There is a consensus in many countries that burning coal to generate electricity is something that needs to be phased out as quickly as possible. The Clean Power Plan in the U.S. has that as one of its most likely outcomes and there have been explicit commitments to retire coal-fired generation plants by governments all over the world.
When considering the options for replacing the electricity generated by coal-fired plants there are two characteristics of these plants that need to be considered. The first is that coal is the cheapest and most abundant non-renewable fuel available. The second is that coal-fired plants are very reliable – more reliable even than natural gas-fired plants because they can stockpile fuel on site so that they are not subject to pipeline congestion problems. And getting approval to build new pipelines is not easy these days.
One of the strategies for replacement of coal-fired generation is the development of more wind and solar power. This approach is not without its problems because of the inability to store energy from these sources which are often not available during peak demand times of the day. Matching the 24×365 reliability of coal-fired plants using renewables would be very challenging.
When you think about it the only thing wrong with coal-fired plants is the fact they burn coal to produce the steam used to drive turbines. If a renewable source of heat could be supplied to these plants they could continue providing reliable power and the negative aspects of burning coal would be eliminated.
In jurisdictions where renewable energy sources have been developed extensively the disconnect between electricity production and system load is starting to become problematic. For example, on many circuits on Oahu the amount of electricity generated by roof-top solar panels actually exceeds system demand mid-day some days. Although there is plenty of potential to expand solar power in Hawaii from a resource standpoint it will not be possible without the ability to time-shift production to match demand through the use of energy storage. As a result solar panel permits have been falling for a number of years and hit a 5 year low of 100 permits for the month of January, 2017.
In Denmark, where the nameplate capacity of wind turbines is approximately 1/3 of total generation capacity in the country, wind generation frequently exceeds domestic demand which requires the export of the excess to neighbouring countries. Obviously if all of Denmark’s neighbours also developed a similar amount of wind capacity there would be nowhere to export the electricity to. Texas and parts of the American Mid-West are facing similar issues.
So we are faced with two different problems;
The need to stop burning coal to generate electricity
The need to store excess electricity generated from wind and solar
Fortunately, there is a combination of field-proven technologies available today that can solve both problems. I will refer to this combination of technologies as “Thermelectric Power”.
Thermelectric Power provides a large rapid response load which can be used to stabilize the grid when there are variations in renewable energy generation. It also stores renewable energy by converting it to thermal energy.
The mechanism for storing the energy is molten salt – a mixture of 60 percent sodium nitrate and 40 percent potassium. Thermal Energy Storage (TES) systems using molten salt have been used for more than 10 years as a way to extend the hours that Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) plants can deliver electricity.
The initial research was done at the Sandia National Solar Thermal Test Facility in New Mexico. The first large-scale commercial application of the technology was at the 50 MW Andasol CSP in Spain which came on-line in March, 2009. The Solana CSP plant commissioned in the fall of 2013 in Arizona includes the largest TES facility deployed to date, able to produce 280 MW of electricity for up to 6 hours after sunset.
Excess wind or solar generated electricity can be used to heat the molten salt to a temperature of more than 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit using industrial electric heating elements. During peak demand periods the molten salt would be circulated through a heat exchanger to transform water into the steam required to power conventional steam turbines. The infrastructure to support the conversion of thermal to electrical energy by means of steam turbines exists at every coal-fired electrical generating station which allows the re-use of these very expensive components with only minimal modifications.
Both the heating of the molten salt and the use of molten salt to generate electricity using steam turbines are proven technologies that are deployed today. By integrating Thermelectric Power into an existing coal-fired generation station it would be possible to phase out the burning of coal as more and more wind or solar generation is developed. This approach would also maintain energy security because it would be possible to switch the power source back to coal for short periods of time to deal with extended periods of calm winds. This dual source approach minimizes both CO2 emissions as well as any risk of power failures on a grid where the primary sources of electricity are renewable.
The cost to implement molten salt storage at an existing coal-fired plant would be $250-$350/kwh. This is less than the cost of utility scale battery storage. More importantly molten salt storage does not suffer degradation in capacity over time. The molten salt can be heated and cooled over and over again so that the service life of this technology is measured in decades.
When considering the relative cost of energy storage systems it is necessary to understand what the “worst case” scenario is. Electricity is of such fundamental importance to modern society that power outages lasting more than a few hours can be literally life-threatening.
In latitudes north of about 35 degrees wind power will be a critical energy resource at peak demand times in the evening and night especially during the winter. That reality demands that we consider what the “100 year calm” looks like. It would certainly be 3-5 days. What if it is 1-2 weeks? Energy storage capacity to handle a two week calm using any technology known today would be impossibly expensive. Molten salt storage together with the ability to revert to burning coal is really one of the only viable solutions.
Thermelectric Power could transform the more than 500 coal-fired generating stations in the U.S. into “green” energy sources. The alternative, being actively pursued by organizations such as the Sierra Club, is to simply shut coal plants down.
As rate-payers, tax-payers, and advocates for a sustainable energy future we have a choice to make.
We can demand that coal plants be decommissioned and dismantled at a cost of billions of dollars. That choice would require the construction of natural gas-fired plants or nuclear plants with approximately the same generation capacity in order to handle peak loads in the evening when winds are calm – construction that would require more billions of dollars and would continue to emit vast amounts of CO2 annually.
Or we can consider converting coal plants to Thermelectric Power which would dramatically reduce the amount of coal being burnt to generate electricity. Coal would only be used as a fuel when electricity generation from renewable sources was not available for extended periods of time. But the flip side of that is that coal could be used in that way to back up renewable generation. As a result we could develop as much wind and solar energy as we wanted without worrying about dealing with excess when demand is low and without worrying about destabilizing the grid.
A future fueled by renewable energy is possible using technology that is available today. We just need to want it enough to make it happen.
Whenever I launch into one of my frequent rants about the need for utility-scale energy storage to support the roll-out of more Solar and Wind generation there are always people that point to pumped storage as a credible solution. And every time that happens I argue very strenuously (and I hope convincingly) that pumped storage is NOT a viable solution because there are not enough locations where it works.
The Bath County facility in Virginia (the world’s largest pumped storage) is an engineering marvel – I encourage anyone interested in storage to check out their site and the video which is quite inspiring. But to create a second large reservoir close to the main reservoir in other locations is difficult. There may be many sites being proposed but are they large enough to make a real impact?
