First posted on the GMH Blog on April 9th, 2009.
After an illuminating must read interchange under said post, Alan Belcher inquired:
Jose,
Since you share my opposition to the "wait and see" view, may I ask exactly what, in practical terms, have you done or are currently doing to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions?
Thank you Alan for the opportunity to summarize what I have been doing for quite some time. What I have been doing I believe would help reduce GHG emissions. I have been trying to help the power industry become sustainable.
My initial aim was to help the power industry of my country, the Dominican Republic, become sustainable. But, in the process, through a lot of research, that got me into areas such as systemic thinking, I learned that most of the influence to change it need to come from outside, especially the US. Thus I am a researcher that in the process became aware that we need to protect the environment.
As it happens, the solution whole that emerged to solve the Dominican problem became exactly the same for the global power industry. I have been working on the development of what evolve and emerged as the electricity without price control (EWPC) basic innovation framework, as you can see from the EWPC Blog here on enegyblogs.com. That framework is an extension of the research that, the late M.I.T. professor, Fred C. Schweppe and his colleagues integrated into the book Spot Pricing of Electricity.
EWPC is a technology neutral market architecture and design paradigm, architected to replace the investor owned utilities (IOUs) paradigm or framework. Technology neutral means that it works fine for both fossil fuels and renewable energy, so it is a framework that without any doubt helps to transition smoothly to clean energy.
The IOUs paradigm has a strong attraction force to fossil fuels, as they are supply side utility oriented, centered on an obsolete business model of winning rate cases to the regulator. That business model is the main barrier to sustainability.
The EWPC paradigm is neutral on the supply side and the demand side. But, as the demand side is highly undeveloped, most value can be added by developing the resources of the demand side, to enable business model innovations, which in turns breaks the strong barriers of the IOUs paradigm against renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Back in September 2007, the first article of the EWPC Blog was EWPC Superiority in Carbon Emission Reductions." I introduced it with "A comparison between the power industry vertical integration and electricity without price controls (EWPC) non-trivial paradigms, will show that EWPC should be adopted in the new US Energy Bill, as part of a new deal, like the one of the 1930s, to get the world power industry in a superior development path."
Since then, I have written more than 160 articles or post on many views of the EWPC framework. Please browse them by searching within the EWPC Blog. Please also be aware that the blogs themselves on energyblogs.com only return the last 10 entries, which it seems to be a software bug. To get around it, to see a "More entries" link at the bottom of the page, you can simply search for EWPC within the EWPC Blog itself.
There is not time to waste to get the message to the public that GHG emission need to be reduced as soon as possible. In that sense, I just hope that I have been doing is enough.
Thanks once again for the opportunity to tell other readers what I have been doing.
Regards,
José Antonio
I am absolutely delighted with your response! Bless you a thousand times. And, after those times past when you have given me, and others a hard time with your EWPC deal, I never for a moment thought I would be writing of you in this way. I agree wholeheartedly with your statement: we have no time to loose.
My question in the "Please Pass Al Gore a Vallium ...." comment was, as you realized, a challenge. So now I have to respond in the same vein you have.
Since about the mid-1990s I have been promoting an energy conversion technology that is directly applicable to exploiting low grade waste heat, even though it didn't start out with that purpose in mind.
My contribution to the technology is limited to "a means and apparatus for converting a pressure into rotative motion", to quote what was mentioned in my US patent, if I remember correctly. There is no novelty in the associated issues of thermodynamics, power plant practice, or electric power generation. However, we are dealing with relatively low temperatures and tight thermal gradients which pose a challenge in their own right. I have described some of the operating characteristics in my blog "Energy in Abundance" and "Energy in Abundance (The Saga Continues ...)", particularly in some of the comments that followed these two blogs.
As for current status, the concept has been reduced to practicality, basic engineering design is complete, equations describing both the hydrostatic and the thermodynamic phenomena have been written and independently verified, and the software design package has been completed. Except for some essential thermodynamic measurements to be carried out on a lab model substantially larger than my bench models, the engine is "ready to go", as they say. It fully satisfies the test of "technical feasibility" and the business criteria of "commercial viability". The third criteria, that of "socioeconomic or environmental impact" came to my attention only recently however, operation (following the construction phase) also passes with flying colors.
