents the results of calculating the number of people that could be sustainably supported on Oahu, assuming a shift in lifestyle and energy efficient building technologies is put into effect. ASSUMPTIONSFor the analysis the following assumptions were made:Current electricity usage of Oahu: 8000 GWh/year.Current fossil fuel usage of Oahu: 64482 GWh/year (220 *10^12 Btu/year).The percentage breakdown of usage in each sector is known.57% of homes have mechanical air conditioning (from 2006 data).Air conditioning adds 70% to the energy usage of a typical home.By switching to high efficiency appliances, the residential energy consumption can be reduced by 50%.Switching to high efficiency appliances, commercial energy use can be reduced by 30%.SUSTAINABILITY CHARTThese assumptions, while based on verified data, still add a significant uncertainty to the results gathered below. The transportation and industrial sectors were neglected, and all numbers in the following chart are in units of kWh per person per year. Table 5: Shelter Sustainability ChartCurrent Usage90% of Current 80% of Current70% of Current60% of CurrentCurrent Infrastructure80007200640056004800Current without AC69006200550048004100Residential minus 50% (no AC)57005100460040003400Commercial minus 30% (no AC)56005000450039003400Residential minus 50% Commercial minus 30% (no AC) 44004000350031002600Note: Units in kWh/person/yearDISCUSSIONThe options shown in green use the least amount of energy, which is between 4000 and 5000 kWh per person per year, which corresponds to a total energy demand of approximately 800 to 1200 GWh per year for the sustainable population of the island. Considering the uncertainties inherent in the analysis due to the assumptions made, a value of 1350 GWh per year should be expected in order to ensure a reasonable capacity margin. If the situations in yellow were implemented, then the minimum energy use that could be included is between 520 and 780 GWh per year or 900 GWh per year with a reasonable margin of safety. These situations contain energy conservation measures that would be expensive to implement and would only be necessary if other options have too much energy usage to be sustainable.Even with the highest value of 1350 GWh per year, it would be possible to reduce energy use enough to allow for the island of Oahu to become individually sustainable and to provide adequate shelter for a population of 300,000 people. However, in order for Oahu to achieve sustainability, the populace would have to make significant changes to their lifestyles. 5.6 Why Hydrogen is not a viable Technology WedgeResearch the hydrogen and fuel cell technologies, and the history of the interest in “the hydrogen economy”. In particular, find papers by Blosell, which have accurate technical data. Construct a development vector analysis.5.7 Example: How Mom in Denver does the ShoppingHistorically, people who lived and worked on farms brought their produce to a market in a town usually a maximum of half a day’s walk from their farm. Mom would walk up town to the market on Saturday or Sunday. The butcher, baker and others might have permanent premises in the market square. Before the 1900’s most families in towns and cities would also have access to land and would grow some crops. Consider the perspective of your grandparents in 1950. Most people saw the new way of life in a suburb as an improvement and they wanted to spend time at leisure, not working in a garden. At that time, world oil production was 10.4 million barrels per day (mbpd), the proven oil reserves were 170-330 billion barrels (bbl), with more discoveries every year. At the 1950 consumption rate, the known world oil supply would have lasted for 45-87 years. In this context, the decisions made about building roads, dismantling urban trams, underinvestment in rail and low-density land use reflect the perception that oil supply was not an issue, partly because of the expectation that discoveries would continue. In 1972 world oil consumption was 55.6 mbpd and reserves had doubled since the 1950’s. The 1973 OPEC oil embargo caused a supply contraction and sharp fuel price spike, political turmoil and a deep economic recession. Everyone remembers the images on television of the long lines at the fuel stations. Japanese compact cars gained market share from 15% in 1971 to 29% in 1979. World oil supply contracted by 15% overall, and demand declined to match the supply. Compact cars were popular, but houses started getting bigger. The demand destruction and recession brought oil price crashing down from the 1980 high to about twice the level before the oil embargo. In 2001 the 9/11 attacks on the USA caused a sharp rise, and rising demand in Asia and stagnating supply led to prices over $100/barrel in 2008. By 2007 oil reserves had grown to 1400 bbl and consumption was 91.3 mbpd. However, the world oil price escalation from average of $25/bl in 2002 to $112/bl in 2014 has put pressure on world economies. This price escalation means that the economies of the world spent and additional $8.1 billion dollars per day to carry out essentially the same activities and produce the same products. Oil price escalation reduces profit margins and reduces discretionary spending in