To get an idea of the scale required it would take 3 Bath County sized facilities to be able to store the output from the existing wind generation capacity in Texas. It took 8 years from the time the Bath County facility was licensed until it went into production. And these days the development of large reservoirs is subject to significant resistance from some segments of the environmental community.
I support the development of as much pumped storage as we can reasonably do as quickly as possible. Ironically, even good sites for pumped storage projects can encounter environmental and cost barriers – examples being the Iowa Hill project in California and the Pioneer-Burdekin project in Queensland, Australia. I just don’t think these kinds of projects even if approved will be large enough or fast enough in North America to help us deal with wind variability in the next 5-10 years. On the other hand, pumped storage may be a significant part of the solution in Europe if they can overcome the cost/environmental challenges of building the undersea interconnects required.
In terms of North America it seems to me that there may be a way to achieve the same result using a different approach.
Every hydro facility has penstocks and generators sized to make use of the average stream flow of the river that feeds the reservoir behind the dam. It would not make sense to design in a lot more generating capacity because using more water would quickly draw down the reservoir to a level where power generation would no longer be possible. In dry years some of the penstocks are closed and in wet years water is spilled but on average the facility is designed to use all of the water supply available and no more.
Now if we decided to use existing hydro facilities in a different way it would be possible to provide backup generation for wind and solar. What I am proposing is that additional penstocks and turbines be added to large-scale hydro facilities in North America – perhaps as much as double the current capacity. In most cases this could be done using tunnels from the existing reservoir as shown below.
In order to make this work the average capacity of wind generation (typically 25-30% of nameplate) would have to be roughly equal to the excess capacity built into the hydro facilities.
When wind generation dips below the average the hydro facilities could make use of the excess capacity installed to make up the difference. This of course would lower the level of reservoirs but typically reduced wind conditions only last for a few hours or at most a few days.
When wind generation exceeds the average the hydro generation could be cut back and reservoirs could be refilled or water spilled. By balancing the two generation sources the regional grid would always have access to the same amount of power despite the variability of wind.
This exact situation is already occurring in Scandinavia where excess wind energy from Denmark is often available at night and excess hydro is available during the day. The difference with “Unpumped Storage” is that the entire system will be designed to balance excess wind capacity whenever and wherever it might occur with excess hydro built into existing facilities.
There are some significant challenges with this approach (as there are with any concept that embraces renewable sources in a major way).
Grid Capacity: Balancing wind generation with hydro that might be a thousand miles away will require new transmission lines – very large new transmission lines. In the worst case with a large high pressure zone sitting over the Mid-West wind generation could drop to essentially zero from a high of something like 10 GW or more (this exact situation happened in December, 2012 in Texas where a new wind generation record of 8.6 GW was followed the very next day with 6 hours of no appreciable wind at all). So Unpumped Storage would require a very significant investment in new inter-connections between regional grids
Reservoir Levels: Unpumped Storage would cause reservoirs levels to drop more quickly and to a lower level than with normal hydro operations. This would have ecological impacts that need study and could have a significant impact on recreational activities.
Energy Prices: This approach would not work in a deregulated environment where wind and hydro producers were effectively competing for market share in a “spot market”. Hydro, being the reliable source, could demand almost any price when wind generation dropped dramatically. By way of example, Texas raised the ceiling price of electricity to $9,000/MW-Hour (the average annual price in Texas is $55/MW-Hour) to try and entice utilities to build more base-load generation capacity. The concept seems to be that if you let base-load plants charge 170x the average price for the few hours that they can get access to the grid then utilities will spend the $billions required to build new facilities. Call me a skeptic but I would say “that dog don’t hunt.” In the other extreme when the wind is blowing hard the spot price can drop to zero (actually to less than zero in Texas about 10% of the time because of Production Tax Credits earned by wind producers).
Jurisdictional Issues: To make Unpumped Storage work the jurisdictions in which the hydro and wind were located would have to cooperate in every way; regulations, import/export policies, transmission facility planning and control, pricing mechanisms, and financial incentives would all have to be aligned across the entire region regardless of how many state and provincial borders the electrons crossed. Would this be easy? No. Would it be expensive? Very. But would it work? In many regions of North America the answer is a definite yes.
The Black Swan Blog posts have covered a wide variety of topics related to renewable energy. Many of those posts have focused on the need to develop reliable and affordable energy storage options so that wind and solar power generation can be time-shifted to match demand. No such energy storage technology is viable today but I am convinced that a number of technologies will become mainstream within 20-30 years – possibly more quickly than that.
Without in any way minimizing the challenges that lay ahead with energy storage (which I think should get vastly more R&D funding than is the case today) I thought it would be interesting to imagine what the world would be like when electricity is being generated primarily from renewable sources.
Renewables, whether they be always available such as hydro, hydro-kinetics, or geothermal, or whether they need support in the form of energy storage (wind and solar) all have very low long-term operating costs. Because they do not require any input fuel the only ongoing costs are operations and maintenance which are, in most cases, quite low. So what would be the impact of abundant and cheap electricity that has minimal negative environmental impacts?
Food Production:
About half of the world’s population live north of 27 degrees latitude. That means that there are a lot of people living in areas where crops cannot grow for 1/3 of the year or more. As a result many large population centers are completely dependent upon agricultural production from areas farther south.
The transportation of these agricultural products requires large amounts of energy and inevitably results in a great deal of spoilage. In a world where electricity is abundant and inexpensive there would likely be a significant shift of food production to greenhouses in more northern areas. The result would be fresher produce and lower carbon emissions from the transportation sector.
Water through Desalination
Throughout human history there have been areas of the world experiencing drought. From the dust-bowels of the 1930’s in North America to the more recent dry spells in Australia and California a lack of fresh water can severely reduce food production as well as causing a variety of other problems.
Because transportation and trade via ocean-going vessels has been important to human settlements for millenia many large cities are located on the coastline. For those populations desalination would provide all the fresh water needed. Although such plants have been deployed quite extensively, notably in the Middle East, the cost of energy required for these plants has been a significant deterrent. It should be noted that more than 1% of the world’s daily oil production is burnt in the Middle East to desalinate sea water. In a world where electricity is abundant and inexpensive desalination would become a viable option everywhere.
Areas such as North Africa could possibly be transformed to conditions similar to those experienced during the last “Green Sahara” period which ended about 5,500 years ago. The result would be greater self-sufficiency and improved living conditions for the millions of people suffering through the repeated droughts that have afflicted Sub-Saharan Africa over the past decade.
