[Graeme]

The micro(grid) solution to the macro challenge of climate change

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

So said the long-running American comic strip character Pogo in a 1970 Earth Day poster about pollution. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's most respected scientific authority on the climate change topic, recently said much the same thing.

The group released its highly anticipated Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). This latest report largely confirmed or reiterated previous observations and conclusions, hammering home two major takeaways in particular: Climate change is happening and we are causing it. The biggest culprit is greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, chiefly because of fossil fuel combustion, although deforestation also has been an important contributor.

Ironically, while the fossil-fuel-burning energy sector is the largest contributor to global GHG emissions, it is also one of the industries most vulnerable to climate change. The Department of Energy released a sobering report in July describing the vulnerabilities of the U.S. energy sector to climate change and extreme weather. Globally, increasing temperatures are accompanied by increasing droughts, greater wildfires and more severe storms, all of which wreak havoc on our energy system.



Not that long ago, I wrote a piece describing how a microgrid could help you survive a zombie apocalypse; the reality is microgrids can help us both prepare for and prevent the much more realistic threat of climate change. Combatting climate change necessarily involves a critical shift away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy, efficiency and renewable energy. Such energy resources are inherently distributed and resilient, which makes them naturally compatible with -- and their benefits maximized by -- microgrids. Thus with efficiency and renewables as part of a microgrid electricity architecture, you don't have to choose between mitigation and adaptation. You can have both. You can have your cake and eat it, too.

Microgrids for mitigation

The University of Texas at Austin is home to the nation's largest microgrid, clocking in at 140 MW. Aside from its magnitude, the facility is also legendary for its efficiency and GHG track record. The campus's district energy system, which provides heat, power and chilled water, runs at 87 percent efficiency and has managed to bring its GHG emissions below its 1977 output (most countries and companies with GHG goals are targeting 1990 levels). The university has accomplished all of this while maintaining 99.9998 percent reliability in service (yes, that is five 9s). When you ask Juan Ontiveros, director of utilities and energy management for the university, how it was done, he'll tell you, "One word: efficiency."

greenbiz

[TemplarMyst]

Hi Graeme,

Okay, I'll very tentatively nibble here. I'm a migrant from ye olde days of The Oil Drum, but this is my first actual post in response to a thread here on Peak Oil.

I think I grok the basic idea behind wanting to transition to a conservation/renewable paradigm. And I've kept a close eye on what Germany is up to by watching the quite pro-renewable Fraunhofer Institute (latest report on energy generation here), in order to see how renewables might fare at scale.

What I'm fundamentally not understanding, or at least feel I'm not understanding, is how this basic approach will help with Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect.

It seems to me, and I posted on this back in the day on The Drum, that we not only need to generate sufficient energy to power current society, even if at a significantly reduced level due to efficiency, but that we also need to produce prodigious amounts of excess energy in order to be able to actively draw GHGs down out of the atmosphere. (There is some hint of this need in the latest IPCC report).

Can renewables do this? I don't see how, but I'm open to the idea. Because unless we draw those GHGs down, and lock them in some sort of matrix, it's bon voyage Deano, so far as I can tell. Methane clathrates are already beginning to be released from the shallow deposits off the East Siberian Peninsula (and various other areas), not to mention seeping out of the tundra throughout the Arctic in general. And ocean acidification appears to be having a noticably unpleasant effect already as well.

It seems to me that, at some point, we have to contemplate the unthinkable, and look at nuclear again. Now, mind you, I routinely got dragged over the coals for that on the Drum, and that's fine, but I don't see how we address the absolutely massive backlog of GHGs up there, the effects of which we have just barely begun to notice. We're seeing the effects of what we threw up in the 80s. Mebbe even the 70s or 60s.

So I'll ask the question, again, here. Can we begin to address that backlog with efficiency, conservation, and renewables? Is there some flaw in the science behind the concept of the 40 year delay between emission and effect? Is there some way to deal with all this without resorting to the admittedly fussy (as one TOD respondent put it), complicated, worrisome, dangerous, but potentially minimally GHG burdened, dreaded N technology?

Interested in folks thoughts.

TM

[rollin]

TemplarMyst said:
"So I'll ask the question, again, here. Can we begin to address that backlog with efficiency, conservation, and renewables? Is there some flaw in the science behind the concept of the 40 year delay between emission and effect? Is there some way to deal with all this without resorting to the admittedly fussy (as one TOD respondent put it), complicated, worrisome, dangerous, but potentially minimally GHG burdened, dreaded N technology?"

