World energy and fuel cells

1,065 views

Published on

Presentation on the world energy system and the role for fuel cells therein.
Delivered to Simon Fraser University Surrey campus Engineers Without Borders student club. Feb 2012.

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,065
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
50
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • - Whale count estimated from International Whaling Commission study from Wikipeda - bear estimate is 200k brown bears + 25k polar bears + 500k black bears
  • - Whale count estimated from International Whaling Commission study from Wikipeda - bear estimate is 200k brown bears + 25k polar bears + 500k black bears
  • - Whale count estimated from International Whaling Commission study from Wikipeda - bear estimate is 200k brown bears + 25k polar bears + 500k black bears
  • - Whale count estimated from International Whaling Commission study from Wikipeda - bear estimate is 200k brown bears + 25k polar bears + 500k black bears
  • Harmony House image from: http://www.bchydro.com/news/conservation/2012/harmony_house_profile.html
  • faucet from: http://uuldesign.com/home-interior/sinks-and-vessels/chrome-kitchen-faucet-with-illuminated-led-of-rolux/ water bottles: http://justglasssite.com/water-bottle-17.html
  • fracked well: http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/12/19/Fracking-Contamination/ dirty effluent pipe: http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/183809/enlarge pipeline: http://operachic.typepad.com/opera_chic/2007/05/nabucco_is_a_ga.html
  • fracked well: http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/12/19/Fracking-Contamination/ dirty effluent pipe: http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/183809/enlarge pipeline: http://operachic.typepad.com/opera_chic/2007/05/nabucco_is_a_ga.html
  • see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
  • Wind is rated to produce about 430 TWh (roughly 25% rate on about 197 GWh of capacity, per Wikipedia). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Wind_power_capacity_and_production IEA worldwide electricity production in 2009 was 20055 TWh. From: IEA 2011 key world energy stats Solar’s number is based on 67 GWp at end-2011 from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployment_of_solar_power_to_energy_grids#Statistics Assuming a 10% utilization rate, that’s about 60 TWh out of 20055 TWh, which is
  • World energy and fuel cells

    1. 1. The World Energy PictureThe World Energy Picture (and where Fuel Cells fit in)(and where Fuel Cells fit in) Matthew Klippenstein Feb 26, 2012
    2. 2. 1. A successful species 2. Where we are now 3. Where we are going 4. How fuel cells fit in
    3. 3. 1. A successful species
    4. 4. P A G E 4 …we’re pretty successful…
    5. 5. P A G E 5 Global Population  6.7 billion humans  25 billion chickens  2 billion pigs  1 billion cattle  1 billion sheep  0.5 billion cats  0.4 billion dogs
    6. 6. P A G E 6 Global Population  6.7 billion humans  25 billion chickens  2 billion pigs  1 billion cattle  1 billion sheep  0.5 billion cats  0.4 billion dogs domesticated animals
    7. 7. P A G E 7 Global Population  6.7 billion humans  25 billion chickens  2 billion pigs  1 billion cattle  1 billion sheep  0.5 billion cats  0.4 billion dogs  0.001 billion whales (1,000,000)  0.001 billion bears (1,000,000)  0.0005 billion elephants (500,000) domesticated animals
    8. 8. P A G E 8 Visualizing population + + = 1,000,000 individuals 6700 million 2.5 million
    9. 9. P A G E 9 Our noticeable impact we’re so successful, we put nature off-balance         all numbers are Gigatonnes CO2 equivalent (billions of tonnes). From IPCC via: http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm) (billions of tonnes of CO2)
    10. 10. P A G E 10 Our noticeable impact we’re so successful, we put nature off-balance         From IPCC via: http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm) 17 12 (billions of tonnes of CO2)
    11. 11. P A G E 11 CO2 levels rising CO2 primarily drives planet’s warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png        
    12. 12. P A G E 12 global warming factors GHG’s dwarf other effects (except volcanoes)                                                                                                                                                                       http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century.htm
    13. 13. P A G E 13 global warming data temperatures rising – heat in oceans rising much faster (latent heat of melting, of ice)         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm
    14. 14. P A G E 14 faster than expected! http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/23/greenland-ice-sheet-collapse-global-warming-science/ Globe warming as per IPCC’s worst-case scenario!! Major bummer.
