Perpetual Innovation

Blog

  • California Becomes First State to Mandate Solar on New Homes – Bloomberg

    California Becomes First State to Mandate Solar on New Homes – Bloomberg:

    California is 1/3 of the US economy and probably 1/3 of the US housing market. So, when California voted today to have mandatory solar on most new construction houses, this blows the top off of the non-solar rooftop.

    Headlines read that the CA house will now cost about an additional $10,000 to build with the energy efficiency and solar roof mandates. This Bloomberg article says that the savings will be about twice the increase in building costs.

    True, it costs more to build, but the operating costs are dramatically less.

    This is related to new houses, so the decision is easier than for an existing house.

    However, that decision should be really simple as well for a house with good sun exposure. There are tax credits and ways to finance that will allow the homeowner to pay for the solar system out of the savings in power, until the whole solar system is paid off in 15-20 years and then it is a perpetuity of savings!…

    So, a $40,000 system in Florida is $28,000 after a 30% federal tax credit. The payment on the loan would be equal to, or less than the payments for electricity, on average. And, after you pay off the system in, say, 15 years, you have about $250 worth of net savings per month for a long, long time. That’s $3,000 per year in year 15; as a perpetuity, at 5% interest, the net present value is about $29,000 positive.

    Wait a minute. That is more, net present value-wise, then the entire out-of-pocket cost of the system if you had paid cash up front (less the tax credit). But you may not have paid any cash up front for it and paid all loan/lease payments from the savings on the electric bill!

    So, if the same math applies for a $300,000 home in California (cause everything’s far more expensive in California), which is now increased to $310,000. The additionally $10k can be separately financed; probably, with terms of nothing down and loan payments that are less than the electric bill. That is, from day one, the cash flows from operations are as good or better than paying full electric bills.

    Once you pay off the PV loan, you now have free electricity, for a long time.

    Plus, it is good for the environment and reduces CO2 emissions, and significantly reduces the reliance on centralized energy production form your favorite power utility.

    The net present value of the cash flows may be $10-$20,000 positive.

    A couple important factors: Power companies have traditionally increased costs by more than the level of inflation (inflation at about 2% and rising). Inflation and interest rates should rise significantly with full employment. PV technology reduces very slightly over time (0.5% per year).

    The private PV power system protects against the rising costs of power.
    ….
    So, the headlines might more accurately read:

    New CA Solar Mandate will increase home costs by about $10,000 but offset by about twice from the reduced of operating costs. 


    Another win, win, win of sustainability.

    This should not be a hard decision to make, in any sunny state. The mandate should not be necessary. Consumers should be making this decision as a smart decision, not just a green decision.
    Being Green, and making Green too.

    ‘via Blog this’

