Solving Intermittent Energy Problems with Storage Solutions

Posted on January 26, 2013 by hollyb

By Jillian Jordan

One of the biggest problems in the renewable energy game is the issue of energy storage when using an intermittent, or variable, power source. Solar photovoltaics (PV) and wind turbines have come a long way since their inception and new, affordable innovations are underway which boost their marketability through reliable storage when the sun is not out and the wind is not blowing.

The need for grid-level storage is nothing new, but demand for power is growing along with increase in businesses and population. A combination of systems such as pumped-storage hydroelectricity, Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES), thermal storage and a liquid metal battery — to update the traditional Lead-acid and Lithium Ion — may be the start to a bigger integration of renewables to the existing power grid. Some believe energy storage to be the missing link in an effective smart grid. Though conservation and demand response methods will most likely mitigate the need for larger storage in the future, let’s take a look at the promising technologies that are already being utilized and those that are up-and-coming that may contribute to the emerging “energy internet”.

Second only to conventional pumped hydro in storage capacity is Compressed Air Energy Storage, or CAES — one of the leading methods to storing energy produced by wind turbines. Since wind tends to blow more during the night hours, it is important to take advantage of this source of power and use it when it is most needed. CAES does this by taking the excess, off-peak wind power to pump air into salt mines, depleted gas reservoirs and water aquifers or other naturally occurring geologic formations that are sealed for safety. These reservoirs are typically 2,500 to 6,000 feet underground.

Photo credit: Windsohy.com

Since this type of storage is limited to geography in specific regions, high-pressure capacity holding tanks are also fabricated to store the compressed air for use during peak hours of energy use. However, naturally occurring reservoirs are the most economically feasible. During peak hours, the compressed air is released and heated, turning the turbines to create power when needed. CEAS systems have a large-scale use and capacity at 50 to 300 mega watts, which can be used with gas turbines to produce the same amount of power as traditional methods while requiring 66 percent less natural gas. This offers a considerable drop in CO2 and a substantial cost savings to the utility. SustainX of Seabrook, New Hampshire has worked on capitalizing on this existing model and updated it with a new and innovative isothermal CAES that will go further in capturing the heat from the process and will not require reservoirs, using pipeline or pressure tanks.

When it comes to storing energy from solar photovoltaics, thermal storage is one popular option and has increased the use of solar power in our nation’s energy grid. Thermal storage can be done using water, molten salt or even molten glass among others. Similar to capturing wind power, thermal storage captures heat to be used at peak times. Molten salt energy storage has more efficient properties to holding heat than water and the capacities being generated for grid-level energy needs are proving to be promising. The liquid salt is passed through panels to gather concentrated solar rays. The molten salt is then kept in insulated storage tanks and pumped into steam generators when needed. Heat capture tops out during the day and the power can be saved for use at night when the sun is not shining during rainy days and long nights. When used in tandem with large-scale Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) technologies, (such as those designed by eSolar of Burbank, California) power is generated with a zero emissions benefit and massive storage capacity, making solar much more feasible in terms of marketability.

Photo Credit: esolar

The newest player to the energy storage game is a liquid metal battery designed by Professor Donald Sadoway and his team of students at MIT. Recently, Sadoway presented a TED Talk that explained the solution he found to the energy storage conundrum keeping renewables in limited use on the grid. The concept of the liquid metal battery uses magnesium, antimony and molten salt electrolyte to build giant, cost-effective, batteries with a high capacity for energy storage. One 36-inch battery can store four kilowatt hours and these could then be stacked and placed into a 40-foot shipping container with a total capacity of two mega watt hours, which could meet the energy needs of 200 households in one day. The integration of this emissions-free energy storage system (now in beta with a company under the name AMBRI) could allow renewables to play an equal part in the grid and would be a catalyst to their rapid growth.

Given the innovations by companies like SustainX, eSolar and AMBRI, these new technologies in energy storage combined with emerging policies for a smart grid system are bringing us closer to a clean energy revolution than we ever were before.

Innovative camera technology can improve environmental assessments

Posted on December 10, 2012 by hollyb

A new method of capturing imagery from an aerial camera was recently acquired by Applied Ecological Services, Inc. with Ayres Associates, which will be able to provide environmental experts with data that could normally take weeks or months to collect in the field. The technology could potentially change how scientists monitor ecological restorations, wetland mitigations, conservation easements, and disaster areas.

