Yours truly spoke recently with Bill Lindeke on the streets.mn podcast about Minneapolis sustainability initiatives (my day job). We had an interesting discussion about measuring sustainability, greenwashing, and my solar tinkering.
Our region certainly can’t address this issue alone, but we have a responsibility to do our part. The science also says we can’t wait another ten years to start addressing the problem. However, as this plan is currently written, the specifics on climate response are too ambiguous, and risk being watered down during implementation.The regional plan is one of the state’s most significant pieces of land use and transportation policy. By fully embracing state goals and calling for strong response, this could be a document that makes Minnesota a national leader in climate change response.
Old news, but still worth posting. In October, Xcel Energy filed a report with the Public Utilities Commission defending the cost overruns of upgrading the nuclear power plant in Monticello. Via the Star Tribune:
Xcel filed the report in response to the state Public Utilities Commission’s pledge in August to investigate the Monticello investment. The company said that even with the cost overruns, the project benefits customers — saving an estimated $174 million through the remaining 16 years of its license.
Yet that cost-benefit number relies on a “social cost” comparison between keeping the nuclear plant, which emits no greenhouse gases, vs. generating electricity from a plant that does emit them. State law says utility regulators should consider the cost of greenhouse gas emissions, though they’re not currently regulated. Without carbon-emissions savings, the Monticello upgrade would be a losing proposition, costing customers $303 million extra over its life, according to Xcel’s filing.
In interviews, Xcel executives defended the investment, saying they would make the same decision today, even though the utility world has changed since 2008, when the project began. Natural gas, now a favored fuel for power plants, is low-priced thanks to the fracking boom. And electricity demand has lagged since the recession, dampening the need for new plants.
“If we didn’t have our nuclear plants, we would be taking a big step backward in terms of our CO2 accomplishments,” said Laura McCarten, an Xcel regional vice president.
If you dig into the dockets (CI-13-754), you can find that Xcel’s modeling assumptions include a price on carbon of $21.50 per metric ton starting in 2017.
Regardless of your feelings about nuclear power, a utility stating that the externalities of carbon should be priced when making energy planning/financing decisions is significant. The use of a ‘social cost of carbon’ (SCC) metric at the federal level has (not shockingly) been the point of some contention. The Office of Management and Budget’s SCC is $35/mt in 2015 versus Xcel’s $21 in 2017.
Theoretically, we should start to see this figure or something similar used in all future energy planning decisions (Sherco, cough, cough) in Minnesota. Unless of course, Xcel was only being selective in order to justify recovering this very large expense (and spare the shareholders).
It would be an interesting exercise to apply this Minnesota SCC to land use and transportation infrastructure and planning decisions.
Frankly, we cannot afford to waste more time in a state of denial, saying that maybe this time our national leaders will wake up and take the problem seriously. We need to look for leadership and solutions elsewhere.
More importantly, we need to match our climate solutions to situations where leadership is still effective. We need to find targeted, strategic opportunities to reduce emissions, matching solutions to effective leadership.
But just where are those targeted opportunities?
In the search for effective climate solutions, we need to look for what I call “planet levers”: Places where relatively focused efforts, targeted the right way, can translate into big outcomes. Just like a real lever, the trick is to apply the right amount of force in just the right place, with little opposition.
In the search for planet levers to address climate change, we should look for ways to significantly cut emissions that don’t require grand policy solutions, such as carbon taxes or global cap-and-trade schemes, or the approval of the U.S. Congress or the United Nations. We need practical solutions to substantially cut emissions that work with a handful of nimble actors — including a few key nations, states, cities and companies — to get started.
Focusing on cities presents a particularly good set of levers to address climate change. Cities represent a nexus point of critical infrastructure — for electricity, communications, heating and cooling, and transportation — that are already in desperate need of improvement, and shifting them toward low-carbon “climate smart” technologies is a natural progression. Done right, most of these investments would improve the health, economic vitality, efficiency and livability of cities. Most important, most cities largely avoid the partisan gridlock of our national (and some state) governments, making them an excellent place for making progress.
