Addressing energy drivers: g gyEconomic perspective for
l h l iclean technologies
Dr. Eric BibeauDr. Eric BibeauMechanical & Manufacturing Engineering DeptMechanical & Manufacturing Engineering Dept
Manitoba Hydro/NSERC Alternative Energy Chair Manitoba Hydro/NSERC Alternative Energy Chair
Fueling the Future: International Business Opportunities in Energy
2008 Mellem Business Symposium, Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Opportunities in Energy
Economic Perspective forEconomic Perspective forClean TechnologiesClean Technologies
Drivers Not easyDrivers Not easy being green
What is “Clean Technologies”g–Ex: is using more fossil fuels for
“greening” a robust business model to fuel the futuremodel to fuel the future
Energy DriversEnergy DriversgygyPeak oilPeak oilEnvironmental emissionsEnvironmental emissionsGHGGHG Global warmingGlobal warmingSustainabilitySustainabilityDependable supplyDependable supply
Clean TechnologiesClean TechnologiesggWhich drivers to target?– GHG reduction versus Sustainability
Cl t h l i f il– Clean technologies versus more fossil
Where is economic value proposition?Where is economic value proposition?How to compare options?How to compare options?– Focus on best long term value for society– Use fossil to address drivers and control public
perspective (e.g: Clean Coal)
My definition of My definition of Clean TechnologiesClean Technologies
Increase the renewable energy ratio RER of a closed systemRER of a closed system– RE
RE– PE– Closed system
RERER=Closed systemPE
RER
Increasing RERN t i ti– Not economic perspective on energy
Gasoline 12.6%
Diesel 8.94% Petroeum Gases 0.483%
P t l C k 1 27%
Kerosene and Stove Oil 0.127% CanadaNGL's 4.11%
Still Gas 2.78%
Light Fuel Oil 1.57%
Petroleum Coke 1.27%
PEAviation Fuel 2.29%
Heavy Fuel Oil 2.18%
Coal 1.72%
Non-Renewable Fuel
N t l G 28 2%
Non-Renewables
Natural Gas 28.2%
Coal 9.99%Renewables Non-Rew.
Elec. 11.33 EJNatural Gas 3.07%
Renewable Electricity
Rew.Fuel
Nuclear 2.76%
Biomass-P&P 4.51%Hydro 10.5%
Wind and Tidal 0.235%Biomass 0.221%
Heavy Fuel Oil 1.13%
Petroleum Coke 0.300%Diesel 0.0488%Light Fuel Oil 0.00413%
Biomass-Non-P&P 0.936%Biofuels 0.0476%
Renewable Secondary Electricity 1.88% Geothermal
0.0295%Renewable Secondary Electricity
0.489%Diesel 0.0205%Light Fuel Oil 0.00174%
Other 0.108%
Biomass-P&P 0.0928%
Biomass 6.58% Coal 4.19%Nuclear 3.42%
Natural Gas 1.29%Heavy Fuel Oil 0.476%
Petroleum Coke 0.126%Diesel 0.0205%
Non-Rew. Sec. Elec. 0.332%
Heavy Fuel Oil 0.0324%
Hydro 13.7%
Wind and Tidal 0.307%
Heat ElectricityCanadaMotor Gasoline 16.5%
Natural Gas 1.17%Renewables
Electricity
Chemical
SE
Coke 1.74%
Diesel 1.51%
Non-RenewablesTrasportation
Chemical
8.644 EJDiesel Fuel Oil 10.1%
Light Fuel Oil 2.05%
Heavy Fuel Oil 1.78%
Non-Rew. Sec. Elec. 0.0165%Kerosene and Stoe Oil 0.167%
Heat
Aviation Fuel 3.00%
Natural Gas (Pipelines) 2.31%
Natural Gas 22.7%Heavy Fuel Oil 0 781%
Propane 0.119%
Non-Rew.Sec. Elec. 1.28%
Propane 1.13%
Heavy Fuel Oil 0.781%
Simplification of Course of ActionSimplification of Course of Actionpp
Address all drivers at onceIncreasing the renewable energy ratio
RE– 3 levers (R E D) PE
RERER =
R: Add more RenewablesE I ll Effi iE: Increase overall EfficiencyD: Reduce energy DemandD: Reduce energy Demand
– Levers Relative and Independent
Canada’s RER PerformanceCanada’s RER Performance0.160
0.180
0 120
0.140
0.100
0.120
We are willing to use public
0.060
0.080 and private funds to support clean technologies that
0.020
0.040
greduces the RER
0.000
Energy SourcesPlanetFusion
SunRenewable
BiomassPhotosynthesis
RenewableNon‐Renewable
Fission
Renewable
able