The camera (a Leica RCD30), which was originally developed as a tool for defense-grade military surveillance, is installed in the bottom of a small airplane to capture digital imaging as the plane flies over the landscape. This method allows it to capture color and near-infrared imagery with great detail.

The camera’s enhanced imagery gives the opportunity for camera operators and other experts to identify failing septic symptoms, map the impact of environmental toxins and extreme weather, address water quality issues, and map critical habitat and endangered plant species. In the event of a natural disaster, this technology could help measure the scope of the devastation and improve the success of relief efforts.

America’s Military Renewables Plan Fast-Tracked And Mission Critical

Posted on December 2, 2012 by hollyb

By Jillian Jordan

Environmental Defense Fund Energy Marketing & Communications Intern

This months’ announcement from the White House calling for green energy bids and its plan to fast-track wind and solar projects delivered a clear message that renewable energy is something the American military – and its government – whole-heartily believes in. The federal government’s Renewable Energy Partnership Plan (Plan), headed by the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of the Interior (DOI), is pushing new project development on and near numerous military installations to the tune of $7 billion dollars.

Even more compelling is the fact that clean energy is now considered part of America’s national security plan by key political figures and the DoD. The White House’s Heather Zichal, Deputy Assistant for Energy and Climate Change, has commended this strategic move towards clean energy and endorsed the Plan as “operationally necessary, financially prudent and mission critical.”

So mission critical, in fact, that the Army has planned the incorporation of renewables as a high-priority tactic for saving lives. Military convoys have long been known to be one of the most dangerous operations, costing more lives than many other career fields in the armed forces. When supplies like gasoline run out, transportation troops are assigned the duty of delivering them through hostile territory. For every 24 fuel resupply missions, one American life is lost – which constitutes one out of every eight deaths in Iraq. Using clean energy actually saves lives for today’s military. The less fossil fuel used and the less dependent we are on oil, the less convoy trips are needed for refueling and to run diesel generators that power military tents, therefore minimizing the risk for American troops.

The alternative energy infrastructure projects under the Plan will create jobs favoring local economies, produce about 7,200 megawatts of energy and utilize millions of acres of public lands and offshore areas that are best suited for wind and solar projects, all while meeting the goals of the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005. Under the Act, the military has voluntary plans for 25% of its energy produced by clean sources by 2025.

“Developing renewable energy is the right thing to do for national security, as well as for the environment and our economy,” Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta said. “Renewable energy projects built on these lands will provide reliable, local sources of power for military installations; allow for a continued energy supply if the commercial power grid gets disrupted; and will help lower utility costs.”

In addition to becoming independent from the national grid, utility costs have been upwards of $4 billion annually and the task force assigned to the Plan is determined to lower the DoD’s energy bill and curtail energy usage. But, above all, the goal is to maintain the military’s ability to remain powered during mission-critical times. Conditions of the Plan offer an added safety net in the event of a massive blackout or, for a worst-case-scenario attack on America’s power grid.

Preliminary site evaluation began with DOI’s Smart from the Start initiative under Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. Pilot projects are currently underway in Arizona, California, Nevada and Wyoming, with more fast-tracked proposals to be announced in the next few weeks. The Renewable Energy Partnership Plan signed between the two agencies would allow the military to purchase power produced from homegrown, renewable energy sources, which could lead to a reduction in clean energy costs and an overall boost to the alternative energy sector.

Of the DOI’s 28 million acres, 16 million of which were designated for defense, 13 million that are rich in resources and ideal for wind, solar and geothermal power generation. “Our nation’s military lands hold great renewable energy potential, and this partnership will help ensure that we’re tapping into these resources with a smart and focused approach to power our military, reduce energy costs, and grow our nation’s energy independence,” Salazar said.

Originally published Aug. 23, 2012 at http://blogs.edf.org

Urban Farms, A City’s Sustainable Charm

Posted on November 5, 2012 by hollyb

By Mercedes Beaudoin
Environmental and Sustainability Specialist-University of Central Florida

It is expected that over 70 percent of the world’s population will inhabit urban areas by the year 2050. With this rate of population expansion, environmental overshoot is inevitable. Overshoot occurs when a population exceeds the long term carrying capacity of its environment. Hazards of overshoot in urban areas include: significant air pollution, insufficient resources—including energy and food, large volumes of waste, and in some cases greater levels of poverty. A solution to such hazards in urban areas is environmental planning and sustainable development. Urban areas hold tremendous transformational opportunities to create healthier communities, and in-turn, a healthier future for humanity. Environmental urban and regional planning exemplifies the phrase, “Think Global, Act Local.”

