ENEnergy was established in 2006 as a direct result of a project established in 2005 to find viable renewable energy solutions. The scope of the project was to look at all renewable energy solutions to identify the best ones. All types of renewables were evaluated: solar, wind, waves, Fischer Tropch and many more.

JavaScript is turned off

If you would like to make all features available at this site please turn on JavaScript in your browser and refresh the page.

ENEnergy

THE BLACK SWAN OF THE ENERGY MARKETS

Hans Olav Bjornenak - Sunday, March 19, 2017

 Bilderesultat for ørken i australia

The search for new low emission sources of energy did, as always when anything is forces, start in the wrong direction.  It was led by political forces with no knowledge or understanding of energy or the emission problem.  This resulted in a focus on a small part of the energy complex; electricity and low emission local solution for that alone.  Electricity is less than 20 % of energy, not that anyone took any notice.  The electricity market is also very fragmented and local with no global focus.   The result was local marginal, inefficient solutions like wind and solar.  Not only did they not cut any emission, they didn’t even make a dent in the energy complex.   Today, after trillions spent, they are less than 1.4 % of the global energy market.

Emissions are a global problem and need a global solution.  Manmade emissions also have two other characteristics, most of their volume comes from two sources; energy and agriculture.  And this is where the solution lays:

  1. Global approach
  2. Energy production with negative emission through the whole value chain.
  3. Use surplus manmade CO2 to produce it, via an agricultural approach.

And that is now possible.  And that is the Black Swan.

 

Here is how it works:

  1. Use deserts and irrigate with saline/sea water to produce biomass in large quantities.  Using the right plant types, large industrial highly mechanized agricultural operations on cheap barren land, and high quality biomass can be produced for less than 20 USD per dry ton.  This way uses CO2 surplus to produce the start of all new energy.  It builds on evolutionary processing in the natural world developed over 100’s of millions of years. 
  2. Using processing technology, this can be broken down to all transport sector fuels today coming from crude oil as well as high quality steaming coal.  Price wise this will cost 25 USD per barrel for the oil replacement products and 100 USD per ton for the coal. 
  3. The emission balance get negative since 30 – 50 % of the CO2 used to grow the biomass goes back into new growth as soil carbon and fertilizers. 
  4. The end products replace oil and coal, stopping CO2 emissions from traditional sources entering into the carbon cycle. 
  5. The net effect is 100 tons CO2 plus per hectare per year in emission cuts. 
  6. There are more than enough suitable desert areas to fully replace all fossil fuels.

Since the end products from this process are emission negative and already refine and ready for use, crude and coal will have negative value and not be economical viable under any circumstances. 

The next step where all of today’s other renewable investments will fail versus this solution it: There is no requirements of change on the hand of the users of any of the end products.   The will not be any need to electrify anything, use the same car, fly the same plane and operate everything as today.    This gives both speed and low cost for implementation.  All end products have ready markets.

However, there are some big other losers.   All the oil producing countries and regions of the world will lose both their economic advantages as well as their political power.  Oil companies will fail if they don’t change in time.  US shale oil will no longer be attractive and many more. In short, if you are in fossil energy, wind or solar, get out. 

The big winner will be the climate and our planet.   As well as many of today’s poorest countries where much of the barren land is located.   New countries will be lifted out of poverty and be able to buy goods and services they today cannot afford. We will save the planet and get new sustainable growth, all with a better wealth distribution than today. 

 

And that is The Black Swan of Energy, or maybe even more?  

IS ELECTRICITY FROM COAL BETTER FOR THE CLIMATE THAN SAME FROM WIND AND SOLAR?

Hans Olav Bjornenak - Saturday, March 11, 2017

                                              


Bilderesultat for wind power plantBilderesultat for coal power plant
 


Why is Japan building new coal fired power? And Australia is looking at it and wanting to use their climate investment fund to build them?  German is looking as well and so is China.  Could it have to do with the Paris agreement, and their wish to cut emissions?   Are there no better ways?


Using IEA data: Coal accounts for 28 % of total energy supply, while wind and solar combined account for less than 1.4 %.  New coal fired power stations get over 36 % of the energy in the format of electricity, there are also option to use their heat, getting the total usage up over 80 %.   Just using the electricity side is an efficiency gain of 20 % compared with today’s situation.  Since coal is 28 % of world energy, that is an emission efficiency gain of at least 5.5% of the total.   New coal fired power can produce 20 % more electricity without increasing emissions at all.  That is close to 5 times total production from wind and solar combined.

And this is a simple energy only calculation, if we did the same on emission the effect would be even more in favour of using coal, due to coal being the largest emission source there is.   

It is insane, but numbers don`t lie: New coal fired electricity is a much be a better solution than wind and solar when it comes to climate change.   Building new coal fired power station cuts more emission than wind and solar do. 

This points to two factor:

  1. The inefficiency of wind and solar
  2. Our failure to understand emissions and energy, and wasting resources as a consequence.

We are spending over 300 billion US annually on solutions that have little to no effect.  They are so ineffective than even coal is better. 

There is a better way, and it combines the technology gains in new coal power with a new electricity source.   Barren land biomass to fuel produces both crude and coal replacement from CO2 by using deserts, sea water and plants.  This way the production of the energy source uses 30 % carbon in its production process.  It is carbon negative before it is used. 

