Category Solar Energy

Energy Transformation: Why EVs will Impact the Utility Grid – MarketScale

With the bipartisan National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) funding fast approaching, what are the implications on energy demand and the utility grid and why is EV charging compounding the complexities of grid transmission and distribution?

Currently EVs account for about 1% of the global vehicle market and according to EV Adoption, there are approximately 2 million EV on the road in the US. According to the Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration, the average vehicle travels approximately 13,500 miles annually and EV efficiency is roughly 3.5 miles per kWh suggesting annual energy consumption of 3,870 kWh. According to the DOE Energy Information Administration, the average US home consumes roughly 10,900 kWh a year. Therefore, an EV would potentially account for the 35% of the average US home’s electric usage.  Most homes can be equipped with a Level 2 EV chargers (240 volts / 50 amps) mitigating any grid impact

EV Charging Grid Impact

Read More

Even if silicon is actually the industry common semiconductor in the majority of electric products, including the solar cells that photovoltaic panels employ to convert sunshine into electricity, it is not really the most effective material readily available. For instance, the semiconductor gallium arsenide and related compound semiconductors offer practically two times the performance as silicon in solar units, however they are rarely utilized in utility-scale applications because of their high production value.

University. of Illinois. teachers J. Rogers and X. Li discovered lower-cost ways to produce thin films of gallium arsenide which also granted usefulness in the types of units they might be incorporated into.

If you can minimize substantially the cost of gallium arsenide and other compound semiconductors, then you could increase their variety of applications.

Typically, gallium arsenide is deposited in a single thin layer on a little wafer. Either the desired device is produced directly on the wafer, or the semiconductor-coated wafer is cut up into chips of the preferred dimension. The Illinois group chose to put in multiple levels of the material on a one wafer, making a layered, “pancake” stack of gallium arsenide thin films.

Figure 1 Thin Film Solar
Source: University of Illinois

If you increase ten levels in one growth, you only have to load the wafer once saving substantially on production costs. Current production processes may require ten separate growths loading and unloading with heat range ramp-up and ramp-down adds to time and costs. If you take into account what is necessary for each growth – the machine, the procedure, the time, the people – the overhead saving derived though the new innovative multi-layer approach, a substantial cost reduction is achieved.

Next the scientists independently peel off the levels and transport them. To complete this, the stacks alternate levels of aluminum arsenide with the gallium arsenide. Bathing the stacks in a solution of acid and an oxidizing agent dissolves the layers of aluminum arsenide, freeing the single thin sheets of gallium arsenide. A soft stamp-like device picks up the levels, one at a time from the top down, for shift to one other substrate – glass, plastic-type or silicon, based on the application. Next the wafer could be used again for an additional growth.

By doing this it’s possible to create considerably more material much more rapidly and much more cost effectively. This process could make mass quantities of material, as compared to simply the thin single-layer way in which it is usually grown.

Freeing the material from the wafer additionally starts the chance of flexible, thin-film electronics produced with gallium arsenide or many other high-speed semiconductors. To make products which can conform but still retain higher performance, which is considerable.

In a document published online May 20 in the magazine Nature the group explains its procedures and shows three types of units making use of gallium arsenide chips made in multilayer stacks: light products, high-speed transistors and solar cells. The creators additionally provide a comprehensive cost comparability.

Another benefit of the multilayer method is the release from area constraints, specifically important for photo voltaic cells. As the levels are removed from the stack, they could be laid out side-by-side on another substrate to create a significantly greater surface area, whereas the typical single-layer process confines area to the size of the wafer.

Figure 2 Solar Arsenium
Source: University of Illinois

For solar panels, you want large area coverage to catch as much sunshine as achievable. In an extreme situation we could grow adequate levels to have ten times the area of the traditional.

After that, the team programs to explore more potential product applications and additional semiconductor resources that might adapt to multilayer growth.

About the Source – Shannon Combs publishes articles for the residential solar power savings web log, her personal hobby weblog focused on recommendations to aid home owners to save energy with solar power.

After reviewing oil data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), Global Petroleum Consumption , it may be helpful to put energy consumption into perspective. Most of us are quite familiar with alternative energy such as solar and wind, but the reality is, even if solar and wind could supply all of electric energy needs, the majority of our energy needs is still predicated on access to oil.

While industry experts and scientist debate whether more drilling will ameliorate the energy challenge we face, let’s look at a couple of data points. Figure 1 US Oil Field Oil Production and Drilling Rigs – illustrates that higher drilling activity as measured by Baker Hughes Rig Count data does not necessarily correlate to more oil production as measured by US Oil Field Production by the EIA. Higher drilling activity does not produce more oil.

Figure 1 US Oil Field Production and Drilling Rigs
Source: Energy Information Administration and Baker Hughes research

Despite the large investment in drilling rigs that more than doubled from 1,475 in 1974 to over 3,100 in 1982, US oil production remained relatively flat. Moreover, even the most recent drilling expansion activity that again more than doubled from 1,032 rigs in 2003 to over 2,300 rigs in 2009, resulted in relatively flat oil production, suggesting that on the margin unit oil production per drilling rig was declining. Perhaps even more disturbing is that the most recent drilling activity in the US was accomplished through extensive use of technology. Seismic imaging technology is being used to better locate oil deposits and horizontal drilling technologies are employed to more efficiently extract the oil, yet oil production still lags historic levels. While on the margin, newly announced offshore drilling could add to domestic oil production, extraction costs of oil will continue to rise adding to further oil price increases.

However, what is most profound is our dependence on oil for most of our energy needs similar to how wood was used for fuel construction material during the 1300’s and 1600’s. If we translate energy consumption into equivalent measuring units such as kilowatt-hours, we can compare and rank energy consumption. Although electricity is captured through consumption of several fuels most notably coal, a comparison of energy usage between oil and electric provides an interesting perspective.

Figure 2 Energy Perspective – provides a simple comparison of the consumption of oil and electricity measured in gigawatt-hours (one million kilowatt hours). A barrel of oil is equivalent to approximately 5.79 million BTUs or 1,699 KWH and the US consumed approximately 19.5 million barrels per day equating to 12 million gigawatt-hours a year. The US uses 4 million gigawatt-hours of electric energy annually. The critical point is that even if solar and wind supplied all of our electric energy needs, it would still only comprise 30% of our total energy needs. Therefore, without an energy strategy that facilitates migration towards a substitute for oil, particularly for transportation, we are missing the boat.