One of the most resourceful sustainable development initiatives being implemented into urban design is urban farming. Urban farms alleviate the tremendous toll that human agriculture exerts on the planet, which helps prevent the hazards of overshoot. A Swedish-American company known as Plantagon has created three greenhouse designs for successful urban farming (one design pictured below).

Image by Plantagon

One design structure entails a spiral elevator on which newly potted plants are fastened to the top tier, and then slowly rotated down the building over the course of their growing cycle. Plantagon has designed the system to include efficient irrigation and harvesting of agricultural yields to effectively produce 3–10 more crops per square meter than a standard greenhouse.

Urban agriculture not only helps to create cleaner air in an area, but will decrease overall “food miles” associated with long-distance agricultural transportation. If cities and companies acquire these ascending vertical farms, they can eventually produce most of what an urban population needs within walking distance from home. Instead of packaged foods, urban farms allow people to enjoy the freshest produce and can help reconnect people with the Earth—where food is actually produced. Urban farming is an innovative and practical path to achieving climate neutrality.

Why solving gridlock is a good mitigation strategy

Posted on August 31, 2012 by hollyb

By Dennis Posadas

International fellow of the Climate Institute Center for Environment Leadership Training (CELT)

Looking at the U.S. EPA (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/air-emissions.html) figure for CO2 output from coal plants (assumes a simple cycle powerplant) of roughly 2,249 lbs per one Megawatt-Hour (one hour worth of power), this converts to roughly 1.02013 metric tons (mtons) of CO2. Now if we compare this with the CO2 output from vehicles, which is 2.6 kg for a liter of diesel and 2.3 kg for a liter of gasoline (we can for simplicity purposes use an average of 2.5 kg per liter for vehicles), we find that burning roughly 400 liters of fuel is equivalent to 1 Megawatt-hour of coal power.

Photos taken by Dennis Posadas

If we look at a lot of our cities, we find an extraordinary amount of gridlock especially during the peak hours going to and from work especially in the business districts.

Thus for countries who find it politically impossible to stop the building of coal plants (or at least slow it down), one cheap and smart way to do carbon mitigation is to simply work on the traffic problem, coupled with fuel efficiency efforts. A program to encourage engine tune-ups and maintenance, banning certain cars from the road depending on their plate number (for that day), encouraging carpools, and other easily implementable solutions can reap good mitigation rewards, especially if we think that spending one hour in traffic can easily burn one liter – and definitely there are more than 400 cars on the road who are also burning fuel unproductively at that time.

Jeepney in the Philippines

Dennis Posadas is the author of Jump Start: A Technopreneurship Fable (Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009) and Rice & Chips: Technopreneurship and Innovation in Asia (Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007).

Biofuels in Tanzania

Posted on August 23, 2012 by hollyb

By Ayushi Narayan

Dartmouth College Class of 2014

Currently, most Tanzanians use a traditional three stone stove to cook on. If used optimally, the three stone stove can burn cleanly, but this require much tending. Regardless, the traditional stove uses a large amount of firewood, and many areas have experienced large scale deforestation. As a result, firewood is more expensive and women have to travel longer and further to collect the wood. DHE has taken an initiative to learn more about alternatives to the rocket stove and share knowledge to locals on these technologies. This enables locals to take initiative to engage in the changes they see most fit and most applicable.

The first technology DHE researched and developed was the rocket stove. The rocket stove is built from locally available materials, costs about 2 USD, uses less firewood, burns more cleanly, and burns more intensely if built properly. Some technical aspects of the stove need to be addressed and distribution models need to be explored as well. DHE’s partner, the Jane Goodall Institute (JGI) has facilitated the distribution of over 10,000 rocket stoves. The JGI model, while effective, still requires JGI monetary support which may be a limitation over time. Nevertheless, DHE’s rocket stove program has seen great success over three years and looks forward to more in the future.