I agree with Jon that cities are a good place to focus, not only because they have “functioning governments” that aren’t deadlocked, but because they have some key policy levers that can be pulled without a great deal of opposition, without getting a huge number of actors involved (creating potential for gridlock or slow movement), and that could have significant emissions impacts in a short time period.
Here are some of the local climate levers I think we can lean on locally, mostly at the city level.
Community choice aggregation (CCA)
The deregulation of electric utility markets is usually associated with some bad outcomes. However, it can have positive benefits as well. Since July of this year, over 58,000 residents and over 7,000 small business customers in Cleveland have received a 21% savings on their electricity bill AND received electricity from 100% green sources (50% wind, 50% hydro) through the Cleveland Municipal Aggregation Program.
This type of program is made possible by the fact that in deregulated electricity markets, cities can act as bulk purchasers for all or many of their community’s electrical customers. This large buying power allows cities to negotiate good terms – like low rates and high renewable percentages. These programs also don’t require the dismantling or purchasing of local investor-owned utilities. Six states allow CCAs, and to date eight cities have used this authority to secure cleaner, more affordable power for their residents. Most allow customers to opt-out and stay with their existing utility if they choose.
A program that requires electric customers to basically do nothing and could reduce the city’s greenhouse gas footprint 3% seems like a pretty good lever.
Note: state legislation is required to make CCA a reality.
Community solar (solar gardens)
Most people in Minnesota (some say only a third) have a roof that is good for collecting solar energy. Shading, orientation, structural integrity, and ownership structure are just a few of the potential barriers to putting solar on roofs. Matching the demand for solar with the supply of best locations, developed at a large scale for efficiencies, is something community solar or solar gardens can do. These programs could be a powerful climate lever. According to Midwest Energy News:
The idea is to let customers who can’t or don’t want to install solar panels on their own rooftop instead buy individual panels in a nearby solar development. The electricity generated by a customer’s panels is credited to their utility bill as if they were installed on their home or business.
New legislation makes this possible in Minnesota. In Colorado, where the program has been in place since 2012, 9 megawatts of solar was sold out in 30 minutes. That’s roughly the equivalent of 3,000 single family home-sized systems. Time will tell if this demand by project developers translates into strong demand by consumers.
Solar gardens generally require state policy change (except in the case of a municipal or cooperative utility), but don’t require thousands of people making individual installation decisions, hiring contractors, finding financing, etc. A smaller number of experienced installers can do big projects with (theoretically) lower costs, supported by community interest. Customers can buy-in to solar projects at whatever level they choose (usually bound by a minimum and maximum) but can skip all the installation headaches.
Capturing waste heat from the sewer
This one is my favorite. There is a large supply of wasted heat flowing directly beneath our feet all day because we’ve literally flushed it down the drain. One estimate says we’re flushing away 350 billion kWh of energy each year. That’s more than 35 Minneapolis’ worth of energy every year.
Sewer waste heat recovery systems, or “sewer thermal”, work just like ground-source heat pumps to pre-condition air or water before they are used for heating and cooling (don’t worry, no sewer water or gas gets into your air conditioner). In the Olympic Village neighborhood of Vancouver, sewer waste heat provides 70% of the annual energy demand of a district heating system (natural gas provides the rest). National Geographic has a good overview of the growing attention being paid to sewer thermal.
All major cities have large sewer mains collocated with the highest density development. Tapping this waste heat resource would require digging up those pipes, but it can be done much more easily in conjunction with large new redevelopment projects. And generally, there are few actors: wastewater utilities control the pipes, cities control the right of way.
Making energy use transparent
According to the EPA, the commercial and residential sectors were responsible for 40% of US greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels (which is itself responsible for 79 percent of emissions) in 2011. And in most major cities, it’s the large buildings (usually commercial buildings) that are associated with half or more of the energy consumption and associated greenhouse gas emissions. Making these buildings more energy efficient could be a significant climate lever, but that requires knowing how they are performing now and motivating action from their owners and managers.
Nine cities in the US (and many more internationally) are addressing building energy use by making energy usage information more transparent. Building rating and disclosure policies (typically enacted by cities) require large buildings to use widely adopted benchmarking tools to measure their energy performance, and generally require them to disclose this information, along with a score, to the public.