Figure 2 Energy Perspective
Source: Energy Information Administration and Green Econometrics research

It’s not all doom and gloom. Technologies are advancing, economies of scale are driving costs lower, and the economics for new approaches to transportation are improving. From hybrids and electric vehicles benefiting from advances lithium-ion batteries to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles getting 600 miles on a tank of fuel. These advanced technologies could mitigate our addiction to oil, however, without formulating an energy strategy directing investments towards optimizing the economics, energy efficiency, environment, and technology, we may miss the opportunity.

The bottom line is that oil is supply-constrained as there are no readily available substitutes, and therefore, without a means to rapidly expand production; supply disruptions could have a pernicious and painful impact on our economy, national security, and welfare.

Rising inventory levels of photovoltaic (PV) panels and new production capacity coming online is driving solar PV prices lower and thereby, bringing solar energy closer to grid price parity. With the release of the latest earnings of solar energy companies, Wall Street’s keen attention to revenue guidance, inventory levels and pricing are paramount in diagnosing the health of the solar energy industry. Expectations call consolidation of the solar industry with some key players gaining market share and for others it becomes more challenging. However, despite the turbulence in the industry, consumers will benefit in the near-term as solar PV prices fall and government incentive fuel growth in solar PV deployment.

To get a better perspective on the solar PV industry, let’s examine inventory levels for some of the leading solar PV suppliers. The following chart, Figure 1, compares inventory levels in relationship to sales volume. While inventory levels have increased, the level of inventories to sales is not egregious

Figure 1 Sales and Inventory levels

While it is important to control inventory levels in relationship to sales, revenue growth is predicated upon price, performance, and return on investment for prospective customers. Thin-film PV has emerged as the low-cost solar solution even with its lower efficiency levels in comparison to mono-and poly-crystalline PV panels. Thin-film still offers a lower cost/watt than crystalline PV, see Solar Shootout in the San Joaquin Valley , but prices for crystalline PV are falling as a result of rising production capacity and inventory levels.

Figure 2 Market Value

In Figure 2 Green Econometrics is comparing the market value of some of the leading PV suppliers as measured by their respective stock prices. In the valuation of solar PV suppliers, the stock market appears to be betting heavily on thin-film PV, as First Solar (FSLR), the leading thin-film PV supplier, enjoys a market value that accounts for over half the value of the entire solar industry. FSLR is positioned as the low-cost supplier in the solar industry with its announcement of $1 per Watt reducing its production cost for solar modules to 98 cents per watt, thereby braking the $1 per watt price barrier. However, new panel suppliers, mainly from China are pushing prices lower for poly-and mono-crystalline panels suppliers. ReneSolar (SOL) is seeing average selling prices for wafers at $0.93 per watt and bring PV panels prices to under $2.00 per watt.

There appears to be a lot riding on the success of thin-film PV and as prices fall for crystalline PV, the closer we get to grid parity. In the following chart, Figure 3, price for crystalline PV have declined quite dramatically in the last 30 years. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 1956 solar PV panels were $300 per watt, and in 1980, the average cost per solar modules was $27/watt and has fallen precipitously to approximately $2/watt in October 2009. As the installed cost of solar PV falls closer to $4/watt, pricing per kilowatt-hour (KWH) (depending on your climate and geography), equates to approximately $0.16/KWH that would be inline with utility rates after rates caps are removed.

Figure 3 Solar PV Prices

The bottom line is that despite the lower PV panel costs; we are still not at parity with hydrocarbon fuels such as coal and oil. Carbon based taxes or renewable energy incentives as well as more investment into alternative energy should improve the economics of solar and wind and bring us to grid parity.

A combined heat and power system (CHP) is the cogeneration or simultaneous generation of multiple forms of energy in an integrated system. CHP systems consume less fuel than separate heat and power generating systems. According to the Environmental Protection Agency in their Combined Heat and Power Partnership report, (EPA), CHP systems typically consume only three-quarters the amount of energy separate heat and power systems require. By combining both heat and power into the same energy systems, efficiency gains for the total system. Heuristically, high temperature and high pressure fuel ratios results in higher efficiency systems. In addition, the thermal energy produced from the CHP system could be used to drive motor applications or to produce heat, steam, and hot water.

As an initial step to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, natural gas turbines could improve overhaul efficiency of 65-80%. In addition, the CHP offers lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in comparison to conventional standalone systems. Gas turbines CHP systems operate under a homodynamic principle called the Brayton cycle. The design characteristics of a CHP gas turbine provide: 1) high electric and total system efficiency; 2) high temperature/quality thermal output for heating or for heat recovery steam power electric generation; 3) offer options for flexible fuels such as propane, natural gas, and landfill gas; 4) high reliability with 3-to-5 years before overhaul running 24/7; and 5) significantly lower GHG emissions.

Figure 1 Gas Turbine CHP System

Figure 1 demonstrates the mechanics and variables of a CHP system. In summary, the CHP technology enables the supply of efficient heat and power while minimizing GHG emissions. Total CHP efficiency is defined as the sum of net power produced plus the thermal output used for heating divided by total fuel input.

The use of methane (natural gas) as the main fuel for the CHP system offers advantages because methane offers the highest hydrogen-to-carbon ratio among fossil fuels, thereby, combusting with the lowest GHG emissions. According to EPA data, the emissions NOx particulates from gas turbines ranges between 0.17-to-0.25 lbs/MWH with no post-combustion emissions control versus 1.0-to-4.2 lbs/MWH for coal fed boilers. The carbon content of natural gas is 34 lbs carbon/MMBtu in comparison to coal at 66 lbs of carbon/MMBtu.

There are two valuable metrics used to measure efficiency for CHP systems. One is the total system efficiency which measures the overall efficiency of the CHP system including heat and electric and the other is the effective electric efficiency which is useful in comparing the CHP electric production versus grid supplied power. These two metrics, the total system and effective electric efficiencies are important for evaluating CHP system. The following provides a guideline foe measuring these two efficiency metrics and can be found at EPA – Efficiency Metrics for CHP Systems

Figure 2 CHP Efficiency

The economics of the CHP system depends on effective use of thermal energy n the exhaust gases. Exhaust gases are primarily applied for heating the facility and could also be applied to heat recovery steam generators (HRSG) to produce additional electric power. The total efficiency of the CHP system is directly proportional to the amount of energy recovered from the thermal exhaust. Another important concept related to CHP efficiency is the power-to-heat ratio. The power-to-heat ratio indicates the proportion of power (electrical or mechanical energy) to heat energy (steam or hot water) produced in the CHP system. The following provides an overview of the economics of a CHP system.