The husk stove is a gasification stove developed by DHE students over the past two years. It is designed to burn coffee husks, rice husks, and sawdust, along with other available loose biomass. These fuels are available for free or at very low costs and can be a cheaper more environmentally friendly alternative to firewood. The stove is still in the development stage and needs to be technically refined before distribution. One concern with the stove is that it is made of metal and costs about 25 USD, significantly more than the free three stone stove. Students hope to emphasize the durability and long term cost savings of the stove.

Another technology DHE is developing is briquetting. Briquetting involves mashing up dry or partially composted waste plant materials, mixing the materials in water, and pressing then drying the mixture to create a briquette which can burn like coal. DHE students have begun developing optimal mixtures in a number of Tanzanian villages with NGO partners. The students have used village community banks as a venue to share information about the technology and teach locals how to begin their own briquetting program. Current challenges include finding the optimal mixture and best methods for teaching locals. Two students are currently in Tanzania working to further develop the technology.

DHE is also exploring biogas, which has seen success in some areas of Tanzania. Students have begun a project at the Dartmouth Organic Farm to learn more about the technology.

African food sovereignty must focus on building locally-controlled food systems

Posted on August 23, 2012 by hollyb

By Daniel Bornstein

Dartmouth Class of 2014

African food sovereignty must focus on building locally controlled food systems
Picture Credit: G-BIACK

At a time when the mainstream international development actors are promoting technological fixes to food insecurity in Africa, Samuel Nderitu is showing that another path is possible: locally-led innovations that shield farmers from expensive seeds and chemical inputs. Nderitu is the director of the Grow Biointensive Agriculture Center of Kenya(G-BIACK), which has trained over 6,000 Kenyan farmers in organic farming — meaning without any chemicals.

This approach is embedded precisely within the food sovereignty movement. The idea is to ensure local people’s control over their own food systems rather than leave farmers and consumers vulnerable to global food and fuel markets.

“It has become the norm in poor countries to rely on food from outside,” Nderitu, who received an honorable mention award at the 2011 Community Food Security Coalition conference, said. “This has to change.”

The term “food sovereignty,” coined by the international NGO La Via Campesina at the 1996 World Food Summit, has come to define the coalition contesting the fossil-fuel dependent global food system controlled by multinational corporations.

G-BIACK is a huge proponent of indigenous seed varieties, which farmers harvest from their fields and preserve in a community seed bank, shielding them from expensive seed markets. Farmers are encouraged to preserve the seeds from the fast-growing, pest-free plants on their fields. They’re crucial to local nutrition, with the vegetable lablab an integral part of the diet of Kenya’s Kikuyu tribe. Indeed, the seed variety is so crucial because it sets the foundation for the rest of the agricultural system. Indigenous seeds, given their ability to grow without large amounts of fertilizer, enable organic approaches to take hold. By contrast, genetically-engineered and hybrid varieties demand high fertilizer concentrations, generating a fossil fuel-dependent system that leaves farmers susceptible to high energy prices.

G-BIACK’s focus on indigenous seeds is complemented by soil-enriching methods that rely on nutrient recycling, aimed at weaning farmers off chemical fertilizer within 3 years. It encourages farmers to practice intercropping, which involves sowing a nitrogen-producing crop in between the rows of another crop. The two crops cannot be random but must be “companion crops,” Nderitu said. For example, in a maize-bean system, the bean fixes nitrogen for the maize’s benefit, and the maize provides shade for the bean crop. Companion crop can even be used for pest management as an alternative to pesticides: the onion’s scent helps drive a pest away from the kale crop. In addition to intercropping, G-BIACK promotes the incorporation of crop residues into the soil to provide nutrients for subsequent crops.

This sort of knowledge-intensive agriculture requires investments in human capacity in order to disseminate best practices. That’s why G-BIACK trains “Community Resource Persons” who take the lead in farmer-to-farmer dissemination. Yet African governments are still suffering from the legacy of cuts to agricultural extension services, imposed by international financial institutions in the 1980s as part of an ideology that deemed the state inefficient. That gap sorely needs to be addressed to facilitate adoption of organic methods throughout sub-Saharan Africa.

If indigenous seeds and organic soil-enhancing approaches have been proven to benefit poor farmers and offer viable yields, then why are all the major development institutions promoting expensive high-yielding crop varieties? A closely related problem is that the international research establishment tends to focus mostly on improving the productivity of global-traded commodity crops. Yet encouraging farmers to adopt such crops purely for their commercial value would render them reliant on expensive inputs and displace the crops considered important for local nutrition. That’s why it’s crucial to build a substantial evidence base of effective farming systems such as the one promoted by G-BIACK.

