- Email: [email protected]
Fuel Switching
Green Heat
Fuel Switching What's wrong with that? Much of the debate over renewable energies is a debate over the advantages and drawbacks of fuel switching. Continuing his regular column on green heat, Bill Eggertson analyses the current issues in this underexploited sector of renewables.
M
ost people (both within and outside the 'green' community) agree that energy efficiency should be a mandatory first step in energy policy. Before the terms 'negawatts' and 'negatherms' were first coined, it was obvious that the energy not consumed is the cheapest form of energy. Conservation has not been able to control demand, and all the insulating and tweaking that has been done in the three decades since the oil crisis, will not prevent a predicted 30% increase in global energy demand by 2030. It is ironic that this burgeoning world demand is partly responsible for the increased demand (and need) for renewables. The issue of 'fuel switching' is simple: advocates of green power want the electrons from coal-fired generating plants
About the author Bill Eggertson is Executive Director of the Canadian Association for Renewable Energies (C.A.R.E.). He also compiles Refocus Weekly news which is distributed free every week to subscribers around the world, to keep you informed of trends as the various RE technologies transition into mainstream energy applications. More information: www.re-focus.net for Refocus Weekly or www.renewables.ca to find out more about C.A.R.E
64 reFOCUS
May/June 2006
to be switched to electrons from wind turbines, or for output from nuclear reactors to switch to solar panels. Green fuel supporters want transport gasoline to switch to ethanol, or for fill-ups to be done with biofuels. Switching the entire energy supply chain to another (better) range of options would be easy if all factors of the equation were identical, but society's continuing reluctance to mandate a timely and full-scale transition to renewables is partly due to a lack of public comfort with many aspects of these technologies.
Renewables are criticized for drawbacks such as dispatchability and first-cost premium Renewables are criticized for drawbacks such as dispatchability and firstcost premium, but green advocates sincerely believe these drawbacks to be more than offset by the overall benefits of the technologies, including greater job creation per unit of energy, the contribution to high-tech development, their role in the diversification of agrifarm incomes, increased consumer
comfort, contribution to security of energy supply and, the two major winners, the overwhelming environmental assets and reduced operating costs of renewables.
However, switching to green fuels can be difficult since not all cars and trucks can accommodate a significant blend of ethanol without modifications to the engine. Green power is less of a problem, since the grid is indifferent to the source of electrons (of the same sine wave) and electricity is a carrier of energy, not a source.
So where does Green Heat fit in? Using thermal energy from a distributed resource such as biomass, solar thermal or geothermal to condition a building space, usually requires the installation of a specific technology at a specific site for a specific application.
1471 0846/06 © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Green Heat
Heat from a wood stove or a solar collector cannot be carried effectively over long distances, and an earth energy heat pump can cool only if the Btus can be transferred quickly into the sink. In Canada, efforts to promote Green Heat have met resistance from public officials who are concerned with the impacts of fuel switching. I could be more effective in countering their objections if I could understand their opposition to the concept of using an option to avoid the need to burn oil or natural gas, or if I could understand how the purveyors of finite combustion fuels are worried about their share of the market when demand for all energy is sky-rocketing. One analysis in the province of Ontario indicated that large-scale penetration of geothermal heat pumps in the new residential housing market could either 'save' threequarters of electrons to condition homes (if applied under the concept of a GreenTherms Standard for electrically-heated homes) and the concomitant drop in grid congestion, or it could displace the combustion of 1 million m3 of natural gas (if applied to gas-heated homes) and allow that fuel to be used for centralized generation or for increased exports to the United States. In my opinion, any of those 'fuel switching' options is preferable to the status quo, but legislators and regulators appear to be either yielding to pressure from conventional energy suppliers or are reluctant to determine which fuel will be the winner for the future, perhaps based on their past poor record in that regard. If it's the latter, the call for Green Heat (in Canada and elsewhere in the world) has been carefully positioned to avoid selecting a winning technology, and reflects the reality of the green power market: offer a
www.re-focus.net
range of environmentally- and economically-preferable technologies, and let the market select which one(s) is best for the specific task. For Green Heat, I would never advocate the purchase and installation of a geothermal heat pump to meet the water heating requirements in a summer camp, nor would I promote a large order of biomass units to provide warmth for an urban core. Each of these technologies has a set of positive and not-so-positive attributes, which makes the selection a more challenging proposition than deciding on a source of green power.
the call for Green Heat (in Canada and elsewhere in the world) has been carefully positioned to avoid selecting a winning technology, and reflects the reality of the green power market The green fuel sector does not suffer from a concern with fuel switching, with most people on both sides willing to do anything to stop burning petroleum in the engine block. The debate they have to fight centres on the use of edible feedstocks to produce large quantities of ethanol, not on the desirability of continuing to burn oil because we're more comfortable with the status quo. If greater adoption of Green Heat (and, to a lesser degree, all renewable energies) is viewed as fuel switching, and if fuel switching is seen as bad, then that perception must change, and politicians and consumers must be made aware of the benefits of switching to lowemission low-maintenance technologies to heat and cool buildings.