The Al Khafji Solar-powered desalination plant in Saudi Arabia may be a “postcard from the future”. Using the power of the intense solar radiation common in the area this plant will replace the burning of oil to produce 60,000 cubic metres of water a day.
Inexpensive electricity could be used to power vastly expanded mass transit systems as well as the factories that will manufacture the trolleys and trains that will be used in those systems. Inexpensive electricity will reduce the costs of heating and cooling homes and offices with the result that families and businesses will have more disposable income. It is a fact that inexpensive electricity will transform human society in ways as significant and unimaginable as any technological innovation that has been experienced to date.
And that does raise a concern.
On ancient maps and globes uncharted territory was annotated with warnings such as “here be dragons” or “here be lions”, the intention being to discourage potential explorers or at least advise them to be well armed! A world of abundant and inexpensive energy may also have dragons that we need to guard against. As far as I am concerned the largest and most deadly of these would be the concentration of ownership of this energy by organizations that were not acting in the public good.
In most jurisdictions in the world electricity production is either publicly owned or managed by organizations that are monitored and controlled by public utility commissions or similar bodies. This system, although it suffers from inertia in some cases, has by and large worked quite effectively. As long as the new renewable energy sources continue to be part of this type of structure there is no real danger.
Considering all the positive consequences that could be realized in a world fueled by renewable energy it is reasonable to try and map out the path to get us to that blissful state as quickly as possible.
In my postings here at the Black Swan Blog I have identified numerous technologies that can be used today to store energy. I have also identified the problems associated with each of them. The bottom line, which few green energy advocates are honest enough to admit, is that energy storage on the scale required to transition to 100% wind and solar is not even close to being a reality. Euan Mearns has conducted detailed technical analyses on several real world scenarios. His summary post is a worthwhile read.
As daunting as the technical challenges are the real problem with energy storage is political will and funding. Politicians, with the best of intentions, continue to chase energy mirages such as roof-top solar and wind without storage under the entirely false theory that those approaches can achieve the desired result – a world powered by renewable energy sources.
They cannot.
The intermittent and unpredictable nature of those sources causes escalating problems when implemented to any significant degree. Denmark, Germany, and Hawaii represent well documented case studies that prove without any doubt that every step forward in the development of renewables increases the difficulty of taking the next step.
Having said that, one or more viable and economical energy storage systems would make all the problems go away. A large portion of the solar energy received at mid-day could be shifted to the evening and night. The huge variability of wind energy could be reshaped to better match demand curves. Regulation of electricity flowing into regional grids would mean that costly upgrades would not be necessary.
But in today’s world it is often difficult to make a business case for a utility-scale energy storage solution.
In almost every jurisdiction there is little or no support for energy storage solutions although that is changing slowly with the implementation of grid-level battery solutions. Even so, energy storage developers are faced with having to purchase electricity from local utilities, including paying a grid transmission fee, then store the electricity using some hugely expensive and largely unproven technology, then try and resell the electricity back into the grid in competition with other sources including cheap coal and natural gas-fired plants. Just as in the 1951 cartoon “Cheese Chasers” this scenario just don’t add up!.
Substantially increased R&D funding and operational support for energy storage are essential. A Feed-In-Tarriff for energy retrieved from storage should be provided.
In the short term, as energy storage solutions mature, more support should be provided for existing dispatchable energy sources such as geothermal and hydro-kinetics. These are sources that, despite very compelling attributes, also continue to suffer from a lack of R&D funding and direct financial support.
A sustainable energy future is possible with all the positive benefits that come with it. We just need to want it badly enough to make the best investments possible to achieve the desired result. There are more ideas discussed in my Sustainable Energy Manifesto.
The electrical generation and distribution system has evolved over the past 100+ years into an extremely reliable source of power – one which has been the foundation of the industrial expansion and prosperity of the world. Our society is totally dependent upon this and even relatively short and localized interruptions in the power supply cause major disruptions to everyday life. These events are becoming more frequent and widespread in recent years due to climate change.
In the past 25 years there has been rapid development of renewable energy sources, principally Photo-Voltaic (PV) solar and wind supported by significant tax-payer and rate-payer subsidies. The public policy goal of replacing non-renewable hydro-carbon combustion with renewable generation sources has achieved significant successes; higher efficiencies in manufacturing and more efficient deployment have resulted in lower unit costs which have in some situations made renewables competitive with traditional thermal generation assets (coal-fired, natural gas-fired and nuclear plants).
However, the success of renewables has been achieved in an environment where all traditional thermal generation assets are still in place, able to provide immediate backup power after sunset and when the wind is calm. Even so, as renewable generation becomes a significant component ( > 10% ) of total capacity there have been increasing problems with grid stability (for example in Germany, Hawaii, and Texas). In addition, preferential access to the electrical grid by renewables has seriously eroded the operational efficiency and financial viability of base-load thermal generation plants which are designed (and financed) to run 7x24x365.
In the U.S. the MACT regulations put in place in November, 2011 as well as climate change concerns have resulted in the permanent shut-down of a significant portion of the coal-fired generation fleet (for a thorough discussion see https://www.powermag.com/u-s-coal-plants-get-reprieve-as-market-and-policies-change/). It has been difficult to attract the investment capital required to replace this base-load generation capability in an environment of increasing price uncertainty where renewables are given preferential access to the market.
In order to continue the transition to renewables the problems of variability and reliability must be addressed in a serious way. Grid level battery storage is having a significant and positive impact on frequency stabilization and very short-term generation backup. However, medium term energy storage (1-7 days) continues to be a very difficult challenge which has caused real problems in places like Oahu.
The following specific initiatives would support an aggressive and relatively painless transition to a truly sustainable energy environment.
Provide more support for Concentrated Solar Plants in combination with Photo-voltaic installations. Although initially more expensive to deploy CSP has a very significant advantage in that it can provide power after the sun sets using molten salt storage. With a combination of PV during the day and CSP at night solar energy can become a cost-effective and reliable base-load substitute in the Southern U.S. and in many other parts of the world. Although there have been operational and environmental concerns that have led to the closing of plants in the U.S. (SEGS 1-8, and the proposed shut-down of Ivanpah) other installations have been successful in the U.S. and globally. The Solana plant in Arizona is an example and the recent operational change to primarily provide electricity at night has given new life to Crescent Dunes.