The coal replacement part is lignin.  It is a dry high energy substance and can be used for electricity production in the same way as coal.  This ensures the use of the new higher yielding technology used in new coal fired production.  By replacing coal, no old fossil carbon enters the carbon cycle.   This gives another 70 % emission effect.  In total the net effect is 100% emission efficiency when compared with coal.

All in all: New coal is five times better than wind and solar, but lignin is 100 times better than coal.  Which one to choose?

 

 

 

Some Reasons for the Green Failure

Hans Olav Bjornenak - Monday, February 13, 2017

Bilderesultat for green failures

The climate science is clear: Manmade carbon emission contribute to heat up the planet.   There is a simple way of dealing with it; cut and offset man made emissions.  After 50 years of trying the latter part there is no success what so ever; emissions are higher than ever.  The failure isn’t due to lack of resources, trillions are spent without even a glimmer of effect. And last year was the warmest year yet.  Why? 


The climate side of things are run by science and knowledge. The implementations side is different.   It is run by almost everything else.  Emission problems are global problems and totally without borders.  But special interest groups force every nation to view it as a national issue.   Not with an effectiveness view in mind, but to retrieve the available resources for the benefit of their own bank accounts.

There is no measuring of the effect of using resources one way or another, since that would stop the flow.   The biggest renewable energy source is biomass, second hydro, but almost all resources are spent on wind and solar.  They combined are less than 1 % of total every, have no emission reduction effect whatsoever, but still gets all the money.  How come?

The reason is simple: They have special interest groups backing.   They are so ineffective that big spending Germany joins Japan to now have build new coal power.  Wind and Solar’s inefficiency why they are used.   It is what gives them backing from existing energy produce, they are no treat.   Their inefficiency creates lots of jobs, another tick.  They are used all over, people can see them, looks like politicians do something, yet another tick.  Emissions reduction?  Not at all.  Energy production?  Nothing whatsoever.   But let’s not talk about the war. 

The climate sceptics gets response from this waste not from their views.  People don’t disbelieve climate science, but how it is dealt with.   They see the bill and correctly no improvement.  In some countries, the climate part of a household’s electricity cost is over 50 %.    With floods, heat, extreme weather of all sorts worse than ever, the public loose confidence and climate sceptics gets support.   We pay and pay without anything in return, what’s the point? 

President Theodor Roosevelt thought to criticise was simple but cowardly without an alternative.  To avoid falling into that category here is ours:

-        Use the barren lands of the world and sea water to grow biomass.

-        Process that biomass to replacements for oil and coal

We have for over 10 years tested, developed and independently verifies the concept.  It can now be built out in at full scale and all manmade carbon is replaced and offset, all 30 billion tons of it.

-        Using just half of the desert of one State in Australia will replace all crude oil production in the world.

-        Using just a fraction of the Sahar desert replaces any need for coal or nuclear. 

-        And it is cheap. 

In carbon terms is works as follow:

-        New use of carbon to grow energy in the format of biomass – just plants.

-        When processing that energy, there is an energy loss.  This means that we get less energy in the terms of finished usable products (oil and coal) than we used of carbon in growing the biomass in the first place.

-        There are emissions when using the energy in our cars and power plant, but less than were used to produce it in the first place.

-        It also stops new emission for entering in to the carbon cycle from oil and coal.

The net effect: Negative Emission.  Not zero, but negative. 

Sadly, the solution needs, barren land.  And in barren lands of the world there are few people, the ones that there are a poor and that results in few special interest groups.   Officially there are however, both climate interest groups and politicians who have a climate agenda.  Or are there? 

After having spoken to Zero, taken them seriously and at face value.  We have to conclude they are at least not.   On the question if they wanted to cut emission we got answered: “No, we are working for zero emission solutions like; windmill, solar, electrical and hydrogen cars”.  Their goal is to go from negative emissions in total, to zero at the point of use or production.  That is an increase and for most of their solutions, a substantial one.  Zero don’t want to deal with manmade emissions at all, but change the car industry.  If you like electrical cars better than other cars, support them.  If you are more concerned about climate change, don’t. 

Trine Skei Grande, from the Norwegian Venstre stated that if anyone had a way of cutting emission, please contact her, so we did.   We did get a sort of replay.  What it meant is a bit difficult to understand, since it looked something like: “It is important to cut emissions, please contact other parties and persuade them to do the same.”  We can from that only conclude; if you want to do, don’t talk to Trine. 

The science is clear; we have to cut emissions.  There is one solution.  But lack of knowledge and special interests stops it.  Instead we throw more and more after proven failures.  Is it strange that we get:  labels as “Climate hysterical”, oxygen is given to climate sceptics, Trump becomes President, UK votes for Brexit and a global general despise of the establishment?  

The Great Green Lie

Hans Olav Bjornenak - Thursday, November 03, 2016


Bilderesultat for electric carBilderesultat for wind turbines at sea


Emissions reduction is what is needed to be green.  Waste, hair brain schemes and ineffective populism are not.

 

In Norway, the subsidies given to electrical cars are currently running at over 100 000 USD per car, but with no other effect than 3 % of the fleet is electrical.  Emission from transport however is not showing any sign of decreasing.  The latest emission data shows an increase in Norway (2015) while it is falling in most other European countries.