  • Time to DrawDown and Look at All the Sky, not just Half

    In the US, we often
    characterize women hitting the Glass Ceiling where men are in the highest
    positions of companies – executives and board rooms. Interestingly, men don’t
    see much of a glass ceiling, maybe because they are usually upstairs and not
    looking down. Old white men may be complicit and complacent in women knocking
    at the other side of the glass, but world-wide the imperative to give women
    respect and opportunity is critical, with profound implications for the world
    population and sustainable economic development. It’s a human and a humanity
    issue for everyone everywhere.
    Let’s talk about Drawdown and Half
    the Sky     (Wikipedia contributors, 2018). Both are bestselling books and
    global initiatives.
    Everyone should be
    familiar with each of these.
    Half the Sky is a bestselling book by Kristof and
    WuDunn (2009), a movie, and an activist movement. See Half the Sky
    movement:     http://www.halftheskymovement.org/
    Women are not allowed to
    do many things in many countries. The limitations on women in many cases mean
    that only half of the human resources in a country/area are utilized. It’s a
    lot like seeing only half of the sky!
    Women are often not encouraged
    to go to school. In many cultures girls are expected to drop out of school very
    early, say age 11 to 13, so they can get married and/or work. (Or worse,
    funneled into sex slavery.) Encouraging women to stay in school longer solve
    many problems simultaneously. At an older age, with education, they are better
    able to do family planning and more productive work. This is key to population
    control. Educating women is key to reaching a global population of 9B or less,
    instead of 11B or more.
    In terms of economic
    development, a better use of women resources is a critical asset to the work
    economy. In fact, women are absolutely critical to sustainability efforts:
    lower population, higher GDP, higher per capita GDP, and reduced environmental
    impacts on the planet.
    There’s an effort call
    DrawDown (    www.DrawDown.org) that looks for the best initiatives, using the current
    technology that will make the biggest difference in CO2 emissions and global
    warming. Groups use the best, peer-reviewed, information available to analyze
    each initiative. Initiatives are evaluated on the emissions savings as well as
    the actual cost saving on a world-wide bases. When taken together, two women’s
    initiatives, ranked #6 and #7, would move up to #1 position. The two categories
    are: educating women and family planning.
    Note that the three
    women/girl initiatives are ranked 6, 7 and 62; however, combined, they
    represent arguably the best single initative to address in terms of impact on
    global warming reduction. And, oh, by the way, they will contribute massively
    to world GDP and assist dramatically with cost savings compared to business as
    usual.
    The book Drawdown and
    the web site Drawdown.org are edited by Paul Hawken (2017).
    The first table shows
    the summary by sector the top 80 Drawdown initiatives. These
    initiatives are all things that we should do, no matter how aggressively you
    think our action toward Global Warming might be. It would be simply
    irresponsible not to address these issues. Note that an initiative related to
    utilities is ranked 77 but has 3 parts; therefore, there the top 80 lists is
    actually 82 items (see the Top 80 list below).
    We need to be more
    proactively regarding women and girl’s rights; or, we could continue to see
    only half the sky.
    (Including Net Costs to Implement and
    Projected Savings)
    Summary by Sectors of the top 80 Initiatives
    Sector
    Initatives
    CO2e GT Reduction
    Net Costs (US$B)
    Savings (US$B)
    Buildings and Cities
                  15
                                       55
                            4,927
                     17,906
    Electricity Generation
                  20
                                     246
                            4,896
                     21,447
    Food
                  17
                                     322
                               777
                     10,017
    Land Use
                    9
                                     150
                               131
                       1,199
    Materials
                    7
                                     112
                            1,125
                       1,040
    Transport
                  11
                                       46
                         17,753
                     22,666
    Women and Girls
                    3
                                     121
                                   –  
                             88
    TOTAL
                  82
                                 1,051
                         29,609
                     74,362
    Source: Paul Hawken
    (Ed.), 2017, retrieved from www.DrawDown.org.
    * Note. Energy Storage
    and Grid are ranked 77, but represent 3 options, so 82 entries are in this
    list.
    See
    the top 80 table below.
    References
    Kristof,
    N., & WuDunn, S. (2009). Half the
    sky: Turning oppression into opportunity for women worldwide.     New York, NY:
    Alfred A. Knopf.
    Hawken,
    P. (2017). Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan every proposed to reverse
    global warming    . (P. Hawken, Ed.). New York, NY: Penguin Books.
    Wikipedia
    contributors. (2018, April 9). Half the Sky. In Wikipedia, The Free
    Encyclopedia    . Retrieved 15:55, April 10, 2018, from     https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Half_the_Sky&oldid=835610476
    (Including Net Costs to Implement and Projected Savings)
    Total CO2e (GT)
     Atmospheric
    Net Costs
    Savings
    Rank
    Solution
    Sector
     reduction
    US $B
    US $B
    1
    Refrigerant Management
    Materials
    89.74
    N/A
    ($902.77)
    2
    Wind Turbines
    (Onshore)
    Electricity Generation
    84.6
    $1,225.37
    $7,425.00
    3
    Reduced Food Waste
    Food
    70.53
    N/A
    N/A
    4
    Plant-Rich Diet
    Food
    66.11
    N/A
    N/A
    5
    Tropical Forests
    Land Use
    61.23
    N/A