    15. 15. P A G E 15 Why it all matters Our civilizations evolved in a “goldilocks” zone From: http://climateprogress.org/category/best-ppts/
    16. 16. P A G E 16 Maddeningly affordable to solve Savings from first steps can pay for almost everything else!! http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/29/mckinsey-2008-research-in-review-stabilizing-at-450-ppm-has-a-net-cost-near-zero/        
    17. 17. 2. Where we are now
    18. 18. P A G E 18 Emissions by sector http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-ts.pdf
    19. 19. P A G E 19 Lots of work to do… but lots of people are doing work! e.g. industry, forestry, buildings Emissions by sector Ballard focuses on this slice (electricity) Entrust remaining slices to others
    20. 20. P A G E 20 Emissions by sector http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-ts.pdf Lots of work to do… but lots of people are doing work!
    21. 21. P A G E 21 Emissions by sector http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-ts.pdf Lots of work to do… but lots of people are doing work! Let’s look at industry, forestry, buildings
    22. 22. P A G E 22 Industry Emissions  1990-2010: DuPont cut GHG emissions 75%* • 2nd-biggest chemicals manufacturer in the world • $38 billion in sales (2011) * 63%, if you exclude a business unit they sold off http://www2.dupont.com/Sustainability/en_US/Footprint/index.html
    23. 23. P A G E 23 Industry Emissions  1990-2010: DuPont cut GHG emissions 75%* • 2nd-biggest chemicals manufacturer in the world • $38 billion in sales (2011)  DuPont is not perfect • still #1 emitter of air pollution in US  but it’s not alone • in same timeframe, Dow Chemical cut GHG emissions 40%** * 60%, if you exclude a business unit they sold off http://www2.dupont.com/Sustainability/en_US/Footprint/index.html ** http://www.dow.com/commitments/pdf/dow_energy_vision.pdf
    24. 24. P A G E 24 Forestry Emissions (Deforestation) Pine beetle has been catastrophic http://explorethebitterroot.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/beetle-kill.jpg
    25. 25. P A G E 25 Forestry Emissions (Deforestation) http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/25/nature-on-stunning-new-climate-feedback-beetle-tree-kill-releases-more-carbon-than-fires/ see http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/bcmpb/BCMPB.v6.2009Kill.pdf From 2000 to 2020, BC forests will emit more CO2 than they absorb! Deforestation has same effect: fewer trees to absorb CO2
    26. 26. P A G E 26 Forestry Emissions (Deforestation)  but some exciting reforestation news, e.g. Groasis • 3-year trial by University of Oujda in Morocco • “Waterboxx” improves sapling survival rate: 10.5% → 88.2%
    27. 27. P A G E 27 Forestry Emissions (Deforestation)  but some exciting reforestation news, e.g. Groasis • 3-year trial by University of Oujda in Morocco • “Waterboxx” improved sapling survival rate: 10.5% → 88.2% • costs $2. Can be removed after 1st year (and used again)
    28. 28. P A G E 28 Buildings’ Emissions: LEED™ buildings  a modest premium - not a crazy premium  Cadillac vs. Chevrolet (not Ferrari vs. Ford) Olympic Athlete’s Village Millenium Water http://www.vancouversun.com/Business/1709730.bin?size=620x400
    29. 29. P A G E 29 Buildings’ Emissions: net zero houses  one has been built nearby! • Harmony House in Burnaby http://www.harmony-house.ca/index.html • solar panels to generate electricity equivalent to annual use crazy premium (for now)
    30. 30. P A G E 30 Buildings’ Emissions: net zero houses  one has been built nearby! • solar panels generate all its electricity • why expensive? All parts are imported! • 20,000 built in Europe since standards set (1996) crazy premium (for now)