In New York City, one million residents can now see how much energy and water their apartment buildings consumed. In total, over 2 billion square feet of real estate in New York City is now benchmarking building energy and water performance each year. This information isn’t just for tenants, building owners and managers, real estate professionals, and energy service providers can all use this information to improve the performance of the building stock. In 2012, in their first report on benchmarked buildings, New York City estimated that:
If all comparatively inefficient large commercial buildings were brought up to the median energy use intensity in their category, New York City consumers could reduce energy consumption in large buildings by roughly 18% and GHG emissions by 20%. If all large buildings could improve to the 75th percentile, the theoretical savings potential grows to roughly 31% for energy and 33% for GHG emissions. Since large buildings are responsible for 45% of all citywide carbon emissions, this translates into a citywide GHG emissions reduction of 9% and 15% respectively. Much of this improvement could be achieved very cost-effectively through improved operations and maintenance.
An EPA study also showed that buildings doing benchmarking reduce their energy usage. An analysis of 35,000 large buildings over three years showed that these buildings showed a 7 percent average energy savings. Many of these policies are very new (NYC has only reported results for two years), so time will tell how increased public scrutiny of energy performance influences energy use. But ask any building professional, and they will tell you that the first step to improving efficiency is measuring what is currently being used.
Streetlights typically account for a significant portion of the electricity used by a city government enterprise. For Minneapolis, its 31 percent. Navigant says up to 40% can be typical. Water treatment (for drinking) and wastewater treatment are two other major sources of energy use for cities or regional government entities.
Streetlight retrofits can often be done by a city itself, if they own the lights, or by the utility, which is also sometimes the owner. Retrofits can be quick (a few years), and the paybacks, both in greenhouse gas emissions and cost, can be significant.
Los Angeles recently completed the world’s largest swap-out, replacing 140,000 lights. Los Angeles estimates it will save $7 million in energy costs and $2.5 million in avoided maintenance costs (LEDs can last as long as 20 years, versus the standard lights 6). The project will be paid off in seven years. New York City, Las Vegas, Austin Texas, San Antonio, and Eden Prairie, Minnesota are all switching. For cities in the metro that don’t own their own lights, Xcel Energy is testing 500 LED lights in West Saint Paul, and could set a new rate for cities once the test is complete. Initial results are showing energy use is cut in half, while the quality of the light has improved.
These are some examples of “levers” I think can be pulled relatively quickly, and without a great deal of political wrangling. And maybe more importantly, they can be done at the local level, usually by cities. Cities are demonstrating they can and will move on climate, breaking what Jon calls the “cycle of climate inaction”.
There may be other strategies which are essential to addressing climate change, but which require engaging many more stakeholders and/or take significantly more time (an example might be residential building energy retrofits). These strategies may be just as critical, often because they may address issues besides energy and climate – like environmental equity. But if we want to work on a timetable that’s anything close to what they experts call for, we should identify and prioritize these short timeframe, high-impact levers we can pull at home.
My back yard solar farm has doubled in size to a massive 200 watts!
If you remember from the last post, the wooden frame was half empty (who built it like that?), and was feeling really lopsided without another panel. The frame is now full (Amazon is a marvel of the modern age), so any further expansion will have to happen on the roof or elsewhere.
Under optimal conditions I think this will produce 480 watt-hours per day. For reference, that’s about 60 percent of the power needed to run our chest freezer. These panels are connected in parallel, meaning the voltage (12) is the same, but the amperage is doubled (to about 10 amps). I ordered a cheap ammeter, which I’m excited to hook up so I can see real time results.
The last few weeks have been very cloudy, so I think output has been down. The next week doesn’t look that great either. When you’re a solar farmer, you start caring about the weather a lot more.
After adding some additional wiring, I now have access to a solar-powered power strip in the living room, rather than just having access in the basement where I could run an extension cord from the inverter. Now I’m regularly running some lights and the stereo from the battery. The cable modem and router are small, consistent loads, so I may move those downstairs to become battery-powered. I’ve become somewhat obsessed about matching load to the production, since I don’t want to “waste” any electricity produced (and also don’t want to run my battery below 50%).
Stay tuned for another update when the ammeter arrives.