G-BIACK is exactly the type of example that needs to be recognized in international policy circles in order to offer viable alternatives to the high external-input model that drove the 1960s Green Revolution—a huge development effort whose deployment of crop technologies served to displace the most vulnerable farmers incapable of affording the inputs. To challenge the Green Revolution’s ideological hegemony over the agricultural development field, we need a movement to mainstream the organic practices that are best-suited for Africa’s small farmers. Paradoxically, Africa’s smallholder farmers are the group most vulnerable to hunger, and so this calls for agricultural systems centered on empowering farmers rather than on simply producing more food.

Indeed, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development (IAASTD) was a major attempt at elevating such alternatives to industrial agriculture on the international agenda. The UN-commissioned report warned that “continuing on the path of high-input industrial agriculture will fail to meet the world’s food security goals in the face of climate change, water scarcity, and human nutrition needs,” IAASTD co-chair Hans Herren writes in a recent Op-Ed. It proposes multi-functionality as a framework for global agriculture, which must not only generate viable yields but ensure rural livelihoods, adequate nutrition, and adaptation to climate change. Yet the IAASTD, with its fundamentally transformed vision for agriculture, had difficulty gaining traction.

“The institutional mechanisms of the corporate food regime are unlikely to provide solutions to its socio-eco- logical contradictions—as evidenced by the business-as- usual approach to productionist agriculture in the World Bank’s 2008 World Development Report, matched by the silence with which the report on the unsustainability of industrial agriculture by the FAO’s 2008 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development was met at the FAO’s Rome food crisis summit in June 2008,” writes Cornell University development sociology professor Philip McMichael.

Thus proponents of agro-ecological agriculture are tasked with building an alternative international network that challenges the sanctity of high-input agriculture. Just as international institutions and donors have used globalization to their advantage — to assert hegemony over the global agriculture agenda—their critics ought to use those same global forces to advocate for their cause, with the ultimate goal of mobilizing civil society and governments around food sovereignty. This is exactly what the Worldwatch Institute’s Nourishing the Planet project aimed to do. By documenting examples of local agricultural innovations, the project showed concretely that other pathways for agricultural development are indeed possible.

This post was originally published on policymic.com: http://www.policymic.com/articles/6380/african-food-sovereignty-must-focus-on-building-locally-controlled-food-systems

How to transform African farming: Return to ‘orphan crops’

Posted on August 23, 2012 by hollyb

By Daniel Bornstein
Dartmouth College, Class of 2014
World Agroforestry Center Intern

US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (front, second from right) and Kenyan politicians after a meeting at the parliament in Nairobi Aug. 4. Op-ed contributor Daniel Bornstein writes: ‘I recently visited various smallholder farmers in Kenya. Many say that while decades ago their families grew a diverse array of crops valuable for local nutrition, nowadays they have largely shifted to maize production because of its promising global and local market opportunities.’
Jacquelyn Martin/AP/pool

Farming in sub-Saharan Africa could be transformed, but not by heeding calls for a new “Green Revolution.”

The 1960s Green Revolution, which averted famine in India and Latin America through the deployment of high-yield crop varieties, is often hailed as one of the greatest humanitarian achievements of the 20th century.

Yet this effort focused largely on globally traded staples, neglecting locally important crops. The outcome partly explains today’s global malnutrition crisis. The countries reached by the Green Revolution became massive producers of rice, wheat, or maize, but at the expense of the crop diversity necessary for well-rounded diets.

And it is large-scale producers who have benefited from production of those major commodities, while the rural poor have been left behind and become more vulnerable to hunger.

If sub-Saharan Africa is to benefit from advances in agricultural productivity in the 21st century, investments in the so-called “orphan crops” – sweet potato, cassava, and millet, for example – will be crucial for strengthening the poorest farmers’ livelihoods and improving nutrition.

For three months, I recently visited various smallholder farmers in Kenya. Many say that while decades ago their families grew a diverse array of crops valuable for local nutrition, nowadays they have largely shifted to maize production because of its promising global and local market opportunities.