Figure 3 CHP Economics

Figure 3 illustrates the economics of a CHP system in comparison to competing energy sources. While the CHP does not have the low cost of coal in producing electric, the economic value of reducing GHG emissions is quite significant and beyond the scope of this article. However, natural gas prices remain below that of oil and better ways of capturing heat exhaust will further improve CHP efficiency. The bottom line is that natural gas produces less GHG emissions than coal or oil therefore; businesses should consider the benefits of CHP as a source of heat and power.

The fall in oil consumption was most dramatic following the escalating price of crude oil to $145.16 per barrel on July 14, 2008 then at any other point over the last several years. Price elasticity, a key concept in Economics 101, which measures the impact of price change to changes in unit volume sold, is helpful in determining which products have readily available substitutes or which, like oil are inelastic with no real substitutes.

As illustrated by Benjamin Graham and David Dodd in their book Security Analysis, 1940 edition, during the 1930’s the economy had a dramatic impact on spending and consumption particularly on discretionary items such as travel. In one illustration, the change in demand was most pronounced in railroad revenues where tickets purchased for railroad travel, declined 51% from 1929 to 1993 as measured by gross receipts for the railroad industry. Over this same period, spending on the consumer staples (inelastic demand), such as electricity encountered a decline of only 9%.

While almost everyone would agree that the current economic climate is one of the most challenging since the 1930’s, a quick review of oil consumption over the last several years illustrates that demand has not significantly contracted, suggesting driving habits only changed when prices escalated to over $100 per barrel. Oil consumption dropped only 4.9% from January 2008 through January 2009.

Figure 1 Oil Consumption

As seen from Figure 1, the sharp drop in oil consumption in September 2008 of 8.3% appears as an aberration when measured over the whole year. The fact there are no real substitutes for oil in the transportation industry illustrates two important points: 1) structural changes to driving patterns are required to see appreciable changes to oil consumption and 2) how vulnerable we are as a nation with no readily available substitutes for oil in the transportation systems.

Figure 2 Oil Demand in China and India

With China and India undergoing significant structural changes as they rapidly migrate towards motor vehicles for transportation suggests the demand for oil should continue to grow relatively unabated. Until the price of oil climbs back over $100 per barrel, we will not see the structural changes necessary to develop alternatives to oil in the transportation market.

The bottom line: energy and in particular, oil has not experienced a dramatic drop in demand during 2008 suggesting driving patterns were influenced more by the price of oil then the struggling economy. We must begin to shift emphasis to alternative energies such as solar as well as hybrids and electric vehicles.

Last month First Solar (FSLR) achieved a milestone in the solar industry with its announcement of $1 per Watt reducing its production cost for solar modules to 98 cents per watt, thereby braking the $1 per watt price barrier.. While the achievement is great news for the solar industry some studies suggest more work is needed. An article in Popular Mechanics $1 per Watt talks of university studies questioning the scalability of solar given the immense global needs for energy. Last year our post included an article Solar Energy Limits – Possible Constraints in Tellurium Production? discussing possible limits on tellurium production on thin film solar photovoltaic (PV) suppliers.

In addition, Barron’s published an article (March 30, 2009)_ Nightfall Comes to Solar Land providing unique insight into the economics of solar PV suppliers. High oil prices and soaring stock prices on solar PV companies fueled silicon suppliers to ramp production capacity that has now transitioned, according to the Barron’s article, into an over supply of polysilicon used in the production of PV panels and subsequently, eroding the cost advantage established by thin film PV companies such as First Solar and Energy Conversion Devices (ENER) over polysilicon PV firms such as SunPower (SPWRA).

However, the PV panels typically represent approximately half the cost of a solar energy system. The following figure, Solar Installation Costs compares the total cost of installing a solar energy system which includes labor and supporting matertials.

Figure 1 Solar Installation Costs

As illustrated in Figure 1, the panels represent a significant cost of installation, but the labor and support brackets for the PV panels are significant as well. While thin film PV enjoys significantly lower panel costs and is easier to install, the supporting brackets are sometimes more expensive. As prices for silicon fall, the cost disparity between thin film and silicon PV will narrow.

Figure 2 Solar Energy Economics

In Figure 2 Green Econometrics is comparing PV efficiency as measured by watts per square meter versus cost per watt. The selected companies represent a small portion of the global PV suppliers, but do illustrate the position of the leading US suppliers. The ideal model is to lower cost per watt while improving PV efficiency. But be cognizant that PV module cost per watt may not be indicative of the total system costs.

A comparison of wind and solar energy costs is demonstrated by Detronics and offers a useful framework to compare wind and solar costs by kilowatt-hour (KWH). As a caveat, wind and solar resources will vary dramatically by location. In the Detronics example, the costs per KWH represent the production over one year and both wind and solar have 20-year life spans. Over twenty years the 1,000-watt wind systems cost per KWH of $7.35 would average approximately $0.36 per KWH and the 750-watt solar systems cost of $10.68 would amount about $0.53 per KWH over the investment period.

Figure 3 Alternative Energy Pricing

The Alternative Energy Pricing chart was base on research from Solarbuzz which is one of the leading research firms in solar energy. The cost per KWH that Solarbuzz provides is a global average. Even with cost per watt falling below $1.00, the system costs after installation are closer to $5.00 according to Abound Solar (formerly known as AVA Solar) and is still higher than parity with grid with a cost of $0.21 per KWH.

The bottom line is that despite the lower PV panel costs; we are still not at parity with hydrocarbon fuels such as coal and oil. Carbon based taxing or alternative energy stimulus and more investment into alternative energy is required to improve the economics of solar and wind.

As President Obama takes office, energy efficiency takes center stage. One of he fastest roads to energy efficiency is to reduce consumption and the simplest approach to energy conservation is to change a light bulb.

Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs (CFL) recommended by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) offer substantial savings to homeowners. In the commercial market, lighting fixtures consume the greatest amount of electric energy; three times the energy consumption of air conditioning. According to research report from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey lighting consumes the largest amount of electricity in commercial buildings as measured by Kilowatt-hours (KWH) per Square Foot

To calculate KWH, multiply the wattage of your lighting fixture x the yearly hours of operation for your facility divided by 1,000. KWH per square foot provides a useful means of measuring the energy intensity of a building. Just divide KWH by the total square footage of the building.

In an energy audit one can determine the energy intensity of your building as measured by KWH/Sq Ft. Figure 1 illustrates the energy intensity by end use according to the EIA’s report in 2008 Electricity Consumption (kWh) Intensities by End Use.

Figure 1 Lighting Consumes Most Energy

Furthermore, as part of the same research from the EIA, most commercial buildings are not using energy efficient lighting. The study finds that most commercial buildings, even those built after 1980, still rely on legacy incandescent and standard fluorescent light fixtures.

