The Japanese market for building energy efficiency technologies has been strong for decades, thanks in large part to the 1979 Act Concerning the Rational Use of Energy, the foundation of Japan’s stringent building energy codes.  In the 2 years since the Fukushima earthquake and the ensuing energy crisis – which has caused a 17% increase in the price of energy for non-residential customers of TEPCO, the monopoly utility that serves the greater Tokyo region – demand for energy efficiency technologies in Japan has grown significantly.

In particular, demand for building energy management systems (BEMSs) has grown as much as 30% to 40% year-on-year over the last few years, according to discussions I’ve had with market participants and key industry players in Japan.  Although the concept of BEMSs is mature in Japan, given that it is a requirement of the Act Concerning the Rational Use of Energy, the concurrent timing of the energy crisis and the market availability of software-as-a-service (SaaS)-based BEMS software has led to a surge in its adoption.   (It should be noted that the concept of BEMSs in Japan overlaps significantly with the concept of BEMSs in Europe and North America, though BEMSs in Japan often include additional technologies such as building-to-grid connections, smart meter technology, and others that are often considered part of the smart grid in other regions.)

Driving DR

At the recent World Smart Energy Week at the Big Sight in Tokyo, I was focused on learning more about the adoption of technologies such as building energy management systems (BEMSs), direct digital controls (DDCs), demand response (DR), and other intelligent building products in Japan within the 3^rd Eco House & Eco Building Expo.

I attended several sessions of the event’s Smart Grid Technical Conference, where representatives from organizations such as Itron, NEDO, and Toyota discussed smart building technology in the context of the increased intelligence of the utility grid.  In particular, the increased growth of PV and wind in Japan will continue to drive the country’s emerging DR market, which will expand further through the adoption of smart building technology.  As Taichiro Kawahara of Hitachi put it, “Demand-side energy management in Japan must be promoted through demand-side management and demand response.”

The conference not only explored the application of these technologies in Japan, but also compared and contrasted similar successes and challenges with smart grid integration experienced in Europe and North America.  This perspective is critical for ensuring that the adoption of smart grid technology in Japan unfolds as smoothly as possible and for providing Japanese technology developers with important insights into the market landscape in other regions into which many Japanese companies are looking to expand.  This sort of international forum is critical for spreading market-leading technology – and ensuring that the industry doesn’t make the same mistakes twice.

Electricity generation from coal has plummeted from favor in the last few years.  A majority of Americans now favor stricter regulations on coal plants, even if it means higher energy prices.  In Europe public opinion has tilted away from coal even more sharply: a recent survey showed that 80% of Germans want to end coal-fired generation altogether.  The anti-coal movement has also gained steam, so to speak, in some unlikely places.

That doesn’t mean King Coal will be dethroned any time soon.  In confirmation hearings before the Senate, Gina McCarthy, President Obama’s nomination for the director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, struck a conciliatory tone when asked about the future of the U.S. coal industry.

“Coal has been and will continue to be a significant source of energy in the United States, and I take my job seriously when developing those standards to provide flexibility in the rules,” McCarthy told lawmakers.  “Flexibility,” in this context, means “exceptions to the forthcoming rules on carbon emissions from power plants.”

German environmental minister Peter Altmaier was more blunt last year, speaking of the black fuel’s future on the continent: Coal-fired plants will be needed “for decades to come” to ensure reliable supplies of power.

In fact, coal consumption is rising, both in the United States and in Europe, to say nothing of China.  The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects power generation from coal to increase by nearly 8% in 2013, bringing coal’s portion of total U.S. generation back to 40%, from 37.4% in 2012.  The cause, according to the EIA: “the increasing cost of natural gas relative to coal.”

(Source: Energy Information Administration)

High prices for natural gas are also driving a coal resurgence in Europe; carbon emissions in Germany, for example, increased by 2% in 2012, according to a feature in Nature, largely as a result of increased power generation from cheap coal.

Developments in Germany reflect the larger paradox facing nations attempting to move toward clean energy production: under the Energiewende, Germany’s national program to shift 35% of its power generation to clean sources by 2020, the country is investing €1.5 billion in renewable energy per year.  However, economic forces continue to push power production to fossil fuels.  Generation from solar photovoltaic installations actually decreased by 500 GWh in 2012, and Germany is currently building some 11 GW of coal-fired capacity (though a substantial portion of that will be so-called “clean coal,” replacing older plants with more efficient, lower-emissions technology).  Germany’s decision to shut down its nuclear power plants after the Fukushima nuclear accident is driving the country to coal for baseload power.

“One of Europe’s biggest energy providers, E.ON based in Düsseldorf, announced in January that it plans to close several gas-fired power stations across Europe that were operating at a loss,” Nature reported, “even though they are far less polluting than coal-fired plants.”

Eventually, coal will be phased out.  However, everyone anticipating a rapid changeover from the fuel that powered the Industrial Revolution has a long wait ahead.