Markets are vastly underdeveloped for crops such as sweet potato and cassava, the farmers told me. Yet these crops’ tremendous value to human nutrition makes it imperative to create local food markets for them. Sub-Saharan Africa has for too long depended on global food markets, leaving the continent vulnerable to high food prices.

The 2008 food crisis was a stark reminder of this danger. When Asian and Latin American countries restricted exports to ensure adequate food supplies for their domestic populations, African countries’ situation was exacerbated. The orphan crops hold an untapped potential to be part of national food-security strategies based on local food markets.

Public and private investments are needed at all points in the agricultural supply chain. It starts with the seed. Both international and country-level research will have to work on improving the productivity of locally-valuable crops, departing from a longstanding focus on major staple crops.

A key step in this direction is to give farmers a voice in the agricultural research agenda. For example, farmers are represented in the work of the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA). The farmers have been able to effectively expand researchers’ insights to include orphan crops in their work.

And recently the International Institute for Environment and Development convened a “citizens’ jury” in Mali that brought together farmers to make recommendations on agricultural research. They suggested that researchers focus on the production and storage of traditional seed varieties.

Next, the appropriate post-harvest technologies – such as storage facilities attuned to the requirements of particular orphan crops – must be in place so that farmers can avoid flooding the market. This ensures that farmers receive sustainable prices, and it shows the benefits of switching to an orphan crop. Farmers are unlikely to start growing a new crop if they’re not assured of their ability to access a market.

The importance of storage is nowhere more evident than in Ethiopia’s 2003 famine. Despite huge crop yields for Ethiopian farmers in 2002, the country was missing an efficient market to absorb those yields. The lack of storage facilities caused the surplus crops to flood the market, driving down prices to the extent that farmers had to curtail production because otherwise their costs would have far exceeded their sales revenues.

Farmers also need access to local food processors that add value to their crops. Having a reliable buyer avoids the sort of problem seen in Ethiopia in 2003. If the farmers are well-organized, they may even be able to garner a higher price for a crop because the market value of, say, sweet potato flour is higher than that of sweet potato alone.

That leads to the end of the supply chain: the consumer. Widespread nutrition education campaigns are crucial for creating more viable markets for orphan crops, especially when the public can learn that improving diets may be as simple as substituting sweet potato for wheat in a certain food product.

Indeed, these value-chain interventions are all inextricably linked. Work on the sweet potato in Uganda and Mozambique by HarvestPlus, a nongovernmental group that focuses on micronutrients, is a perfect example of such linkages.

With the goal of combating Vitamin A deficiency, sweet potato varieties bred by the International Potato Center have been introduced to households through local NGOs. The key, then, is to coordinate public and private investment so that it is tailored toward building opportunities for the most vulnerable farmers’ production of local crops that have long been neglected in Africa.

This article was originally published in The Christian Science Monitor in August 2012

Google’s Successful Sustainability Practices: Big companies, big opportunities for proven environmental solutions

Posted on August 23, 2012 by hollyb

By Jillian Jordan

Corporate sustainability has the potential to make massive contributions to cutting carbon emissions while saving money. Working models can be seen with companies that practice demand response methods and smart metering, which enable them to lower energy usage and costs in addition to the carbon impacts associated with such consumption. Examples like these prove that making the move to go green doesn’t just make sense for our planet and the people on it, but it is also practical for businesses – which is good news in a struggling economy.

Google is one of the top businesses in the world and, coincidentally, is also one of the most sustainable. Sustainability is about survival, and corporations like Google follow sustainable practices to ensure they thrive in a world with increasingly shrinking resources.

Source: Getty Images

In all, Google has invested over $915 million in renewable energy, eliminated their impact on climate change since 2007 and their data centers use 50 percent less energy than standard ones. The environmental impacts of a business using Google’s top product, Gmail, is up to 80 times smaller than using an outside server, in part, because of the use of the “cloud”. In other words, for the energy a single small business uses to host its email locally, approximately 80 businesses could be hosted in the cloud using the same amount of energy.

Energy Efficiency in the Data Center

Other corporate leaders can stand to learn a lot from Google’s strategies and best practices. In their data centers, Google uses the following five best practices to ensure optimal energy efficiency:

1. Measuring performance through PUE (Power Usage Effectiveness)

Google uses half of the energy than a typical data center by utilizing instrumentation that measures Power Usage Effectiveness (Total Facility Energy divided by IT Equipment Energy). Frequent measurement is important so you can then compare it to benchmarks.