Figure 2 Most Commercial Buildings Lack Energy Efficient Lighting

After your energy audit is complete and one knows their energy intensity the next step is to understand the efficiency of lighting systems. Lighting efficiency is measured in Lumens per Watt and is calculated by dividing the lumen output of the light by the Watts consumed. A lumen is one foot-candle foot-candle falling on one square foot of area.

While lumen output is important in measuring brightness, color temperature, measured in degrees Kelvin, indicates the hue color temperature of the light and is also important in evaluating lighting systems because lighting systems operating near 5500 degrees Kelvin simulate sunlight at noon. Energy efficient lighting fixtures provide twice the lumens per watt of electricity than legacy metal halide fixtures while offering higher color temperature enabling near daylight rendering.

Figure 3 Energy Efficient Lighting

The bottom line is small steps sometimes produce big results. Retrofitting your building with energy efficient lighting systems saves energy, reduces operating expenses, and improves employee productivity and safety, while saving the environment. A 1.3 KWH reduction in power consumption reduces carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 1 pound. Coal generates about half the electric power in the U.S. and produces roughly ¾ of a pound of CO2 for every KWH of electric. In addition, the feasibility of alternative energy such as solar and wind are more viable by reducing energy consumption in buildings.

Access to energy was instrumental fueling the Industrial Revolution. Over the last 200 years, industrial nations have migrated from wood to coal and now to oil as a source of energy. During the 1700’s, wood was used for just about everything from fuel to constructing houses and building wagons and even tools. As demand for wood increased, the cost of wood rose as deforestation led to the scarcity. The scarcity of wood resulted in deteriorating economics.

It was the availability and access to coal that enabled the growth of Industrial Revolution by providing accessible energy. The Industrial Revolution was predicated upon the availability of Labor, Technology, Capital, and Energy. Scarcity of any of these inputs could undermine economic growth, as was the case with capital during the Great Depression of the 1930’s and the Energy Shock of the 1970’s.

Oil, driven by rapid growth in automobile usage in the U.S, has replaced coal as the main energy fuel. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the 70% of oil consumption in the U.S. is for transportation .

Figure 1 US Oil Imports

Figure 1 illustrates US historical oil imports, as measured by the Energy Information Administration in U.S. Crude Oil Field Production (Thousand Barrels per Day) that dates back to 1970. The EIA provides oil import data dating back to 1910. To estimate the amount of money the US spends on oil imports every year, we can use the data from the State of Alaska Department of Revenue, which provides historical data on the price of oil an derive an average yearly figure.

Figure 2 US Oil Import Spending

Figure 2. appears quite staggering given the amount of money we send to oil producing countries. The US is spending hundreds of billions to import oil. According to the EIA, the US imported an average of 10,031,000 barrels per day equating to $263 billion in imported oil during 2007 when the State of Alaska measured the yearly average spot price for a barrel of oil at $72.

According to Solarbuzz, Germany leads the world in solar photovoltaic (PV) installations with 47% of the market while China increased its market share of PV production from 20% to 35%. The US accounts for 8% of the world solar PV installations. Solarbuzz indicates the global solar PV industry was $17 billion in 2007 and the average cost of solar electricity is $0.2141 per KWH. If a portion of our $260 billion sent to oil producing countries were to be invested into solar energy, perhaps the US would not lag the world in alternative energy.

The bottom line is that the money spent on importing oil has a deleterious impact on our economy and continues our dependence on hydrocarbon fuels producing carbon and other harmful byproducts that negatively impact our climate and health of our children. The longer we are dependent on oil, the longer our economy and environment suffer. Use your vote for alternative energy and not drill baby drill.

Using the latest data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) , oil production remains significantly below historical levels achieved in ‘70’s and ‘80’s. The peak production in 1970 has not been replicated despite significant expansion of drilling activity during the 1980’s.

Oil Drilling and Production

Figure 1 Oil Drilling and Production

Figure 1 illustrates US historical oil production, as measured by the Energy Information Administration in U.S. Crude Oil Field Production (Thousand Barrels per Day) that dates back to 1920 juxtaposed against U.S. rig count, as measured by Bakers Hughes. The chart suggests that during the first energy shock to hit the US and the world, drilling activity expanded dramatically. By 1981, weekly North American oil rig count reached a high of 4,530 oil rigs in 1981.

U.S. Crude Oil Field Production reached a peak of 9.6 million barrels per day in 1970. In 1981, the height of US oil drilling, oil production was 8.57 million barrels per day. By 2002, U.S. Crude Oil Field Production was 5.74 million barrels per day. Over the last six years oil production declined 10.7% while over this same period, drilling activity as measured by Baker Hughes’ North American Rigs Running weekly rig count, increased 125%.

The decline in U.S. oil production is quite disturbing. During the last decade, a host of new technologies were introduced to help facilitate oil production. Companies such as Dawson Geophysical Co. (DWSN) that enhanced the market for energy exploration by providing seismic data acquisition services. Dawson Geophysical acquires and processes data using 2-D and 3-D seismic imaging technology to assess the potential of hydrocarbon sources below the earth’s surface.

Companies such as W-H Energy Services Inc. that was recently acquired by Smith International, Inc (SII) , offer an array of drilling services such as horizontal and directional drilling for onshore and offshore oil drilling, and 3-demensional rotary steering drilling systems. Smith Int’l is growing revenues at over 19% annually and Dawson’s revenues are growing 53%. With these oil drilling and energy exploration technologies growing at double rates, and drilling activity expanding at 14%, why is oil production falling?

With the rancor of “drill baby drill’ heard as call to solve the energy crisis, energy technologies such as solar and wind energy solutions deserve greater emphasis. Oil will eventually run out. There is a finite amount of oil in the ground. The Tar Sands will not solve the problem. According to Alberta Energy, sand oil production was 966,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) in 2005 and is expected to reach 3 million bbl/d by 2020. Tar sands would only contribute 3.5% towards our current oil consumption of 84.5 million barrels per day.

The bottom line is that our dependence on oil leaves our economy vulnerable. Energy is the catalyst that enables economic development. The longer we are dependent on importing oil from countries hostile to civilized existence, the more tenuous grows the environment. We need to conserve existing energy use and invest into energy technologies that foster the development of alternative energies, thereby, limiting our dependence on oil period.

Energy storage enables the electric generated though solar photovoltaic devices or wind turbines to be used when it’s dark, cloudy, or calm. As Nathan Lewis, Professor of Chemistry, Division of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering Lewis Group at California Institute of Technology, framed it, energy storage is integral in facilitating the development of alternative energy programs.

