Looking for a Breakthrough in Cement and Concrete

On so many fronts we are looking for a breakthrough.  Not just in technology but in costs control and reduction as well.  Living smart if an environmental and financial victory, and both, for long-term survival, are necessary. 

Some industries are plowing ahead with sustainable achievements--renewables, transportation, energy, technology are dynamic leaders.  Others, many old, are plodding along.  Here's one we look at again as it is a behomouth--cement.  Almost as prolific, and important to modern life, as water.

Look at the numbers below...an industry with a staggering influence on our built environment.  Insightful that developing countries have better, more efficient facilities for pouring out tons of the material.  Why?  What lessons can we learn from their efficiency?

Yesterday we talked with a scientist from Oak Ridge Laboratory and he and his team are very close to a breakthrough on converting carbon monoxide into ethanol.  What an amazing win that will be for us, on so many levels.  Carbon capture and reuse is one of the mysteries to solve in the eco-puzzle.

Looking for a Breakthrough in Cement and Concrete

by Robert Hutchinson










The toughest climate challenges involve large global industries, with no good substitutes. One of these literally produces the material under our feet—concrete. Every year, each of us in the U.S. uses about one-third of a ton. Fast-growing developing countries use far more. Globally we produce over 4 billion metric tons of Portland cement per year—the key ingredient in concrete and responsible for the majority of its CO2 footprint—driving over 5 percent of total anthropomorphic CO2. RMI’s research on the topic reveals that, to have a chance of significantly shrinking the industry footprint and meeting our Paris goals, revolutionary thinking and significant disruption is needed—a Tesla for cement, as it were.  The industry-sanctioned traditional levers are not enough. And the new cement has to be really cheap. We have found three important opportunities that might work.

Why Cement and Concrete Are Huuuge

Finding a new, broadly applicable solution will not be easy, because the world needs so much concrete. It is the most flexible, cheap, and universally used building material on the planet. The only thing we use more of globally is water. Total Portland cement volume—making up approximately 20 percent of concrete by weight (the other main ingredients are sand, aggregate, and water)—has more than tripled in the last 20 years (a growth rate of close to 6 percent per year), most of the growth being in China. As China slows, another wave of countries such as India, Turkey, and Indonesia may take over as growth drivers, plus the U.S. if needed infrastructure rebuilding takes off. Global cement production growth may stay in the 2–4 percent range for a long time.

New plants being built in developing countries are much more efficient than the oldest plants anywhere—and much better than the average in the U.S. (India’s national cement industry average CO2 emissions rate is 25 percent lower than that of the U.S.). However, the total improvements that the best companies are making—about 0.5 percent per year over the last few years—cannot come close to counterbalancing even their own growth. And not all players are really trying.

Standard Portland cement cannot be made without releasing significant amounts of CO2, which is done in two ways: through burning fuel to produce the very high kiln temperatures needed, and through a calcining chemical reaction that occurs when the limestone is heated. At the most efficient plants, 60 percent or more of CO2 released might be from this unavoidable chemical reaction.

Although other natural or waste materials such as rice hulls, limestone, blast furnace slag, and some kinds of fly ash can be partially substituted for Portland cement, it is the very standardization of Portland cement into a small and specific set of high-performing global products that have helped it become so dominant. This standardization is a huge barrier for any specific substitute.

What the Industry Is Doing Today

Like any industry that has been around a long time, there are some well-established levers to make it more efficient and emit less. The problem is, they are voluntary, coordinated by the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI), and do not go far enough to do more than slightly slow the growth of industry CO2 emissions. The CSI recommends the following to its members and the global cement industry:

• Plants and transportation of raw materials and products can be made more efficient, both thermally and electrically, and the worst plants can be shut down. 
• Plants can burn organic waste or biomass to heat kilns (as in Brazil, which may lead the world in low CO2 emissions related to cement production). 
• Supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) like fly ash can be used instead of some—and often quite a lot—of the Portland cement.
• Alternative lower carbon chemistries like magnesium oxide-based cement, using special additives, or simply more judicious and use-specific mixing can reduce the amount of Portland required to achieve specific properties of a concrete. 