2. Optimizing airflow for their processors

IT equipment is organized by rows and cooling is the most vital step to ensuring energy efficiency. Google essentially “weatherizes” their equipment to cover gaps, which keeps airflow constant, while also monitoring any hot spots by use of computer modeling to obtain a thermal profile.

3. Adjusting the thermostat

Although IT equipment needs to be properly cooled, the optimal temperature may be higher than popularly believed. Raising temperature from 72 degrees to 81 degrees could save thousands of dollars and CO2 emissions without damaging equipment.

4. Utilizing free cooling

On days where outside temperature is cooler, adjust the thermostat appropriately to offset the needed energy to cool the equipment room. You should see a measurable drop in your data center energy bill in the winter months.

5. Optimizing power distribution

Retrofits and energy audits are sometimes needed for your energy efficiency project, but the upfront costs to find how to best optimize your power distribution will give a return on investment (ROI) that can save you well over what initial capital was spent for the project.

Optimal practice of data center energy efficiency sets Google apart and is only rivaled by Apple, Inc. If you want to carry out the same successful energy efficiency plans for a data center, here is a helpful guide that shows, in detail, just how Google does it. Location for a data center is just as crucial as energy efficiency. Many large-scale data centers are located in North Carolina – a state with lots of affordable land and temperate weather conditions which allow for minimal HVAC usage to power the centers.

http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/www.google.com/en/us/corporate/datacenter/dc-best-practices-google.pdf

Covering All Their Bases

Google also focuses on renewable energy sources and are doing their part in greening the grid through renewable energy purchases to the tune of $915 million. They went about this by obtaining power purchase agreements, or PPAs, which are contracts to buy energy from clean sources — such as wind or solar farms — near their data centers. The contracts are long-term and show a measurable benefit to the environment in addition to being good for business in terms of lowering their carbon footprint.

Employee Programs

The Google campuses worldwide are also home to innovative greening measures, many of which were started by their own employees and expanded to company-wide efforts. There are roof-mounted solar panels, a bike-to-work program and even community gardens that serve many of the cafeterias on the different campuses. The Google employee initiatives eliminate the equivalent of more than 10,000 metric tons of CO2 per year.

Source: Renewable Energy World

Campus Best Practices

Bikes on campus, biodiesel shuttles, composting, green vehicle fleets, solar (farm & GE Partnership) and a commuter program all have a home on Google’s campuses. Greening their buildings has led to 4.5 million sq. ft. set to achieve LEED green certification status. Commuting sustainably has led to 2,000 cars off the road as a result of their shuttle program and electric vehicle charging stations, both equivalent to 14,000,000 vehicle miles per year. Since Google is also powered by renewables, 1.6 MW of solar panels produce 3 million kWh of clean energy every year at their Mountain View campus alone.

Source: Renewable Energy World

Getting to Net Zero

Google’s efficiency and renewable energy installations offer carbon offsets in an attempt to ultimately get to zero, but there was still room for improvement. To further offset negative environmental effects, Google invests in clean energy projects. “We’re very picky because we want to make sure that our investment has a positive impact that wouldn’t have happened without us,” according to Google’s website. “For example, we pay for reductions in emissions from a landfill near our data center. By investing in these projects, our total climate impact ends up being zero. This means that all of our products and services are carbon neutral.”

Google strives to be green in most of its operations and is careful to incorporate energy efficiency, sustainable practices and renewable energy into every aspect of its business model. This has not only afforded the corporate giant a fantastic reputation for lessening its carbon footprint, but also a substantial amount of money in energy savings – not to mention peace of mind for operating a successful corporate social responsibility plan.

Solar Makes Sense Now—and a Lot of Cents Too

Posted on August 23, 2012 by hollyb

By Mike MacCracken
Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs for the Climate Institute

Being a climate change scientist, I had been thinking for many years of getting a solar photovoltaic (PV) system to supply our home’s electricity. But, I hesitated, unable to convincingly answer how to choose a reliable installer who would be around for a while, how to know what type of system to buy, what would the warranty be, how much electricity would I get, how does one get the various government rebates, how does one get paid for helping to meet our state’s renewable energy requirement, and, wow, buying and maintaining a system seemed likely to be pretty expensive. With all of these transaction costs, it just seemed to pay a bit extra for windpower (well, pay to help subsidize windpower development around the country).