    N/A
    6
    Educating Girls
    Women and Girls
    59.6
    N/A
    N/A
    7
    Family Planning
    Women and Girls
    59.6
    N/A
    N/A
    8
    Solar Farms
    Electricity Generation
    36.9
    ($80.60)
    $5,023.84
    9
    Silvopasture
    Food
    31.19
    $41.59
    $699.37
    10
    Rooftop Solar
    Electricity Generation
    24.6
    $453.14
    $3,457.63
    11
    Regenerative
    Agriculture
    Food
    23.15
    $57.22
    $1,928.10
    12
    Temperate Forests
    Land Use
    22.61
    N/A
    N/A
    13
    Peatlands
    Land Use
    21.57
    N/A
    N/A
    14
    Tropical Staple Trees
    Food
    20.19
    $120.07
    $626.97
    15
    Afforestation
    Land Use
    18.06
    $29.44
    $392.33
    16
    Conservation
    Agriculture
    Food
    17.35
    $37.53
    $2,119.07
    17
    Tree Intercropping
    Food
    17.2
    $146.99
    $22.10
    18
    Geothermal
    Electricity Generation
    16.6
    ($155.48)
    $1,024.34
    19
    Managed Grazing
    Food
    16.34
    $50.48
    $735.27
    20
    Nuclear
    Electricity Generation
    16.09
    $0.88
    $1,713.40
    21
    Clean Cookstoves
    Food
    15.81
    $72.16
    $166.28
    22
    Wind Turbines
    (Offshore)
    Electricity Generation
    14.1
    $545.30
    $762.50
    23
    Farmland Restoration
    Food
    14.08
    $72.24
    $1,342.47
    24
    Improved Rice
    Cultivation
    Food
    11.34
    N/A
    $519.06
    25
    Concentrated Solar
    Electricity Generation
    10.9
    $1,319.70
    $413.85
    26
    Electric Vehicles
    Transport
    10.8
    $14,148.00
    $9,726.40
    27
    District Heating
    Buildings and Cities
    9.38
    $457.10
    $3,543.50
    28
    Multistrata
    Agroforestry
    Food
    9.28
    $26.76
    $709.75
    29
    Wave and Tidal
    Electricity Generation
    9.2
    $411.84
    ($1,004.70)
    30
    Methane Digesters
    (Large)
    Electricity Generation
    8.4
    $201.41
    $148.83
    31
    Insulation
    Buildings and Cities
    8.27
    $3,655.92
    $2,513.33
    32
    Ships
    Transport
    7.87
    $915.93
    $424.38
    33
    LED Lighting
    (Household)
    Buildings and Cities
    7.81
    $323.52
    $1,729.54
    34
    Biomass
    Electricity Generation
    7.5
    $402.31
    $519.35
    35
    Bamboo
    Land Use
    7.22
    $23.79
    $264.80
    36
    Alternative Cement
    Materials
    6.69
    ($273.90)
    N/A
    37
    Mass Transit
    Transport
    6.57
    N/A
    $2,379.73
    38
    Forest Protection
    Land Use
    6.2
    N/A
    N/A
    39
    Indigenous Peoples’
    Land Management
    Land Use
    6.19
    N/A
    N/A
    40
    Trucks
    Transport
    6.18
    $543.54
    $2,781.63
    41
    Solar Water
    Electricity Generation
    6.08
    $2.99
    $773.65
    42
    Heat Pumps
    Buildings and Cities
    5.2
    $118.71
    $1,546.66
    43
    Airplanes
    Transport
    5.05
    $662.42
    $3,187.80
    44
    LED Lighting
    (Commercial)
    Buildings and Cities
    5.04
    ($205.05)
    $1,089.63
    45
    Building Automation
    Buildings and Cities
    4.62
    $68.12
    $880.55
    46
    Water Saving – Home
    Materials
    4.61
    $72.44
    $1,800.12
    47
    Bioplastic
    Materials
    4.3
    $19.15
    N/A
    48
    In-Stream Hydro
    Electricity Generation
    4
    $202.53
    $568.36
    49
    Cars
    Transport
    4
    ($598.69)
    $1,761.72
    50
    Cogeneration
    Electricity Generation
    3.97
    $279.25
    $566.93
    51
    Perennial Biomass
    Land Use
    3.33
    $77.94
    $541.89
    52
    Coastal Wetlands
    Land Use
    3.19
    N/A
    N/A
    53
    System of Rice
    Intensification
    Food
    3.13
    N/A
    $677.83
    54
    Walkable Cities
    Buildings and Cities
    2.92
    N/A
    $3,278.24
    55
    Household Recycling
    Materials
    2.77
    $366.92
    $71.13
    56
    Industrial Recycling
    Materials
    2.77
    $366.92
    $71.13
    57
    Smart Thermostats
    Buildings and Cities
    2.62
    $74.16
    $640.10
    58
    Landfill Methane
    Buildings and Cities
    2.5
    ($1.82)
    $67.57
    59
    Bike Infrastructure
    Buildings and Cities
    2.31
    ($2,026.97)
    $400.47
    60
    Composting
    Food
    2.28
    ($63.72)
    ($60.82)
    61
    Smart Glass
    Buildings and Cities
    2.19
    $932.30
    $325.10
    62
    Women Smallholders
    Women and Girls
    2.06
    N/A
    $87.60
    63
    Telepresence
    Transport
    1.99
    $127.72
    $1,310.59
    64
    Methane Digesters
    (Small)
    Electricity Generation
    1.9
    $15.50
    $13.90
    65
    Nutrient Management
    Food
    1.81
    N/A
    $102.32
    66
    High-speed Rail
    Transport
    1.52
    $1,038.42
    $368.10
    67
    Farmland Irrigation
    Food
    1.33
    $216.16
    $429.67
    68
    Waste-to-Energy
    Electricity Generation
    1.1
    $36.00
    $19.82
    69
    Electric Bikes
    Transport
    0.96
    $106.75
    $226.07
    70
    Recycled Paper
    Materials
    0.9
    $573.48
    N/A
    71
    Water Distribution
    Buildings and Cities
    0.87
    $137.37
    $903.11
    72
    Biochar
    Food
    0.81
    N/A
    N/A
    73
    Green Roofs
    Buildings and Cities
    0.77
    $1,393.29
    $988.46
    74
    Trains
    Transport
    0.52
    $808.64
    $313.86
    75
    Ridesharing
    Transport
    0.32
    N/A
    $185.56
    76
    Micro Wind
    Electricity Generation
    0.2
    $36.12
    $19.90
    77
    Energy Storage
    (Distributed)*
    Electricity Generation
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    77
    Energy Storage
    (Utilities)*
    Electricity Generation
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    77
    Grid Flexibility*
    Electricity Generation
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    78
    Microgrids
    Electricity Generation
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    79
    Net Zero Buildings
    Buildings and Cities
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    80
    Retrofitting
    Buildings and Cities
    N/A
    N/A
    N/A
    Sum of top initiatives
                  1,050.99
        29,609.30
        74,362.37
    Source: Paul Hawken
    (Ed.), 2017, retrieved from www.DrawDown.org.
    * Note. Energy Storage
    and Grid are ranked 77, but represent 3 options, so 82 entries are in this
    list.