It's worse than that Templar, we have loaded the spring by dumping vast amounts of SO2 in the atmosphere from coal burning, thus causing global dimming. That means there is another degree centigrade rise waiting for us as soon as we diminish coal burning.
Removing CO2 from the atmosphere can be much more efficiently achieved by modifying agricultural practices and reforesting regions. Generating a lot of energy to remove CO2 is probably impractical and somewhat self-defeating.
As far as the big N goes, in it's current state N is too dangerous to continue using as a power source.

[Graeme]

There are many plans to transition the world to 100% renewable energy. One of those which I posted about today were plans for the US as a whole, and state by state, as well as a global plan devised by Professor Mark Jacobson. He spoke about them on Letterman recently. Your can see his interview here.

The other issue you raised regarding removing CO2 from the atmosphere was also recently reported in new scientist (see link near bottom of page).

In both cases, we will not be able to make the necessary changes before 2020 when catastrophe effects of climate change will begin in the tropics. Nevertheless I believe we will continue to pursue these goals because we will have no choice.

[TemplarMyst]

Hi Rollin,

I think it was Freeman Dyson who suggested a trillion trees or so might do the trick, so far as reforestation goes, but then I ran into Land-Based Carbon Offsets: False Hope? Forest and Soil Carbon Is Important, but Does Not Offset Fossil Fuel Emissions. This, in turn, made me wonder about changing land management practices as a potential solution as well, as you might imagine.

Using some form of active draw-down should, in theory, work for the sulfur compounds as well. Now whether any of this could be implemented in time to make any sort of difference at all is certainly a valid question. Unfortunately.

Hi Graeme,

Yes, I think that, given time and enough interest and involvement, the world might run on renewables - for current needs. I'm trying to think of a way to deal with that nasty backlog.

Edit: the rest of your reply appeared after I'd posted this one, btw.

[ralfy]

Microgrids will still require fossil fuels for manufacturing and even JIT systems to keep costs low. Given that, such systems will have to be coupled with decrease in use of resources and energy in general, leading ultimately to localization.

[SeaGypsy]

Yes Ralphy- yet again we have another 'solution' completely ignoring the need for a complete economic restructure- which in itself could solve a heck of a lot of the problems requiring such a solution.

[Loki]

Given that, such systems will have to be coupled with decrease in use of resources and energy in general, leading ultimately to localization.

All the more reason for microgrids. They're a key component of relocalization. Also far more resilient when it comes to short-term problems (natural disasters, etc.).

But as you say, relocalization of energy needs to be coupled with A LOT less energy per capita. This translates into a "decline in standard of living," which is anathema. A presidential candidate calling for less energy per capita would be like a candidate for the pope declaring God is dead.

So that's the conundrum. We need to build decentralized, self-sufficient, renewable energy and economic systems, but our culture worships at the altar of centralization and growth, growth, growth at all costs.

Cultural change will happen, reality will ensure this, but the question is whether we'll have enough remaining wealth to build the infrastructure we need to face our new energy future. I'm doubtful. It's possible that we've already passed that threshold, at least in the US, Europe, and Japan.

[GHung]

Loki said: ...relocalization of energy needs to be coupled with A LOT less energy per capita. This translates into a "decline in standard of living"....

This certainly hasn't been the case over our 16 years off grid. I even managed to operate a fairly energy intensive business for several years on around 85% PV and solar hot water. That was before I doubled our PV. It's about efficiency and forming habits, but it hasn't been difficult nor particularly expensive when amortizing the costs, and like UT Austin, reliability has been near 100%.

Between my understanding of climate change, nuclear waste and fossil fuel emissions, along with my belief that things will become more local and large complex systems less viable, building our own micro-grid was a no-brainer.

Many people, businesses, towns, etc. could implement a micro-grid strategy, though getting cooperation from those who are connected is a different matter. Success requires awareness and behavioral change. Most folks will take the easiest/cheapest energy source available, until they can't. That said, PV, wind, micro-hydro, batteries and inverters are mature technology that can be implemented from small scale on up.

Will it solve our carbon problem? I think not, but dramatically lowering one's consumption and CO2 'contribution', while gaining a certain amount of resilience, is a big step in the right direction, at least on the local level.

[Loki]

Loki said: ...relocalization of energy needs to be coupled with A LOT less energy per capita. This translates into a "decline in standard of living"....