Autumn is the time of year with the best wind conditions in the Northern Hemisphere.  Data from Germany shows October utilisation this year was under 20 %.  Sadly, this is not an exception but normal for wind, using it under 20 % of capacity.  We are installing more wind than coal on a global base, but since it is as inefficient as it is, it doesn’t result in anywhere near the same production. 

Wind and solar also needs backup since battery cost will have to fall with at least 99. 99 % from current level to be an option.  This backup need has for example resulted in no fall what so ever in the use of coal in Germany.  Or in other words; even the little production there is has no emission effect.

All data shows that wind, solar and electrical cars have no emission effect.  They are all a total waste of resources, both private and public. 

Why are we using them, when we know emissions are failing from their use?

Firstly, the three options have very strong special interest groups that are pushing them as alternatives.  They have allied themselves with green groups with a no economic growth agenda.  Together they have been very successful in putting pressure on politicians resulting in a strong monetary support from the public sector.  This support is than used to get the balance funding from the private sector by arguing that the risk is transferred to tax payer.  All up with the consequence than over 300 billion US investments were wasted last year alone. 

The second part flows a little in to the argumentation the interest groups use to secure their support for wind, solar and electrical cars:  There are no alternatives.  That is the Green Lie.

 There is: Barren Land Biomass to Fuel.  The concept is simple: Use barren land with new agricultural technologies to grow biomass.  This is than refined into gasoline, diesel and Jet fuel.  Here there are two carbon effects: New demand for carbon called sequestration and replacement of fossil fuel in existing cars and infrastructure.

The effectiveness can be illustrated as follows: Norway has 70 000 Electrical cars. These have costed 7 billion in subsidies without cutting one ton of emission.  If the same 7 billion was invested in barren land biomass fuel, it will have an annual carbon effect of 76 million tons.  Norway’s total annual emission is 53 million tons.  The whole country can be carbon negative for all time just by changing the subsidies away electrical cars to profitable investments in energy production.   It is so wasteful, it is scary.

 

Let’s get rid of The Green Lie.  There is a better way.   The better way: Barren land Biomass to Fuel.

15 Corrections to World Wildlife Fund

Ivar Skaarset - Thursday, October 06, 2016


WWF has presented a report called «15 signals. Evidence the Energy Transition is underway». In this report the positive news is angled towards CO2-emission as a function of energy production. The 15 signals is supposed to indicate that the CO2-emissions are now being reduced because the energy supply is transferred to renewable energy production facilities like solar and wind installations.

It is of course important to be optimistic, and it is a good thing to look for signs of positive things going on regarding the climate. And it is clear that in order to reduce CO2-emissions one need to replace fossil fuels and other fossil energy carriers with renewable ones.

The question is: Are solar and wind the right sources to make this happen? Statistics from energy produced combined with how the CO2-emissions develop show that this is not the case. And why is that so, when – as WWF says – more is invested in solar and wind than in conventional, fossil energy production plants over the last few years?

One important reason is the arbitrary nature of energy production from these sources. Production is decoupled from demand, since the production is good when the wind is good and the sun is out, not when the electricity is required by the public. And since electricity is inefficient and expensive to store, two sources of error occur:

1)    Energy is produced when it is not required. There are signs that this energy also forms part of the statistics showing energy delivered from solar and wind

2)    Energy is required when it is not produced. Then other sources must be in place.

One also may reflect upon the fact that globally, electricity amounts to approx. 20% of the total energy demand. In the Western World it is 25%. In light of this, electricity is generally given too much focus in the debate on energy and climate.

There are ways to successfully fight CO2-emissions when it comes to energy supply. It is viable to combine production of renewable fuels for the transportation sector with renewable coal substitutes for the electricity supply, doing both from biomass in one process. This will give systematic and continuing both emission reductions and CO2-sequestration. Solar and wind power production will not be able to do that.

On the following pages I present a table where each of the 15 signals is the heading in each table section. On the left side the WWF elaborations are shown. On the right side I have put my comments to these.


1) Renewble Energy

WWF

ENEnergy

In 2015, 90% of new energy production was produced from renewable sources. The year before the share was 50%.

If this was the case: Why are CO2-emissions increasing from 2013 to 2014 and being constant from 2014 to 2015? We ought to have seen a significant reduction.

The reason is that WWF mixes energy production and new investments in installed effect. The curve shown in the reportunder this paragraph is called «Expansion in renewable power generation capacity worldwide». Generation capacity is the same as installed effect. And in the text that is supposed to explain the curve WWF uses the term “power generated” – that is electric energy delivered to the grid.

It is presented as 90% of the energy production worldwide comes from renewable sources. Regardless the percentage, it is limited to the 20% of total global energy demand that is electricity. And as stated, it is not production but installed capacity.

Investments are also large in the fossil area, but less is spent on new plants. This means that a larger share of fossil investments relate to refurbishing and upgrading of existing plants. And together all fossil energy production created a CO2-emission of 32 bill tons in 2015, as in 2014.

