Meeting with Sven de Causmaecker

Meeting with Sven de Causmaecker in KL, Malaysia.
He is a graduate in Chemistry from Germany. We chatted about possible breakthrough technologies within the renewable energies world.

He talked about Daniel Nocera, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor whose recent research focuses on solar-powered fuels.

2 H2O >> 2H2 + O2

Hydrogen, used as a chemical fuel, has much higher storage capacity than the lithium batteries (there is not enough lithium for widespread transportation usage. H2 has also zero emissions; and the chemical reaction can be reversed with sun power at relatively high levels of efficiency.

There are several interesting videos of this technology in youtube. I would highlight his lecture in the Brookhaven Science Associates titled "Harnessing Energy from the Sun for Six Billion People -- One at a Time."

Oil is a very efficient form to store energy because its chemical union has little mass: Carbon - electron - Carbon, while for Lithium, the lightest metal, the density of energy that you can store is much lower. The nuclei are very light in atomic weight. But it is less common than 25 of the 32 chemical elements.

Uranium: 20 Terajoules/kg

Hidrogen condensed at 700 bar): 123 MJ/kg

Gasoline & Diesel: 47.2 & 45.4 MJ/kg

Fats / Carboydrates / Proteins: 37 / 17 / 16.8

Lithium air battery: 9

Lthium battery: 1.3

Lithium-ion battery: 720 kJ/kg.

Sven also mentioned cyano-biofuels, a small biotech firm based in Berlin, born from the university entrepreneurial lab of the German university of xxx, doing research on cyanobacteria and how to obtain cheap ethanol from algae and CO2.

We also talked about other technologies other than sun, which are clearly insufficient to meet the energy demands of the global population for the next decades.

[Current population: 7bn people. Energy consumption: 14TW.

Exp. population in 2050: 9bn people. Exp. energy demand in 2050: from 30 to 50TW]

Wind (farms) could yield up to 3TW of energy, which falls much short of demand growth. Onshore wind is the cheapest of the renewable energies. It is already pretty developed, with most of the best areas in many countries already exploited. Furthermore, aesthetic considerations will probably curb future development (as WT are growing bigger and taller, and therefore they can be seen from larger distances.

Fernan, working in SG for Gamesa pointed out that for strong winds it is better to have a high density net of smaller WT. While for milder winds it is better to have fewer but bigger WT.

Sven also said that offshore wind farms provoke vibrations that affect the bio-diversity of the area. Although few decision-makers will care about it.
Onshore WT also have collateral damage for the biologic fauna: they kill birds.

Offshore wind farms slightly lowers the load factor in the onshore wind farms. As you harvest the wind in the sea, the load factors inland will be reduced because the total quantity of wind energy generated by the sun is limited.

Peter Gleick is a PhD from UC Berkeley. His area of research is centered around freshwater.