All of these are actively underway in some—but not all—of the world’s cement markets. Leading players have targets in place for emissions intensity, and use all these levers. However, progress has not been and can likely never be fast enough. This is partly because the industry focuses first and foremost on reliability and product quality, which makes introducing any change challenging, slow, and costly. There must be proof that new approaches work. What’s more, the industry is very asset intensive, having a lot of money sunk in plants and equipment compared with its revenues and profits.

 Changing plants is expensive, and industry cash flows are not enough to make those changes quickly and still satisfy investors’ or government owners’ cost of capital. Change is also slow because most new plants are built in the developing world—typically not a good place to try innovative approaches given the on-site expertise needed to ensure something new or different actually works. And finally, industry dynamics have sometimes kept things slow. For instance, few companies want to invest in higher efficiency and “greener” cement if cheaper “dirty” cement can be imported from another country without being blocked or taxed. Such “carbon leakage” is a particular problem in Europe due to its proximity to North Africa and the Middle East, which have no regulations and can ship product across the Mediterranean cheaply.

Accelerating Cement Industry Cleanup

The industry, via the CSI, believes the answer to emissions is to use the levers when economical, but continue to emit a lot, and then use CO2 capture and storage. CSI members are funding capture and storage research, but there is currently no approach that does not add significant cost and risk. Outsiders are trying too. Some new research companies like Blue Planet, Skyonic, and Solidia are proving technologies where the concrete itself absorbs CO2, with some good progress in niches like pre-formed concrete products. Ideally some form of carbon capture will have good economics and can be pushed toward rapid adoption. But in the meantime, the world needs more good, economically viable options that actually reduce emissions significantly. We believe these can come from three different directions.

1. Increase end-use efficiency

To lower CO2 emissions from concrete, the key is cement. Portland cement can be used more efficiently both by developing concrete formulas that use less of it and by designing buildings that use less steel and concrete. Concrete doesn’t always need to be “rich” in Portland cement. Recipes for concrete are locally driven due to the characteristics of the local sand and aggregate. Also, durability testing is not always reliable so builders use more Portland as “insurance.” Few materials scientists work on concrete, and those who do are often funded by industry and therefore may not research ways to significantly reduce the use of Portland cement.

However, a concerted effort to both better understand concretes and invent tools to accurately predict concrete properties based on recipes could identify and standardize ways to reduce the volume of Portland cement use. Research into how to change the structural design of buildings and infrastructure to use less concrete can also improve efficiency. Both of these approaches can have very significant impact, in a way that can travel very fast—via information.

2. Expand the use of SCMs

Supplementary cementitious materials are a terrific way industry is already reducing its CO2 footprint, and the development of more natural or minimally processed ones would be a huge leap forward. Today there simply aren’t enough supplementary cementitious materials in markets that are willing to use them, and sometimes they sell for even more than Portland cement does. But new kinds of SCMs are indeed on the horizon. Technologies now exist that enable even processed silica (sand) or volcanic rocks to serve as highly effective cements.

Unfortunately, these technologies, which do not involve heating to high temperatures or releasing CO2, appear to be “trapped” today, with little or no helpful engagement from the industry. Rapidly scaled, they could significantly damage the existing Portland cement players, so the very people most able to test and leverage them instead choose to shun them, particularly in high-price Portland cement markets or import-only markets like parts of Africa. One example technology—mechanical activation—has been tested and developed for more than 20 years without effective engagement from the industry. But as the search to reduce carbon pollution intensifies, such technologies may soon see the light of day.

3. Co-process cement with other products

Cement making, ideally, can share its heat with other processes, like electricity or even steel. In a low-carbon world, we will have to be parsimonious about heating anything to high temperatures. In some countries making cement is already combined with incineration of some kinds of hazardous materials, and this trend will likely continue. Could this idea really be extended? In theory, yes. Possibly the most exciting idea involves high belite Portland cements, which have been tested in China in the Three Gorges Dam and other massive, high-strength applications, and at the University of Kentucky and MIT. Concrete made with these cements is particularly well suited to hot, humid climates and to water-limited situations because of the way it cures. The cements can potentially be made from coal-fired fluidized bed-waste materials, lignite plant waste, and other industrial waste streams. Many hope that a way to make the two products together will be developed. Such coproduction could provide a significant net benefit in energy use and CO2 emissions.