While hydrogen fuel cells offer future promise to our energy storage needs, battery technologies could provide some immediate results. As with all technologies there are tradeoffs.

There are several competing approaches to battery development. Among these approaches include the lead acid, nickel metal hydride, and lithium-ion cells.
Lead acid: batteries are the oldest approach and are typically found under the hood of your car or truck. Nickel metal hydride batteries have been around for more than 25 years and are used in hybrid electric vehicles such as the Toyota Prius. Lithium-ion cells have been on the market since 1991 and are used extensively in cellular phones, laptop computers, and digital cameras.

There are several issues in dealing with batteries such as environmental, economic, power, safety, and useful life. Lithium-ion cells possess many advantages, but incidences such as laptop computers erupting into flames, leaves many concerns for applicability in motor vehicles. Despite the setbacks, lithium-ion technology could provide solutions to the electric vehicle.

Why is this battery technology important? Solving the energy needs of the motor vehicle has profound implications in solving our energy needs. Nearly 70% of our oil consumption is direct towards transportation essentially motor vehicles. Without a dedicated strategy to address the transportation market and specifically the automobile, our progress towards energy independence is an illusion.

There are several issues with the nickel metal hydride batteries currently used in hybrid electric vehicles. Nickel metal hydride batteries are heavy, bulky, require large storage space in the vehicle, and don’t offer great acceleration. Lithium-ion offer power, size, and weight advantages over nickel metal hydride batteries, and numerous companies are working to improve performance and ameliorate the negative connotations associated with flaming laptops.

One of the basic concepts in dealing with batteries is the measure of battery energy versus battery power. The amount of battery energy refers to endurance, how long will the battery last and is often measured in ampere-hours or watt-hours per kilogram of battery weight. The amount of power refers to the energy draw and is akin to delivering acceleration in an electric vehicle.

The following figure illustrates the measurement of battery power and energy. Lithium-ion batteries are differentiated in their ability to bridge the power and energy tradeoff.

Figure 1 Battery Power vs Energy

For home renewable energy projects such as solar or wind energy deployment, it is often recommended that a deep-cycle battery be used. Deep cycle batteries are able to draw down 70%-80% of their full power, offering longer energy life than a typical lead acid battery. In addition, newer materials such as Gel batteries and absorbed glass mat (AGM) that are sealed, maintenance free, and can’t spill, and therefore, are less hazardous. For a tutorial on home use batteries visit
BatteryStuff.com

An interesting perspective on battery design is presented Energy vs. Power by Jim McDowall. For a primer on how batteries work visit presented Battery Power The premise is that there are tradeoffs between designing a battery for high power versus high energy.

Research conducted at Stanford University suggest the battery life of lithium-ion batteries could be extended through the use of Nano-technology. The bottom line: energy storage is paramount to sustaining the development of alternative energies and battery technologies play a critical role in energy storage and further expanding the role of alternative energies.

Rising energy prices and our diminishing supply of oil threaten our national security. Without access to energy our economy and national defense are vulnerable to collapse. As a solution to our energy needs, we hear political rhetoric to expand oil drilling, but our energy strategy requires a long term solution that means embracing alternative/renewable energy technologies such as solar and wind. It only takes a quick review of oil production statistics to realize how formidable the challenge is that we face.

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) in 2007, the US consumed 20.6 million barrels of oil per day (bpd) but we were only able to produce 8.5 million bpd, leaving a deficit of approximately 12.2 million bpd. This means the US needs to import 60% of its oil and at a cost of $130 per barrel, the US will spend approximately $600 billion a year on imported oil.

Oil prices have increased dramatically with an increase of 420% since 2001. The combined impact of rising prices and diminishing oil production leaves the US in a precarious position. Yet, drilling for more oil may not rectify this tenuous situation.

As an example, back in the 1980’s, drilling activity in Alaska helped to ameliorate the oil crisis of the 1970’s. Today, oil production in Alaska has declined significantly. From its peak in 1988, oil production in Alaska has decline 64%. In Figure 1, oil production in Alaska in contrasted to the price of oil per barrel from 1980 to June 2008.

Figure 1 Alaska Oil Production

When we measure the supply and demand for oil, we find in the US, it is really a supply problem. According to the EIA , US demand for oil is growing at an annual rate of one percent over the last ten years, but oil production is down 20% since 1987.

Figure 2 US Oil Production

The energy problem however, is global. The demand for oil in the US may slow, yet supply constraints driven by growing consumption in developing countries could exacerbate this already bleak picture. On a per capita basis, the US consumes approximately 25 barrels of oil per person annually or a little over 600 gallons a year. That figure greatly exceeds other countries and particularly those in developing nations such as China.

In China, oil consumption per person is only 2 barrels or 84 gallons a year. However, oil consumption in China on a per capita basis has increased 88% from 1996 to 2006 according to data from the EIA. Despite China’s one percent population growth, at its current oil consumption growth rate, China is expected to double its current oil consumption by 2015 to over 14 million bpd and exceed the US in oil consumption by 2020. China’s current oil appetite suggests that in 14 years China will require an additional 14.6 million barrels per day. Even if oil producing countries are able to produce the additional oil, those countries that are unable to meet their own needs such as the US and China, will continue to be held hostage to oil producing states.

Figure 3 China Oil Consumption per Capita

The bottom line: the energy model based on hydrocarbon fuels is broken. Neither drilling for more oil will not satisfy our energy needs nor will corn-based ethanol. We need to rapidly embrace electric vehicles using solar, wind, and fuel cell technologies to provide alternative energy solutions. It time to put energy as the most critical component of our national security. Energy should be front and center for the US election. It’s time to invest into clean and renewable energy solutions.

As energy and food prices set new world records, what can we do at home to avert the crisis? Food prices are rising because corn is diverted from food production to producing ethanol for use as fuel in motor vehicles and is exacerbated by the recent flooding in the Mid West. Oil prices continue to escalate as demand for oil in developing countries increases and supply constraints, rising production costs, and limited refining capacity constrain the supply of oil. These factors continue to weigh against homeowners that will face escalating fuel bills to heat or cool their homes. There are some viable alternative energy solutions including wind and solar as well as home insulation that should offset the rising cost of energy. As far as food for fuel, we need to break our dependence on hydrocarbons which continues to impact our climate and weather and transfer our wealth to oil producing nations

Corn Prices have increased 264% since 2005. The rising price of corn used for ethanol is causing farmers to plant more corn and less production of other grains such as wheat or soy. Lower supply of grains is driving up food prices. Rising food prices is most debilitating to the poor, especially those in developing countries.