2) Solar Technology Costs dropping

WWF

ENEnergy

The cost of Solar PV modules have dropped 80% between 2009 and 2015. It is forecast to continue falling by up to 59 per cent in 2025, making solar PV the cheapest form of power generation

Solar PV modules work when the sun is out, and only then. So regardless how low the cost is and will be, one will need additional energy sources. And these sources are fossil. The alternative is electricity storage. Besides being very costly this also requires substantial space and it is damaging to the environment.

It is correct that the cost of solar PV is decreasing, and has been over the last few years. But oil is far less costly measured against energy production.

3) Investments in Renewables soaring

WWF

ENEnergy

Global investments in renewable generation hit a new world record, with US$286 billion invested in

2015 , more than double dollar allocations to new coal and gas generation. Since 2013 more renewable power capacity has been installed annually around the world than fossil and nuclear together.

(Source : IRENA, 2014-2015)

A world record in investments is not in itself something to be proud of. According to the Bloomberg Report "Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2015" 2.000 mill USD have been spent on renewable electric power generation capacity over the last 10 years.

The problem is that energy from solar and wind is produced without considering the demand. Energy is delivered when demand is low, and there is no delivery in periods with high demand.

IEA – also being referred to by WWF – have prepared a prognosis on the total global energy supply in 2040. The forecast show that 25 years from now, the large fossil CO2-producers coal, oil and gas will deliver 75% of the energy the world needs. “Other renewables” – containing solar and wind – will contribute with 5%. And this is provided an intensified development of renewable energy supply projects.

4) Increasing number of countries running totally on renewable energy

WWF

ENEnergy

On the 8th of May 2016, renewables supplied Germany almost all its power demand, marking a

milestone in its “energiewende”

This is a «truth» with large modifications. Very large. Firstly as already stated several times. Electric energy constitutes 20% of the total world energy demand and supply.

Secondly: Germany – as a great number of countries in Europe – is completely dependent on electric power generated in coal-fired power plants. Germany is the country in Europe producing most electric energy from coal fired power plants with at total of approx. 160-170 TWh per year. As late as November 2015 a completely new coal fired power plant with 1.600 MW capacity was opened in Moorburg, Germany

So the 8th of May 2016: Yes, in periods between 11 am and 5 pm the combined solar and wind production was high enough to supply more than 85% of the power demand. But:

It is not possible to shut down a coal fired power plant completely over short periods of time. It takes several days to shut it down, and also several days to bring it back in production. The result of that is a large overproduction in short periods when renewable sources are able to deliver the demand. And this is what happened on this particular day in may 2016. The price went far below minus 50 EUR/MWh, which is of course not good.

And one should be careful with advertising that any country with solar and wind power generation “run totally on renewable energy”, because it is not possible. The example from Germany comprises 6 hours in the middle of the day on a Sunday in May. Both a week day and a month where the energy demand in Germany is at a low, both regarding heating and cooling.

5) Jobs in Renewable Energy increasing

WWF

ENEnergy

Renewable energy employment hit a record in 2015, with 8.1 million jobs recorded.

Solar PV was the highest employer with 2.8 million jobs globally, followed by liquid biofuels and wind energy.

There has been a significant increase in employment in the renewable electricity production sector. It is a result of cheaper solar PV modules leading to higher demand and subsequently higher level of production and installation activity. But in light of the ENEnergy comments to the paragraphs above, the question is if this employment create any amount of energy to be considered.

6) China is the World’s largest Investor in Renewables

WWF

ENEnergy

Chinese investments in renewables increased by 17 per cent to US$103 billion – making it again

world’s leading champion in renewables..

This is of course good news in itself. But so far it has not contributed to any reduction in the CO2-emissions in the world. China still gets most of its electric power generated from coal, and is still the largest CO2-producer in the world.

7) Africa is the World’s largest Market for Off Grid Solar Products

WWF

ENEnergy

Sub-Saharan Africa was the largest market for off grid solar products in the world with 1.37 million units

As the end of 2014, four sub-Saharan countries were particularly leading in the global top five countries with their number of solar lighting systems: Tanzania, Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda.

Maybe off grid is the best way to utilize solar power? One has to relate to the unpredictable delivery individually, and take precautions accordingly. That is, investing in very costly battery capacity or manage without electricity after dark.

Africa has many high and steep mountains. They are already into hydroelectric power. This gives better predictability in the electricity delivery.

8) Green Bonds growing

WWF

ENEnergy

The green bonds market grew at an impressive compound growth rate, from close to zero in 2007

to an outstanding US$118 billion by mid-2016.

This probably also says a lot about the different Nations wishes to build their own renewable capacity – even if they do not get som much energy production from it.

The interest rate is also negative on different other bonds, and the risk willingness is present.

9) Science Based Targets to put Business on

a below 2°C Trajectory

WWF

ENEnergy

More than 170 large companies, including energy intensive ones, signed on to adopt science based

targets.

The Science Based Targets initiative, run by WWF, CDP,WRI and the UN Global Compact, invites companies to set their emissions targets in line with keeping climate change well below 2°C. 176 large companies have committed to doing this

It si important that large companies take responsibility. It is also good PR to be exhibited as “green companies”.

So far, however, no effort is shown in terms of emission reductions.

10) China’s Coal Consumption may be Peaking

WWF

ENEnergy

China may have already reached a coal

consumption peak. China’s coal consumption

has been in decline since 2014 with a 3.7 per cent drop in 2015

It is too early to say that China’s coal consumption has peaked. They have not committed themselves to reductions until 2030.