This certainly hasn't been the case over our 16 years off grid.

I'd like to see your figures on this.

I have a 158W panel with a 150 ah battery. Very small system. Cost was roughly $600. Best case scenario is that it'll provide 400 watt-hours per day annualized.

A five-year calculation: 400 Wh/day x 5 years = 730 kWh / $600 = $1.20/kWh

Even if we extend this to 20 years (accounting only for battery replacement), we're talking >50 cents/kWh.

Grid power costs ~8 cents/kWh in my area. Big difference between 8 cents and 50 cents.

[GHung]

Loki: factor in the full cycle costs of your grid power for starters. Secondly, try thinking systemically. In our case, the solar-electric system is only part of a larger strategy, including passive heating/cooling, a well insulated structure, solar and wood-fired hot water, etc. Further, if financial costs are the only consideration, we're truly screwed ,which is why we're truly screwed. Even with the cost of bringing grid power to our home site, it would take many years to recover the expenditures to go off grid, especially since we were early adopters.
Sometimes the borrom line, financially, isn't the most responsible choice. My point is that increased costs of using less energy hasn't translated into a lower standard of living. It's either a false corelation, or our definitions of 'standard of living' differ. I suggest folks re-examine their expectations.

[TemplarMyst]

Hallo Ghung. Been a while.

Just to try to pull the chat back to the my original question, if I may Can any combination of non-nuclear technologies address the current GHG atmospheric load? That we know of? Even the IPCC is looking at geoengineering now, and draw-down seems to me the best approach, albeit, of course, with all sorts of technical caveats and uncertainties.

Given where we're at with the renewable paradigm at present, do folks think it could be scaled up rapidly enough to begin to power some sort of draw-down effort? It seems to me a huge part of the paradigm, as has been mentioned, is actually using less energy overall. Which, again, I'm fine with, for trying to take care of the current state of affairs.

If there's another approach to handling this, I'm open. It doesn't seem reducing the current carbon/sulfur output will be sufficient to deal with all the stuff already up there. It takes a very long time for it to work it's way out naturally, and it seems to me we're talking we have maybe a decade, or a few decades at most, to deal with this. Unless the current science is wrong.

I was struck, in particular, by the very recent Cattle Cataclysm in South Dakota. This is the sort of climate event I envision becoming commonplace unless the GHG load is attacked pretty aggressively. And I imagine this would be fairly mild example of the coming weather problems, really.

What non-N techniques might we use? Open to anything, really. Doesn't seem reforestation and land management changes will do the trick at this point. And least to me. Others that may be out there?

[Rune]

Nuclear energy need not be "dreaded".

And renewables such as we know them will never provide global baseload requirements.

[Loki]

Loki: factor in the full cycle costs of your grid power for starters. Secondly, try thinking systemically. In our case, the solar-electric system is only part of a larger strategy, including passive heating/cooling, a well insulated structure, solar and wood-fired hot water, etc. Further, if financial costs are the only consideration, we're truly screwed ,which is why we're truly screwed. Even with the cost of bringing grid power to our home site, it would take many years to recover the expenditures to go off grid, especially since we were early adopters.
Sometimes the borrom line, financially, isn't the most responsible choice. My point is that increased costs of using less energy hasn't translated into a lower standard of living. It's either a false corelation, or our definitions of 'standard of living' differ. I suggest folks re-examine their expectations.

I never said off-grid solar wasn't worthwhile or that prevailing definitions of “standard of living” are valid (that's why I put it in quotes). I just built a small off-grid solar power system and hope to expand it next year, I'm certainly not opposed to the concept. And I live in a small trailer on an organic farm, yada yada yada (search my posts).

But the reality is that off-grid systems cost a fair bit more than grid power, at least if you use a lot of electricity. If you only use a tiny bit of juice, off-grid solar surprisingly comes out ahead.

I just redid my previous math and accounted for the basic service charge (assuming $25/mo). If I still only used 400 watt-hours per day (what my solar panel can provide), I'd actually spend $2.15/kWh for grid power. As opposed to the $1.20/kWh for off-grid solar power (not including my labor). An interesting equation, hadn't done it before.

Of course 400 watt-hours per day ain't much.

Which brings me back to my original point: Folks will need to reduce their energy demand, A LOT. They can do this now by choice, or they can do it when our energy and economic reality forces them to. We're seeing two interesting long-term trends right now: rising energy prices and declining income for most Americans. The math is easy on that one.