Summer 2013 Trip

The Denmark Energy Study Tour is happening again from May 10 to 19, 2013! Find out more about this trip on USM Office of International Program website or Professor Gramlich’s website.

We look forward to hearing from you!

Photos

I’ll be honest, when we went to DRU in Riso I was blown away. The discussion on Biomass, specifically Bioethanol was part of what blew me away. The idea of extracting nutrients and biogas from animal manure is pure sustainability. 90% of the energy in the biogas is extracted and useable to produce both heat and power and the nutrients are used as fertilizer. The next step for us, however, is to get this idea to travel distances. Right now this sustainable process only work close to the Biomass facilities as the cost to transport outweighs the benefit from the process. This is definitely something we can work on.

Bioethanol was what change my view on so many things. I was blown away be the uses of feedstock and its huge sustainability potential. I was disgusted by the graph he showed us, A Flow-Chart for Products from Petroleum-based Feedstocks.

Way to many items are made from non-renewable resources, Petroleum and Natural gas. Textiles, Safe Food Supply, Transportation, Housing, Recreation, Communications, and Health and Hygiene. Besides food we eat, I don’t see anything missing from this list from our daily lives. Luckily he showed us this next graph. Analogous Model of a Bio-based Product Flow-chart for Biomass Feedstocks.

I was still disgusted, why are we using Petroleum when we can be using biomass feedstocks. I am hopeful however since this concept is in strong development. I think the best thing we can do is educate, educate about the possibilities of bio-based products over petroleum based products.

An American in Denmark (Bonnie’s blog)

Hey everyone, check out my blog at http://wp.me/2zIq0.

Nicole Boucher’s blog entries

Nicole Boucher’s blog entries (nbee1)

Why is there no national law in the USA to mandate recycling?

States like California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, and Vermont have “passed laws that establish deposits or refund values on beverage containers while other jurisdictions rely on recycling goals or landfill bans of recyclable materials.” But I ask why there is no national law that mandates recycling.

Unfortunately, some believe that “recycling still costs more than landfilling in most locales.” On the flip side, many cities have found ways to make recycling cost-effective by both reducing the frequency of curbside pickups, automating sorting and processing, and finding larger, more lucrative markets for the recyclables; as a result, dozens of U.S. cities are “diverting upwards of 30% of their solid waste streams to recycling.”

So, all is needed is a nation-wide effort to mobilize and implement such solutions; if more communities share ideas and efforts, the system will tend to become more economical, and the world will benefit more.

Sources:
– http://environment.about.com/od/recycling/a/must_recycle.htm
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_in_the_United_States

The greatest roadblock for smart grids is not cost

“The greatest roadblock to developing smart grids in the US is not high up-front investment, good news when 65 million electric vehicles could be on the road by 2025.” Based on a survey of over 500 qualified industry participants, the top-3 issues are aging infrastructure, reliability and environment.

Moreover, according to the Association of Energy Services Professionals (AESP), one of the biggest issues associated with Smart Grids is understanding and accepting their concept. This survey determined that:
– 95% of the respondents said that the consumer does not understand the meaning of the term Smart Grid
– Over 75% of the surveyed respondents said Smart Grid technology can be used to significantly lower electricity consumption and electric bills

So even though we can see opinions vary on this subject, the truth probably lies somewhere in between these and others. And since knowledge has been known to be the key to most solutions, we should begin to use education to help educate the public.

Sources:
– http://energy.aol.com/2012/06/04/survey-surprises-smart-grid-impediments-electric-vehicle-roadb/#page1?icid=apb1
– http://smart-grid.tmcnet.com/topics/smart-grid/articles/218771-ignorance-major-roadblock-smart-grid-implementation-aesp-survey.htm

Ethanol is coming to America

In the beginning of 2012, the US Congress let the tax subsidy for American ethanol and the tariff for imported ethanol expire; such corn-based ethanol tax breaks subsidies have been active since the Energy Tax Act of 1978. And since the U.S. and Brazil, the 1^st and 2nd world’s largest ethanol producers respectively, make up approximately 80% of the ethanol market, it is likely Brazil will return to exporting a significant portion of ethanol to the States.

Although the “EPA regulations rank sugar cane as a more environmentally friendly feedstock than corn, despite the fact that it requires transcontinental shipment — a quirk that may push for more Brazilian imports, Brazil exported a small amount of ethanol to the U.S. last year;” but this amount could increase, given the expected sugar and ethanol prices follow the correct trend. This is because in Brazil, “cane millers” decide on the allocation of how much sugarcane goes to ethanol and how much to sugar production, which is based on expected sugar and ethanol prices and the market demand.

Additionally, due to strong domestic demand for ethanol and increased global sugar prices, sugarcane production got pulled away from the ethanol refineries and into sugar refineries. So obviously this type of problem would need to be overcome, should Brazil need to meet increasing demand from the US and globally.

Moreover, the outlook for 2012/13 seasons in Brazil is hazy since it is not clear if millers will “maximize sugar production, as they have done for the preceding two seasons.” Plus, the Brazilian cane industry is also facing a decline in field productivity, which is considered its “most important short and medium term challenge.”

Still I pose the question: why can’t the Brazilian sugarcane and the US corn ethanol options be an alternative bio-fuel solution against oil dependency?

Sources:
– http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/With-Tariff-Gone-U.S.-and-Brazil-Can-Freely-Trade-Ethanol/
– http://www.farmgateblog.com/article/will-brazilian-ethanol-really-compete-with-us-ethanol
– http://biofuelschat.com/topics/future-ethanol-brazilian-u-s-perspectives

Denmark’s long-term view

We saw such a great variety of speakers in Copenhagen and Roskilde if I had to choose one thing that stood out about almost all of them and really implies that Denmark may very well meet their 2020 and 2050 renewable energy goals, it is their focus on the long term strategy and benefits of decisions they are making today.

Our Solar City Copenhagen Tour took us all over the city to see solar panel installations that enhance or at least do not detract from the beautiful architecture.  There was a 20+ story Crowne Plaza hotel that was covered on all sides with solar panels, apartment buildings that used panels as dressing to improve dull facades, and residential homes as well.  Sometimes these installations have a payback period of seven or more years but the Danish people understand the larger goal of the country and choose to make environmentally conscious investments.