Also there is low conjuncture for China’s steel industry. This may be a significant reason why their coal consumption is somewhat lower these days.

11) Coal Industry declining

WWF

ENEnergy

The coal industry faces declining prices and higher costs leading to some bankruptcies.

Since 2010, two out of three planned coal power plants have been put on the back burner or completely abandoned and only one finally

completed.

WWF is right when it comes to coal declining. And that is all well and good. But coal loose to gas, another fossil fuel, and not to solar and wind. It is correct to say that gas produce more energy per ton CO2 emitted than coal, but still it adds to the total amount of CO2-emissions


12) Global CO2-emissions from Energy stalling

WWF

ENEnergy

Global energy related carbon dioxide emissions stalled for the second year in a row in 2015,

despite a 3 per cent economic growth.

the International Energy Agency (IEA) showed

that global emissions from energy stood at 32.1 billion tons in 2015,

Given the optimistic descriptions in the WWF-report, the emissions should have decreased significantly. That has not happened.

With the trend we actually see regarding CO2-emissions, we are going steady against 4-5 °C temperature increase, despite all the investments made in renewable energy so far. This will mean dramatic changes to the worse in the conditions for life that people will face, especially around Equator.

CO2-emissions not rising is just not good enough.

13) Energy Intensity improving

WWF

ENEnergy

The decline in annual global energy intensity accelerated to more than 1.7 per cent on 2010 to 2012, but needs to go much faster to meet 2030 sustainable development goals.

Energy intensity is a way to measure the relation between economic growth and energy demand. It will not give a specific indication of reduced climate gas emissions. .

14) Cities rising to Climate Changes

WWF

ENEnergy

Cities are at the forefront of climate action. From 2010 to 2015, the ICLEI Carbon Climate Registery reporting plateform recorded 1 681 actions on concrete action plans already implemented by 600 cities and regions in 62 countries to fight climate change. These communities represent 8 per cent of the world population

Nothing is said about what actions and in which cities they are carried out, so it is hard to comment on that specifically. But 1,08 Gt reduced CO2-emissions show that 8% of the world population are able to cut 2,8% of the total world emissions.

Large, global solutions with high reductions in  CO2-emissions must be carried out. Local solutions with low or no effect should be given less resources.

15) Forecasts and Reality

WWF

ENEnergy

Overachievements: comparing projections done by international energy outlooks for global

expansion of renewables with reality shows that international agencies have underestimated the

potentials of these technologies.

For instance, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has missed in its projections the renewables boom for decades, only being able to adjust its forecasts on the expansion of renewables in relation to the existing developments.

A strange comment from WWF.

The presentation in this 15th and last paragraph in the WWF-report show the same problem as the 1st : A mixture between energy production and investment in installed capacity.

There is no connection between investments in renewable electric capacity (effect) in solar and wind facilities, and the amount of energy delivered from these facilities.

That the concept of installed effect and the concept of energy supply are mixed together is a big mistake, and a great source of confusion.

Energy Comparison

Ivar Skaarset - Thursday, June 02, 2016

It is interesting to compare different energy carriers - for instance by cost per energy unit. For this purpose we have chosen to compare the way ENEnergy will produce energy to crude oil, solar power and wind power. The choice is based on the following criteria:

  1. Crude oil is a major energy source, being traded and consumed globally. It can be utilized in a wide range of areas. Approx 90 mill barrels are being consumed per day.
  2. Solar- and wind power are currently the two most noted in different media. When people talk about renewable energy they almost always mean solar and wind. These are by many seen as the energy sources that will "save the world". (They will not, see blog "Negative electricity prices is bad news".)

To be able to compare the energy sources we transformed all energy data into metric values kWh-MWh-GWh. The costs were found partly in Euro, partly in US Dollars. Some figures related to wind were found in Norwegian currency (NOK). All were calculated into USD using todays currency exchange rates.

To calculate energy contents of crude oil, ethanol and lignin into kWh the following properties were used. A barrel contains 159 litres

.

Ethanol

Oil

Lignin

3 778

5 760

MJ/barrel

1 058

1 600

kWh/barrel

7

kWh/kg



The energy delivered from a wind turbine is estimated to be similar to installed effect times 2000-2750 hours/year (EWEA). We have used 2.500 hours/year

Similar to wind calculation the daily energy delivered from solar is the installed effect times 5 hours/day according to Solar Panels Cost Guide for U.S.

The capital cost - which is large for both solar and especially wind - were calculated over 15 years with an interest rate of 3% p.a.

The cost to get crude oil out of the ground varies a lot. It is most likely down to below 1 USD/barrel for large existing and already operating fields onshore, and may be above 100 USD/barrel for new, smaller fields in challenging offshore conditions. The cost is set to 70 USD/barrel to reflect the increasing cost resulting from new fields being smaller and/or more difficult to exploit.

For the ENEnergy Project in West Canning, Australia, cost is calculated at 20 USD/barrel, including all investments and operating costs. This is based on calculations and estimates performed during the development of the project. Cost figures have been benchmarked against existing plants.