Figure 1 Corn Prices

Growing demand for oil and questions over Peak Oil suggesting even with oil prices rising to such an elevated level, production is rather anemic. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) , while oil prices increased 344% since 2001, oil production from OPEC is up only 1.2% over this same period.

Figure 2 Oil Prices

According to the EIA The demand for oil in China is growing at an 8.1% CAGR over the last five years. With demand for oil growing significantly in developing countries and despite production developments in Saudi Arabia and the 5-to-8 billion deepwater Tupi oil discovery in over Brazil The Tupi announcement in January 2008 is the world’s biggest oil find since a 12-billion-barrel field discovered in 2000 in Kazakhstan according the International Herald Tribune. These new oil discoveries are often in inhospitable areas or deep ocean environments, which makes extraction costly and difficult.

Figure 3 Rig Count and OPEC Oil Production

What can we do? . Forget drilling for more oil, electric vehicles and investment into alternative energy is the only way to avert this crisis. OPEC area drilling activity is up 48% since 1998 and yet, despite dramatically higher oil prices, up 5 fold since 1998, OPEC oil production increased only 11% over 1998.

Homeowners could begin to deploy energy saving and alternative energy systems. Wind and solar energy could help reduce some of the pain. As consumer embrace hybrids, electric, and fuel cell vehicles, wind and solar should begin to offer a stronger value proposition. Energy saving tips such as compact fluorescent bulbs, on-demand hot water heaters, and thicker home insulation products should help reduce heating and cooling costs.

According to the American Wind Energy Association AWEA a turbine owner should have at least a 10 mph average wind speed and be paying at least 10 cents per Kilowatt-hour (KWH) for electricity. There are electric utility and tax credits available in some areas. There are also questions regarding zoning restrictions, and whether to connect to batteries for energy storage, or directly to your electric utility. Consult the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States Wind Resource Maps to get a better understanding of wind speeds in your area.

Cost wind systems will vary depending on model and installation costs will vary by your location. The Whisper 500 from Southwest Windpower offers electric production of 538 KWK/month at 12 mph (5.4 m/s). The system weighs 155 lb (70 kg) and has blade span of 15 feet (4.5 m) and must be mounted on a tower in cement. At 538 KWH per month, that is enough energy to cover the needs a modest house with conservative electric usage. Small wind systems can range from under $1,000 to over $20,000 with a payback period of approximately five years depending on wind resources and utility rates.

Solar photovoltaic (PV) panels cost an average of $4.80 per watt according to Solarbuzz which is about $0.24 per KWH over a 20 year life of the PV system. With an average output of approximately 10.6-watts/square foot (114 w/m^2), a five KW PV systems would cover 515 square feet (47.8 sq. meters) costing approximately $36,000 before credits and tax benefits and produce about 490 KWH per month. Of course installations costs are extra, but with PV production ramping and new PV suppliers entering the market we can expect costs to decline. Federal and local tax credits as well as selling unused electric to your local utility offers economic value on the margin.

The economic value is expected to increase as costs decline and electric rates increase and we can expect significantly higher utility rates in the near future. The economics of zero carbon emissions is not even measured as a benefit to the consumer. We are just beginning to see the cost impact of extreme weather and climate change.

Consumers should try to ameliorate the rising cost of energy by investing into solar and wind. There are several companies offering complete installation services. Among these include: Akeena Solar (AKNS) in California and The Solar Center in New Jersey.

The bottom line: energy and food prices are creating a crisis for consumers globally and there are several initiatives that could help minimize the pain. In addition, the erratic weather patterns around the world may be just a prelude to climate changes due to the impact of carbon dioxide on climate, which may cost us much more in the long run. Let’s stop the drain of wealth cause by oil and invest into clean and renewable energy solutions.

Solar energy is gaining considerable attention from Wall Street and countries looking to achieve energy independence. Solar energy represents one of the most significant energy solutions to help eradicate our addiction to oil. Despite the tremendous success offered with solar photovoltaic (PV), more research is required to sustain further deployment and achieve energy independence. Some semiconductor materials used to develop photovoltaic devices are scarce and may limit PV from achieving mass penetration. Let’s review the current solar PV market to better understand the dynamics of this market.

Figure 1 PV Production by Year

Figure 1 demonstrates the rapid market growth of solar PV and Solarbuzz is astute to point out some critical data points: cumulative PV deployment is still less than 1% of global electric usage, PV industry faces capacity constraints, and Germany and Spain account for 47% and 23% of total PV deployment in 2007. With the significant growth in both the production and deployment of solar PV devices, the stock price of some of the leading PV suppliers have appreciated dramatically even despite a recent pull back in the beginning of the year.

Figure 2 PV Production of Leading Suppliers

Despite the turbulence on Wall Street in 2008 with the NASDAQ down 14% year-to-date, and Dow Jones Industrial Average down 7.3% YTD, investor appetite for clean technology stocks remains robust. First Solar (FSLR), a leading supplier of thin film solar PV remains in positive territory and is up nearly ten-fold from its IPO in November 2006. Thin film PV offers a cost advantage over traditional crystalline PV cells. PV devices employ various elements with different band gap properties to achieve improving solar efficiencies. (See our post on semiconductor band gaps: What’s Pushing Solar Energy Efficiency?, October 1st, 2007)

Figure 3 Market Capitalization Solar PV Suppliers

There are several elements used in thin film PV production. Among the elements used include cadmium and tellurium (CdTe), copper, indium, and selenium, (CuInSe), and copper, indium, gallium, and selenium (CIGS). These various elements are used to improve operating efficiencies and lower production costs of PV devices. In general, crystalline PV devices have higher solar efficiencies, but cost more due to their material thickness of 200-to-300 microns. Whereas, thin film PV are usually about 3 microns deep offering significantly lower production costs. However, SunPower (SPWR) the leading polycrystalline silicon PV supplier offers the highest solar efficiency a rating of 22.7% that started shipping in 2007.

Figure 4 FSLR and SPWR Solar PV Production

FSLR and SPWR are the two leading PV players as measured by Wall Street in terms of market valuation. The cost-efficiency tradeoff between these two PV suppliers offers an interesting framework to evaluate the solar PV market.

Figure 5 PV Cost-Efficiency

The stock market appears to be betting on FSLR given its market capitalization of $22 billion and trading at 43 times 2007 revenues of $504 million. FSLR employs CdTe in its solar modules. In several postings on Seeking Alpha starting back in November 2007, Anthony and Garcia de Alba have provided valuable insight into material constraints in the production of PV devices.

Tellurium is a rare metalloid element that is used in producing semiconductor materials because it does not conduct electricity. Tellurium is recovered as a by-product in refining and processing of gold and copper as well as other ores. Tellurium was primarily used to create metal alloys that enable easier machining of end products.