    31. 31. P A G E 31 Lots of work to do… but lots of people are doing work! e.g. industry, forestry, buildings Where Fuel Cells focus Ballard focuses on this slice (electricity) Let’s go in-depth…
    32. 32. 2. Where we are now b) electricity
    33. 33. P A G E 33 Global Electricity (2010) mainly wind http://www.pewclimate.org/technology/overview/electricity Figure 12
    34. 34. P A G E 34 Global Electricity (2010) http://www.pewclimate.org/technology/overview/electricity Figure 12 coal is dirty: 40% of electricity, 75% of CO2 mainly wind
    35. 35. P A G E 35 Coal…  cheap  dirty  dangerous http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/files/images/blogentry/smoke%20stack.JPG http://www.worldcoal.org/coal-the-environment/coal-use-the-environment/ NOx SOx mercury arsenic uranium (!) smog
    36. 36. P A G E 36 Coal’s big effect Two provinces have high per-capita coal use http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_report/2008_trends/trends_eng.cfm#toc_3 2008 GHG emissions (tonnes CO2 / person) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 BC AB SK MB ON QC NS NB PEI NF
    37. 37. P A G E 37 Coal’s big effect If we magically eliminated coal remove 8 gigatonnes CO2 emissions         17 12 4 http://www.pewclimate.org/technology/ove rview/electricity Figure 13
    38. 38. P A G E 38 Nuclear  fewest deaths per kWh http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_168.shtml annual coal deaths: 4,000 Fukushima deaths: 0 Chernobyl deaths: 3,000 Chernobyl evacuees: 250,000
    39. 39. P A G E 39 Nuclear but even before Fukushima there wasn’t a comeback, because… http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_168.shtml
    40. 40. P A G E 40 Nuclear but even before Fukushima there wasn’t a comeback, because… it’s unbelievably, unbelievably, unbelievably expensive!! http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_168.shtml http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/15/nuclear-power-plant-cost-bombshell-ontario/ Cost for Ontario (2.4 GW) coal: $5 billion nuclear: $26 billion plus overruns
    41. 41. P A G E 41 The Achilles’ heel Electricity use fluctuates during the day… personal correspondence
    42. 42. P A G E 42 The Achilles’ heel …but coal and nuclear don’t easily turn off: they aren’t a complete solution 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
    43. 43. P A G E 43 Natural Gas  cleanest fossil fuel… still emits CO2  mainly “peak plants” • high demand periods • slow to adjust up/down  recently, baseline too • for now, natural gas is even cheaper than coal! must start up hours before use  hits efficiency, cost
    44. 44. P A G E 44 Natural Gas – a new map  shale gas (natural gas in shale ‘rock’) • newly-accessible deposits  cheaper • but wells deplete fast  need to keep drilling • could replace coal for primary power plants http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2010/01jan/ShaleGasBasinsNorthAmer300px.jpg http://www.chartsrus.com/chart1.php?image=http://www.sharelynx.com/chartstemp/free/chartind1CRUvoi.php?ticker=FUTNG
    45. 45. P A G E 45 Natural Gas – a new map  shale gas (natural gas in shale ‘rock’) • newly-accessible deposits  cheaper • but wells deplete fast  need to keep drilling • could replace coal for primary power plants • but fugitive emissions could make it worse * http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2010/01jan/ShaleGasBasinsNorthAmer300px.jpg http://www.chartsrus.com/chart1.php?image=http://www.sharelynx.com/chartstemp/free/chartind1CRUvoi.php?ticker=FUTNG * http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/GHG%20emissions%20from%20Marcellus%20Shale%20--%20with%20figure%20--%203.17.2010%20draft.doc.pdf
    46. 46. P A G E 46 How Shale Gas becomes worse than coal most people run the faucet awhile, before filling their water bottles the first bit of water goes down the drain… the rest is captured for later use.