  • PetroCoins, Oil Sands Extraction and Blockchain.

    Oil sands are seriously back in play with patented technology. Combine that with blockchain tech, and you have an investment that you simply gotta get into, or not!…
    Petrotech Energy Inc. is touting both patents and blockchain in a penny, over-the-counter, stock (PQEFF).
    Well, maybe not investing, but here is a hyped-up “sponsored” Ad that looks slightly like an article over at OilPrice.com: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/This-New-Technology-Could-Transform-The-Oil-Industry1.html
    Two things that are interesting in the penny stock that’s now up to $1.50 level. It has patented tech on oil sands extraction that is a closed loop system that sounds interesting. With the dry sands of Utah it apparently has the ability to extract 99% of the heavy oil and leaves only sand as the byproduct. That is pretty cool because oil sand extraction has historically been a very, very dirty and expansive business. They want to expand their patents to the countries where lots of (dry) oil sands deposits live and make a fortune. Unfortunately, two of the biggest candidates are Kazakhstan, Venezuela, Russia and China — not exactly the worlds heaven of intellectual property (IP) protection countries.
    In fact, the bitcoin IP (ICO) backed by oil reserves by Venezuela in an interesting ploy. We thought the initial coil offering should more aptly be called an IKO, for Initial Kleptocurrency Offering.
    A cybercurrency like bitcoin is, however, an interesting way to do business in any world, especially a kleptocratic country. And blockchain is the underlying transaction technology. So the marriage of blockchain to this company has real merit (they call their technology PetroBLOQ). However, bitcoin and blockchain technology are publicly available — open source — technologies.
    Petrotech says that they can produce oil at $22 per barrel. Maybe even as low as $18. That’s impressive for oil sands. Transportation and the extra costs of processing heavy (“dirty” vs “sweet” West Texas type crude) change that dynamic some; but still impressive.
    What’s somewhat funny is this statement: “It extracts over 99 percent of all hydrocarbons in the sand, generates zero greenhouse gases and doesn’t require high temperatures or pressures.”
    Generates “zero greenhouse gases”? It has to be transported, refined, transported to the pump and then burned in a vehicle where it produces between 19 and 20 pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon, depending on the type of gas/diesel.
    Yes, more green than the tar sands of Alberta, but certainly not as green as wind or solar. 
    Look, as well, at the trillions of barrels of oil in sands around the world. Even if we could extract it all and burn it, does not mean we should burn it.
    Check out a sister blog on the scenarios associated with the demise of oil (excluding any discussion about greenhouse gas issues).