Because of its unique properties, Tellurium and cadmium (CdTe) have been used in thin film PV production since the 1980’s. According to a comprehensive study by Fthenakis and earlier work by Moskowitz “The Life Cycle Impact Analysis of Cadmium in CdTe PV Production”, CdTe is deposited on a thin film substrate using electrodeposition, chemical surface deposition, and vapor transport deposition. FSLR reports in their 10K that they employ a proprietary vapor transport deposition process for CdTe PV production.

A thin film of CdTe is deposited on a substrate at a thickness of 3 microns. According to the Fthenakis and Moskowitz, back in the 1980’s, a 10 megawatt (MW) PV facility employing vapor transport deposition of CdTe uses 3,720 kilograms (kg) of CdTe to achieve a10% efficiency at 3 microns. A one-one bond of CdTe with an atomic weight of Cd at 112.41 and Te at 127.60 suggests Te comprises 53% of the weigh of CdTe. With 3,720 kg of CdTe used at 10MW, the amount of Tellurium used is estimated at 1,978 kg or 197.8 kg/MW.

The electrodeposition CdTe process using a mixture of cadmium sulfate and tellurium dioxide used 880 kg of tellurium dioxide, which amounts to approximately 696.8 kg of Te for 10 MW PV productions. The electrodeposition CdTe process would equate to about 69.7 kg of Te per MW. For a 100 MW PV production approximately 7 tons of Te are consumed.

One would assume the PV production process would improve significantly from the 1980’s and the amount of Te consume would decline with improving efficiencies. This would suggest that FLSR at 200 MW PV capacity in 2007 would consume somewhere between 14 and 38 metric tons of tellurium. This figure is significantly higher than the estimates derived from the FSLR tellurium posts on Seeking Alpha that are closer to10 tons per 100 MW (100 kg/MW).

Figure 6 Te Production

Let’s proceed with the conservative figure of 100 kg/MW (10 tons at 100 MW) to assess the tellurium constraints. Tellurium production is a by-product of gold, copper and other ores. We have found Te production estimates ranging from 132 metric tons (MT) to 300 MT per annum. In a National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) report Assessment of Critical Thin Film Resources in 1999 estimated Te production between 200 and 300 metric tons per year in 1997 and indicated under utilization of capacity for the production of tellurium.

Let’s compare our conservative estimate of 100kg/MW Te usage for FSLR to the optimistic production forecast of 300 MT to evaluate capacity constraints for FSLR. With 300 MT (300,000 kg) global Te production and FSLR using 80% of the Te production, capacity of PV tops out at 2,400 MW (2.4 GW).

The U.S. electric energy usage in 2006 was 4,059.91 billion kilowatt hours (KWH) which translates into 463,460 MW (divide 4060 by 365 days x 24 hours). So without significant investment into research and development for PV FSLR could be constrained at 2,400 MW representing only 0.5% of the U.S. electric usage in 2004. Further more, if FSLR were to be constrained at 2.4 GW annual production, revenues ($2.60 per watt Q4/07) would peak at approximately $6.24 billion, a price-to-sales multiple of 3.4x with its market capitalization of $22 billion.

However, in comparison to leading companies in energy, pharmaceuticals, technology and finance, FSLR’s market capitalization is relatively small. Perhaps with improving production processes, FSLR could reduce the amount of Te per panel and improving mining and metal refinement process could increase Te production to expand the market for CdTe thin film PV devices.

Figure 7 Market Capitalization of Leading Companies

The bottom line is that more research and investment into alternative energies is required to ameliorate the world from being held hostage to oil and hydrocarbon fuels that are directly linked to rising CO2 levels and climate change.

With the infinite wisdom of the White House and U.S. Congress, food prices are now directly tied to the price oil. The price of corn-based ethanol is now determined by the price of gasoline that it substitutes in motor vehicles and that price is established by supply and demand for oil. The price of gasoline at your local gas station or convenience store is based on the price of oil. And now that the price of corn is rising because it is tied directly to oil, the price of other grains and subsequently, prices along the entire food chain are rising.

Corn Prices have increased 166% since 2005. The rising price of corn that is used to produce corn ethanol is causing farmers to direct their limited resources to grow more corn, which means other grains such as wheat or soy become scarce and their prices rise. The growing scarcity of grains for food products is raising price across the food chain. Developing a renewable energy solutions based on diverting food as a substitute for expensive gasoline forces food supplies to become scare and expensive.

It is the supply and demand for gasoline and diesel fuels that establishes the price at the pump. When corn ethanol is substituted for gasoline, prices tend to gravitate towards a mean price that continues to rise to keep pace with the escalating price of crude oil now over $110 per barrel. Corn prices are inextricably linked to oil prices and in turn; corn prices impact other grain prices that means it cost more to feed your family or to feed livestock and forces those prices higher.

The rise in corn prices is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Corn Prices

Irrespective of the timing of Peak Oil, a long-term energy strategy is required. The days of cheap oil are over. Remember how oil production in Alaska helped ease the U.S demand for foreign oil a couple of decades ago. Oil production in Alaska declined by nearly 75 percent from its peak in 1987 according a Washington Post article back in 2005. In November 2007, the Petroleum News indicated production in Alaska is expected to decline further in the future. The U.S. depends on oil production in the Gulf of Mexico for about 25% of our supply, according to the Department of Energy which is why the impact from Hurricane Katrina was so devastating.

Diminishing supply and rising demand suggests oil prices should continue to remain elevated. The rising motor vehicle usage in China (China Motor Vehicle Registration)
and India continues to influence the demand for oil.

Figure 2 Vehicle Registrations in China

Figure 2 and Figure 3 illustrate the rising use of motor vehicles in developing countries. This trends should continue and in turn, increase the demand for oil.

Figure 3 Automobile Sales in India

Maybe we should look to some leading countries in the development of alternative energy strategies. Perhaps we can learn from Norway’s HyNor Project. Solar photovoltaic projects being lead by Germany
and Spain.

So the next time you fill your tank or when you’re at your local food store and find that your wages don’t quite cover your food bill, ask your local Congressional representative for better planning on alternative energy strategies and solutions. Investment and research into solar, wind, electric vehicles, and hydrogen energy could provide real solutions by addressing energy needs, climate concerns, the environment, and food prices.

World oil demand continues to rise despite efforts to limit demand. Renewable energies such as solar and wind have the potential to limit our dependence on hydrocarbon fuels, but one issue remains prominent – storing energy. While the sun provides radiation for solar and generates wind, when its cloudy or dark we are unable to produce solar energy. One must provide a means to store that energy for when it is needed. Fuel cells enable energy conversion and fill a reliable role in alternative energy strategies.