Climate
PlanetMotion
Climate
Fossil Fuels Geothermal
Non
‐Ren
ewa
Ocean Thermal
Climate
Wind HydroWaves
Tidal
Radiation
Heat NuclearElectricityChemical
R
End MechanicalEnergy Forms
Energy
User
Fuels Latent Electro
Mechanical work
EnergyStorage
Fuelsliq/gas/solid
Latent sensible
Solid FuelElectrochemical
Mechanical
Renewable Energy Vectors Electricity Hot waterRenewable Energy Vectors Electricity Hot water
Keeping perspectiveKeeping perspectiveWorld consumes 17 TWR bl E fRenewable Energy form – Sun = 7000 timesSun 7000 times– Tides = 0.3 times – Earth = 190 times
RERRER1 kW R = 1 kW E = 1 kW D– 1 kW R = 1 kW E = 1 kW D
Energy use increasinggy g– Population and Per capita
Renewable Sources to Increase RER Renewable Sources to Increase RER World demand = 17 TWWorld demand = 17 TWWorld demand = 17 TWWorld demand = 17 TW
Solar – 78,000 TW radiation
39 000 TW t– 39,000 TW water evaporation
– 3,600 TW wind & waves– 90 TW Photosynthesis
Renewable Sources to Increase RER Renewable Sources to Increase RER World demand = 17 TWWorld demand = 17 TWWorld demand = 17 TWWorld demand = 17 TW
Tides – 3 TW Tides caused by moon
Nuclear energy from earth – 32 TW rock conduction– 0.3 TW volcanoes and hot springsp g
Practical potential of REPractical potential of REPractical potential of REPractical potential of REHydro Power 0.9 TWHydro Power 0.9 TW– can find additional forms
Wind 2 TW – 4% utilization of ≥ class 3 land area)4% utilization of ≥ class 3 land area)
Geothermal unknown – needs drilling technology breakthrough
Waves and tides 1 5 TWWaves and tides 1 - 5 TW– Technology in development
Practical potential of REPractical potential of REPractical potential of REPractical potential of RE
Solar heat all heat/power– Marginal economicsMarginal economics
Solar PV all power – High cost issues
Biomass 3 TWBiomass 3 TW – 5% of earth surface– Exclude algae
Fossil: Business as usual?Fossil: Business as usual?(Money Time Talent Resources)(Money Time Talent Resources)(Money, Time, Talent, Resources)(Money, Time, Talent, Resources)
NPC Global Oil Report (next 25 years)• Accumulating risks; Workforce lacking• CO2 policies will change energy mix, increase cost and reduce
demand
Which is a better Which is a better economic prospecteconomic prospect
Impact on RER (3 levers R E D)CCS CHP–CCS or CHPHydrogen & fuel cells or PHEV–Hydrogen & fuel cells or PHEV
–Biofuels or CHP
What gets funded (public/private)g (p p )–Hydrogen, CCS, Biofuels
CCS versus CHP in CanadaCCS versus CHP in Canada
9.98 EJ
Non-Renewable Resources
0.175
Renewable Ratio
9.47 EJ0.164
0.1578.75 EJ
Current Energy Use Coal CCS Coal Cogeneration (CHP)
Coal Consumption Primary Conversion Efficiency
Current Energy Use Coal CCS Coal Cogeneration (CHP)
1.33 EJ
1.84 EJ
1.33 EJ
81.2%
75.9%
72.7%
Current Energy Use Coal CCS Coal Cogeneration (CHP) Current Energy Use Coal CCS Coal Cogeneration
(CHP)
My “Clean Technologies” R&D My “Clean Technologies” R&D Areas to Increase RERAreas to Increase RER
PETTM T h l (R E D)PETTM Technology (R E D)Electric mobility via the PHEV–Electric mobility via the PHEV pathway
Entropic Cycle (R)–distributed low-cost bioenergy CHP
Kinetic Turbines (R)f f–Extracting energy from flowing water
1. PET™1. PET™PlugPlug--in Electric Transporter (in Electric Transporter (R, E, DR, E, D))
PHEV strong value proposition for mobilityPHEV strong value proposition for mobility– favors the development of renewables– allow most effective use of electricity for mobility– manages vehicle weight for extended rangemanages vehicle weight for extended range
PET– Platform technology to allow 900 million vehicles