    47. 47. P A G E 47 shale gas drilling operations kinda do the same thing post-frack, methane dissolves into the fracking fluid… which is pumped out. The methane comes out of solution and enters the atmosphere. Once the fracking fluid is out, the well is connected to existing pipelines (which leak a bit). How Shale Gas becomes worse than coal
    48. 48. P A G E 48 It’s easy to capture the methane from the fracking fluid – but gas is so cheap that few companies do it. It’s a scaled-up case of how we tend to waste tap water. How Shale Gas becomes worse than coal
    49. 49. P A G E 49 How Shale Gas becomes worse than coal 30-95 years In the short term, methane emissions have a much, much higher Global Warming impact than CO2. “Fugitive” methane means shale gas could be worse than coal, on a per-unit-of-combustion-energy basis! Not a technical issue: a financial issue (can be fixed with policy / incentives).
    50. 50. P A G E 50 Hydro can turn up/down instantly (“Holy Grail”) • “load following”
    51. 51. P A G E 51 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Daily Electric Usage natural gas and hydro fill the gap natural gas, hydro
    52. 52. P A G E 52 Plus and Minus Different energy types have different “features” Pollution (operating) Follows Load coal HIGH - nuclear - - natural gas LOW ½ hydro - Y
    53. 53. 3. Where we are going
    54. 54. P A G E 54 Renewable Energy Two future giants
    55. 55. P A G E 55 Renewable Energy wind: 2.1% …doubling every 3 years solar: 0.3% …doubling every 2 years exponential growth
    56. 56. P A G E 56 Exponential Growth  does amazing things  good examples: • compound interest (savings - hopefully!) • computers double in speed every 18 months (“Moore’s Law”)  bad examples: • compound interest (credit cards, student loans) • cancers
    57. 57. P A G E 57 Wind  not a fluke • exponential growth for 15+ years  20% of grid in Denmark  China is #1 manufacturer http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE_GSR_2009_update.pdf, page 11
    58. 58. P A G E 58 Wind  Grouse Mountain • has viewing pod!  student club activity?
    59. 59. P A G E 59 Solar  not a fluke • also has 15+ years’ exponential growth  lots of Silicon Valley money  China is #1 manufacturer http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE_GSR_2009_update.pdf, page 12
    60. 60. P A G E 60 Solar http://www.eia.doe.gov/conference/2010/plenary/chu.pdf page 14 [US Energy Secretary] Steven Chu proves that winning a Nobel Prize doesn’t mean you know how to make a legible graph…
    61. 61. P A G E 61 Solar  when total install-base doubles, panel cost drops 20% (past trend)  install-base doubles every 2 years http://www.eia.doe.gov/conference/2010/plenary/chu.pdf page 14 ie. drops to 80% of prior value
    62. 62. P A G E 62 Solar  when total install-base doubles, panel cost drops 20% (past trend)  install-base doubles every 2 years  in 2 years, cost is 80%  in 4 years, cost is 64%  in 6 years, cost is 51% http://www.eia.doe.gov/conference/2010/plenary/chu.pdf page 14 ie. drops to 80% of prior value
    63. 63. P A G E 63 Solar while panel cost has dropped… …overall cost still high (system, labour) http://eetd.lbl.gov/EA/emp/reports/lbnl-2674e.pdf page 12
    64. 64. P A G E 64 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 The Achilles’ heel Wind and solar are both intermittent • not a 24/7 solution (23/6 if widely deployed) 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
    65. 65. 4. How fuel cells fit in
    66. 66. P A G E 66 Analogues Follows Load coal - nuclear - natural gas ½ hydro Y complete solution requires natural gas, hydro 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
    67. 67. P A G E 67 Analogues Follows Load coal - nuclear - natural gas ½ hydro Y complete solution requires natural gas, hydro Follows Load wind - solar - wind + solar are not a complete solution 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
    68. 68. P A G E 68 Analogues Follows Load coal - nuclear - natural gas ½ hydro Y complete solution requires natural gas, hydro Follows Load wind - solar - batteries Y FUEL CELLS Y complete solution requires batteries, fuel cells, smart grid, micro-grids, geothermal, etc. 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
    69. 69. P A G E 69 “You complete me” batteries, fuel cells, smart grid, etc. wind, solar
    70. 70. P A G E 70 “You complete me” wind, solar investors “show me the money!” batteries, fuel cells, smart grid, etc.