Pass legislation that prevents regional grid operators from treating energy storage systems as an “end user” subject to grid tolls. Utility-scale energy storage systems are essential to address the variability and reliability issues associated with renewables and should be supported by grid operators, not penalized by them.
Institute a Feed-In-Tariff for stored energy that is released to the grid. These systems are as yet in early stages of development and need tax-payer and rate-payer support in order to achieve the large scale deployment that will result in more effective and lower cost systems.
Create an Internationally coordinated Research & Development program to develop utility-scale energy storage systems with funding in the tens of billions of dollars spread over the next decade. The challenges associated with any viable medium-term storage technology are enormous and will require an ISS-style effort to overcome.
Establish a North American “Smart Grid” initiative that will include extensive upgrades not only to the systems used to control energy flow but also to build out required physical inter-connections. The concept that “the wind is always blowing somewhere” does have some validity but would require massive and expensive inter-connection capabilities. Given that transmission lines require significant environmental review, often encounter citizen protest, and take years to construct, this is a process that will take decades to complete. The sooner we get started the better.
Designate all hydro-electric power as a renewable resource (in California large scale hydro is not eligible for the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard) and plan for the further development of hydro where it is available. In particular, plan for the integration of hydro from northern Manitoba and Saskatchewan as backup to the plentiful wind resources of the Canadian Prairies and the U.S. Mid-West. In other areas explore the concept of unpumped storage which implements excess hydro generating capacity to balance wind and PV solar. This will require co-operation between Canada, the United States, and the individual states and provinces. The goal should not be maximizing revenue for any particular generating source in a “spot market” approach, but rather for long-term stability in both supply and price for the entire system.
Amend the building codes across North America to require geoexchange systems for heating and cooling which reduce electricity use by more than half and effectively “clip” peak demand on hot summer days and cold winter nights. This requirement should apply to all new commercial and industrial buildings and all new residential neighbourhood developments unless a credible technical or economic justification can be made to implement traditional, energy-intensive HVAC systems.
Promote car-pooling through a national education program, support for a unified car-pool participant matching system, and “tolls” for Single-Occupancy-Vehicles entering major urban centers during rush-hour (with exemptions for individuals that cannot make car-pooling work for them in a reasonable way).
Re-establish regulatory control over the wholesale electricity market. Deregulation has been largely ineffective in every jurisdiction it has been implemented in with no measurable benefits for consumers and significant degradation of electrical reserves in most cases. It is simply not possible to justify multi-billion dollar investments in more efficient and cleaner generation capacity without some price certainty. Regulated profits for privately owned firms or public ownership of generating assets served to build reliable and cost effective generation systems for more than 100 years.
Implementation of these proposals will take many years, in some cases decades. There will be very significant costs and in many cases public resistance. The bottom line, which many will have a hard time accepting, is that we have to change the way we live, the way we construct buildings, our driving behavior, and our collective allocation of resources if we really want to wean ourselves away from hydro-carbons and transform into a truly sustainable society.
We do not have to turn our backs on most of the technology we use or even give up many of the creature comforts we enjoy. But we will have to sacrifice a bit of convenience to choose car-pooling or public transit; we will have to accept that being hot and sweaty on some summer days when the winds are calm is alright; we might have to put on a sweater (fashionable of course) on some cold winter nights so that we can turn the heat down; we will have to pay a bit more in the short term so that our buildings can use geoexchange; and taxes and utility rates will have to go up somewhat to pay for smart grids, extended high voltage transmission lines, and energy storage research.
If this doesn’t sound very pleasant consider the alternatives.
We can stand by and watch as the 3rd world consumption of oil and gas increases and the physical supplies get tighter and tighter. At some point, probably in the next 10-15 years, there will be a significant imbalance between supply and demand and the price of oil and gas will escalate dramatically and quickly. Shale gas and arctic oil will not prevent this inevitable scenario.
We can continue to rapidly develop solar PV and wind generation because it is very easy and relatively cheap. But without giving the support required to commercialize utility-scale storage we will destroy the stability of the electricity distribution system which will lead to regular grid failures and blackouts.
We can continue to ignore how our behavior as individuals impacts the overall supply-demand balance; by using incandescent light bulbs, washing and drying clothes in the early evening, baking at the height of peak demand on a cold winter evening, not having programmable thermostats, and a thousand other “little” things that add up to 10-15% of peak demand.
In other words we can continue on our current path with relatively few changes until we hit a brick wall. Or we can make serious changes that will help us transition to a sustainable energy environment as painlessly as possible.
I know which path I would prefer – I don’t like brick walls.
Welcome to the first entry in the “Black Swan Blog”. This blog will be used to discuss innovative, provocative, sometimes slightly crazy concepts designed to stimulate conversations and perhaps even concrete actions that will help us move the inhabitants of “spaceship earth” to a sustainable energy future.
By way of brief introduction, I have been involved with energy policy development and the exploration of innovation in energy use throughout my career. For more than 20 years I worked in the oil & gas industry where I had broad exposure to the technologies used in the development of natural gas, conventional oil, heavy oil, and tar sands resources. On many occasions I have championed the use of leading edge technologies to enable business functions. I managed the building of one of the largest private wireless Wide Area Networks (WANs) in North America using spread spectrum technology. The result was internet access in remote rural offices that was exactly the same as that available in head office; a great success. But when I tried to extend this network an additional two miles in one location using a laser-based system there was a problem. Fog from a nearby river disrupted the laser almost every morning.
On another network segment we had to locate a radio tower in the middle of a field far from any power line. We installed solar panels and a wind turbine to provide the small amount of electricity required to power the site. Initially this worked well and was seen to be a great “green” success. But we found that on cold, windless December days the site would regularly shut down despite the fact that we had provided much more generation capacity than was required. In the end we had to pay the local electrical utility more than $20,000 to connect the site to the regional grid.
These experiences have not dampened my enthusiasm for innovation or risk-taking; but I have learned that every new “best idea ever” needs to be evaluated thoroughly before it is embraced. So the “Black Swan Blog” will not only describe concepts that are far off the beaten track but will make sure that the potential limitations of those concepts are clearly spelled out.