Better Place has an amazing and complete business plan. They intend to build extensive infrastructure to support their electric car service model all over Denmark and eventually other countries in Europe.  The company fully accepts operating in the red for years if necessary with the goal of making the planet a better place.

At DTU Risø we learned that while Denmark has accomplished so much with wind power there are still strides to be made and leading researchers are working with both Vestas and Siemens to try and close the gap as they begin to scale wind turbines to more than twice their size since the earliest turbines were installed.  They are questioning the environmental impact of transport as well as the materials being used for platforms.

Ørestad is another example of long term vision. Founded in 1992, today only one is close to complete and there is still so much more to be built.  Copenhagen continues to support this endeavor and continues to honor its commitment to the endeavor via land grants, metro improvements, etc.

Lastly, Denmark itself is so committed to its long-term renewable energy goal they have created, staffed and help fund a brand to promote their renewable goals, agenda and companies throughout the world, State of Green.

I do not believe we could have gone to a better city anywhere in the world to see so many examples of a common and consistent long-term goal.  It was inspirational and hopefully we can take what we learned and effect some positive change here at home.

This was an amazing trip with a great group of people and I am very glad that I decided to participate.  This was my first trip to Europe and it will be hard to match!

Design Research… what exactly is it?

As I was reviewing the stops we made along our agenda throughout Denmark, one that was leaving me curious and a little bit unsure was our trip to the Danish Center of Design Research.  I had recently heard of design research and felt that is sounded compelling but was unsure that I completely understood what the speakers were trying to impart on us.  Not to mention it was a cool rainy day, we were in a warm dark room watching a video with loud music, and very soft dialogue.  Needless to say it was a little bit hard to follow.

So I have started poking around a little bit to get a better understand of design research, both its purpose and practical application.   I may be the only one in the room who felt unsure of what the goal of the talk was and what our speakers were trying to impart, but just in case I decided I would share what I learned from my own research.

Design research is based on creating products, systems and/or services that meet and respond to people’s needs.   In many different industries and sectors, this is essential to improving people’s lives and to better managing communities.  Many different organizations in the public sector often miss the opportunity to effect profound and lasting change when trying to implement new programs by skipping the step of deliberately engaging the end users or stakeholders in the design of how research will be undertaken. Many of us know this as ‘design of experiments’.  Really it just means that if you have a goal you want to accomplish such as getting people to recycle, instead of collecting a lot of data about people it may be better to engage with those people to understand how to incorporate it into their lives in a way that adds value and meets their needs simultaneously.  By doing this researcher can increase the value of the time spent on the research itself and increase the likelihood of implementation and adoption by an end user.

In my initial searches I decided that design research sounded a lot like market research but with stakeholder involvement from the very earliest stages in helping to layout the approach to the research itself.  So I started trying to find some info on the difference between the two thinking that may be another way to help me see the silver bullet in the difference itself.  I found this great table at the Reboot.org website.

By having the actual subject participate early on and interact with the researchers in the natural environment, researchers have an opportunity to observe unanticipated factors that will impact behaviors, needs and perspectives and include this information as they work to shape the end solutions.

Once I had this background I better understood the example we saw in the video.  And I also think this seems like a much more valid approach to getting the end results needed with early and ongoing stakeholder engagement and more importantly commitment in the study itself.  Ultimately, this is about meeting a need for the end user in order to accomplish larger goals.

Visiting the solar panels around the city was quite interesting, and caused me to want to learn a little more. An interesting article I found talked about India and how the Solar Energy Corporation is planning on setting up pilot power plants in a solar part to try and develop technologies and products which could be relevant for India. They are looking specifically into photo voltaic plants as well. As stated in the article, “there is a possibility of having large solar collectors that would move the sun’s rays to be finally collected into a photovoltaic module. Another technology is having a combination of a tower and photovoltaic mirrors. The mirror would reflect the sunlight on a tower which would beam the rays back to a photovoltaic panel on the ground.” http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/energy/power/solar-energy-corporation-of-india-to-develop-india-centric-technology-and-products/articleshow/14744157.cms This statement reminded me of Bjarke’s presentation on the effective and efficient adoption of photovoltaic’s in Denmark by 2050. He mentioned that the current adoption rate is 2681 installed systems as of December 2011 and that it is all rooftop dispersed energy. To put it into perspective, .01% of the total energy production in Denmark is equal to the energy needed to power 2,754 electric cars each year. The incentives that the consumers are given include exemptions from paying any taxes or fees on energy produced or consumed and tax benefits on energy investments. Also the Danish government is obligated to buy any excess energy produced. Bjarke mentioned that main barriers to this adoption are the size of initial capital investment needed and the financial risk associated; the energy price fluctuation and the complexity of the buying decision process.  One way in which they can help with these barriers is by making pv’s part of a system of enabling technologies to increase their value. I would be interested to find out what other ways these barriers can be overcome.

Bio-based products over Petroleum-based products

I’ll be honest, when we went to DRU in Riso I was blown away. The discussion on Biomass, specifically Bioethanol was part of what blew me away. The idea of extracting nutrients and biogas from animal manure is pure sustainability. 90% of the energy in the biogas is extracted and useable to produce both heat and power and the nutrients are used as fertilizer. The next step for us, however, is to get this idea to travel distances. Right now this sustainable process only work close to the Biomass facilities as the cost to transport outweighs the benefit from the process. This is definitely something we can work on.

Bioethanol was what change my view on so many things. I was blown away be the uses of feedstock and its huge sustainability potential. I was disgusted by the graph he showed us, A Flow-Chart for Products from Petroleum-based Feedstocks.

Way to many items are made from non-renewable resources, Petroleum and Natural gas. Textiles, Safe Food Supply, Transportation, Housing, Recreation, Communications, and Health and Hygiene. Besides food we eat, I don’t see anything missing from this list from our daily lives. Luckily he showed us this next graph. Analogous Model of a Bio-based Product Flow-chart for Biomass Feedstocks.

I was still disgusted, why are we using Petroleum when we can be using biomass feedstocks. I am hopeful however since this concept is in strong development. I think the best thing we can do is educate, educate about the possibilities of bio-based products over petroleum based products.