Some of these ideas may be farfetched for now. But the need to move fast is very (ahem) concrete. Since governments buy about half the world’s concrete, in light of the Paris climate agreements this need is extremely visible—or should be. Public sector and other customers should demand the industry move faster and try new technologies, and be willing to add their support. Targeted research efforts—and much richer application of measurements and information technology—could change this relatively backward industry from a clear climate laggard to a powerful climate leader.

Obama invokes 1953 law to indefinitely block drilling in Arctic and Atlantic oceans

We think this is the right decision.  We do not need to drill more sites.  Through aggressive investments in efficiency, taking advantage of advance technology like hybrid buildings and energy storage, and large-scale deployment of renewables, we can drop our demand and need for fossil fuel and still have a very bright energy future.

This type of drilling is fraught with environmental risks.  Here the dangers far out weigh the potential benefits (other than oil and gas companies continuing to get rich).  Powering a new, green economy means preserving and protecting eco-capitol.  Stopping drilling in the Artic and Atlantic does that and more:

CNBC
Tom DiChristopher | @tdichristopher
CNBC.com

President Barack Obama on Tuesday moved to indefinitely block drilling in vast swaths of U.S. waters.

The president had been expected to take the action by invoking a provision in a 1953 law that governs offshore leases, as CNBC previously reported.

The law allows a president to withdraw any currently unleased lands in the Outer Continental Shelf from future lease sales. There is no provision in the law that allows the executive's successor to repeal the decision, so President-elect Donald Trump would not be able to easily brush aside the action.

Trump has vowed to open more federal land to oil and natural gas production in a bid to boost U.S. output. Obama on Tuesday said he would designate "the bulk of our Arctic water and certain areas in the Atlantic Ocean as indefinitely off limits to future oil and gas leasing, though the prospects for drilling in the affected areas in the near future were already questionable.

U.S. Outer Continental Shelf

The lands covered include the bulk of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas in the Arctic and 31 underwater canyons in the Atlantic. The United States and Canada also announced they will identify sustainable shipping lanes through their connected Arctic waters.

Canada on Tuesday also imposed a five-year ban on all oil and gas drilling licensing in the Canadian Arctic. The moratorium will be reviewed every five years.

"These actions, and Canada's parallel actions, protect a sensitive and unique ecosystem that is unlike any other region on earth," Obama said in a statement.

"They reflect the scientific assessment that, even with the high safety standards that both our countries have put in place, the risks of an oil spill in this region are significant and our ability to clean up from a spill in the region's harsh conditions is limited."

The action potentially tees up a battle that touches on hot-button issues: environmental protection, energy independence, climate change, and the scope of executive power.

Mandel Ngan | AFP | Getty Images

President Barack Obama looks at Bear Glacier during a boat tour of the Kenai Fjords National Park on September 1, 2015 in Seward, Alaska. Bear Glacier is the largest glacier in Kenai Fjords National Par

Like other efforts by the Obama administration to advance environmental protection through executive action, it could also be challenged in the courts. It could get tied up there throughout much of Trump's four-year term.

The Republican-controlled Congress could also try to change the law.

The provision, contained in the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, has been invoked in the past to set aside smaller portions of the Outer Continental Shelf, such as coral reefs or natural habitats. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton used the provision to block drilling in much of the Outer Continental Shelf, but for limited periods.

The Obama administration's action marks the broadest use of the statute ever because it would be far-reaching in terms of the lands it would protect and come without an expiration date.

Provision 12(a) of the law states, "The President of the United States may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf."

Momentum to use the provision has been building this year. In May, a coalition of environmental groups circulated a fact sheet that highlighted the authority provided under 12(a

“Community Storage”

This is a great article that illustrates just one of the many ways grids and consumers will become smart energy users.  Flexibility on demand, to help the utilities better manage supplies, is key to stabilizing the marketplace and bribing in more intermittent renewables.

What is fascinating, and crucial to our energy future as well, is expanding and improving storage capacity and on-demand delivery equipment and software. 

“Community Storage” Is a New Way to Think About Reducing Grid Costs

How Utilities are Taking Advantage of Customer-Owned Energy Storage and Demand Flexibility

Energy storage is one of the hottest topics in the electricity industry today. As battery costs decline, many actors are recognizing the huge potential of storage to lower the cost of the grid and become a booming, multibillion dollar market. But although Tesla and its competitors capture all the headlines, it’s always worth noting that energy storage can come from multiple sources—not just batteries—and there are many ways to bring the technology to market.