Why the name “Black Swan Blog?” The “Black Swan Theory” developed by Nassim Nicholas Taleb asserts that significant advances in scientific, cultural, and artistic endeavors are frequently the result of unpredictable “step-change” discoveries or unexpected behaviors on the part of inventors; these are revolutionary events rather than evolutionary incremental changes. Vinod Khosla applied this theory to the problem of developing a sustainable energy future in a very thoughtful “White Paper” published in August, 2011. He asserts that only “Black Swan” energy developments have the potential to meet the demands of the 90% of the world that aspires to a standard of living comparable to that enjoyed by many living in North America and Europe (https://www.khoslaventures.com/wp-content/uploads/Black_Swan_8_28_11.pdf).
I share Mr. Khosla’s belief that only “Black Swans” can make a significant impact on energy usage patterns. I also agree that the energy appetite of the developing world will be the biggest long-term driver for increasing energy demand. However, in the short-term I think that there are two more important factors that will disrupt the existing supply-demand balance, especially in North America. The first and most immediate problem facing the North American energy supply is our complete reliance on coal-fired electrical generation plants. Figures published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) indicate that 45% of the electricity generated in 2010 came from these plants. It is a proven scientific fact that emissions from many of these plants contain harmful toxins such as mercury and arsenic that are impacting the health of Americans. The situation is essentially the same in Europe where more than 30% of electrical generation is based upon coal.
In December, 2011 the US Environmental Protection Agency released a new set of emissions standards that will make some of the 600+ coal-fired plants in the US obsolete. More than 30 of these plants, representing approximately 4% of the total electrical generation capacity in the US will be permanently shut down. Many other plants will be out of commission for extended periods of time while upgrades to pollution controls are installed. Even after spending upwards of $9 billion to reduce toxic emissions these plants will continue to be the #1 source of CO2 emissions in North America. If we ever decide to get serious about climate change most these plants will have to be shut down.
The second and longer term problem will be the increasing use of electrically powered vehicles in North America. While this is undoubtedly a positive development, the impact on our electrical generating system needs to be understood. In 2011 the EIA estimated that 134 billion gallons of gasoline were consumed in the U.S. to power automobiles. This is the equivalent of more than 4.5 trillion KW-hours of energy – more than the total electricity generated in the US today. In summary, over the next 3-5 years approximately 4% of the generating capacity in the US will be permanently shut down and another larger percentage will be unavailable for significant lengths of time as coal-fired plant pollution controls are upgraded. The entire coal-fired generation fleet is at risk because of its primary role in producing CO2 emissions. And even a small expansion of the electrically powered vehicle fleet in North America will put a significant new load on the system. These are not problems that can be overcome easily. These are not problems that can be ignored and left for a future generation to solve. These problems are here and now. Only “Black Swan” breakthroughs will allow us to maintain our current standard of living while enabling the developing world to continue to grow.
Introducing the Black Swan blog This post from September, 2012 explains why I decided to start the Black Swan Blog. Although it has not garnered even a tiny fraction of the interest shown in the latest Hollywood wardrobe malfunction it has been read by tens of thousands of people. From the feedback I have had from readers all over the world I feel it has made a useful contribution to the conversation about renewable energy.
A Sustainable Energy Manifesto This post summarizes what I believe would be the most effective policies to achieve a sustainable energy environment.
Imagine a World of Abundant Inexpensive Energy This post discusses the very positive consequences of attaining a sustainable energy environment. This includes shifting a significant amount of agricultural production to greenhouses in Northern areas and providing plentiful fresh water through water desalination.
The $US 134 Trillion, 100 Year Challenge Transitioning away from a hydro-carbon based economy will be a $US 134 Trillion, 100 Year Challenge. In this blog post I run the numbers on replacing the fossil-fuel based energy we all consume in modern society with renewables. Having spent $US 2.4 Trillion over the last 15+ years we are now 1.4% of the way to our goal. If the earth were a car the low fuel light would be blinking and we would be 100 miles from the next gas station. This is not going to be easy.
Let me start by saying that this is an opinion piece. I am not going to provide a bibliography of external references supporting my assertions. I have been politically active my entire adult live and am a publicly acknowledged “leftie”. I have supported the New Democratic Party in every election I have cast a ballot in, including two where I myself was the candidate. And yes, that means I am a Canadian and perhaps I have no business commenting on American politics. But what happens in the U.S. impacts Canada more than almost any other country so I will claim the right to expressing my views regardless.
Many progressive people that I know personally and many public figures that I follow have expressed shock that Donald J. Trump will be the 47th President of the United States. I was quite convinced from the time that Joe Biden announced that he would run for a second term that this result was inevitable. Here are my thoughts on the matter for what they are worth.
The navel gazing has begun within the Democratic Party and all manner of excuses for the loss to Donald J. Trump are being fabricated. The election was lost because; 1) there is at the present time a global turn towards right-wing populist authoritarian leaders; 2) the Trump campaign exploited unfounded fears about a migrant invasion including the fact that some migrants were “eating the dogs”; 3) Trump’s constant refrain that the country economically is going to hell (despite statistical information to the contrary) played on people’s insecurities and desires for a better life; etc. etc. etc.
There is an element of truth to all of these statements/excuses. Elections and voters are complicated.
But really? How bad does your candidate and platform have to be to get beaten by Donald J. Trump – TWICE?
In my opinion the reason for both losses comes down to a single feeling, ambiguous and impossible to analyze with precision. That reason was reflected in an NBC News Poll released in September, 2024. In that poll 65% of respondents felt that the country was “on the wrong track”. That’s not good for an incumbent administration, right? But here’s the thing. That sentiment has been consistently above 60% since 2012.
This persistent and long-lived dissatisfaction with the status quo by a majority of the populace seems to be somewhat of a mystery to the movers and shakers in our political and economic systems (the “elite”). For most politicians with their rapidly attained excellent pensions, for established professionals making the best living for that class in generations, for wall street brokers and for anyone that acquired real estate in one of North America’s “hot” housing markets life looks pretty good. I would estimate (without any backup data) that amounts to about 35% of the population.
So, what about the 65%? Do they have legitimate grievances or is this just a case of inflaming fears based upon completely fabricated “boogie men”. Unemployment is very low and all the major economic measures such as GDP and the Stock Market are doing great. What’s the beef?
Let’s start with rural and small town voters. And before we start thinking about issues keep in mind two things. 1) People hate change of any type. Continuity is a comfort food we all enjoy a great deal. 2) When people worry it is often not so much about the present but about the future.
What has been happening in rural America, the “Heart Land” as politicians still like to call it? Nothing good, as far as I am concerned.