Here are the results:


Crude Oil:

 44

USD/MWh

Wind:

  200-400

USD/MWh

Solar

105

USD/MWh

ENEnergy:

  12

USD/MWh



The numbers indicate that electricity from Wind Turbines is a cost intensive way to produce energy, in addition to being very unpredictable. Costs found varies a lot. The reason is mainly that the capital cost per installed MW varies a lot depending on geographical and topographical conditions.  

Cost of Solar Power has decreased severely over the last couple of years. These days it seems that the Solar market is focussing on PV-solutions for buildings, and not so much on large concentrating solar power plants producing electricity to the grid.

The results above are largely in favour of ENEnergy. ENEnergy is also better than new oil. On the other side existing oil fields for instance in the Middle East will have a much lower cost.

The two renewable energy sources described above – solar and wind – can replace only parts of the electricity produced today. ENEnergy is mainly focussed on the transportation sector, as we will have an output consisting mainly of fluid energy carriers – ethanol is used in this example. In addition we will produce lignin as a coal replacement.

The fact is that about 20% of the global energy consumed yearly is electricity. Approx. 75-80% of this is generated by use of fossil fuels – mainly coal and gas. Compensating for energy efficiency factor transforming energy from coal to electricity, this means that approx. 20-30% of the yearly CO2-emissions theoretically can be replaced by wind and solar. This is provided that the sun always shines and the wind always blows when the electricity they produce is in demand. As we know, that is not the case.

The consumption of crude oil is approx. 90 mill barrels per day, and counts for approx 60% of the CO2-emissions. This is where ENEnergy wants to make a difference, replacing those 90 mill barrels by non-fossil fuels using a production method that is both environmentally friendly and cost efficient.



Reference:
European Wind Energy Association (EWEA)
International Renewable Energy Association (IRENA)
Michael Laughton: Renewable Energy Sources
Solportalen.no
U.S. National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL)

Negative Electricity Prices is Bad News

Ivar Skaarset - Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Electricity is a «fresh commodity». Once it is produced it must be consumed immediately. The wind does not follow human demand for electric power. As a power source wind is too unreliable. Sun power plants have similar challenges: A large part of the time there is no sun, and therefore other power sources need to be operative. The need for continuous and reliable supply of electric power in accordance with actual demand is evident. The result is negative prices when the arbitrary production from solar and wind kicks in.



And why is that a bad thing? To alter the question: Who will own a piece of equipment that produces a good or a service on the following conditions:

“We don’t know when we can produce”
“We don’t know how much we will produce when we can produce”
“We don’t know the size of the market for our product when we produce”
“We may have to offer you some money to go along with our product if you chose to buy at times when we for some uncontrollable reason produce a lot more than you need”


A chart published by Fraunhofer ISE showing the energy produced from all sources week 18 2016 in Germany:tells its story story. The chart is shown on ENEnenrgy Ltd at Facebook, and we see the following:


Solar works a few hours per day.
Wind randomly varies from zero to fairly large amounts.
Conventional (darker grey) is the mayor contributer; that is coal and gas.
In all periods of wind and solar giving substantial contributions, quite a lot of the energy produced is not being used (dark grey areas) - in other words: Pure energy loss.


Then the price curves: All week they are quite low, and in the times of high energy loss the price drops even further. Towards the week-end the following happens: One time on Saturday the price goes negative for about one hour (around 14.00 Hours) and again during the night between Saturday and Sunday for approx 2 hours.

Then comes Sunday: Between approx 11.00 and 17.00 Hours the price drops like a stone. The bottom is outside the chart - far below minus 50 EUR/MWh

From the chart it appears that the price is forced down by wind and solar. And the more electricity produced from wind and solar the lower the electricity price. It’s broadcasted as “great news” that Germany produced 95% of their energy from wind during the week-end in week 18.

One thing is that it doesn’t look that much from the chart. Another thing is that without subsidies wind and sun can not survive, since the price always will drop when they produce. The prices in the lower end will not be able to create profit to support the investments required. 

ENEnergy has the solution to this. We can deliver renewable coal replacement enough to replace fossil coal over - not too long - time.  

Volumes

Ivar Skaarset - Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Volumes

Energy comes in different shapes, but one common denominator exists: energy is delivered in huge volumes. This means that the distribution must be efficient to keep the price for the end users at a manageable level. It also means – since the energy carriers we use are mostly fossil – that the CO2-emission from energy consumption is huge.






To illustrate the size: The oil market is approx. 93 mill barrels of crude oil per day. About 60 % enters the transport sector and is distributed to an enormous number of gas stations – every day.


The number of cars worldwide today is by the trade journal World Auto estimated to be around 1,2 bill cars. They also forecast it to increase to some 2 bill cars in 2035.


Many people believe that replacing vehicles run on fossil fuels with electric cars will help reduce CO2-emissions. This is not the way to go at all. All things concerning CO2-emissions from EVs aside, the size of the transport sector and the time available to drastically reduce the CO2-emission also speak against going down such a path.


Say the number of cars in the world today emit on average 150 g CO2/km, and each car is run 10.000 km/year. This will give a CO2-emission equalling 1,5 tons/year per vehicle and a total of 1,8 bill tons CO2 per year.


The number of electric vehicles turned 1.000.000 cars in September 2015, according to the web-site EVObsession.com. Say that each of these cars replacing a fossil fuels engine car will give a reduced emission of 150 g CO2/km. This will reduce the emission from 1.800.000.000 ton CO2 per year with 1.500.000 ton to 1.798.500.000 ton CO2 per year.