Now, a promising new initiative launched by a coalition of industry stakeholders aims to promote the concept of “community storage” in utilities across the U.S. Community storage programs let utilities aggregate customer-owned, behind-the-meter resources like water heaters, electric vehicles, and batteries to provide services to the grid. In doing so, these programs help reduce the cost of maintaining and upgrading the grid, and help lower customers’ bills.

Energy storage can provide many sources of value

Distributed energy-storage resources used in community storage programs can provide many services to customers, utilities, and the grid as a whole. In RMI’s 2015 report The Economics of Battery Energy Storage, we catalogued 13 different sources of value that storage can provide, including backup power for a single family home, reducing peak load at the utility level, and helping balance energy supply and demand at the regional scale.

These services must be provided with some kind of infrastructure, whether it’s batteries or traditional assets like power plants, transmission lines, and distribution substations. But regardless of how you do it, maintaining the grid costs money. Utilities in the United States make investments on the order of $100 billion per year on new grid infrastructure and system upgrades in order to improve reliability and meet growing peak loads. But as battery cost declines continue, utilities and energy-storage companies are increasingly interested in using storage to offset some of that traditional-infrastructure spending, because they recognize that storage can be a cost-effective alternative.

There are many ways to store energy

Batteries may be the most versatile way to store energy, and their costs have come down dramatically, but they still cost thousands of dollars and require time to secure the necessary permits and to install and commission them.

However, there are other lower-cost ways to store energy that don’t rely on a dedicated battery system. As RMI explored in our report The Economics of Demand Flexibility, it’s possible to change the timing of when existing loads draw power from the grid without disrupting the service that those loads provide to customers. By doing so, loads like water heaters, air conditioners, and electric vehicles can provide virtual energy storage at very low cost and at very large scale.

How large a scale? Take residential water heaters as an example. Approximately 47 million American homes use electric water heaters (as of 2009, the latest data available). Assuming the average storage-tank size is 40 gallons and the heater raises water temperature by 60° F, Americans’ water heaters represent a 270 gigawatt-hour (GWh) storage resource. In other words, the U.S. residential water-heater storage resource is over 150 times larger than the current U.S. battery market, which has deployed or announced about 1.5 GWh of battery storage capacity as of early 2016. In addition, storage in water heaters can be tapped at very low cost; based on our research, it takes only a few dollars in parts, installed at the factory, to allow a water heater to communicate with, and be controlled by, grid operators.

“Community storage” can help bring demand flexibility to scale

Recognizing the scale of resources like water heaters and the range of services they can provide to the grid, utilities are increasingly interested in tapping that value and bringing this resource to scale. To do so, a diverse group of industry stakeholders formed the Community Storage Initiative earlier this year.

The Community Storage Initiative is focused on building the case for demand flexibility-like programs for cooperative utilities, or co-ops. Co-ops are owned by their members, meaning that utility cost reductions are passed directly to customers. In addition, co-ops serve rural areas, which tend to have a higher concentration of electric water heaters suitable for grid control (natural gas is usually not available in rural areas). For co-ops in the Midwest and Western region of the U.S., utility-sponsored programs for behind-the-meter storage can make a lot of sense, since organized energy markets—which successfully promote storage in other regions of the country—don’t serve these regions.
The fact that this initiative is being championed by such a diverse group of interests speaks to the broad appeal of community storage. The sponsors include:

• The National Rural Electric Cooperative, a utility association. Utilities see the huge cost-savings potential of leveraging storage resources that already exist in customers’ homes.
• The Peak Load Management Alliance, a trade group for companies delivering peak load-reduction products and services to utilities and wholesale markets.
• The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an environmental advocacy group. Groups like NRDC are interested because leveraging behind-the-meter flexibility unlocks significant environmental benefits; for example, we estimate that controlling the timing of residential water-heater load could avoid 18 million tonnes of CO2 emissions per year.

Focus on community benefits

Just as utilities are leveraging community-scale solar to bring clean energy to their customers at the local level, utilities can similarly help deliver the benefits of energy storage to their customers.
By taking advantage of behind-the-meter storage technology and demand flexibility, utilities can reduce the cost of the grid, save their customers money, and reduce carbon emissions (mainly by helping integrate variable resources such as wind and solar into the grid). For cooperative utilities in particular, these benefits accrue directly to customers, ensuring that the value of storage is shared with the broader community.