Starting off Right the first time – Better Place

Visiting Better Place was amazing. They are a start-up doing absolutely everything they can to start off right the first time. They believe they have one chance and one chance only to do this right. And they are correct, in order to get the nation to follow this entirely new concept they have to nail it.  As far as I saw they got it right, they thought of everything. Batteries included, private charge spot, automatic battery switch, nationwide infrastructure, Oscar – the intelligent navigation, they have an iPhone app that lets you communicate with the car, they even went so far as to install plugs on both sides of the car for easy parking.

Looking at what to take away home from Better Place we run into some hurdles. The largest hurdle is the business model, the Better Place model relies on the switching concept which has enormous start-up costs. The amount of capital needed to set up the infrastructure alone is a huge bet on success. This model would be quite difficult to duplicate in the states, so adaptation would mostly likely be needed. Perhaps it starts with cities as commuter cars while the infrastructure slowly expands from there. Another hurdle is the membership concept. It’s a remarkable idea of a simple monthly fee with no need to pay for an initial battery and electricity to charge. However people in the States are possessive individuals, after all “I just bought the car; it’s mine, why do I have to pay a monthly fee? Oh and the electricity stored in my car, it’s mine” We are possessive individuals, we own our stuff and because we need to be self-sufficient we own a lot of stuff. Convincing people that they do not own the battery in their car or the electricity would be difficult.

Better Place absolutely will work for Denmark. However there’s still a lot to do at home. All it’s not lost though, as every concept we saw at Better Place can and should be adapted to a concept that will work for us.

U.S. Energy Creation next 30 years….

In my line of work (Engineering Consultant with focus on Power Generation) we are constantly thinking of ways to position ourselves well with the Utility Companies and private energy producers.  Our U.S. Government and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establish criteria and guidelines (rules if you will) in regards to carbon emissions, this is not news to anyone I am sure.  However, as Utilities try to be as profitable as possible and have a portfolio that works for their business model and meets the guidelines and criteria set forth by the U.S. Government, they seek innovative and cost-effective solutions to produce energy.

Therefore, there are several technologies which will lead the way (when it comes to my line of work) over the next 30 years.

Wind Turbines – Off Shore turbines are the only next step for th United States, almost all the on land areas have been established.

Solar ( photovoltaic – PV) – Many of the best locations for large-scale solar facilities have been established or are under development whether in construction or in design.  Many of these locations are in Arizona, New Mexico, and California.  The next step is for smaller scaled solar installations for homes and businesses.

Natural Gas – Combined Heat and Power (CHP), small gas turbines taking the place of old inefficient small coal boilers.  Many of our nations utilities are beyond their design life cycle.  This means one of three things…  Close the facility, upgrade the facility, or convert the facility to a natural gas facility.  It is likely that many will either be converted or closed.

BioFuels (Biomass) – This area will continue to grow at a slow but steady pace.  Locations of each facility will dictate whether or not it is cost-effective.  It is important to have a sustainable and secure energy supply with minimal harvesting and production costs.  The Northeast and the Northwest will continue to develop Biomass facilities, however they are not economically feasible in other areas of the U.S.

Waste to Energy – The U.S. has relied on Waste to Energy facilities primarily on the East coast for several decades now.  There will be slow but steady growth in this area however with out the development of more efficient processes there will not be a large investment made here during the next 30 years.

Nuclear – I am not involved with any Nuclear projects and Stantec’s position is that they will not be involved with any Nuclear project.  There are a few facilities that are being constructed now.  Many of these were permitted years ago and were never built, due to rising concern for Nuclear facilities and due to rising costs.  I am not aware of any new permits being awarded.

Coal – Bottom line is coal is not going away anytime soon.  It is highly unlikely that we will see any new coal facilities being built-in the United States (unlike in Asia where China and India plan to increase their coal usage by 20-30% in this next 30 years).  There are several companies that are developing clean coal technologies.  The company that I work for (Stantec) has teamed with PowerSpan, a business located in Portsmouth, NH.  They have some cutting edge technology for carbon capture which can be installed on the flue gas cleaning side of any coal-fired boiler.  Here is a website to the pilot facility that I worked on…  http://powerspan.com/technology/eco2-co2-capture/

I realize that talking about fossil fuels may be forbidden during this class, however I like to evaluate situations with a realistic mind-set.  A transition must occur from fossil fuels to renewable energy.  This process will take several years for a country like the U.S. to accomplish.  Therefore developing technologies that will enable us to bridge the gap is an opportunity to make money and provide a better and cleaner environment for us to live in.

Therefore over the next five years (which is far enough of a forecast) it is likely that there will be several more projects where I will be converting existing coal facilities to natural gas and I will also be working on pollution control projects for very large existing coal facilities.  These large facilities are the base load for our nation and will unlikely be taken off-line.

I recommend reading the articles and viewing the videos from the PowerGen conference which is held annually.  This is probably the best location to get an idea for what the plans are for the energy market in the upcoming years.  Our office will be presenting again this year.  Unfortunately I will not be making it this year.

http://www.power-gen.com/index.html

Measuring Sustainable Innovations to Demonstrate Success: A Lesson from a Danish Bridge in Copenhagen

Call it a weakness, an omission, laziness, or errors of assumption, but one of the criticisms I have about the renewable energy industries and the sustainability field, is the lack of communication to the general public about the successes different technologies have. Perhaps they assume that since they successfully launched a technology and sales are increasing, that the “world” knows what they are doing.

In reality, almost no one knows what you are doing unless you take the time to tell them as they are too busy worrying about what it is they are doing.

Communicating successes (and mishaps – I contend there is no such thing as a true failure as every experience is loaded with lessons) are critical in order to increase market share and if the renewable energy industry is to transition from “early adopter” to “mainstream.” In addition to quality and sustainable technological development, clear communication to the public is vital for market-share growth (and preservation).

On our renewable energy tour in Copenhagen, our group was told that innovators in Denmark are realizing that they must reach out to the world to tell others what they are doing. Organizations  like the State of Green, a public-private collaboration that offers an extensive, easy to navigate directory of Danish technological companies, the waste incineration plant Amagerforbrænding, and the below featured electronic sign on a bridge in Copenhagen, are indeed a step in the right direction.

According to our bicycle tour guide, Allan of Cyklistforbundet, this electronic sign was an acknowledgement gift to demonstrate to Copenhagen policy makers that their bicycle-friendly initiatives were making a difference and more people in Copenhagen were riding their bikes. This sign is also a great example of a way to create a Lifestyle Brand, in that since cyclists are measured in real time as they cross the bridge, they see that they are a part of something greater, a movement that fuels itself for greater adoption in the market-place.