This is not bad – if it was right. Never the less – let’s continue to say that an electric vehicle actually reduce CO2-emissions with the amount coming from a similar fossil fuels car.


Every of the last few years, between 70 and 80 mill cars are sold across the world. A peak was achieved in 2013 with approx 82 mill. cars sold, according to IHS Automotive, a consultancy firm.  EVObsession.com reports approx..307.000 EV’s sold in 2014 and forecasts the 2015-figure to be 430.000.


Taking World Auto’s figures of 1,8 bill cars today growing to 2 bill cars in 2035 and equally distribute them between now and 2035 indicates that some 40.000.000 new cars will hit the road every year. Say 500.000 EV’s can be produced and sold per year. Also say that the average new fossil fuel car emits 100 g instead of 150 g CO2 per km.


This will still not do the trick for reduced CO2-emission. Every year this will mean an increased CO2-emission from the new fossil fuels vehicles of 40.000.000 tons per year, offset by a modest 750.000 tons per year from EV’s.


But every electric vehicle also contributes with a portion of CO2 being emitted per year. How large depending on how large the car is, and the way electric energy production mix is in the actual part of the world. So their “help” is significantly less than 750.000 tons – probably close to zero and very likely on the negative side of zero as well.


The way to deal with CO2-emissions in the transport sector must be to deal with the fuels for the more than 99,9 % of the total amount of cars around the world that run on fossil fuels. ENEnergy has an integrated approach to this, considering several aspects at the same time: reduced CO2-emissions, maintain energy supply, use existing infrastructure:

  • Use our fast production process to get from biomass to sugar
  • From sugar it is possible to produce all kinds of fossil fuels today
    • Gasoline
    • Diesel
    • Jet fuel
    • Create large plantations on barren land, using energy canes like Arundo Donax and Sorghum to produce biomass for fuel purposes
      • Sustainable fuels produced in large scale
      • Fossil fuel is replaced, giving less CO2 emitted
      • Arundo Donax and Sorghum sequester and capture carbone 5 times their own weight in their root system, meaning ENEnergy process is CO2 -negative
      • Use excisting distribution system for fuels
        • Our products are directly replaceable with fossil products
        • No large investments in new energy supply
        • Same distribution chain as fossil fuels

Bilderesultat for arundo donax


Some key data for the first project ENEnergy will conduct:

  • 10.000 ha of barren land will be transformed into a plantation with Sorghum and ADx
    • Will give 7.500 barrels of gasoline per day
    • Net sequester and capture 5 mill ton CO2
    • Sequester and circulate 1 mill ton CO2 per year


This will be the beginning. Australia have a lot of barren land, and excellent growth conditions for energy plants on big portions of it. Also in other parts of the world such land areas exist. The numbers below give an indication of the possibilities:

  • 15 mill ha of barren land (a portion of what exists in Australia alone)
    • Will give 11 mill barrels of gasoline per day (same level as Saudi Arabia crude)
    • Net sequester and capture 7,5 bill ton CO2
    • Sequester and circulate 1,5 bill ton CO2 per year


Total CO2 emission from energy consumption lie around 30 billion tons per year. It will require 50 mill ha to offset. The Sahara Desert is 9,400 mill ha and most of it is usable for suitable plants. It can be done. 

A sustainable energy solution

Hans Olav Bjornenak - Monday, April 18, 2016

A Sustainable Solution to Replace the mining boom 

 

There is a way to sustainably replace the mining boom built on Australian competitive advantages.

 

We need something new, and sustainable that will create jobs, revenues and counter balance the boom and bust cycles of the mining industry. It is here.

 

Since 2006 a number of research activities have been conducted to develop integrated systems using new technologies and the barren Australian lands to produce substitutes for oil and coal. This builds on agricultural developments started even earlier.

 

For some time we have had plants that can grow under the harsh Australian top end conditions, but the problem has always been their lack of economical value. Now we can combine these plants with Norwegian technologies that concentrate the plant’s energy content to marketable energy products.

 

These products are:

  • Replacements for gasoline that can be used as transport sector fuels and both have ready commodity markets both domestic and international.

  • Lignin – A substitute to coal, also with a ready market.

Bilderesultat for arundo donax

 

We can produce these plants in large quantities by establishing plantations in the top end. The plantations will be irrigated with water either; waste from mining/other operations, saline and not usable for other crops or fresh water currently not used. It gives a production cost per dry ton of 20 dollars excluding CO2 sequestration income. With 10 dollar per ton CO2 income the cost is reduced to 10 dollars per dry ton.

 

Each ton cost 50 dollars to process into liquids and coal replacement. It will give 2.7 barrels of non-fossil gasoline plus 100 kilos of non-fossil coal. This makes the cost 70 dollars per dry ton ready processed resulting in a per barrel of liquids 23 dollars cost if we use a coal price of 100 dollars per ton – current market price.

 

A 500 000 hectare cattle station alone can replace all gasoline requirements for Australia. It requires investments of 20 billion dollar, creates over a thousand permanent jobs, annual revenues of 20 billion dollars and annual total taxes of more than 3 billion dollars.