For tomorrow's show/Adam Rondinone/Senior Scientist Oak Ridge National Laboratory US Dept of Energy~Tennessee

We hope you will tune in with us tomorrow at 1p, ET as we bring on our guest, Adam Rondinone, Oak Ridge National Lab and talk about converting greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into ethanol.  Here's some more info on Mr. Rondinone and Oak Ridge:

Adam Justin Rondinone

Senior Staff Scientist

Bio 

Dr. Adam Rondinone received his Ph.D. in Chemistry from the Georgia Institute of Technology in 2001, and immediately joined the Oak Ridge National Laboratory as a Wigner Fellow. He is currently the leader of Helium-ion microscopy and chemical imaging research at the Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences, and he is an expert on materials chemistry at the nanoscale. His research is focused on developing novel means to create functional nanomaterials for energy applications. He has served on various committees in service to ORNL, including two years as a Legislative Fellow in U.S. Senate working on energy and technology issues. He is also the outreach coordinator for the Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences.

Oak Ridge:

Who we are

It is easy to confuse ORNL with the other facilities in Oak Ridge. Oak Ridge National Laboratory is a multiprogram research laboratory managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The laboratory is located on the Oak Ridge Reservation, a 30,000-acre tract of land in East Tennessee. Most of DOE's national laboratories are operated under contract by private companies such as UT-Battelle.

The missions of ORNL are primarily for open research. Although a small percentage of ORNL's work is classified or restricted under its growing national security programs, the majority of the laboratory's work is published in the open literature. Many of its facilities are user facilities, which means that they are available to researchers from other national labs, academia and industry.

Who we aren't

The Oak Ridge Reservation is also home to two other DOE facilities: Y-12 and the East Tennessee Technology Park, formerly known as the K-25 Site (see Wikipedia article) or Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Both of these sites are completely separate entities from ORNL, located several miles apart and managed by different contractors.

The Y-12 National Security Complex is managed by Consolidated Nuclear Security. Y-12 is a National Nuclear Security Administration facility (part of DOE) with a primary mission of nuclear weapons production.

ORNL does no nuclear weapons production work. In fact, ORNL has had no nuclear weapons mission since the end of World War II's Manhattan Project (see Wikipedia article). UT-Battelle has no management role with Y-12.

The East Tennessee Technology Park is the former K-25 Site or Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant and is currently under environmental remediation in preparation for other reuse missions. The ETTP prime contractor for these activities is the UCOR. UT-Battelle has no management role with ETTP.

UCOR is the prime contractor for most environmental management activities at DOE's Oak Ridge sites, including those on the ORNL campus—for example, the cleanup and demolition of old facilities.

The Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education is a DOE entity that focuses on occupational health risks and environmental cleanup assessment, emergency response and educational missions. It is operated by Oak Ridge Associated Universities.

UT-Battelle contracts some services from ORISE, but has no direct role in its management.

References that place the other Oak Ridge facilities under ORNL, such as "Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Y-12 weapons facility," are incorrect.

The ORNL, ORISE, Y-12, and ETTP facilities come under the federal umbrella of the U.S. Department of Energy.

To Get to Net Zero..

Good message for us all as we transform, get smarter, more efficient and build a sustainable future:  Think Bigger.  Our progress has been surprising and incredibly rapid.  Our ambitions not as great as our talents and commitment.  Net Zero is in our headlights.  Let speed ahead.

To Get to Net Zero, Think Bigger

The importance of implementing net zero at the district scale

by Allison Hibbs

 
The World Green Building Council (WGBC) just launched a revolutionary project calling for all buildings to reach net zero by 2050 in an action plan known as Advancing Net Zero. The announcement provides a shot in the arm to the net-zero design and construction industry at a global level, further increasing the impetus for governments, developers, and service providers to make ambitious net-zero commitments and action plans across the world. But it also requires the industry to confront a long-standing barrier—the assumption that net-zero buildings come at a significantly higher capital cost than business as usual. In fact, when approaching net-zero energy (NZE) at a district level and leveraging an integrative whole-systems design approach, the economics can change significantly, supporting the scaling necessary to reach WGBC’s ambitious targets. So, what will it take for the industry to zoom out of the net-zero-building mindset and think bigger? To understand the opportunity that districts provide, we must first consider the impact potential of the buildings sector.