Over at streets.mn, I detail some of my first impressions of one of Minneapolis’ newest car-sharing options, Car2Go.
According to MPR, by 2014 there will be over 400 vehicles available to car-sharing customers.
The bulk of these will be in the fleet of Car2Go, which operates on a different business model than the rest, offerring “point to point” service. Walk to a car anywhere in Minneapolis, drive where you want to go, then park it at any curb space in Minneapolis (expect rush hour zones). Other companies require that you return their cars to a specified location at a specified time. The trade-off is that their rates are generally cheaper.
When I started tinkering with off-grid solar one of the first questions I asked myself was “how long is it going to take to charge this battery?” Or, similarly, “how much power will I produce in a day”? Initially, the answer seemed easy: I’ve got a 100-watt panel, Minnesota gets about 4 hours of peak sun on average per day, so I’ll get 400 watt hours per day! A 960 watt hour battery should be charged in two and a half days!
Wrong. Way off. Maybe more like 250 watt hours per day, and more like four days to fully charged.
I realized this quickly when attempting to charge a fully depleted battery. In reality, it took into the fourth day for the charge controller to switch to battery maintenance mode (showing it was completely full).
Under perfect operating conditions and when grid-tied, you may actually get close to that nameplate 100 watts. However, when your system is connected to a battery the voltage drops. Many charge controllers (except for the really good expensive ones) will match the voltage of the panel to that of the battery to facilitate charging, which is almost always a lower voltage than the panels potential peak. The rest of that potential is wasted. So while my panel will produce 5.29 amps at 18.9 volts under optimum conditions (5.29 amps x 18.9 volts = 100 watts), when connected to my battery, it will probably only produce 5.29 amps at between 11 and 13 amps (5.29 amps x 12 volts = 63 watts).
Panels are built this way on purpose to make sure power can continue to flow to the battery even during overcast conditions when voltage may drop a little (gotta make sure that water flows downhill!). Grid-tied panels don’t have this problem, since the grid can usually accommodate your voltage, and in a grid-tied system you’ll probably opt for one of the fancier MPPT controllers (see link above).
So, in summary, I’m probably getting 65 – 70% of my nameplate wattage (by design), and a realistic estimate for charging a fully-depleted 80 amp-hour battery from my 100 watt panel is 3.5 – 4 days.
Another takeaway for this amateur: it’s about amps, not watts. The websites where you shop for panels always have the watts in large font, but the small print tells you the optimum operating current, or amps. This number times hours of sun gives a much better estimate of the output (5.29 amps x 4 hours = 21 amp hours per day) for a battery-tied system.
The battery was totally dead this morning (11.4 volts) after about 16 hours powering the freezer. The charge controller indicated the panel was charging the battery for about 4-5 of those hours, but it was extremely cloudy. I turned off the inverter and reconnected the freezer to grid power (it’s nice to have a backup to the backup!) After charging all day today, the battery is up to about 60%. I hope I didn’t do any permanent damage to the battery.
My estimate of the charge time was pretty close, but my estimate of running time for the freezer was pretty far off. I don’t think I calculated any loses from the inverter, which the internet tells me can be 15% or more. It was also a hot day, hotter than when I measured my freezers usage initially, which could have had an impact. Next time I’ll definitely be measuring the total watt hours used (I forgot to hook up the meter) so I can try to estimate what was lost to the inverter.
One more day of charging before I do any more experimenting.
Being carbon-conscious, naturally inclined to tinker, and seeing the falling costs for components, I was curious to know whether I could put together a small solar PV system on my own. Having experienced a few blackouts this summer and expecting more in the future, I was also curious about providing a small amount of backup power for essential items. Here’s the story of my first foray into off-grid renewables.
This post at Do The Math (an excellent blog you should read regularly) in which Tom Murphy describes his small, off-grid system really got me started on the whole thing. I’m not a physics professor, but after reading it and doing some additional google searching, it seemed easy enough for a lay-person armed with a small amount of reading. A valuable resource (also provided by Tom’s blog) is the Solar Living Sourcebook, available at your local library, which provides all the basics on what solar PV is, how it works, important safety tips, and options for setup. I also learned a few things from various youtube videos and generally google searching.