Mikael Colville-Andersen writes in Copenhagenzine.com, an online Danish magazine, that ” While we here in Denmark are rather good at creating bicycle friendly infrastructure, we have far less experience with effective marketing of cycling as transport (Mikael Colville-Andersen, October 2011).

Herein, Colville-Andersen confirms that building infrastructure does not ensure adoption.

There is perhaps, no greater master of the art of Innovation Communication as Thomas Edison. Edison wasn’t necessarily the most amazing scientist (as we were taught in school) but Edison understood marketing communication and he also knew how to finish innovative technologies and bring them to mainstream markets.

In the U.S., we consider Edison to be one of the most prolific innovators and yet, his rival-contemporary, Nikola Tesla, who is far more recognized worldwide than in the United States as one of the most brilliant, important innovators in our history, is barely known by Americans and perhaps unknown until David Bowie portrayed Tesla in the movie The Prestige because Tesla didn’t have respect for the idea that communication to the masses about the work he was creating was critical to even support his work.

To follow the expression, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease,” we in the renewable energies field must become masterful Innovation Communicators or we risk losing our capital, market-share, and indeed, better technologies.

A biking infrastructure fascinates me. The concept of using our own energy instead of wasting fossil fuels and other sorts of energy is a concept which everyone should invest. On Tuesday night we took a bicycle tour, lead by Alan, all around Copenhagen. What a beautiful city. The most interesting part to me during this tour was that we were riding during rush hour. This wasn’t the typical rush hour we think of here in America. It was not a rush hour with cars, but with bikes. How can we find a way to implement this infrastructure and way of life here in the United States? A few towns have already implemented a bike culture, like Fort Collins, Colorado and Portland, Oregon, yet a few is not enough. Obviously, with the United States being such a huge country I’m not sure it would ever be realistic, but I’m sure hopeful.

The Danish have realized that if they want to reach their goal of being completely independent of fossil fuels by 2050, they must change their way of living. This includes implementing taxes, the 180% tax, to ensure that there is not much vehicle activity in Denmark, making sure the metros are all within a 10 minute walk, quick and easy access to many buses, and creating their bicycle infrastructure. This way of living has lead to a healthier lifestyle and less vehicles on the road.

One way they helped their bicycle culture grow is by having bicycles get the priority. This means that they get the right away not only to cars, but to pedestrians as well. There were multiple times during this trip that one of our group members almost got mauled by a biker speeding past us. “BIKE LANE!” became the common shout out. This whole biking gets the first priority would be a very hard concept to grasp in the United States, but with practice it will eventually come easily. The bike tour was fantastic, but I wish instead of the metro and bus passes during the trip, I wish we all had bicycles!! Now that is what I call sustainable. : )

The U.S. is already “energy independent” from foreign oil

I thought this article was quite useful to pin-point where the energy problems are in the USA.

The three main points presented by this article are:
– The USA do not have an overall “energy crisis”… they have an oil dependency problem
– Only approximately 1% of U.S. oil consumption is used to generate electricity
– Approximately 72% of U.S. oil consumption is for transportation fuels (primarily cars)

Since only ~1% of our total oil use is for electricity, the U.S. is already “energy independent” from foreign oil for power generation.

However, “for transportation, oil provides ~94% of fuel source requirements, where about 50% comes from foreign oil. Moreover, the majority of oil is used by cars and light trucks, with truck freight hauling and air transportation the other two most significant uses.

So in conclusion, the “Energy Crisis” is really two distinct issues:
1. Oil dependency for transportation
2. Global Warming/Climate Change from the use of fossil fuels

As a result, the boxes aside present proposed solutions, which are around the need to develop both new oil resources in an environmentally conscious way, and alternative sources such as ethanol, alternative uses such as electric cars, and greater energy efficiencies such as increased car mileage. Finally, the USA needs to increase its focus on transportation to tackle both oil dependency and CO2 emissions.

Source:
– http://greenenergy.blogspot.com.br/2011/04/what-exactly-is-americas-energy-problem.html

USA vs. Denmark

During our trip to Denmark, a big question came to mind: what are the main differences between the market economies of Denmark and USA?

So I have tried to look for some comparative analysis to answer these two questions, and although “there is no one best way to organize a country’s political economic institutions in order to achieve competitiveness in today’s global economy”, two material sources provided some answers, which are summarized below.

First, Denmark’s success in the 1990s and early 21^st century were based on a particular set of institutions that facilitated competitiveness in the global economy, of which 3 main ones are: “institutions that coordinate labor markets, vocational training and skill formation, and industrial policy.  The success in the United States was also institutionally based, but in very different ways.”

Next, due to Denmark’s welfare, educational, labor market, and the tax system, “Denmark has had much less income and social inequality than the United States.” Additionally, because there is a very low level of employment protection, “Denmark responds more sensitively to market forces than most when it comes to deciding when to hire and fire, when to shift jobs, etc,” which has been the long before globalization started in the mid-1970s.

“Despite high taxes, a large state budget and welfare state, much economic regulation, and a very open economy,” Denmark is very competitive when compared to other advanced capitalist economies.

In contrast with the USA, Denmark has substantially reduced its reliance on low-wage work by reducing low-paying jobs —8% for Denmark versus 33% in the USA. This was achieved through a complex training program that increases the qualifications of Danish workers, which is funded mostly by high taxes. Additionally, “when a worker loses employment, he or she is required, after a period of six months, to enroll in a state-financed jobs training program, which is customized to both the worker’s skills and aspirations and the condition of the current job market.” Moreover, “if the government sees that there are a lot of openings in a sector, then it will push people toward getting trained in that sector to fill the gap.” Finally, if workers still cannot find a job, the government will often subsidize their pay to encourage businesses to hire them temporarily.

A major reason there are fewer low-wage services jobs in Denmark is because it has focused its economic growth in high-wage industry sectors such as electronics, specialty manufacturing, and health care, which are currently among its largest industries and sustained through high income tax rates of 50-63%, one of the highest rates in the world.

Another difference between Denmark and the USA is the education factor; “it is rare for students to drop out of high school in Denmark.”

In the retail industry, entry-level jobs are often paid low wages that, when compared to other countries, are relatively high and starting around $19 per hour for workers older than 18, wherein the USA, average wage for retail salespersons in the United States is about $12 an hour.