The Significance of the Buildings Sector

Buildings consume over 70 percent of electricity and 40 percent of all energy produced in the U.S., making them the largest end-use energy sector and a key contributor to climate change. As the biggest end-use consumers of energy, buildings can quite literally make or break the critical transition to a low-carbon future. So far, the one-building-at-a-time approach to higher performance hasn’t scaled at a rate needed to mitigate climate change. It’s time to be ambitious and expand the scope.

Buildings don’t need to be just end-of-the-line consumers of energy at a cost to owners, occupants, and the environment. Buildings can also serve as energy assets that create new value streams and contribute to the distribution of energy in many ways. This can be amplified at larger scales, as a collection of buildings more easily balances loads and realizes improved performance and reliability.

Why Districts?

A district can accelerate the shift toward a carbon-free future because together, buildings can be more efficient than when they operate independently of one another. Through whole-systems planning and design, a district can achieve net zero throughout the site as it incorporates district-level sustainable design techniques and best management practices, which further increase the efficiency of energy use. The benefit of efficient districts is clearly visible in two approaches—the symbiotic sharing of resources and energy, and the centralization of energy systems.

District-scale design and implementation allows for the leveraging of synergies, such as thermal load and electric supply aggregation. When considering buildings at this scale, the idea of a central heating and cooling plant can become a feasible solution to driving down costs and boosting efficiency. Not only is the infrastructure simpler and less expensive than a system with smaller, more dispersed equipment, it also allows for the opportunity to aggregate and optimize thermal loads across buildings.

Similarly, aggregating buildings in a district allows them to reach net-zero energy through on-site renewable energy generation. Loads can be shifted between buildings that are capable of over-producing energy to those that cannot meet their energy demand through solar within their own footprint. Buildings that are better suited for solar PV may produce more energy than they need, which can offset the overall district demand.

Additionally, the centralization of resources can balance load and supply to help manage energy throughout the district. An integrated energy services provider (IESP), an entity that serves as an on-site utility in many ways, can be a key enabler of net-zero energy at the district scale.

The IESP ultimately serves as a “gate-keeper” of net-zero energy, managing the energy systems on-site. It also allows for a smaller energy system because it only needs to meet the district’s collective peak load, which is considerably lower due to non-coincident peaks across the diverse building stock. This likely leads to tenants enjoying efficient, modern equipment, and the IESP benefiting from financial returns. This gives parcel developers and tenants the opportunity to invest in a carbon-free future without breaking the bank.

Managing Costs in the Real World 

RMI recently developed a model for a net-zero development project in the United States, and in doing so uncovered that district-scale developments are uniquely positioned to be a major driver of the next generation of high-performance buildings and an intelligent electric grid. One feasible solution to making net zero affordable at this scale is to implement an IESP. This solution makes sense financially because district heating and cooling shifts upfront capital costs from parcel developers to the IESP. This means that rather than placing the responsibility of providing sufficient capital to dig geothermal wells or install solar PV on the individual parcel owner, the accountability falls upon the entity to pay the upfront costs. The parcel developer or the tenant will then pay back the IESP over time through payments for energy consumption and on-bill financing of distributed efficiency measures, together, at no additional cost compared with business as usual.

This solution can be a financially attractive investment, as large capital investments in solar PV, district heating and cooling, and energy efficiency are repaid over time on utility bills, generating a steady return. As seen in Figure 1, investor returns are met through the billing of tenants; however, tenants may still find they are being charged less than they would in a traditional system. Clustering net-zero buildings together in a district is also likely to yield higher sale prices and rents. In addition to making great strides in the transition to clean energy, this method should improve the economics of net-zero energy for tenants, building owners, and developers.

Figure 1: Net-Zero Energy is Financially Attractive to Tenants

Amplifying Value

With the right level of performance and instrumentation, buildings will not only take from the grid but also create, harvest, store, and share energy. They can become value producers and assets that developers, owners, and tenants can rely on to increase resiliency and the long-term sustainability of communities. This value can be increased by clustering resources and construction together in the form of campuses, communities, and districts.