every sector. When companies, organizations and individuals across the economy all start cutting back on purchases, a recession is likely to follow. Since 2006 demand for transport fuels has been flat or declining in most countries due to economic recession and increasingly conservative travel behavior. Baby boomers are starting to retire in great numbers and younger people are less interested in automobiles. Some people are re-discovering gardening and farmers markets, but the vast majority of Mom’s shopping is done by driving to the mega-supermarket, parking and walking up and down isles filling a cart with industrially produced food products which are available in large quantities at low prices. The low prices are possible because of the consolidation and elimination of warehousing and small farmers in the supermarket system. Even though the current supermarket system results in 16-30% of food being discarded, the energy and economic efficiency is high due to mechanized industrial production.The BP energy outlook to 2035 states that world oil demand is expected to grow by 1.4% per year. This would result in a 37% increase from 2013. About half of the 1500 bbl of conventional reserves have been produced, a further 450 bbl may become available by enhanced oil recovery, new discoveries in the deep sea and arctic might add 350 bbl, and unconventional hydrocarbons from tar sand and shale are exploited, then the peak in production is estimated to be in 2035. A future scenario of oil consumption growth with the historical growth rate would likely result in 8.5 W/m forcing and well over 500 ppm CO2. A future scenario of no growth and curtailed development of tar sands and shale oil would result in the peak of oil production in 2023. Thus, the end of growth in fuel demand and production is within the first 5-15 years of the next century, that is within the useful life a car purchased today. Over the next decade or two, Mom may do the shopping using the same vehicle, but with some planning, she can probably reduce the number of trips to the grocery store from 2 to 4 per week. The next vehicle she purchases will likely have much better fuel efficiency, but it won’t be an electric vehicle. Mom may also reduce the amount of meat the family eats, and she and Dad will retire in 14 years, so their driving will reduce as their income declines to a pension. One hundred years in the future, Mom will not drive a personal vehicle to a mega-supermarket using oil to do the shopping. Thus she will walk, take a tram, or ride a cycle. Some of the shopping may be delivered, like milk and eggs. This will mean that the current city will have changed to a different form and land use pattern. Different market models will be employed, and the population of the city will likely be 30-50% lower than today. It might be that the food production and shopping system is very efficient as communications by internet allow every bit of food produce to be purchased and delivered to a customer at a clearing price according to the real value. For example, odd-shaped or wormy apples will not be discarded, but may be purchased by a person willing to cut out the bad bits and make cider. Mom will definitely have a garden and work in a community garden with neighbors and family. Back-casting indicates that the personal automobile is essential in a suburban city designed for unlimited personal automobile mobility and with no alternatives. However, with changes to the urban form and market structures, the automobile is not necessary. In fact, the re-developed urban area and the economic systems based on real value have many beneficial features compared to the car-dominated urban sprawl of present Denver. A good trigger project would involve, a land use change, an alternative transportation option, an alternative market system, or all of the above in one project. Market analysis shows that “walkability” is one of the most sought-after qualities for homebuyers. In the current market, our trigger project would be to re-develop an area of an older suburb into a car-free “eco-village” with integrated small market square and community garden, chicken farm, hot-house and urban reclamation farm and orchards. The houses would be much smaller than the current standard with passive design and very low complexity and maintenance. There would also be mixed income levels. The development would be carefully designed and built to be able to attract carbon offset funding. We estimate that we would get a higher rate of return on investment in this property development than on a conventional development. Other suburban reclamation projects would follow our example. Chapter 6. Economic Decision Support Cost of Electricity from a PEMFC Below is an example calculation for determining the cost of operating a 1kW fuel cell on hydrogen. In this example a compressed hydrogen cylinder with a capacity of 135 standard cubic feet of hydrogen at normal temperature and pressure (NTP) is used. The purity of hydrogen consumed is 99.99999%. The manufacturer stated efficiency is 40% at 28.8V ANALYSIS:1. Compressed hydrogen cylinder - 135 scf. of hydrogen (NTP) or 3823.2 standard Liters2. Cost of hydrogen cylinder is $200 + $28 (rental & delivery) (quote from Midwest USA)3. 