    71. 71. P A G E 71 Reasons for Optimism Let’s regraph solar, wind growth curves Clean Energy Growth Curves (coal plant = 500 MW. Due to intermittency, need 1500 MW wind or solar to replace it) 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 MW(peakcapacity) Wind (per-year installations) Solar (per-year installations)
    72. 72. P A G E 72 Reasons for Optimism Logarithmic chart looks like this Clean Energy Growth Curves (coal plant = 500 MW. Due to intermittency, need 1500 MW wind or solar to replace it) 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 MW(peakcapacity) Wind (per-year installations) Solar (per-year installations)
    73. 73. P A G E 73 Reasons for Optimism Logarithmic chart looks like this Clean Energy Growth Curves (coal plant = 500 MW. Due to intermittency, need 1500 MW wind or solar to replace it) 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 MW(peakcapacity) Wind (per-year installations) Solar (per-year installations) let’s shift the solar curve, to see how far behind solar is
    74. 74. P A G E 74 Reasons for Optimism Solar is 7 years behind wind, but on same track Clean Energy Growth Curves (coal plant = 500 MW. Due to intermittency, need 1500 MW wind or solar to replace it) 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 MW(peakcapacity) Wind (per-year installations) Solar (per-year installations)
    75. 75. P A G E 75 Reasons for Optimism Solar is 7 years behind wind, but on same track Clean Energy Growth Curves (coal plant = 500 MW. Due to intermittency, need 1500 MW wind or solar to replace it) 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 MW(peakcapacity) Wind (per-year installations) Solar (per-year installations) Fuel Cells are a “little” further down - but we will follow a very similar track, too
    76. 76. P A G E 76 “Learning Curve” Review  Learning Curves happen for many industries  Often linked to • higher volumes • better use of materials (cheaper or less stuff) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects#Reasons_for_the_effect
    77. 77. P A G E 77 FC Learning Curves For fuel cells to grow, costs have to drop - and they have! * cost to build - does not include development costs Automotive Stacks: build cost (1990's) (1999) (2000) (2010) "off-scale" "very high"
    78. 78. P A G E 78 Cost of sample Fuel Cell Component, various product lines (2002) (2008) (2009) FC Learning Curves Sample component * cost to build - does not include development costs design efficiency higher volumes
    79. 79. P A G E 79 How Learning Curves Work  as volumes increase, overhead-per-piece drops  process improvements usually happen too Price vs. Volume 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Price Overhead Material Cost
    80. 80. P A G E 80 How Learning Curves Work  as volumes increase, overhead-per-piece drops  process improvements usually happen too Price vs. Volume 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Price Overhead Material Cost fuel cell suppliers are here
    81. 81. P A G E 81 “All” that’s left volume to get the price to get the volume to get the price to get Price vs. Volume 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Price Overhead Material Cost
    82. 82. It looks like you’re using iMessage. Would you like a summary?
    83. 83. P A G E 83 Wrapping Up… A) get rid of coal 17 12 4
    84. 84. P A G E 84 Wrapping Up… A) get rid of coal B) wind and solar can help
    85. 85. P A G E 85 Wrapping Up… A) get rid of coal B) wind and solar can help C) but they’ll need help 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
    86. 86. P A G E 86 Wrapping Up… A) get rid of coal B) wind and solar can help C) but they’ll need help D) from fuel cells among others
    87. 87. P A G E 87 Wrapping Up… A) get rid of coal B) wind and solar can help C) but they’ll need help D) from fuel cells among others E) our learning curve will get us there, as we persist Price vs. Volume 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Price Overhead Material Cost
    88. 88. questions? comments? matthew.klippenstein@ballard.com http://ca.linkedin.com/in/matthewklippenstein

    ×