A chart compiled by Wasserstoff-Energie-Systeme GmbH (h-tec) provides an easy to understand depiction of how fuel cells integrate with solar and wind energy solutions. Fuel cells provide the enabling technology that allows hydrogen to serve as the storage and transport agent. The solar energy that is produced during the daylight hours is used in an electrolyzer to produce hydrogen that in turn, is then used to operate the fuel cell producing electricity at night when it is needed. This process is called the solar-hydrogen energy cycle. Figure 1 illustrates the importance of energy storage in adopting alternative energies.

Figure 1 Solar-Hydrogen Energy Cycle

Demand for oil and hydrocarbon fuels continues to grow despite effort to conserve. Total Petroleum Consumption shows increasing oil demand from China and India while demand in the U.S. grows at a slower pace. With improving efficiencies and lower production costs, fuel cells could provide a solution to our appetite for oil in motor vehicles. Figure 2 describes how fuel cells and electrolyzers (fuels running in reverse) work.

Figure 2 Fuel Cells

Fuel cells are devices that convert chemical to electrical energy – in essence; it’s an electrochemical energy conversion device. In the chemical process of a fuel cell, hydrogen and oxygen are combined into water, and in the process, the chemical conversion produces electricity. In the electrolyzer, an electrical current is passed through water (electrolysis) and is the reverse of the electricity-generating process occurring in a fuel cell.

Hydrogen fuel cells offer tremendous opportunity for storing and transporting energy enabling broad applications for home, business, motor vehicle and large-scale energy projects. The follow provides a review of current technologies applicable to hydrogen fuel cells. Factors to consider in using hydrogen fuel cells include operating efficiency, operating temperature range, and material used for the electrolyte (the catalyst that separates hydrogen) and fuel oxidant (that transfers the oxygen atoms).

Figure 3 Hydrogen Fuel Cell Technologies

One of the most practical fuel cell technologies for motor vehicle use include Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) because it operates at normal ambient temperatures and offers high electrical efficiency. There are several useful web sites that illustrate the benefits of hydrogen fuel cells. h-tec and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory provide some very useful information on hydrogen fuel cells.

We are also seeing progress on fuel cell vehicles that could ultimately ameliorate are demand for oil, if not eliminate it entirely, all with no carbon dioxide or other harmful emissions. We see most major automakers developing hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicles. GM is making progress introducing several models using GM’s Fuel Cell Technology.
Honda’s experimental hydrogen refueling station in Torrance, CA uses solar to produce hydrogen for their hydrogen fuel cell vehicle Honda’s FCX .

The bottom line is that the availability of cheap oil is on the decline and without further research on alternative energies we may find the global economy in a very tenuous position. Further research into solar and hydrogen fuel cells could significantly reduce our dependence on oil.

From the Industrial Revolution we learned that economic growth is inextricably linked to energy and as a result, our future is dependent upon equitable access to energy. When the Stourbridge Lion made entry as the first American steam locomotive in 1829 it was used to transport Anthracite coal mined in nearby Carbondale, PA to a canal in Honesdale that in turn linked to the Hudson River and onto New York City. Coal fueled the growth of New York and America’s Industrial Revolution because coal was cheap and more efficient than wood.

Advances in science and technology gave way to improvements in manufacturing, mining, and transportation. Energy became the catalyst to industrial growth. Steam power such as Thomas Newcomen’s steam powered pump in 1712 developed for coal mining and James Watt’s steam engine in 1765 were initially used to bring energy to market.

In terms of heating efficiency, coal at the time offered almost double the energy, pound for pound, in comparison to wood. Energy Units and Conversions KEEP Oil offers higher energy efficiencies over coal and wood, but as with most hydrocarbon fuels, carbon and other emissions are costly to our economy and environment.

With rapid growth in automobile production in the U.S., oil became the predominant form of fuel. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2004 the U.S. spent over $468 billion on oil.

Figure 1 U.S. Energy Consumption by Fuel

We all need to become more conversant in understanding energy costs and efficiency and as a corollary, better understand the benefits of renewable energy such as solar, wind, and hydrogen fuel cells. A common metric we should understand is the kilowatt-hour (KWH) – the amount of electricity consumed per hour. The KWH is how we are billed by our local electric utility and can be used to compare costs and efficiency of hydrocarbon fuels and alternative energies.

One-kilowatt hour equals 3,413 British Thermal Units (BTUs). One ton of Bituminous Coal produces, on the average, 21.1 million BTUs, which equals 6,182 KWH of electric at a cost of about $48 per short ton (2,000 pounds). That means coal cost approximately $0.01 per KWH. To put that into perspective, a barrel of oil at $90/barrel distilled into $3.00 gallon gasoline is equivalent to 125,000 BTUs or 36.6 KWH of energy. Gasoline at $3.00/gallon equates to $0.08 per KWH. So gasoline at $3.00 per gallon is eight times more expensive than coal.

Is oil and gasoline significantly more efficient than coal? Let’s compare on a pound for pound basis. A pound of coal equates to about 10,500 BTUs or approximately 3.1 KWH per pound. A gallon of gasoline producing 125,000 BTUs weighs about 6 pounds equating to 6.1 KWH per pound (125,000 /3,413 /6). While gasoline is almost twice as efficient as coal, coal’s lower cost per KWH is why it is still used today to generate electric.

The Bottom Line: the economics of energy determines its use – coal still accounts for approximately half of our electric generation because it has a lower cost than other fuels. However, there are two factors to consider 1) the cost of carbon is not calculated into the full price of coal or other hydrocarbon fuels and 2) the cost of conventional fuel is calculated on a marginal basis while alternative fuel costs are calculated on a fixed cost basis. Meaning the cost of roads, trucks, and mining equipment is not factored into the price of each piece of coal, only the marginal cost of producing each ton of coal. For solar, hydrogen fuel cells, and wind energy systems, the cost to construct the system is factored into the total cost while the marginal cost of producing electric is virtually free. We need a framework to better measure the economics of alternative energy. The impact of carbon on our climate and global warming are clearly not measured in the costs of hydrocarbon fuels nor is the cost of protecting our access to oil such the cost the Iraq War.

Despite the carbon issues surrounding coal, (coal has higher carbon-to-hydrogen ratio in comparison to oil or gas) coal is more abundant and therefore is cheaper than oil. As electric utilities in 24 states embrace alternative energies through such programs as Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), perhaps the benefits of alternative energies will begin to combat the negative economics of hydrocarbon fuels.