1kW fuel cell system with a hydrogen consumption rate of 13 slpm4. The 1 kW Horizon PEM fuel cell costs $6,588 and will last say 2000 hours 5. A hydrogen generator is used for research chemistry labs, uses methanol and distilled water, and costs $37,600 for a 12.5 slpm unit which could produce about 36.5 bottles per year. The unit consumes 5.8 kWh of electricity to produce the equivalent of 1 bottle of H2. The normal reformer life is 20 years with 10% cap cost annual maintenance ($3,760/yr)Number of hours of operation at 1kW = 3823.2/13 = 4.9 hoursThe capital cost per kWh is $6588/2000 = $3.29 / kWh The cost of operating a 1kW fuel cell for 4.9 hours with one cylinder = $228/4.9 hr = $46.52 / kWhThe capital cost of the reformer = $3,760 + $37,600/20 = $2,068/yr / 36.5 bottles/yr = $56.66 / bottleOr, for the 4.9 hours per bottle, the price of reforming water and methanol into fuel is = ($56.66/4.9) + (5.8kWh*$0.217/kWh) = $12.82 / kWh for fuelGrand Total Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electricity Cost = $62.63 / kWheWhat are you doing that you would pay $60 / kWh for electricity? This is 300 times higher than the current cost of electricity in New Zealand. And you can get 1 kW of electricity in New Zealand by plugging your appliance into an outlet, you don’t need to have a tank of hydrogen delivered every 5 hours. Let’s say that more $R&D was spent on extending the life of the fuel cell by an order of magnitude to 20,000 hours. Then the price of FCH2 electricity would be $59.66 / kWheEven if hydrogen were magic and appeared for free, the fuel cell cost alone for our amazing long life fuel cell (which can’t be possible because of the electrochemistry of the membrane material and the platinum – graphite- membrane interface) would be $0.33 / kWhe which is on a par with the most expensive grid power in the world. And this is not going to happen.Chapter 7. Transition EconomicsInput/Output MatrixConsider the production of one ton of coal (product 1) and one ton of steel (product 2). Assume that steel manufacturing demands 3 tons of coal per ton of steel. Assume that the direct steel demand for the mining, crushing and transport of coal is 0.2 tons of steel per ton of coal. Assume the production for coal in the economy is 1000 tons and for steel is 10 tons. In order to make the steel for sale plus for the coal mining, we actually need to produce 10+(1000)(0.2) = 210 tons of steel. But, making that extra 200 tons of steel takes (200)(3) = 600 tons of coal. Now that extra coal would require another (600)(0.2) = 120 tons of steel, which would in turn require additional (120)(3) = 360 tons of coal. This causal loop of internal production demand is shown in Figure 3.5, together with 7 rounds of incremental accounting of the internal demand. The I/O matrix gives the actual production of coal and steel needed to meet the demand from the economy. These co-production factors could be found from continuing the looping to a limit or by solving for the causal production requirements for one unit of each good where D12 = 3 and D21 = 0.2: x11-D12x12=1 x11-D21x12=0 x21-D12x22=0 x21-D21x22=1(3.9)The I/O analysis shows that the sector production of 10 tons of steel actually required 75 tons of coal and 25 tons of additional steel! Let’s assume that we are charged with figuring out what to do to meet the climate change risk management goal of reducing coal production and consumption by 50%. We can see the follow-on reductions in other materials that require coal for production. The I/O analysis can also be used to model the benefits of improving the material or energy efficiency of a process, or to understand the whole-system economic impacts of poor manufacturing energy efficiency. Figure E7.1 Causal loop diagram and Input-Output Matrix for coal and steel illustrating the “blow-up” effect for the baseline production rates of different sectors.How EROI Impacts Society and Economic ActivityEconomic activities turn labor (at a cost) and raw materials (at a cost) and energy (at a cost) into goods and services, moves them to a market and generates demand by advertising (at transport and marking costs) and sells them (at a return). Ideally, the economic activity meets a need and improves quality of life (social returns) and doesn’t degrade the environment too much (external costs). ?In order to build the plant and technology to carry out the activity capital is needed (at a cost) and taxes must be paid (cost) and the rules of consents and safe operation must be followed (compliance costs). The economy works well if all the costs are in balance with the return, and if that balance includes profit margin greater than sufficient to maintain and replace plant.The entire economic activity chain results in jobs, which provides the cash flow in the market. So everything goes round and round. That is, as long as the raw materials and energy and transport and capital keep flowing freely.If one of these costs gets higher but the market won’t bear higher prices, then the raising cost (e.g. materials, energy, environmental compliance) eats into the profit margin. Then cost cutting in other areas must be done – and wages are cut back, benefits are cut back, machines are not maintained, workplace