 

New oil cost around 100 dollars per barrel and the competitive advantages make the Australian solution an ongoing development. The market size for transport sector fuels are approx 50-60 million barrels per day. Each cattle station of 500 000 hectares only produces 0.375 million barrels per day, meaning the market can take very many times 500 000 hectares. The market is big enough to take everything Australia can produce. Land and water availabilities will limit development long before market saturation.

 

Australia has a unique position to both stimulate its own economy; this will flow on to the world’s economy, with a sustainably lower cost fuel opportunity built on competitive advantages. These

operations will also solve the climate challenges in the process. Australia will be the energy giant Saudi Arabia is today, of a new and better world.

 

And all of this while at the same time being competitive, reducing public sector budget burdens,

 

 

For further discussion/comments/questions, feel free to contact me on  hob@enenergy.net

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

creating revenues for all stakeholders and jobs.

 

Maybe it is time for the old slogans: Yes, we can, Time for change, Let’s go?

Subsidies

Hans Olav Bjornenak - Thursday, November 05, 2015

            Windmills on hillside

WE HAVE NEVER SPENT MORE ON RENEWABLE ENERGY AND STILL EMISSION GOES UP. ARE WE USING OUR RESOURCES RIGHT?

 

Hans Olav Bjornenak, Chairman ENEnergy Ltd hob@enenergy.net

In 2013 world subsidies to renewable energy, mainly solar and wind, was120 billion US dollars according to IEA. Still according to same, they forecast increase in emission all the way to and past 2040, with an increase in temperature of 3.7 degrees C.   

Electricity is only a part of total energy.

According to IEA, electricity is the fastest growing form of energy, however it will only account from around 20 % even by 2040.  It does however stand for over 40 % of CO2 emission from energy (IEA) as a consequence of so much being produced from high emitting coal.  Since IEA operates with energy emissions of 70 % of total, electricity stand for 28% of total emission. 

The source of renewable energy like wind and solar are insignificant in their share of total energy supply and even in produced volume of electricity.  None of them are even the dominate form of renewable electricity source.  That title goes to hydro power.  Wind and Solar are so small IEA don’t even use them in their graphs for total global energy or electricity suppliers. 

Here lays two of our failures; we concentrate all our efforts on electricity which is only 20 % of energy and 28 % of emissions.  The problem is too big to just focus on parts of energy.

Even worse, we are spending our funds on subsidising solar and wind who are the smallest sources of electricity there are.  We need to focus on total energy and the volume source for it.  That is fossil fuel.  Even in 2040 according to IEA 75 % of all energy will come from those.

 

The route to go is fossil replacement, which is how we get the most bang for our bucks. 

 

If we change our approach by focusing on two elements: volume and all energy, we will be successful.  In their statement at the Lima meeting last year, UN’s expert panel stated the same: We need to efficiently use our resources.  By focusing on total energy and volume we will be efficient. 

Cost of current best wind farms versus barren land biomass:

The best cost estimate we could find in Australia for wind is 90 Australian Dollars per MWh and that is longer term (Gizmodo).   In the shorter term there seem to be consensus around a cost of 120 Australian per MWh.  These costs do not include distribution cost and backup requirements to secure supply when the wind isn’t blowing. 

One real competitive advantage Australia has is its vast barren land mass.   Development in agricultural technologies can now use this land to grow energy biomass, not food on this barren land.  This biomass can be process by EN’s technology to energy products for all types of energy use:

-          Ethanol, Butanol, Diesel, Natural gasoline – all directly usable as transport sector fuel, replacing fuels from oil.

-          Lignin – a direct replacement for coal in electricity production.  It can be used in existing power station, just replace coal with it.

-          Bio-gas – gas to be used as replacement for fossil gas.

-          There is also an array of other products replacing products that today is derived from oil.  There is nothing that today is made from oil 
       that cannot be made from biomass via the EN process. 

 

Building on the Australian barren land biomass the cost per GWh via this route is 20 Australian dollars or less. 

It is a lot cheaper.  It is 1/6 of today’s cost and ¼.5 of the longer term cost forecast.

Here there is no real market access cost for two reasons:

-          The competitor (oil/coal) is also prices at production point/sea port.

-          The infrastructure need to use is already there – sunk cost.  This is pure replacement of fossil fuel, using the existing infrastructure.

 

But, the cost advantage isn’t it greatest quality.  Volume is.  Australia can be totally self sufficient with gasoline from using 700 000 hectare or a couple of large cattle stations.  Using 1.5 % of Australia’s landmass Saudi Arabia can be replaced.

The cost per barrel transport sector fuels is less than 10 dollars oil equivalent since this process produces ready to use fuel with no need for further refining.  This means that it will not only be a way to meet climate change, but a new industry for Australia, and a much bigger one than any current one.  Saudi’s volume of 10 million barrel per day has a market value of 500 million US per day.  By using EN’s readymade fuel, this will in Australia’s case grow to 700 million US per day or 255 billion US per year.  That is at today exchange rate 360 billion Australian dollars or an increase in the GDP with 24 %.

By focusing on total energy in volume and real competitive advantages Australia can lead the change from fossil fuel as well as securing economical growth. 

 


Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Disclaimer | Sitemap
Copyright 2012 ENEnergy. Website Design & Development: SassyWeb