  • Scenarios of Stranded Assets in the Oil Patch

    The researchers over at Strategic Business Planning Company have been contemplating scenarios that lead to the demise of oil. The first part of the scenario is beyond obvious. Oil (and coal) are non-renewable resources; they are not sustainable; burning fossil fuels will stop — eventually. It might cease ungracefully, and here are a few driving forces that suggest the cessation of oil could come sooner, not later. Stated differently, if you owned land that is valued based on carbon deposits, or if you owned oil stocks those assets could start to become worth less (or even worthless).

    We won’t spend time on the global warming scenario and possible ramifications of government regulation and/or corporate climate change efforts. These could/would accelerate the change to renewables. There are other drivers away from fossil fuels including: National Security, Moore’s Law toward renewables; and, efficiency.

    1. National Security. Think about all the terrorist groups and rogue countries. All of them get part, or all of their funding from oil (and to a lesser extent, NatGas and Coal). Russia. Iran. Lebanon, where the Russians have been enjoying the trouble they perpetuate. The rogue factions in Nigeria. Venezuela. Even Saudi is not really are best friend (15 of the 19 bombers on 911 were Saudi citizens). Imagine if the world could get off of fossil fuels. Imagine all the money that would be saved, by not having to defend one countries aggression on another if the valuable oil became irrelevant. Imagine how much everyone would save on military. This is more than possible with the current technology; but with Moore’s law of continuous improvement, it becomes even more so.

    2. Moore’s Law. Moore’s law became the law of the land during the computer chip world, where technology is doubling every 18 months, and costs are reducing by half.  (See our blog on The Future of Computing is Taking on a Life of Its Own. After all these decades Moore’s law is finally hitting a wall.) In the renewable world, the price of solar is dropping dramatically, when the efficiency continues to increase. For example the increase of 30% on imported PV, matches the cost reductions of the last year. In the meanwhile battery efficiency is improving dramatically, year-over-year. Entire solar farms have been bid (and built) for about $.02 per kilowatt and wind and/or solar with battery backup is about $.03 per kilowatt. At that price, it is far cheaper to install renewable power vs coal or NatGas, especially given the years to create/develop for fossil fuel plants.

    Note, that we haven’t even talked about peak coal and peak oil. Those concepts are alive and well, just that fracking technology has pushed them back maybe 10 years from a production supply-side perspective. At some point you hit the maximum possible production (on a non-renewable resource) and production can only go down (and prices go up) from there. The world production of oil is now up to 100m barrels per day.  But oil wells deplete at about 4%-5%, so you need 4% more new wells every year. Fracking drops about 25%-30% in the first year! So you need about many more wells each year to stay even. But let’s go on to efficiency and probably the major demand-side force.