The system I put together is 12 volts, which seems very common for small, off-grid installations. It’s basically only six things: a solar panel, a charge controller, a battery, an inverter, and assorted wires and fuses. The solar panel provides the electrons, the charge controller controls how those electrons flow to the battery (and makes sure it doesn’t overcharge), the battery stores electrons, and the inverter turns the battery’s 12 volt DC power into 110 volt AC power so it can be used with regular household electronics. The wires and fuses connect things together and provide safety.
You can now purchase relatively affordable panels from Amazon or Home Depot in many wattages and sizes. I chose a 100 watt panel that seemed to receive good reviews and a website that suggested that the company might be around for a while.
The other pieces of the system (inverter and charge controller especially) come in a huge range of prices. After some reading, I decided that it might be better to spend a little more on a charge controller, as many people had complaints about cheap versions, and keeping your battery well-maintained is important (the function the charge controller plays). I purchased a 30 amp controller from Morningstar, which I think could power up to
300 400 watts of panels if I expand the system in the future. The battery is rated at 80 amp hours, and is sealed lead acid. I purchased it from a local battery store, and its a discount version.
So what can this thing power you ask? That’s a function of how much the panel produces, how much the battery stores, and how much amperage I can draw at one time from the battery and inverter.
According to some assumptions I pulled from NREL’s PVWatts tool, the panel might generate 400 watt hours per day (100 watts X 4 hours equivalent of 100% production) in the peak season and maybe 210 in the low season (November), although I’ve seen higher numbers in other places. The battery is large enough to store all that daily production and more (80 amp hours X 12 volts = 960 watt hours). In fact, it would probably take
one and a half to two two and a half days of sun to fully charge the battery.
Even in the winter, the daily production of the panel would probably be enough to power a few lights (the LED variety), an efficient laptop, a fan, and a small TV for a few hours. It won’t run a hotplate, anything but the smallest air conditioner, a heater, or a refrigerator, at least not continuously. The battery and the inverter could probably handle it (one of these things), but the panel wouldn’t be able to keep up. As far as a back-up power source, this set up would power my refrigerator for about
12 8 hours, and our 8.8 cubic foot chest freezer for about 24 16 hours. That’s assuming a fully charged battery, the panel couldn’t keep up with the draw from those appliances for more than a day. These are just my estimates, I don’t have any real world results yet, but will report back soon. Right now I’ve got just the chest freezer plugged into the inverter and I’m going to time how long until I get the low battery warning.
Things I’ve learned so far:
- It’s all the other stuff that costs money. At this stage, the panel itself only accounts for 20% of the cost. If I added
twothree more panels (which would probably max out the charge controller) to economize, the panels would still only be 40%51% of the cost.
- I need scale to “save” money. Right now, my costs per watt are about 76% higher than what I have been quoted to put a grid-tied, full size system on my roof. If I maxed out the charge controller with two more panels and got another battery, I could bring my costs in line with the pros (again, on a per watt basis). Whether this would continue to scale up I kind of doubt, since batteries get expensive and I would get into more serious electrical work pretty quickly.
- I need another battery (or two) for large stuff. High amperage appliances, like a vaccuum, seem to be within the wattage range of the inverter, but my battery is only 80 Ah. The internet tells me I should only run things that are 10-12% in amps of that capacity to avoid shortening the batteries life, and indeed I got a low battery warning when trying to run the shopvac.
- You should think hard about where to locate a panel before you embark on this kind of project. I’m still squeamish about getting into roofing for fear I will cause a leak, and others in my household disagree about the aesthetics of a home-built wooden frame. My goal in the long run is to get this on a roof somewhere.
- In the future, our homes should probably run direct current (DC) rather than alternating current (AC).
- Solar panels aren’t just for tree-huggers. If you’ve ever searched youtube for videos about solar back-up systems, you’ll be a lot less surprised about news items like the Atlanta Tea Party teaming with the Sierra Club to promote more solar. Many of the instructional videos I watched were clearly made by folks of the conservative persuasion who were into solar because they feared the grid would go down or they weren’t comfortable being beholden to utilities/the government. Maybe there is more common ground here than we thought.