and the 600 projected additional vehiclesp jaccess benefits of hybridizationaccess benefits of grid electricity for mobilityaccess benefits of grid electricity for mobility
PlugPlug--in Electric Transporter Design in Electric Transporter Design gg p gp gProvides opportunity for users – buy smaller vehicles to tow occasional loads
Key aspects of PETKey aspects of PET– limited changes to the vehicle
After market product simple to install
PHEV and the PHEV and the RERRERWhy new PHEV loads need to come from
blnew renewables– Capital cost for new renewables << storage costCap ta cost o e e e ab es sto age cost– To increase RER: new R and increase in E
C d ’ h d l d d f– Canada’s hydro power already accounted for– For Manitoba, power taken from exports for PHEV p p
is replaced by mostly coalICE 30%ICE 30%Coal plant 40%
Power Export Assumed MH Current EmissionGHG Export Factor
Displacements Profile (%) (kg CO2/kWhr)North Dakota 10 1.02Mi t 80 0 69Minnesota 80 0.69Saskatchewan 5 0.83Ontario 5 0.24
0.71Total
2. Entropic Cycle (2. Entropic Cycle (RR) ) p y (p y ( ))Small scale (50 to 5,000 kWe)– thermal energy conversion – renewable fuels and waste heatrenewable fuels and waste heat
Combined heat and power (CHP)l t i it d 90oC h t t– electricity and 90oC hot water
Closed, single-loop, fluid mixture– temperature change during boiling– internal recuperation of latent heatp
Steam operators not requiredD l d f l t di t ib t dDeveloped for low cost distributed power
Entropic Cycle and Entropic Cycle and RERRERp yp yDerive 70% of the LHV of the biomass residuesLimits transportation fuel as used locallyReplacesReplaces– fossil fuel used for heat with renewable energy
fossil base electricity with renewable energy– fossil base electricity with renewable energy
Can be best strategy for communities to cost ff ti l i th i REReffectively increase their RER
No steam operators and added safety
Small-scale SteamCONVERSION EFFICIENCY
HEA T
10%
EL
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Organic Rankine Cycle
Entropic Cycle
Air Turbine
HEA TELEC
HEA TELEC T
HEA TEL
ApplicationsApplicationsApplicationsApplicationsHeat recovery y– gas turbines, diesel compressors, flare
C t i d t i l t h tCapture industrial waste process heat – aluminum, glass, steel plants, g , p
Sawmills can become energy integrated– remanufacturing plants & construction
District CHP displacesDistrict CHP displaces – diesel generation; natural gas; propane– agricultural and remote communities
3. Kinetic Turbines (3. Kinetic Turbines (RR))3. Kinetic Turbines (3. Kinetic Turbines (RR))Important undeveloped hydro resourcesImportant undeveloped hydro resourcesLimited civil structuresFast deploymentL k f il bl f d tLack of available performance dataRemote sites to displace dieselRemote sites to displace dieselMultiple units to increase capaicty
InIn--Situ River TestingSitu River TestingInIn--Situ River TestingSitu River TestingQuantify costsy• deployment• operational• operational• maintenance
Study effect of ice and cold weatherTest if suitable for river applicationsTest if suitable for river applications
Design NeedsDesign NeedsDesign Needs Design Needs Low cost anchorSimple to deploy/retrieveAdd i t l f tAddress environmental factors• ice break up and active/passive frazzle icep p• logs and debris• cold temperatures (safety and loads)• cold temperatures (safety and loads)
AcknowledgementAcknowledgementNSERC/Manitoba Hydro Chair in
AcknowledgementAcknowledgementy
Alternative Energy
Presentations on alternative energyPresentations on alternative energyhttp://www.umanitoba.ca/engineering/mech_and_ind/prof/bibeau/
Top Related