Rural areas, many of which were settled during the lifespan of the oldest people living today, used to be all about “community”. Life was simple, work was hard, rules were clear and contact with people and institutions outside the immediate area was quite uncommon and quite unnecessary. Many people, maybe most people, spent 99% of their lives within a few miles of the home they grew up in, a home that was often passed down from generation to generation. The most important lodestars in that environment were the elementary school, the community hall, and local churches. The Boy Scouts sold Christmas Trees, the Girl Guides sold cookies. At Hallowe’en neighbourhood children were greeted at the door by their first names and given home-made sweet treats that nobody was afraid of eating. Everyone agreed that the Norman Rockwell paintings that adorned the cover of the Saturday Evening Post pretty much reflected life as it was being experienced.
There were immigrants but they were white. They might speak a funny sounding language but they would get over that and learn English as they “melted” into the American way of life. They were Christians and they attended local churches, helped prepare Sunday picnics and worked shoulder to shoulder when a Church or a community Hall needed repair. People bought hardware and groceries and gassed up their cars at businesses owned and run by neighbours.
Sounds pretty idyllic, doesn’t it? The truth is that “Mayberry” and all the characters in that fictional town weren’t immensely popular because they were unique and “interesting”. They were loved because so many Americans could relate to the lives being portrayed.
Was that reality, which so many of today’s “elite” view with so much distain, perfect for everyone? Absolutely not. There existed in those communities sexism, racism and intolerance of every imaginable kind. The “melting pot” was real. Fit in or face the consequences.
What has happened to those communities? Well, believe it or not they still exist and almost 50 million Americans still live in them. They have watched as industrial farming has slowly but surely displaced the family farm. They have watched big box stores in nearby cities wipe out most of the local businesses. The nuclear families that were so vital to the “Hearts” of these communities have disintegrated as low birth rates and greater mobility of young people has meant that leaving the hometown for greener pastures is now the rule rather than the exception. The result has been empty Churches often sold off to the highest bidder and abandoned store-fronts with windows cracked, held together by duct tape.
An influx of immigrants from far off lands that look and act very differently than the Europeans that dominated newcomers throughout the 20th Century has dramatically changed these communities. Somewhat ironically, it is the devote, family-centric and tradition-upholding character of these new immigrants that can leave the original inhabitants feeling isolated and excluded. Strangers in their own land.
The final straw has been the encroachment of suburbia into many of these communities. Row upon row of cookie-cutter houses thrown up hurriedly with no sense of identity or history, inhabited by people with no connection to the communities being paved over.
All things considered, can you blame these folks from wanting to slow things down, maybe even reverse direction on many fronts? A traditional conservative playbook has been a comfortable companion for these voters for a long time. But recently, the backlash has become more strident and somewhat dangerous.
To most of the people in these communities there are still two genders which are assigned at birth. Although their local churches may be shuttered almost 80% of rural and small-town residents have a religious affiliation, almost all Christian, and attend large regional churches. Pro-life beliefs in these communities are strong and there are strong under-currents of anti-immigrant feelings as well. Some of these feelings are based upon interactions with temporary farm workers, many of whom are undocumented, who have little or no connection with the community and take jobs that could otherwise be available to local residents. Never mind the fact that most Americans would refuse to do those jobs, and certainly not for the wages being paid.
A party that prides itself on “Woke” notions of inclusion and tolerance at the expense of community disruption is not going to do well in rural counties. It is unlikely that this fact, born out across the U.S. in election after election, can be reversed without a lot more attention being paid to managing the ongoing transition of these communities in a much more sensitive manner. Even then it will be an uphill climb.
Next up: industrial workers – the bedrock of the “Blue Wall”. Michael Moore explained the eroding support for the Democratic Party by the working class in these formerly “Blue” states perfectly going into the 2016 election. His analysis is as true today as it was then. The Democratic Party has abandoned the working class. Bernie Sanders echoed those comments immediately after the 2024 results were announced.
Now one might question these critiques after four years of the Biden Presidency. Joe Biden was steadfast in his support for unionized workers. Joe Biden drove investment in public infrastructure which will benefit all citizens. Joe Biden maintained some of the tariffs on Chinese goods that Trump had initiated.
But here is the problem. Workers, and former workers, that have and had middle class manufacturing jobs in the “Blue Wall” states know that there will be no return to prosperity in their region anytime soon. Any new manufacturing jobs will be created in “right to work” states in the Southern U.S. where business-friendly Republican Governments allow rules to be bent and workers’ rights to be compromised. In a painful irony the “Blue Wall” workers watch as wage gains obtained through collective bargaining are matched by non-unionized corporations, particularly automobile manufacturers. This reality is doubly frustrating because those non-unionized workers don’t ever suffer the income loss caused by strikes and they don’t pay Union dues.
Beyond the realization that new jobs will not emerge to replace those lost in the region an even more existential threat looms over the future of manufacturing jobs throughout the U.S. Increasing levels of automation and the disconcerting development of advanced A.I. and humanoid robots make it impossible for anyone in a manufacturing job to feel secure. The long-held certainty that sons could eventually replace their fathers in jobs that had provided financial security to families for decades has evaporated.
The recent wage gains by auto-workers and others represent a pyrrhic victory and most workers understand that fact. U.S. industry cannot compete with the rising economic powers in Asia. Not just in terms of labour wage rates but in terms of automation and technology generally. It is no wonder that a desperate effort to build a financial moat around U.S. manufacturing through the use of protectionist measures such those espoused by Trump has great appeal in the “Blue Wall” states and beyond.
Finally, it is time to consider voters that were neither living in rural areas or what was formerly the Industrial “Heart Land”. Millions of college-educated, urban, and young voters cast their ballots for Donald J. Trump, a man that has spent most of the last 10 years insulting and alienating almost every segment of polite society. The reasons are undoubtedly complex, but I will focus on one that I believe is of central importance. I will call it “Boomer Greed”. And by the way, I am personally part of the problem as much as any other boomer.
In the aftermath of WW2 North America, spared the devastation of that global conflict, experienced economic prosperity on a level never seen before. The rapid transition away from the rural, primarily agrarian society of the early part of the 20th Century accelerated. Even so, societal values, including the predominance of large families continued into the 50’s and 60’s resulting in the “baby boom”. Over time affluence became the primary goal of the rapidly expanding middle class and rampant consumerism was its calling card.
At the same time advances in birth control and the emerging feminist movement were allowing women to exert more control over family planning. As it turns out, most women were not that keen on going through 6,7, or 8 pregnancies. The emerging car-centric culture enabled a migration of many urban workers to the suburbs and an emphasis on vacation road trips made family sizes of more than 4-5 very inconvenient.