NZE district development has an economic advantage in that it can motivate and mobilize a local building industry, driving down incremental costs. Through smart grid management, costs to the utility can also be avoided by bringing new generation on line to satisfy peak load requirements. In addition to consumer-regulated demand response, smart grids are also being implemented all over the country in order to sense and perceive potential load issues. This increases the site’s resiliency and reduces the chance of blackouts.

More efficient energy consumption and greater instrumentation in buildings can heighten grid resiliency—one of the most valuable resources for an energy provider. With so many businesses and individuals dependent on energy for an entire array of needs, outages during peak usage times can be anywhere from detrimental to globally devastating. A well-managed NZE site can avoid this type of setback, and operate as an island during broader regional grid outages. Additional attributes related to resiliency include immunity to volatile fossil fuel price fluctuations, and more stable financial conditions for commercial businesses.

An Irresistible Opportunity

A net-zero energy development can be cost-neutral compared with business as usual, all while creating a community that is more livable, healthy, comfortable, resilient, and environmentally sustainable. The net-zero district is a canvas upon which we can demonstrate integrated design and buildings that are more informed and better equipped to play a role as a resource rather than strictly a consumer, in a push toward net-zero cities and a carbon-free future. This scalable technique integrates necessary grid services with buildings that add value to the community in the form of a safe, comfortable, and productive environment. This can be accomplished at a reasonable cost to developers and tenants alike, and will be a solution to implementing smart design and technology at a rate that can make a difference in reducing emissions.

Bees Added To U.S.

Despite the cold, snowy weather here and in much of the upper part of the US, our focus this coming year must be on protecting our pollinators and food supply.

Bees Added To U.S. Endangered Species List For 1st Time

Merrit Kennedy

A yellow-faced bee in Hawaii.

Finally — some good news for the bees of Hawaii.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has given endangered status to seven species of yellow-faced bees native to the islands. These are "the first bees in the country to be protected under the Endangered Species Act," according to the Xerces Society, which advocated for the new designation.

The new rule designating protections for the bees, published Friday in the Federal Register, states that yellow-faced bees are known "for their yellow-to-white facial markings." They look like small wasps, according to the rule, except for their "plumose [branched] hairs on the body that are longest on the sides of the thorax, which readily distinguish them from wasps."

The yellow-faced bee is the only bee native to Hawaii, meaning that it was able to reach the Hawaiian islands on its own, according to a fact sheet provided by the University of Hawai'i's Master Gardner Program. "From that one original colonist they evolved into 63 known endemic species, about 10% of the world's yellow-faced bees and more than are found in this genus in all of North America."

But the populations of these seven species are getting smaller and smaller, according to Fish and Wildlife. For example, the Hylaeus anthracinus was once found in dozens of locations around Hawaii but is now in only 15 — while Hylaeus hilaris and Hylaeus kuakea are each found only in one location.

The seven endangered species are impacted by a wide variety of threats, including habitat destruction because of urbanization or nonnative animals, the introduction of nonnative plant species, wildfires, nonnative predators and natural events such as hurricanes, tsunamis and drought.

The protected status "will allow authorities to implement recovery programs, access funding and limit their harm from outside sources," as Gregory Koob of the Fish and Wildlife Service told The Associated Press. He added that "all federal agencies must consult with the Fish and Wildlife service when interacting with endangered species."

The Xerces Society called the new rule "excellent news" but added that "there is much work that needs to be done to ensure that Hawaii's bees thrive."

"These bees are often found in small patches of habitat hemmed in by agricultural land or developments," the group said. "Unfortunately, the [Fish and Wildlife Service] has not designated any 'critical habitat' areas of land of particular importance for the endangered bees."

As we've reported, pollinators are under threat around the world. A U.N.-sponsored report released in February found that "about 40 percent of invertebrate pollinator species (such as bees and butterflies) are facing extinction." This could have major implications for world food supply, because "about 75 percent of the world's food crops ... depend at least partly on pollination."

Despite the threats, the University of Hawaii says these bees "have managed to persist with amazing tenacity." While this group of species is now endangered, new species of the genus are discovered regularly – "11 new native species have been found in the past 15 years."

The rule, which goes into effect at the end of the month, also gives the endangered designation to 39 plant species found on the islands and to three other animals native to Hawaii – the band-rumped storm-petrel, the orangeblack Hawaiian damselfly, and the anchialine pool shrimp.