A team of researchers at the University of Washington (UW) has won a second round of funding from NASA for their concept for a nuclear fusion-powered rocket to take men to Mars.  Given the very grave problems we face as a nation and as a species, not to mention the long and dismal history of fusion reactor design, the folly of this is astounding.

“We are hoping to give us a much more powerful source of energy in space,” John Slough, the UW research associate professor of aeronautics and astronautics who heads the project, said in a UW website feature, “that could eventually lead to making interplanetary travel commonplace.”

I call this kind of thing “future porn”: the starry-eyed reporting of R&D that aims to accomplish outlandish goals that, even if attainable, will almost certainly prove too expensive, complicated, or non-lucrative to ever become reality.  Future porn stories always contain lots of conditionals and very long timeframes.  The terms “could,” “would,” and “eventually” tend to appear frequently.  “Now, astronauts could be a step closer to our nearest planetary neighbor through a unique manipulation of nuclear fusion,” the UW site reports.

Slough’s team “was one of a handful of projects awarded a second round of funding last fall after already receiving phase-one money in a field of 15 projects chosen from more than 700 proposals.”

I can think of a half-dozen things that NASA should be working on that would be more applicable to our current predicament and beneficial to humanity than harebrained schemes for Mars exploration; warding off annihilating asteroids and dealing with climate change would be top of the list.

Fusion Fail

The fusion-rocket news out of Seattle coincides with a discouraging report in Science News on the National Ignition Facility’s long, quixotic, and so-far failed attempts to produce controlled fusion by compressing a sphere of cryogenic hydrogen using 384 beams from the world’s most powerful laser, thereby releasing tremendous amounts of energy.  NIF scientists 4 years ago confidently predicted “that by September 30, 2012, they would demonstrate a fusion reaction producing net energy, a milestone known as ignition.”  Needless to say, that hasn’t happened.

The NIF account makes for a fascinating case study in the peril of relying on computer simulations.  Essentially, the researchers were convinced by their computer models that the hydrogen would compress symmetrically, i.e., into a near-perfect sphere.  Instead, the material deformed and warped, defying the attempts to unleash more energy than the powerful lasers put in.  “Nature just wants to break you,” said John Edwards, NIF’s associate director of fusion – a remark that echoes the head-shaking sighs of just about everyone who’s ever tried to achieve a sustainable, controlled fusion reaction.

Instead of lasers, the fusion rocket out of UW would use large metal rings, made of lithium, caused by a powerful magnetic field to implode and compress a type of plasma, leading to continuous bursts of fusion that would power the rocket.  To master the intricacies of this ingenious scheme, the scientists have relied upon, you guessed it, “detailed computer modeling.”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced a proposal to lower tailpipe emissions levels from passenger cars and trucks.  To be phased in from 2017 to 2025, the proposed rule also calls for average sulfur content in gasoline to drop to 10 parts per million by 2017.  Meanwhile, the Obama Administration appears to be giving up on a carbon tax and there are warning signs that the EPA will retreat on its power plant greenhouse regulations.  This new announcement thus seems like a return to the EPA’s comfort zone – regulating criteria pollutant emissions from passenger cars.  

However, the proposed regulation does in fact support the EPA’s efforts to limit carbon emissions.  The timing for these proposed standards is clearly aligned with Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which will begin to ramp up from 35.5 mpg in 2017 to 54.5 mpg by 2025.  The automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) are going for an “all of the above” approach to complying with the 2025 regulations.  They know they cannot get there just with alternative fuels, so they need to squeeze everything they can out of conventional gas cars.  Low-sulfur fuel allows them to do that by using technologies like direct injection engines.

Indeed, it is clear from the auto industry’s response to today’s announcement just how on board they are with the proposed regulation.  The Association of Global Automakers and Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers both expressed support, citing the benefits of a single, national low-sulfur fuel standard.  Automakers will not only be able to improve fuel economy, they will also be able to sell the same cars in all 50 states – since the EPA rule harmonizes with California’s more stringent standards.

It’s good that the Administration has Big Auto in its camp, because Big Oil is not happy with this proposal.  In fact, the rule will force major investments in refinery upgrades in the United States.  Petroleum refineries are already engaged in a battle with the EPA over its cellulosic ethanol blending mandates, so this new ruling will add more fuel to their argument that the EPA is placing an undue burden on the oil industry.  

Another aspect of the proposed requirements that may cause controversy is that the EPA is in favor of changing the emissions “test fuel” from gasoline with no ethanol to an E15 blend.  While most gasoline in the United States is close to an E10 blend (i.e., with 10% ethanol), the new test fuel will actually leapfrog over this level to the more aspirational E15 target.  As such, this proposal could face blowback from both automakers and refiners.

If I had to make a prediction, the broad rule on emissions and fuel sulfur will stand, though some details such as the E15 test fuel may be tweaked, since automakers can more easily meet stricter CAFE standards with the new rule in place.  If the proposal does stand, the White House would gain an early environmental victory in its second term.  Such a victory would also buttress the ambitious fuel economy goals set in the Obama Administration’s first term by giving OEMs more options for compliance and thus holding off potential challenges to the regulation.