    3. Efficiency. The incandescent light bulb, produces very little light… it produces more than 95% heat, and just a tiny bit of light with 100 watts of energy. With only 10-15 watts an LED light can produce the same light was required 100 watts in days of old. The internal combustion engine is hugely inefficient, producing mostly (unused) heat and directly harnessing only 10-15% of energy from gas or diesel… plus it took huge amounts of energy to mine, transport, refine, transport, and retail the fuel. Electric engines are far more efficient, and they produce no toxic emissions. A great book that talks about energy, efficiency and trends is by Ayers & Ayers, Crossing the Energy Divide. The monster power plants (nuclear, coal, NatGas) have serious efficiency issues. They produce huge amounts of heat for steam turbines, but most of the heat is lost/wasted (lets say 50%). Electricity must be transmitted long distances through transmission lines (where up to 40% can be lost in transmission).

    Producing power as needed, where needed, makes so much more sense in most cases. Right now, using today’s technology, pretty much everyone can produce most of their own power (PV or wind) at about the same cost as the power monopolies.  But Moore’s law is making the renewable technology better and better every year. Add some batteries and microgrid technology and you have robust electric systems.

    The losers in these trends/scenarios can be the BIG oil companies and the electric monopolies. They will fight move until they change, or they lose. Just like peak oil, it is a mater of time… but the time is coming faster and faster…

    Saudi is trying to keep prices high enough to complete their oil Initial Public Offering so they can diversify out of oil. Venezuela is offering a new cyber coin IPO (their Petro ICO) with barrels of buried oil as collateral (See Initial Kleptocurrency Offering). But what if that oil becomes a stranded asset? Your Petro currency becomes as worthless as the Venezuelan Bolivar.

    You really want to carefully consider how much and how long you want to own fossil fuel assets… Fossil fuels may be dead in a decade or two… Moore or less.

  • Venezuela's 'Petro' Token Launches in Pre-Sale – CoinDesk

    Venezuela’s ‘Petro’ Token Launches in Pre-Sale – CoinDesk:

    Is it an ICO or an IKO. There has been a new trend that is catching fire, to do an initial public offering (IPO) in cyber/cryptocurrency coins, or ICO. Venezuela, with a failed currency in a failed state, is doing a very novel approach their new ICO offering is to be backed by a small portion of their vast oil reserves. And the coin will be called a Petro, which is equivalent to a barrel of Venezuelan (sour) crude in the ground. It is generally better that the collateralization of the Petro is oil in the ground because kleptocracy government can’t steal it, privatize it or transfer it to friends and family. (See Wikipedia’s article on the Petro, great because it is dynamically updated.)

    Given the kleptomania of the country, it probably should be called a IKO, for klepto currency. There is some genius involved here. Government employees have not been paid for months. And there is only government employees, since the private sector has been taxed, squeezed, arrested and otherwise squeezed out. No one wants to lend money or invest in capital investments because the government has a way of lying, stealing, cheating and privatizing.

    The Bolivar currency is a klepto nightmare. The preferred exchange rate is about 10 to the US$ so friends and family get a spectacular subsidy. But hyper inflation has about 25,000 Bolivar to the US$. Of course, it is hard to get US dollars, and bolivars are useless.

    When it was announced that Russia was going to “help” Venezuela with this Petro IKO, it was an obvious in for Russia to meddle in Latin America. The Petro, will obviously supersede all other (worthless) Venezuela Debt and liabilities. It is very clever. Venezuela can move to a new currency for some things, and leave the worthless currency for other things (like paying off debt).

    Other countries and other dictators will be watching this closely.

    On the other hand, a collateralize ICO has lots of potential. Troubled, or failed states can offer an ICO to keep mining their diamonds, oil, gold and lithium. Hmmm…???

    While you are thinking about Oil-collateralized-ICOs, check out our scenario discussion on the death of big oil at our sister site here at ScenarioPlans.com: http://delphiplan.com/2018/02/20/scenarios-of-stranded-oil-assets/ 

    Notes. The Petro “white paper” discusses opaquely the intermix of the Vz Goverment, the oil-collateralize instrument, and more. (Check bitcoin news on Petro.) Here’s a summary and link to the white paper at Medium. There are soooo many issues with this ICO. The gov makes out here, there and everywhere: about 17% of the allocation, a discount to entice usage, a ICO price of $60 per barrel. Venezuela has  (dirty) heavy crude, so it should be discounted something like $7 per barrel… Oh, and the oil is still in the ground!

    ‘via Blog this’