Some quick explanations:
By "independently verified" I mean faculty members from two different accredited and highly regarded institutes of learning.
By "software design package" I mean a package capable of producing optimized designs of manometric engine in response to a few keyed-in parameters. This is not to be confused with mathematical modeling programs.
During a recent technical meeting, a major concern expressed, i.e. a large red flag, not related to the technology proper but to the fact that I appeared to have made all the right moves, or mostly so, and met with the right people. Why had this not taken off? There are a number of reasons for this, some having absolutely nothing to do with the technology or its implementation. But, this is a long story!
In conclusion, we have here a means for converting waste heat from the cooling system of Rankine cycle electric power generation facilities directly into electric power. The additional power output is estimated to be about 25% to 30% of the host plant's plate rated capacity. Using waste heat as the "fuel" emissions would be zero for this part of the facility. Most importantly, there is no further development to be done; initial demonstration facilities could be operational within a year.
So, now for the rest of you out there. What have you done, or are doing to reduce GHGs?
I certainly wish you well in the marketplace. I am sure that your opportunities in the market will be better off if EWPC market reform comes through in the new order of things. I may be wrong, but the barriers of the monopoly minded IOUs paradigm may be holding your opportunities.
I know in the old order, that needs to give way to the new order, a lot of energy is being wasted on polluting central stations that could probably use what you are proposing. So shutting down those stations soon enough will reduce your market opportunities. Am I right?
I say that because your products could also to be oriented to demand side innovations (DSI), than as part of demand side management (DSM), as explained in the EWPC article "Forget Demand Side management (DSM); Think Demand Side Innovation (DSI)," as you may see in the internet link http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/index.cfm/2009/4/7... Is that possible as part of transport, industrial and /or commercial activities?
Regards again,
José Antonio
Would the closure of fossil-fueled plants -- at least this is how I interpreted your comment -- affect our market? Yes and no. Assuming that fossil-fuel plant retirements, cancellations, and closures described a descending curve this would coincide with an ascending curve generated by our market penetration. So, initially at least, we should not suffer.
Unfortunately I am facing a number of hurdles, none of which are technical in nature. I am sure that we have both encountered one of these: the "impenetrable" nature of the power generation industry at large, quite possibly a leftover of the days of regulated utilities.
I once worked for an IPP (non-utility) and if our plant had tripped due to the tie line going down, we were ordered to treat the event as one would a top military secret, even though we were in no way responsible for such a happening. I never really came to understand this attitude.
And, in my case, there are several other such hurdles, not of my doing and quite beyond my control. Like the little ant busily breaching a very large hydropower dam, I just have to keep at it; someday, something will give way.
Regarding the last paragraph in your comment, my technology is very definitely for stationary applications only, and usually above the 2 MW mark. Unfortunately this rules out many behind-the-meter or in-fence applications.
I believe the closure of fossil fuels will be a relatively long process of maybe 15 to 30 years. In that timeframe, the EWPC framework could enable an EPAct reform, within the short term, in which power generation should go to the open market without the attraction of the IOUs paradigm.
Such EWPC based EPAct may be part of a transition similar to the one that occured in the computer industry, where minicomputers bridged the full blown microcomputer revolution. This means that the 2MW limit could have a large market share opportunity for your technology to compete without "'the 'impenetrable' nature of the power generation industry at large, quite possibly a leftover of the days of regulated utilities."
The minigrids transition to microgrids has not only the advantages of the large increased efficiency of using fossil fuels at the commercial and industrial stationary applications, but even more so, with the increasing need for high performance electricity in terms of reliability, security, availability, and quality, required by the digital loads. That is what I try to explain in the EWPC article "Just as Pogo, IOUs Found the Enemy," which can be read in the Internet link http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/index.cfm/2009/1/2...
By the way, I worked for 17 years for the Dominican state own power utility that paid for my B.S. studies at Cornell University. I got a Cornell fellowship to complete my education. Since 1990, I have been working for steel company with a minigrid that also has an IPP contract.
Regards,
José Antonio
P.D.: The fifth Summit of the Americas, to be held in Trinidad and Tobago April 17-19, will offer an opportunity to partner on a new agenda that covers global economic, social, energy and climate change issues. I proposed the English hashtag #SoA09TT to follow the event on Twitter.