Next, more than 65% of Danish workers belong to a union with collective bargaining agreements covering 80-90% of Danish workers, which contributes to the high wages in the country; in contrast, in the United States only 11.9% of workers belong to unions.

Because of the high wages, high taxes, and high union density, Denmark has seen a positive influence on employment or economic growth, driving unemployment “well below the U.S. levels, and before the recession it had hovered around 4 percent for several years.”

In conclusion, although the USA and Denmark are “very different institutionally, there is no one best way to achieve success in today’s global economy, except perhaps for reducing socioeconomic inequality.”

Sources:
– http://brie.berkeley.edu/conf/DK-USA%20Competitiveness-11.pdf
– http://www.remappingdebate.org/article/high-road-high-wages-denmarks-answer-us-model

Rio+20

Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post concluded that Rio+20’s legacy is that “convincing people it’s not worth holding global summits.” Additionally, Ecuador’s secretary of state summarized the event by saying “what we need is results, not just signing documents.” Finally, Melinda Kimble, the U.N. Foundation’s senior vice president, who as a State Department negotiator helped forge the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on global warming, said that “while we are searching for a new paradigm to advance international cooperation, this meeting is definitely not a model.”

Below are graphs summarizing of the commitments by region and category/investment.

Although I got disappointed that the 5 North American commitments were only about restoring or maintaining natural environments and improving the recycling of materials, I personally believe this event was not all bad news because many examples signify large commitments that, although not as aggressive or “different” as Hilary Clinton would like to see (she said that people should think, “as the late Steve Jobs put it, not just big, but different”), represent that countries are starting to feel the global pressure, and thus embrace green initiatives in their day-to-day thinking. Some of these commitment examples include:
– Maldives: ban damaging fishing practices
– Ecuador: recruit donors to compensate her nation for protecting its Yasuni National Forest rather than extracting the oil beneath it
– Grenada: its transport and electricity sectors will only use clean energy sources by 2030
– Unilever: promised to cut its greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2020 and find sustainable sources of beef, soy and palm oil to prevent the deforestation

Sources:
– http://www.cloudofcommitments.org/
– http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/rio20-earth-summit-results-in-nonbinding-declaration-with-moderate-goals/2012/06/22/gJQA7kpMvV_print.html
– http://www.cloudofcommitments.org/commitments/

Better Place

            Better Place was by far my favorite during our time in Denmark. The idea of having a car run fully on electricity, from solar or wind energy in particular and not gas,   is hopeful. During our transfer from the Better Place we arrived at, to the Better Place we were supposed to be at, we were able to talk to our driver a little in regards to their electric cars. He knew quite a bit about them, especially since he just started working there and was an administrator in a children’s theatre previously. He mentioned the reason that the electric cars are able to accelerate so quickly is because they do not need to build up reps as opposed to a normal car. A lithium iron battery is used and is recyclable, helping to add to their sustainability. Another benefit of the electric cars is that they contain fewer moving parts so it is less expensive for maintenance for non-battery items. Better Place also tries to market the electric car even more by paying for the electricity at the owner’s charge spot, even if it is at their own house. Currently, there are approximately 1,000 electric cars in Denmark, a lot of which belong to Better Place. Once we got to the correct Better Place, we went inside and watched a quick video. We learned that Denmark and Israel are the two main markets for the electric car. Next, we learned a little more about them and even test drove one. They are such a smooth ride! Upon arrival, we were greeted by Suzanne, who spoke to us all a little more about what they do and why they do it. She mentioned that there has been about one billion euro spent on implementing the project for the electric car, and that the estimated payoff is around late 2014-2015. Denmark is trying to help this process by voiding the taxes for purchasing an electric vehicle. This is huge, considering the 180% tax that comes along with purchasing a vehicle. This means that if you try to purchase a $20,000 car, you will spend $36,000 just paying taxes on it. That is absurd, but makes sense to their picture of what they are trying to do: make it expensive to purchase a vehicle, and that lessens the amount of toxins and pollution in the air. This helps with their overall goal of trying to reduce CO2 emissions 40% by 2020. I would love to see this idea blossom all over, especially here in the United States.

Wind’s Footprint

One of the arguments against wind power is the amount of fuel it uses in the manufacturing and transport of the turbines themselves. The clean energy produced by the turbines is offset by the emissions that are caused from their creation and installation.

I was curious about this claim and found a report published by the UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology titled “Carbon Footprint of Electricity Generation”. http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn268.pdf The report performed a cradle-to-grave analysis of the carbon footprint of the various renewable energy sources. Wind power’s life cycle emissions were between 4 and 5.5 grams CO₂/kWh. This is the second lowest carbon footprint next to nuclear power.

While wind’s carbon footprint may be negligible, the report does not answer the total environmental impact of wind power. This is an area that I would like to pursue further. I think it is important to remember the point Thomas Buhl from DTU made – that not every place is suitable for every form of renewable energy. As Andrew pointed out earlier, hydropower is a great benefit for a place like Maine. However, hydro wouldn’t work in Denmark. And perhaps wind is not the best solution for us here. The least net impact will be achieved when the best renewable resource is matched appropriately with the right location.

It’s a collaboration, but of the wrong kind.

One of the biggest takeaways was from Thomas Buhl, Head of Programme  at Risø DTU – Structural design and offshore wind energy, DTU Wind Energy. He had tremendous insight on numerous things that I took away but I want to touch on one thing he said

“Collaboration helps deter the negative response that it’s too ugly or too loud because the farmer who owns the lands would say ‘hear that? It’s the sound of money’ ”

It made me think of several years back when the Mars Hill, ME wind project was finished. Mars Hill underwent this $85 million wind power project in 2006. 28, 80 meters tall, General Electric 1.5 megawatt turbines were installed along the top of the mountain generating 42MW of energy.

There was collaboration, a private contract between 6 landowners and the windmill company. However the town citizens were not part of the collaboration. The land plays an important role in the Mars Hill community, it’s a dramatic backdrop for the town and it holds numerous community businesses and activates.

To the town citizens that sound you hear, it’s not the sound of money. To the citizen they hear the loud noise and the flickering of the sun and the fact that the wind farm is currently sells all the energy to a Canadian company, New Brunswick Power. That the town/citizens only receive a boast to its town tax revenue of $10 million over 20 years.