The anchialine pool shrimp is known for its unusual longevity — according to the Hawaii Nature Journal, they can live for 10 to 15 years in the wild.

MEGA INTERNATIONAL POWER TRANSMISSION LINE WINS FEDERAL APPROVAL

Generally, we see this as good news.  Clearly, as pointed out below, it diversifies energy sources in New England.  It broaden the already solid trade lane between Canada and the US.  It shows cooperation among states to get the line approved.  It allows New England to continue its rise as a world leader in moving to renewables.

The only downside reverts back to a story we ran yesterday.  That report claimed that hydro and dams were generating significant greenhouse gases.  At a much higher level than first thought.  That is a huge concern.  In essence, then, knowing this clearly has some great economic value to Canada and the US, does it, though, truly deliver the environmental benefits?

Donald Jessome, president and CEO of TDI New England, presents his company’s proposal for a 154-mile hydroelectric transmission line running from Canada under Lake Champlain and into Vermont in October 2014. File photo by Hilary Niles/VTDigger

The U.S. Department of Energy gave its approval this week to a 1,000-megawatt international power line that will carry mainly Canadian hydroelectric energy to southern New England. Vermont will have dibs on 200 megawatts.

The Department of Energy awarded the project a presidential permit, which is required for all projects crossing the United States border, said the Dec. 12 Federal Register, in which the project’s approval was recorded.

The power line, to be built by Transmission Developers Inc.-New England (TDI-NE) under the New England Clean Power Link moniker, will carry electricity produced from hydroelectric dams in Canada and wind turbines in New York to southern New England utilities that are statutorily obligated to secure portions of their energy supply from sources deemed renewable.

The project is the first of more than half dozen proposed by “merchant” electricity purveyors hoping to tap into that growing market to secure a presidential permit. The project last month was awarded certification from Independent Service Operator-New England (ISO-NE, the region’s electrical grid overseers) stating that it would be compatible with the existing New England grid.

The cable will carry 1,000 megawatts of direct-current electricity 154 miles from the Canadian border to Ludlow, where a converter station would transform the electricity to alternating current. From the Coolidge Substation in Ludlow and Cavendish, the power will flow into the ISO-New England grid, VELCO spokesman Kerrick Johnson said.

Most of the cable’s length from the Canadian border will be buried beneath Lake Champlain.

The Vermont Public Service Board approved the project early this year, saying that it issued a certificate of public good to TDI because the project diversifies energy sources, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, creates new jobs, generates tax revenue and potentially supplies cheaper energy.

The $1.2 billion project will carry roughly the same amount of power Vermont consumes as a whole

VELCO vice president Kerrick Johnson. File photo by John Herrick/VTDigger

The project’s backers — financial firm Blackstone Group, which manages more than $200 billion in assets — reached an agreement last year with the Conservation Law Foundation that secures almost $300 million over 40 years for the state’s cleanup efforts in Lake Champlain. The environmental advocacy group negotiated more than $100 million in addition to what TDI originally promised, and in exchange CLF agreed not to oppose the project in the courts.

Those payments are on top of $136 million to be disbursed to the state’s electricity transmission utility, Vermont Electric Power Co. (VELCO), in annual payments over 40 years. That money will be used to keep electric rates lower than they’d be otherwise, Johnson said, and will reduce the cost of transmitting electricity to Vermont by about 10 percent.

The payments will go to VELCO because it’s the state’s electric transmission utility, of which all 17 of Vermont’s power utilities are members, Johnson said.

Although the TDI cable will reduce power costs somewhat for retail customers, electricity prices will continue to be set, in the short term at least, by the cost of natural gas, the combustion of which supplies more than half of New England’s electricity.

Although New England’s reliance on natural gas is slated only to increase over the next decade, states in the region have committed to aggressive renewable energy targets incorporating wind, hydroelectric and solar energy. The TDI cable is meant to aid New England utilities in meeting these targets, Johnson said.

Construction on the project has been scheduled to begin in 2018, and if it moves forward, the New England Clean Energy Link should carry power by 2019.

Though the cable is meant primarily to serve New England states south of Vermont, its existence will spur further, subsidiary transmission projects within the state, Johnson said.

Mike Polhamus writes about energy and the environment for VTDigger. He formerly covered Teton County and the state of Wyoming for the Jackson Hole News & Guide, in Jackson, Wyoming.