And so began the rapid decline in fertility rates throughout the so-called “developed” world. In the U.S. fertility rates have declined from 3.5 in the 1960’s to less than 2 today. We North Americans have not been replacing ourselves in terms of population growth for decades. We have chosen prosperity over progeny and we are now experiencing the consequences of that choice.
Every society needs young workers to fulfill entry level jobs, many of which require a significant amount of physical strength and mental energy. Faced with a growing shortage of such workers through natural population increase most developed countries have turned to the only viable alternative – immigration. The only countries that have an excess of young people to fill that role are developing countries such as Mexico, India, and China.
Increasing numbers of immigrants have allowed the U.S. and other countries to continue to experience economic growth despite a naturally stagnant or declining population. Make no mistake about it. In Canada and the U.S. we need immigrants and lots of them. But there are some negative consequences of this reality.
The large influx of immigrants has put increasing pressure on social services and, most importantly, has led to a housing crisis in many major urban centers. This, in turn, led to rapidly rising prices, rampant speculation, foreign investment and corporate ownership of residential properties. After the housing meltdown of 2008 in the U.S. housing prices in many markets have exploded. What has been the result? Many in the Gen X and millennial cohorts no longer view home ownership as a possibility. That is a very fundamental and very negative change in what has been an expectation for most people in the post-war era. Get educated, find a good job, buy a house, start a family. That was the life progression most people have aspired to for decades. For many, that no longer seems realistic. Is it any wonder that this group has joined the ranks of those that think the U.S. is “on the wrong track”.
I attributed this development in modern society to “Boomer Greed” and I believe it to be true. Boomers have held political power for the last couple of decades and we allowed this to happen. Why? Because a majority of Boomers and almost all elected politicians owned real estate. The intoxicating prospect of having our net worth increase by a factor of 2, 3 or even 10 times made us ignore the downstream impact on our children. There were tools at our disposal to prevent this. We could have enacted limitations on capital gains exemptions, foreign ownership, and property speculation. We could have supported more public housing and designed creative ways to help new home buyers manage financing in a responsible yet accessible way. We did none of that.
Republicans could be forgiven for letting the “free market” destroy affordability. They believe the capitalist economy will respond appropriately to imbalances in supply and demand. It has not. Democrats do not have that excuse.
All of these societal changes are trending away from progressive policies and “woke” concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion. While many of us believe that a more tolerant society is a better society that is not necessarily a majority opinion. It seems pretty clear that focusing on bettering the lives of those that have been disadvantaged for decades will not work if we are simultaneously ignoring the very real challenges a great many people are facing.
Given all this turmoil and uncertainty is it really that surprising to witness the rise of Donald J. Trump? He offers false promises and blames immigrants for all of the nation’s woes. However unlikely it is that any of his policies will bring about positive changes he is at least recognizing some of the issues that Democrats have ignored. He offers false hope. And it is undeniable that false hope is better than no hope.
Here is my recommendation to Democrats. Stop feeling superior to the folks that voted for Donald J. Trump. They are not idiots. They are not fascists. The vast majority of them are not sexist, racist or mean-spirited. Make an effort to understand why so many people in the richest country in the world are not feeling good about the present and are very nervous about the future. Meet them where they live. Listen to their concerns. Be as bold in proposing real action to address their issues as Trump is in his boastful and unrealistic promises. The status quo is not working today and certainly won’t serve any of us well in the future. Stop defending it.
In previous blog postings I have expressed my concerns about the relative return on investment and the economic fairness of roof-top solar panels. But I am also a big fan of solar power which is, after all, the most abundant and the most reliable energy source that we have at our disposal. In this blog I want to draw attention to some encouraging news in the industrial development of solar power. I also want to point out a few very fanciful uses of solar power that I believe demonstrate some of the future potential of this resource.
First, it is an exciting time to be involved with Concentrated Solar Power (CSP). With the commissioning of both the Solana Plant in Arizona and the Ivanpah Plant in Nevada over the next few months the global CSP generating capacity will almost double. The Solana Plant is particularly encouraging because it incorporates molten salt storage allowing the Plant to run for up to 6 hours after sunset. It is not the first plant to incorporate molten salt storage but it is the biggest.
Half a world away CSP developments in North Africa and the Middle East are starting to gain traction. The Noor I CSP Plant broke ground in Morocco in May, 2013 with financial support from the German government. In the same month the Internationally backed Climate Investment Funds approved a revised plan for the rapid development of CSP in North Africa. This plan aligns with the Desertec Foundation’s vision of utilizing solar resources in desert regions to transform local economies while supporting a transition to sustainable energy resources.
This year the government of Saudi Arabia made a massive committment to the development of solar power with the goal of converting most of the oil-fired desalination facilities in the Kingdom to solar power. That would provide some relief for global oil supplies (currently almost 2% of global oil production is used in Middle East desalination plants) as well as representing another very substantial increase in global CSP capacity.
The only negative development in the world of CSP is the 180 degree change to support mechanisms for the development of this technology in Spain.
Prior to 2013 Spain had been a world leader in developing CSP and is home to the two premier CSP engineering firms. However, the elimination of almost all financial supports for CSP developers in August, 2013 has led to a collapse of CSP projects in Spain. Luckily there continue to be many new opportunities in Africa, the Middle East and the U.S.
Photo-Voltaic solar panels have had more of a mixed year in 2013. Module prices seem to have bottomed out and the resulting price competition has led to the bankruptcy of a number of manufacturers. In jurisdictions where the penetration of solar panels has reached double digits as a percentage of normal load incentives are being cut back and in some cases regulatory barriers are being raised, most notably the capacity studies in Hawaii. In Arizona monthly service fees are being added to the utility bills for homeowners with rooftop solar panels. The many challenges facing PV solar represent a serious risk to the further development of this resource.
Although dropping solar cell prices and associated reductions in margins are disrupting the supply side of the PV solar business these developments are making it possible to showcase solar power in ways never before possible.
The team behind the Solar Impulse solar-powered airplane announced that they will attempt an around-the world flight in 2015 entirely on solar power. This well-funded and experienced team has been working for more than 10 years to make solar powered flight a reality.