We need to form those “sound of money” collaborations. Let’s involve all parties that can be effected by projects.

We need to start small, change people’s behaviors

Some group members keep bringing up the United States government changing the country and becoming sustainable, makings excuses that it will never happen because our government is too divided.

They are half right, it’s never going to happen, but where their wrong is that it doesn’t start with the United States government, it merely ends there. The point here is that we are in Denmark to learn what they are doing and return to the U.S. to adapt it to our ways.

What works, and has worked, for Denmark cannot be duplicated but adjusted to our way. They are a small country with a strong united government and religion.  We are a large country with a divided large central government and many individualized state governments. We are the United “States” we can make small local changes and make trends. If we start small we can influence big, start with municipalities, then states, regions, and finally the country as a whole.

Start with municipalities. We need to move responsibility to citizens from municipality workers. By educating, providing bins for recycling, food compost, and rain water, etc.

60 meters is HIGH.

After visiting in the waste incineration plant, we traveled to the Lynetten Wind project. There were seven windmills total, four of which they owned and the other three owned by Dong Energy, which we had learned about from Nis Bak earlier in the week. The windmills were 60 meters high and very impressive. Once Jens Anker Hansen finished speaking with us regarding the turbines, we signed a form and climbed to the top of them. SCARY! But very amazing and a once in a life time opportunity. It was breath-taking sitting in the turbine at the top and looking out over Denmark and even over to Sweden. I also remember thinking, this turbine produces tons of energy, and that fact still amazes me.

Amagerforbrænding

Amagerforbrænding, the waste management incineration, was quite the experience. It is owned by five capital municipalities, Dragor, Frederiksberg, Hvidovve, Kobenhavn and Tarnby. In 2010 it turned 404.000 tons of waste into energy and supplied it to 170.000 households. The concept is the waste from the cities becomes electricity and heat to the citizens. The waste is turned into about 20% electricity and 80% district heating. This process is interesting, because it all originally starts in the same place. All of the waste is burned and transferred to the turbine. From there part of it goes to the heat exchanger where it turns into heat for the heating district/CTR, and the other part goes to the generator to produce the electricity. This process occurs every day and night.

An interesting fact that we learned while at the incineration was that it only takes 300 beer cans to turn into a bike! No wonder why everyone bikes!  : ) One thing that did catch my attention was the amount of recycling that was incinerated. As the presentation stated, in 2010 there were 105.838 tons of recycling waste. 76% of this was reused, 21% was incinerated and 3% was deposited or specifically processed. For a country which is very energy efficient and sustainable, I would think that the percentage of recyclables incinerated would be lower.

Denmark is an incredible place. The amount of effort they have put in to contribute to a sustainable environment amazed me more than I could have ever imagined. The first type of sustainability efforts I noticed were while we were still on the plane. As we were approaching the Copenhagen airport, I looked down at the water and there were lines of windmills standing tall in the ocean. I have never seen a windmill in person before; it was amazing and caught my attention right away! The amount of power these machines generate off of the wind blows my mind.

Then once we arrived at the hostel, there were a few ways that I noticed they were sustainable: the water systems and lights in particular. Their toilets were a push flush and contained two “buttons”, one for a whole flush and one for a half. Then the showers and sinks were set up with a push system as well, yet once the button was pushed, the faucet would spurt out water for increments of thirty seconds, which helped prevent water wastage and energy. The bathroom lights also had light sensors and turned on when someone walked in. The lights stayed on for about 5 minutes after someone left. This is a great idea because it prevents the electricity from being used when it is not needed. Once we all got settled in, we met up with some MBA students from the Copenhagen Business School, or CBS. It was fascinating to find out their stories and how everyone I met, about 10, wasn’t originally from Denmark. There was a woman from New York I talked to, and it was neat to hear her talk. She lived in New York City and worked for Morgan Stanly previous to her move. It blew my mind that she would leave to go to school in Denmark, but she mentioned that she had family here and that was why. Then there was a gentleman from Germany I met, along with a guy from Canada and a couple from India. There were a few more, but I am very bad with memorizing names. It was also impressive the time they get their classes done and how much effort they put into it. The summer session for them is a quick two (or three, I forget) week intensive class, with all the same material as we learn in a whole semester, with 8 hour days Monday through Friday. I don’t know how they do it. Our academic systems are apparently quite different. We seem to have a more academic based style of teaching, while they seem to have more of a research based system.

When Trash is not Waste: Denmark, litter, and energy

The Danish attitude toward trash was truly an enlightening, curious, frustrating, and eye-opening experience.  While the Danes have some of the highest rates of municipal waste production per capita in the world, they also have one of the lowest rates of land filled waste.  While there is not a single recycling bin to be found in the entirety of Copenhagen, they have some of the highest rates of recycling in Europe.

Energy Production: When Trash is no longer waste

In Copenhagen, as well in most other major cities, their district heating system is provided by burning municipal waste.  Clearly, this sustainability loop provides an incredible and illuminating lesson for Americans.  If there is one part of this Denmark visit I could immediately implement in the US, it would be this trash-to-energy model.

But, from a cultural perspective, the law of unintended consequences is fascinating.  When trash is a resource, it is no longer waste.  The Danes produce more trash, per capita, then anywhere else in the world. In Copenhagen, I was stunned by the lack of awareness towards litter.  People just throw their trash on the ground.  Now, of course, there are the usual “big-city” litter problems that you see in Boston or New York, but the attitude towards litter in Denmark was, as far as I can tell, totally blasé.

We heard from Jeff, and I have read in other sources, that this is due to the Danes attitude toward “providing work” for people.  The theory being, culturally, that “if I throw this on the ground, someone will get paid to come by and pick it up.”  Now, that may be true, but I actually think that that cultural attitude is based on the concept of trash as a resource, rather than as a waste material, and that cultural attitude is pervasive.

Perhaps this article reinforces my argument. It’s a news article about Danish mayors’ proposing that the unemployed pick up litter.  After a 2011 country wide trash pick up, more than 57 tonnes of refuse were collected.

Danish Design Center

I was initially critical of the visit to the Danish Design Center presentation.  I know I was not the only member of the group who felt that this presentation was lacking in context or concrete examples.