May/June 2006
reFOCUS 65
Fuel Switching What's wrong with that? Much of the debate over renewable energies is a debate over the advantages and drawbacks of fuel switching. Continuing his regular column on green heat, Bill Eggertson analyses the current issues in this underexploited sector of renewables.
M
ost people (both within and outside the 'green' community) agree that energy efficiency should be a mandatory first step in energy policy. Before the terms 'negawatts' and 'negatherms' were first coined, it was obvious that the energy not consumed is the cheapest form of energy. Conservation has not been able to control demand, and all the insulating and tweaking that has been done in the three decades since the oil crisis, will not prevent a predicted 30% increase in global energy demand by 2030. It is ironic that this burgeoning world demand is partly responsible for the increased demand (and need) for renewables. The issue of 'fuel switching' is simple: advocates of green power want the electrons from coal-fired generating plants
About the author Bill Eggertson is Executive Director of the Canadian Association for Renewable Energies (C.A.R.E.). He also compiles Refocus Weekly news which is distributed free every week to subscribers around the world, to keep you informed of trends as the various RE technologies transition into mainstream energy applications. More information: www.re-focus.net for Refocus Weekly or www.renewables.ca to find out more about C.A.R.E
64 reFOCUS
May/June 2006
to be switched to electrons from wind turbines, or for output from nuclear reactors to switch to solar panels. Green fuel supporters want transport gasoline to switch to ethanol, or for fill-ups to be done with biofuels. Switching the entire energy supply chain to another (better) range of options would be easy if all factors of the equation were identical, but society's continuing reluctance to mandate a timely and full-scale transition to renewables is partly due to a lack of public comfort with many aspects of these technologies.
Renewables are criticized for drawbacks such as dispatchability and first-cost premium Renewables are criticized for drawbacks such as dispatchability and firstcost premium, but green advocates sincerely believe these drawbacks to be more than offset by the overall benefits of the technologies, including greater job creation per unit of energy, the contribution to high-tech development, their role in the diversification of agrifarm incomes, increased consumer
comfort, contribution to security of energy supply and, the two major winners, the overwhelming environmental assets and reduced operating costs of renewables.
However, switching to green fuels can be difficult since not all cars and trucks can accommodate a significant blend of ethanol without modifications to the engine. Green power is less of a problem, since the grid is indifferent to the source of electrons (of the same sine wave) and electricity is a carrier of energy, not a source.
So where does Green Heat fit in? Using thermal energy from a distributed resource such as biomass, solar thermal or geothermal to condition a building space, usually requires the installation of a specific technology at a specific site for a specific application.
1471 0846/06 © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Green Heat
Heat from a wood stove or a solar collector cannot be carried effectively over long distances, and an earth energy heat pump can cool only if the Btus can be transferred quickly into the sink. In Canada, efforts to promote Green Heat have met resistance from public officials who are concerned with the impacts of fuel switching. I could be more effective in countering their objections if I could understand their opposition to the concept of using an option to avoid the need to burn oil or natural gas, or if I could understand how the purveyors of finite combustion fuels are worried about their share of the market when demand for all energy is sky-rocketing. One analysis in the province of Ontario indicated that large-scale penetration of geothermal heat pumps in the new residential housing market could either 'save' threequarters of electrons to condition homes (if applied under the concept of a GreenTherms Standard for electrically-heated homes) and the concomitant drop in grid congestion, or it could displace the combustion of 1 million m3 of natural gas (if applied to gas-heated homes) and allow that fuel to be used for centralized generation or for increased exports to the United States. In my opinion, any of those 'fuel switching' options is preferable to the status quo, but legislators and regulators appear to be either yielding to pressure from conventional energy suppliers or are reluctant to determine which fuel will be the winner for the future, perhaps based on their past poor record in that regard. If it's the latter, the call for Green Heat (in Canada and elsewhere in the world) has been carefully positioned to avoid selecting a winning technology, and reflects the reality of the green power market: offer a
www.re-focus.net
range of environmentally- and economically-preferable technologies, and let the market select which one(s) is best for the specific task. For Green Heat, I would never advocate the purchase and installation of a geothermal heat pump to meet the water heating requirements in a summer camp, nor would I promote a large order of biomass units to provide warmth for an urban core. Each of these technologies has a set of positive and not-so-positive attributes, which makes the selection a more challenging proposition than deciding on a source of green power.
the call for Green Heat (in Canada and elsewhere in the world) has been carefully positioned to avoid selecting a winning technology, and reflects the reality of the green power market The green fuel sector does not suffer from a concern with fuel switching, with most people on both sides willing to do anything to stop burning petroleum in the engine block. The debate they have to fight centres on the use of edible feedstocks to produce large quantities of ethanol, not on the desirability of continuing to burn oil because we're more comfortable with the status quo. If greater adoption of Green Heat (and, to a lesser degree, all renewable energies) is viewed as fuel switching, and if fuel switching is seen as bad, then that perception must change, and politicians and consumers must be made aware of the benefits of switching to lowemission low-maintenance technologies to heat and cool buildings.
May/June 2006
reFOCUS 65