Then came the advertising how one could get a solar system put in for free. So, last October I went to a local green-energy fair to investigate. There were representatives from a couple of companies; I happened to hit it off well with the representative from SolarCity, which is now leading company in installing home solar PV. He spent an hour answering my questions. In doing this, he brought my home up on Google Earth, analyzed the available area and solar orientation, and then dropped on images of panels on my south- and west-oriented faces. From that alone he could give an indication of about how bit a system could be installed and estimate the amount of power that would be generated, and so the approximate cost. We made an appointment for him to come over with estimates and talk them over with me and my wife.

A few days later he came with a packet of information and four payment options: three involving a lease and one a purchase. All the options were for a system with 44 panels capable of generating 10.3 kW peak power, more than covering use for all but the summer months, but less than our use during the air conditioning season, especially due to our 15-year old and not very efficient system. Basically, with the lease, there is a guarantee that the system will generate at least a specified number of kW-hr per year, declining slightly over the 20-year period, providing a floor to performance. Interestingly, and importantly, the guarantee is independent of weather as well as technological performance (and, I believe, time down for power failures—we lost power for 99 hours as a result of the June 29 storm in Washington, DC!). The pricing of the options also covers maintenance, repairs, and insurance, appropriate considering their real interest in the system performing well. The guaranteed level was less than would likely be produced because they really don’t want to pay out on the guarantee; the estimates of the return on the investment are based on this lower-than-likely-to-be-generated guaranteed amount.

For the lease, there are three payment options; each has SolarCity taking care of and accounting for in the price for the various subsidies and credits—so no need to fill out extra forms, prepay the cost and wait for rebates, etc. So, the payment options were: (a) a monthly payment that started at about two-thirds of our present average monthly bill, and escalated about 4% per year over the 20 years; (b) a few thousand dollars down, and a level payment for 20 years that was about three-quarters of our present average monthly bill; and (c) about $17K down and no monthly payment for 20 years. The projected financial savings over 20 years were about $9K, $18K, and $39K, respectively. For the purchase option, the offered cost was a bit higher than option (c), but did not include the costs for maintenance, repairs, and insurance, and no guaranteed amount of electric generation. We chose option (c).

A few weeks later, the crew came for a 3-hour check out of our roof and attic, determining where beams needed strengthening, electrical connections would be made, how to avoid vent pipes, and more. It took about three months (including several holiday periods) for plans to be drawn, approval of homeowners association, and county and utility permits to be issued. Installation took a week, and went very well. It then took a frustrating (and sunny) month for county inspection and for the utility to install the smartmeter and approve turning the system on, in that our home remains attached to the electric system and the solar panel electricity flows onto the grid when we are using less than we are producing. We also arranged to get a new, much more efficient air-conditioning system—hoping over the year to produce more than we are using and get paid for the extra by our utility.

So, how about performance? April, the smartmeter ran backwards and the utility did not send a bill, building up a credit (they apparently settle on an annual basis). May, the meter was still negative, a bit less than it could have been due to a rain-induced short due to a slightly loose connection that they came and fixed. June and July, good production as well, a bit less than we were using, but still very good. Financially, the return has been really impressive. In most discussions of comparative pricing, all that is included is the technological cost. But that is not all that counts for the homeowner. In my bill, in addition to the price per kW-hr (which has been 9.5 cents for windpower), the net usage is multiplied by factors that add roughly four cents more to cover transmission, distribution, taxes, and more—my real per kilowatt-hour cost is roughly 13.5 cents per kW-hr. Averaged across changing sun angle and weather, the system has been generating about 1250 kW-hr per month (a good bit above the average for the guaranteed minimum, though this is summer, but with both south and west facing panels, this should not change too much). Multiplied out, the system has been generating about $170 worth of savings each month, so about 1% of my capital investment per month, which in the present economic climate is a tremendous rate of return, and virtually guaranteed.

That installing solar makes both good environmental and economic sense for us is really clear. SolarCity is getting so much business by referral that it is both hiring additional installation crews and, as I understand it, holding back on media advertising in order to avoid generating too big a backlog. Yes, the solar panels are from China and some of the equipment from overseas, but the jobs are here in the US and, to date, my estimated reduction in CO₂ emissions is approaching 3 tons after four months of operation.