Solar Impulse is not the only game in town when it comes to harnessing the energy of the sun to power an aircraft. Flying somewhat under the radar is Eric Raymond and the team behind the Sunseeker series of aircraft. The newest member of the family, the Sunseeker Duo (shown above) is currently undergoing flight tests. It will be the speediest solar-powered aircraft ever built. It will also be the first to be able to carry a passenger. I would encourage my readers to visit these sites and if you like what you see consider making a donation which will help these organizations continue their ground-breaking work.
Shifting from the skies to the oceans, the world’s largest solar-powered ship, MS Türanor recieved a new life mission as a research vessel after completing the first solar-powered circumnavigation of the earth’s oceans. It has set off on a Swiss-sponsored voyage to study the seasonal changes in the behaviour of the Gulf Stream.
These innovative applications of solar power demonstrate the potential of an energy source that can meet many of our current needs. Efficient and cost-effective energy storage remains elusive but with a dedicated global effort storage solutions will be developed. In the meantime it is interesting to watch as solar power moves from the hand-held calculator to powering transcontinental flights and beyond.
In an earlier blog posting I discussed ways that residential and commercial electricity consumers can reduce their draw on the utility grid either by generating some of their own electricity or by using geothermal heat pumps (now more commonly referred to as geoexchange systems) to provide heating and cooling. Because space heating in the winter and air conditioning in the summer represent the most significant drivers for peak electricity demand the ability to use the energy stored in the earth to “clip” these peaks is very significant.
But how does geoexchange really work? It is somewhat counter-intuitive to think that the ground which is at a temperature of approximately 50 degrees Fahrenheit can heat a home to 70 degrees.
In this case the “secret sauce” is the use of a refrigerant, most commonly a substance with the romantic and memorable name R-410A. The boiling point of R-410A is highly dependent upon pressure and varies within a temperature range which matches human comfort zones. By using a closed system with two different pressures it is possible to cause the fluid to evaporate and condense at specific temperatures as shown in the graphic below.
The low pressure zone including the evaporator is located outside the home. Refrigerant fluid is at a temperature warm enough to evaporate but needs to absorb heat from the ground in order to make the transition from fluid to vapour (1). During this process the mixture of fluid and vapour warms up to the ambient temperature of the ground, in this case about 50 degrees Fahrenheit.
An electrically powered compressor is then used to rapidly increase the pressure of the vapour in order to raise it’s condensation temperature(2).
The high pressure zone including the condenser is inside the home and the transition from gas to fluid releases heat into the home (3). During this process the mixture of fluid and vapour cools to the ambient temperature inside the home, in this case about 70 degrees Fahrenheit.
The fluid then passes through an expansion value which drops the pressure in order to reduce the evaporation temperature(4).
The low pressure produced by the expansion value is chosen so that the R-410A will evaporate at a temperature significantly lower than the ambient ground temperature. The high pressure produced by the condenser is chosen so that the R-410A will condense at a temperature significantly higher than comfortable room temperature. A typical configuration is shown in the graphic below.
In cooling mode the flow of the fluid is reversed. The fluid is evaporated by the hot home and the hot gas is compressed to bring it to the upper condensation pressure and temperature. The hot gas is then circulated through the ground where it condenses, releasing heat. The expansion valve is then used to bring the fluid to the lower evaporation pressure and temperature.
It is important to note that it does take electricity to run a geoexchange system – for the compressor, one or more pumps for the fluid, and usually a fan to force the warmed/cooled air through the home. However, a system that is designed well and installed properly should be able to deliver 2-3 times as much heating/cooling as a comparable electric system and even more when compared to a natural gas system.
So why isn’t everyone doing geoexchange? The main reason is cost. For a typical single family dwelling the cost of installing a geoexchange system is in the range of $25,000, at least twice a comparable furnace/air conditioning combination and probably 3- 5x a furnace only system. Most home-owners are not prepared to make that kind of investment. That’s why I argued in my earlier blog that the local electrical utility should own the geoexchange system (just as they own the traditional electrical distribution equipment like transformers).
Costs/home would be greatly reduced if geoexchange was installed for an entire neighbourhood. And regardless of how many times a home changes hands the utility would continue to benefit from a lower electricity demand for decades to come. I personally would like to see building codes modified so that geoexchange was required for every new housing development – just like electricity, water, and sewer services.
The case for geoexchange in large commercial buildings is even more compelling. Here again short-term cost is the barrier and here again a utility company can make a great long-term return on this type of investment.
In the meantime Post-Secondary institutions are demonstrating just how effective geoexchange can be. With multi-building campuses that often already have central heating plants these institutions are in a great position to show leadership with this technology and recent headlines indicate that is starting to happen in a big way.
On March 3, 2013 the Board of Governors of the University of Maine at Farmington approved a $1.55 million geoexchange project which will replace aging oil-fired boilers and eliminate the burning of 28,000 gallons of oil yearly. The system will pay for itself in 8-10 years after which both heating and cooling of the campus will be essentially free for decades to come.
Perhaps the most encouraging aspect of the UMaine project is that it is built upon past successes with geoexchange. Earlier projects implemented this technology for the education center and a swimming pool and fitness center.
February 13, 2013 marked another geoexchange milestone as the Missouri University of Science and Technology closed on funding for a $2.5 million geoexchange project which will provide heating and cooling for 2/3 of the buildings on the campus in Rolla, Missouri.
Missouri S&T Chancellor Cheryl B. Schrader stated that “the system is one of the most comprehensive ever undertaken by a college or university”.
Post-Secondary institutions in Canada are also making use of geoexchange to reduce campus carbon footprints.
In 2007 the British Columbia Institute of Technology formally adopted the concept of transforming BCIT’s campuses into living laboratories of sustainability. Theory was transformed into practical application that year as the new Aerospace Technology Campus was opened incorporating geoexchange and other technologies designed to minimize the environmental impact of this state-of-the-art facility. The concept was applied to the Gateway project which saw a major renovation of one of the most important campus buildings, again incorporating geoexchange.
Geoexchange technology has developed to the point where it represents the best solution for commercial and institutional heating and cooling. By reducing the electricity loads that cause almost all of the highest consumption peaks (heating on cold winter days and cooling on hot summer days) geoexchange can “clip” these peaks providing relief to regional generation and transmission systems.
Widespread adoption of geoexchange is such an obvious choice that I hesitate to characterize it as a “Black Swan”. However, the potential to dramatically smooth out power consumption curves makes this technology one that could radically change the electricity supply/demand balance – in a very positive way.