safety is shorted, spending on research and support of social goods like tertiary education and professional development and apprenticeships are cut back. etc. This is why energy price rise reduces prosperity and creates recessionary pressure.?If one of these actors in the primary production sector is consuming labor, capital, materials, energy… EVEN IF IT IS profitable, but does not actually produce more of the key ingredient of the economy than it consumes, THEN that actor is effectively putting a drag on the economy. Consumer energy, metals, silicon, minerals, manufacturing floor space… are all being poured into the solar PV sector. The solar PV sector, however, is returning energy to the economy in an intermittent trickle that then needs more expenditure by the transmission and distribution sector. In addition, the solar PV has been sucking up public funds in capital and subsidies which could have been going to construction and design jobs in things like redeveloping inefficient buildings and factories.?EROI gives a clear view of the difference between energy sector options. Eliminating waste in electricity use by demand participation has EROI >100. ?Redeveloping a building to passivehaus standard has EROI >80. ?Solar PV has EROI <10. ?EROI is like investment advice. Efficiency retrofit is an AAA rated investment for the economy, and Solar PV is a C rated investment. Using system-wide carbon foot print you get the same relative difference. Using contribution to health and well-being, you also get the same relative difference.?But when it comes to social passion and sensibility, our fellow citizens and politicians make a bad investment.?Bad investments put you into debtor’s prison.Exact same thing goes for EV’s and re-development of urban form with electric trams.?InflationPerhaps we do not distinguish clearly enough between surplus and growth (Jackson 2009). Surplus is necessary for survival. Every organism must achieve a positive return on their efforts to forage for food and to reproduce in order to have enough surplus to invest in the next foraging excursion and in nurturing the next generation. Farmers must raise enough crops to feed themselves, plus surplus to trade for other goods, maintain equipment and to invest in the next planting. Businesses and even non-profit organizations must operate at a profit at least equal to their depreciation in order to maintain and replace the means of production. Growth can occur if the surplus is larger than that required for sustainability. However, growth in population, more buildings, more roads, more land under cultivation etc., locks in a higher base level of consumption needed for basic operations and maintenance. Prosperity also requires surplus energy, food or materials in excess of sustaining a certain standard of living. However, prosperity has many other aspects than simply consuming more and building more consumption capacity. Prosperity can also mean higher quality of life, more leisure time, higher education level, more specialization of labor, more arts and social activities. We will put forward an important distinction between growth and prosperity; growth is a cumulative increase in the energy and material intensity of lifestyle and the number of people supported, while prosperity is a higher quality of life than the minimum living standard even if the number of people is declining and the energy and material use declines. Inflation can only happen with money, not with physical quantities. Inflation historically during the 2500 years people have used coins occurred when a ruler reduced the precious metal content. However, hyperinflation is a recent phenomenon that began when the value of fiat paper currencies issued by a government were not directly related to an amount of precious metal held by that government (Bernholz 2003). Until the 1800’s, land was the basis of wealth because it was the means of production. Imagine that your great grandparents purchased a house in 1915 for $1000. Firstly, they would have needed real money to make the purchase, as mortgages were rare. The house today would still be the same size, on the same land, providing exactly the same services as it did 100 years ago. However, in many cities, this house could be out of the price range for most people, even with mortgages available for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Managing Great Expectations: Urban Wind PowerA two-year study was carried out at University of Canterbury in Christchurch New Zealand. The objective of the study was to explore and compare the perceptions of engineers and of the general public when confronted with internally dissonant information. We were working on energy policy and on the issue of communication of technical feasibility and viability to people who have a pre-conceived expectation about a technology which they either ?