Upon reflection, I think the presentation was about this very problem about the trash/waste loop.  The project presented at the Design Center was designed to change people’s perceptions of trash, and empower the Danish people to think about trash in different ways, and to see that trash, litter, and waste are all part of the sustainability loop.

While I initially missed this point, and I still struggled with the presentation style at the Design Center, I now see what they were trying to accomplish.

Their task, of changing people’s perception about trash, is a tall order.  The Danes clearly see trash as a valuable resource.  The vast majority of Danes probably don’t think much about their trash, they only know that it provides heat and electricity.  But, as they continue to strive toward a more sustainable path, people like those at the Danish Design Center will be critical to closing those waste loops and placing a firmer grasp on trash: where it comes from, where it goes, and how it is managed.

The Hydro Paradox: Renewable Future or Ecological Disaster?

While visiting RISO and reading the 2050 report, I was surprised to learn that, despite all of Denmark’s remarkable progress on renewable energy implementation and ambitious goals for renewable energy generation, it still lagged behind 5 EU member states: Sweden, Latvia, Finland, Austria, and Portugal.  See the graph below:

Denmark is particularly vested in wind production, as the EU leader in wind production, both on and off-shore.  But, its EU competitors, those thriving in renewable energy production, are all out-performing Denmark because of hydropower.

In fact, in Sweden, Latvia, Austria, and Portugal, nearly all of the renewable energy facilities producing electricity are hydro-power.  Denmark still buys significant amounts of hydro power from its Swedish neighbors.

When applying this electricity paradigm to Maine, much of southern Maine and the Central Maine power service area is supplied by a significant amount of hydro power.  According to their yearly disclosure requirement, CMP customers receive 30% of their electricity from hydro.

Maine: Hydro leader

While almost 30% of Southern Maine’s energy production comes from renewable sources, most Mainers, or least most environmentalists, don’t consider Maine to be a particularly renewable friendly state.  There seems to be a renewable energy paradox, as many environmental advocates rush to install and implement sexier “renewable sources” such as wind, solar, and tidal, in many cases hydro power is ignored, avoided, or besmirched by renewable advocates as less of a “green power” source.

Hydro’s paradox starts with two primary arguments against hydro power.  The first is that hydro is ecologically devastating to river and lake habitats, harming wildlife and fish stocks, harm spawning grounds for inland fish, and deplete food sources for the Gulf of Maine fish and seafood stocks.  The second is that hydro is highly inefficient.  Most of the electricity producing hydro dams in Maine are older than the Clean Water Act of 1972.   Many of them are small, according to the Natural Resources Council of Maine, 78% of the electricity producing dams in Maine produce less than 10 MW in generated capacity.  And yet, 30% of southern Maine’s electricity comes from hydro power, considerably “greener” than traditional fossil fuel sources.

Environmental advocates throughout Maine have been fighting for years to remove hydro power plants on Maine’s rivers.  Many of these removal projects are for old, unproductive, or de-commissioned dams.  But some of these hydro projects are still energy producing dams.

Moreover, hydro power is an excellent source of renewable energy.  As opposed to wind or solar, hydro is a reliable and predictable source of energy, because hydro plants can produce electricity much more easily, with little “ramp-up” time, even as opposed to fossil fuel plants.

Environmental Divergence

There also is growing divergence among environmental advocates about hydro power.  With the emergence of climate change as the pre-eminent issue in environmental circles, traditional environmental allies have been diverging on hydro power.  Some of the more mainstream environmental organizations have shown a greater willingness to tolerate hydro power and its ecological impacts, while some of the smaller, more ecologically driven groups have grown more radical and more frustrated with renewable energy solutions, including hydro and wind.

Now, the mainstream environmental strategy involving hydro involves a two-fold approach to hydro power.  The first is ecological mitigation strategies, such as fish ladders or fish lifts, to allow fish to pass through dams and onto their natural migration patterns.  The second is to repower existing dam facilities to allow existing dams to operate more efficiently.  This balance is seen in the recent Great Works Dam project.  This project saw the restoration of ecological habitat without the loss of electrical capacity.  But, such projects are rare because of the expense, time, and fundraising needed to effectively implement such a strategy.

These cost considerations are constantly impacting the hydro industry.  The margins on hydro projects are extremely low, and the repowering process can be very costly to hydro facilities.  Moreover, in Maine, there is a lack of clear regulations about what constitutes refurbishment as opposed to regular maintenance.

Renewable Energy Marketplace

This challenge is reflected in the renewable energy market in New England.  Maine has a renewable portfolio standard, a state requirement for installation of renewable energy projects as a percentage of overall energy production.  While hydro power does qualify under the Maine RPS, it qualifies at a lower standard than other renewable energy sources, called a Class 2 or Class 3 renewable energy facility.  While this allowed the hydro facilities to still claim renewable energy credits (RECs), the RECs were lower in value for these already installed hydro plants.    When the RPS was designed, the logic behind this lower standard was to encourage the development of new renewable resources, and all the installed hydro was already in operation.  In addition, only smaller hydro plants (less than 100MW) qualified under this renewable energy target strategy.  The way for hydro plants to qualify for the highest standard was to “repower” or refurbish their facilities for a new, and more efficient, extended life investment.

The current challenge for Maine is that many of these hydro facilities are claiming Class 1 status, the highest renewable energy criteria, for simple maintenance upgrades, rather than true “repower refurbishment” extended life investments, and flooding the REC market with their new Class 1 credits, lowering the value of the RECs on the open market without truly improving the life-cycle of their dams, and hurting other renewable energy development.

Conclusion

Hydro power, much like all electrical policy, is complex, controversial, and fraught with contentious and powerful interests.  With the rush to install more renewable energy, it important to see the possibilities and opportunities, but also what we already have.

Hydro power has worked for Maine, and it will continue to be an important part of our energy mix.  It’s also essential to realize that every source of energy is fraught with peril, every source has its limitations, and every solution has its challenges.

By studying what has worked in Europe, we can learn what can be done here.  But its also important to realize the full picture of where we are.  Maine, as compared to many of our neighbors, and most of the US, receives very little of its power from coal, the predominant energy source in the US.

Grid-scale renewable energy is an essential part of our energy and economic future.  On-shore and off-shore wind provide a huge opportunity to transition away from gas, coal, and even oil burning sources.  But, we also must see the full energy picture, and that includes hydro as a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

Is a Better Place a responsible decision for the US mainland?

Johnson and Suskewicz used a Better Place as an example of large scale business model that looks at more than product delivery but also provides a full operational system including supporting infrastructure and removing barriers for ownership. On Thursday we visited Better Place in Copenhagen to learn more about this innovative solution conceived by Shai Agassi and Israeli entrepreneur.

The Better Place Center was very impressive. We had the opportunity to hear about the business model including hardware (car) from Renault and monthly Better Place membership plans, how the technology within the cars, charging stations, and battery switch stations work, etc.  What was most interesting was that short term financial losses are considered acceptable as they strive toward a long term goal.

I drive a Prius today and I really identify with the fact that a Prius has next to no GHG emissions when compared with standard combustion engines.  I have however always been curious about how the hybrid batteries are disposed of and if ultimately there is a net positive or negative effect on the environment.  This got me thinking a little bit about whether Better Place would be a viable solution for the US. In Denmark this is a great solution because as we heard throughout the week, approximately 35% of Denmark’s energy is wind power and that Denmark is working diligently toward an aggressive goal of 50% by 2020.  So Better Place cars in Denmark that require electricity for fuel are getting that electricity from a good portion of renewable sources via wind power and hydro from Sweden and Norway.  Wind power supplies about 3% of the US energy consumption and different stats say the US could be using as much as 11-14% on an annual basis.  That means that up to 89% of our energy comes from non renewable sources including fossil fuels.  Not only do these sources themselves account for a large portion of US GHG emissions when being consumed, they also contribute to these numbers when being extracted for use.  With this in mind, electric cars running on mainland US would be using electricity that was generated primarily from nonrenewable sources.  This would render the environmental benefits of electric cars that are not oil dependent almost null shifting the dependence on fossil fuels from oil for fuel to fossil fuels required to generate electricity.  Ultimately, part of Better Place’s goal is to help impact the world’s dependence on fossil fuels.  Until countries such as the US begin generating electricity from renewable sources, Better Place will not only be missing their goal, but could be contributing to the problem.  The idea is solid, but it does require transformational change in its host countries energy policies.

Smart Meters, Tiered Pricing, and the Challenge of the Smart Grid

While visiting the Riso Laboratory, we learned that while the Danes are years ahead in terms of renewable generation, they are not yet pursuing Smart Meter technology.  The reason, we learned, is that the Danish government is not prepared to introduce tiered pricing, the concept of pricing energy different at peak and off-peak demand times to encourage smarter consumer energy usage.  The basic concept of tiered pricing is to utilize high-usage items, like electric cars, dishwashers, laundry machines, at night, when demand for energy is low, and therefore, energy is cheaper, at least in theory.

The simple answer we received was that Denmark was 5-10 years away from installing smart meters, as until there is tiered pricing structure to encourage better utilization of energy by consumers, there is no point to smart meter installation.

This perspective surprised me, as Central Maine Power, the electric utility for Southern Maine has been quite aggressive about the installation of smart meters throughout their service areas.  CMP justifies this installation strategy by citing customer convenience, service upgrades, more accurate billing, and increased operational efficiency.  CMP promotes vague and largely unsupported claims of “allowing customers to access up-to-date usage information to track, manage, and control their own energy use…in the spring of 2012”.

I contacted CMP about being able to access my smart meter readings to monitor energy use on a daily basis.  The CMP representative I spoke with continually cited customer service and operational efficiency as the primary benefits of smart meter technology.  When I asked about access to my smart meter for monitoring, I was assured “that ability is coming online shortly” and that “CMP is experimenting with pilot projects in selected areas…to educate consumers about the potential energy monitoring.”

Tiered Pricing

After my discussion with CMP, I contacted the Maine Public Utilities Commission to understand the future of “Tiered Pricing” structures in Maine, enabling consumers to utilize energy when energy demand is lower, and therefore the price of energy is less.

The PUC is exploring what they call “Time of Use” rate pricing for residential customers.  Currently, residential or residential/commercial facilities have the ability to utilize “time of use” rate regimes if they consume more than 3000 Kw/hr per month.  This is recommended, any facility can use “TOU” pricing structures, but the service charge affiliated with each of the three plans necessitates large energy consumers to justify the monthly service charge, which is greater, in many cases than the cost to most residential consumers’ monthly bill.

Here is a simple table laying out the charges and tiered pricing to the “TOU” plan:

On Peak Hours: 7am-12pm, 4pm-8pm

Shoulder Hours (where applicable): 12-4pm

	Residential TOU	Optional Super Saver	Optional Savings Plan	Standard Offer Rate (June 2012
Service Charge	7.23	30.49	16.64	n/a
On Peak Rate (pKWh)	0.102	0.175	0.134	0.0743
Shoulder Rate (pKWh)	0.0884	n/a	n/a	0.0743
Off-Peak Rate (pKWh)	0.0447	0.017	0.0436	0.0743

This tiered pricing structure does offer the beginning stages of demand-based pricing, superior management of electrical energy use in the home, and the possibility of a more energy conscience consumer marketplace.

While our current residential housing stock, and mostly “dumb” appliances limit the effectiveness for the vast majority of Maine homeowners, one could easily see a not-too-distant future where “Time of Use” rate regimes could succeed.

Closing the Awareness Gap

The availability and utilization of smart meters, along with Tiered Pricing or “Time of Use” pricing regimes will depend on consumer awareness and education, largely driven by CMP.

Whether CMP will utilize this opportunity is another question, one that will be realized in the next several years.  If the deployment of smart meters is any indication, CMP will struggle to implement a satisfactory education and awareness project for its consumers.

Of course, CMP depends on the Maine Public Utilities Commission, its regulatory body, for much of its direction on education/awareness, CMP could significantly increase awareness and effectiveness of smart meters through a dedicated and public awareness campaign.

CMP has struggled with smart meter implementation from the very origins of the smart meter program.

Currently, CMP is party to a lawsuit of smart meter opponents, for “badgering consumers” into accepting smart meters, health concerns, and privacy complaints.

Certainly, these objections reflect only a small number of CMP’s customers.  But, the larger issue is the short-sighted nature of the smart meter roll-out.  CMP failed to adequately educate its customers about the potential benefits of smart meters, focused its public relations and marketing efforts on operational efficiency rather than consumer-friendly energy management options, and focused its resources on installation rather than consumer driven education, outreach, and easy-to-use software management solutions.