(a) should have a basic understanding of the technical principles if they are engineers or(b) have no basis for understanding the technical principles if they are general public or officialsWe determined that there was a perception that “we could have urban wind power generation” amongst all people.?We knew of course that the roughness in an urban setting is such that the utilisation for any wind turbine that requires aerodynamic interaction with a flow would be minimal, and that the EROI would be so low that there should be no investment made in such an enterprise.?So we set up a wind turbine in good public view at the highest point we could get permission for. We set up batteries and a controllable load of a bank of light bulbs, connected up a website where people could access the real time data, and the wind speed measurements from the geology building, and people could see in real time, or over the last year how much “energy” had been produced, stored in the batteries, and how much of the load had been supplied.?Of course you will not be surprised to know that the answer over 2 years was “none”. ?The wind turbine was basically a kinetic sculpture. ? It moved, twirled, and sometimes spun, but not in a way that delivered a useable charge to the batteries. We put the batteries and load in a container on the roof, so the resistance loss was just the run of the wires across the roof.?I took it down before the quakes (luckily) because it kept generating too much excitement and positive comments about how great it was that UC was generating some of its power from renewables. Of course UC already uses renewable electricity, and of course the demonstration was about that you could invest in some technology but that the useful energy is actually dependent on a lot of things, not just your expectations. The point of the project was to provide evidence that conflicted with expectation and see if understanding resulted. Usually the engineering students understood the reality of the situation, but they expressed feelings of deflation, meaning that they had believed something that conflicted with the evidence and fundamentals they were later taught and that this was not a pleasant experience. ?Non-technical people pretty much refused to believe that there is no wind “resource” in an urban area, even when presented with the data. ?The experiment did reveal the power of the belief, in both the engineering students and in the public. We have been continuing the work on the power of green energy technology mythologies and how to help inform expectations.?Appliance Energy EfficiencyConsider the case of refrigerators, normally the largest electricity-consuming appliance in a home. Refrigerators can easily last for 20 years. Common faults with old refrigerators are damaged door seals and thermostats that keep the compressor running much longer than needed. The average annual energy use was 900 kWh/yr in 1990 and 450 kWh/yr in 2010. A faulty thermostat can cause a refrigerator to run three times more hours per year than it should. A utility is considering building a 150 MW gas fired power plant because of peak summer demand. A transition engineer suggests that the utility replace old refrigerators and fix thermostats for customers instead. How many 20 year-old refrigerators would the utility need to replace to provide 150 MW?What would they have to spend per refrigerator for the cost to be the same as the gas power plant?ANALYSIS: Assume that all the old refrigerators will be running during the peak summer times, as they have poor insulation and are likely to have faulty thermostats. From research we find that 1990 refrigerators use about 800 W. The new refrigerators we would install use 250 W (and are smaller). The number of appliances is:N = 150,000 kW/(0.8-0.25) kW = 272,727From Chapter 2 we see that the capital cost for peaking gas plant is $650-1500/kW. The equivalent cost for refrigerators using gas power generation is:Clow = 650,000 $/MW*150 MW = $97.5 MChigh = 1,500,000 $/MW*150 MW = $225.0 MUnit Cost for electricity for 1 year refrigeration service = $357.50 - $825.00If the utility supplies a region with 4 million people, then it would be reasonable to target 7% of the population for a refrigerator exchange subsidy program. If we could get the change for the unit price, then the project would be viable. But would it be profitable? From Figure 2.2 we see that the generation cost for our peaking gas power plant would be $221-334/MWh. But if we get the reduced demand due to improved efficiency, then our running costs are $0/MWh. We invest the same money, our participants use less electricity, but we have 150 MW to sell to other customers at no running cost.ReferencesBernholz, P. 2003. Monetary Regimes and Inflation: history, economic and political relationships, Cornwall: MPG Books Ltd. Brown, L. 2010. World on the Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse, Earth Policy Institute, Data accessed from Harris M. 1999. Lament for an ocean - the collapse of the Atlantic cod fishery - A true crime story, Toronto: M&S, 432 pIeli, I. 1991. History, superstition and religion, Rotuma Precious Land, Institute of Pacific Studies of the University of the South Pacific, Suva.Jackson, T. 2009. Prosperity without Growth: economics for a finite planet, New York: Earthscan.Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions), Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Reading, B. F. 2011. Education leads to lower fertility and increased prosperity, Earth Policy Institute, (accessed Feb 2015). ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download