World energy and fuel cells

The World Energy PictureThe World Energy Picture(and where Fuel Cells fit in)(and where Fuel Cells fit in)

Matthew KlippensteinFeb 26, 2012

1. A successful species

2. Where we are now

3. Where we are going

4. How fuel cells fit in

1. A successful species

P A G E 4

…we’re pretty successful…

P A G E 5

Global Population

6.7 billion humans

25 billion chickens

2 billion pigs

1 billion cattle

1 billion sheep

0.5 billion cats

0.4 billion dogs

P A G E 6

Global Population

6.7 billion humans

25 billion chickens

2 billion pigs

1 billion cattle

1 billion sheep

0.5 billion cats

0.4 billion dogs

domesticated animals

P A G E 7

Global Population

6.7 billion humans

25 billion chickens

2 billion pigs

1 billion cattle

1 billion sheep

0.5 billion cats

0.4 billion dogs

0.001 billion whales (1,000,000)

0.001 billion bears (1,000,000)

0.0005 billion elephants (500,000)

domesticated animals

P A G E 8

Visualizing population

+ +

= 1,000,000 individuals

6700 million

2.5 million

P A G E 9

Our noticeable impact

we’re so successful, we put nature off-balance

all numbers are Gigatonnes CO2 equivalent (billions of tonnes). From IPCC via: http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm)

(billions of tonnes of CO2)

P A G E 10

Our noticeable impact

we’re so successful, we put nature off-balance

From IPCC via: http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm)

17

12(billions of tonnes of CO2)

P A G E 11

CO2 levels

rising CO2 primarily drives planet’s warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

P A G E 12

global warming factors

GHG’s dwarf other effects (except volcanoes)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century.htm

P A G E 13

global warming data

temperatures rising – heat in oceans rising much faster(latent heat of melting, of ice)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

P A G E 14

faster than expected!

http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/23/greenland-ice-sheet-collapse-global-warming-science/

Globe warming as per IPCC’s worst-case scenario!!

Major bummer.

P A G E 15

Why it all matters

Our civilizations evolved in a “goldilocks” zone

From: http://climateprogress.org/category/best-ppts/

P A G E 16

Maddeninglyaffordable to solve

Savings from first steps can pay for almost everything else!!

http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/29/mckinsey-2008-research-in-review-stabilizing-at-450-ppm-has-a-net-cost-near-zero/

2. Where we are now

P A G E 18

Emissions by sector

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-ts.pdf

P A G E 19

Lots of work to do…

but lots of people are doing work!

e.g. industry,

forestry,

buildings

Emissions by sector

Ballard focuses on this slice(electricity)

Entrust remaining slices to others

P A G E 20

Emissions by sector

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-ts.pdf

Lots of work to do…

but lots of people are doing work!

P A G E 21

Emissions by sector

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-ts.pdf

Lots of work to do…

but lots of people are doing work!

Let’s look at industry, forestry, buildings

P A G E 22

Industry Emissions

1990-2010: DuPont cut GHG emissions 75%*

• 2nd-biggest chemicals manufacturer in the world

• $38 billion in sales (2011)

* 63%, if you exclude a business unit they sold offhttp://www2.dupont.com/Sustainability/en_US/Footprint/index.html

P A G E 23

Industry Emissions

1990-2010: DuPont cut GHG emissions 75%*

• 2nd-biggest chemicals manufacturer in the world

• $38 billion in sales (2011)

DuPont is not perfect

• still #1 emitter of air pollution in US

but it’s not alone

• in same timeframe, Dow Chemical cut GHG emissions 40%**

* 60%, if you exclude a business unit they sold offhttp://www2.dupont.com/Sustainability/en_US/Footprint/index.html

** http://www.dow.com/commitments/pdf/dow_energy_vision.pdf

P A G E 24

Forestry Emissions(Deforestation)

Pine beetle has been catastrophic

http://explorethebitterroot.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/beetle-kill.jpg

P A G E 25

Forestry Emissions(Deforestation)

http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/25/nature-on-stunning-new-climate-feedback-beetle-tree-kill-releases-more-carbon-than-fires/see http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/bcmpb/BCMPB.v6.2009Kill.pdf

From 2000 to 2020, BC forests will emit more CO2 than they

absorb!

Deforestation has same effect: fewer trees to absorb CO2

P A G E 26

Forestry Emissions(Deforestation)

but some exciting reforestation news, e.g. Groasis

• 3-year trial by University of Oujda in Morocco

• “Waterboxx” improves sapling survival rate: 10.5% 88.2%

P A G E 27

Forestry Emissions(Deforestation)

but some exciting reforestation news, e.g. Groasis

• 3-year trial by University of Oujda in Morocco

• “Waterboxx” improved sapling survival rate: 10.5% 88.2%

• costs $2. Can be removed after 1st year (and used again)

P A G E 28

Buildings’ Emissions:LEED™ buildings

a modest premium - not a crazy premium

Cadillac vs. Chevrolet (not Ferrari vs. Ford)

Olympic Athlete’s Village Millenium Water

http://www.vancouversun.com/Business/1709730.bin?size=620x400

P A G E 29

Buildings’ Emissions:net zero houses

one has been built nearby!• Harmony House in Burnaby http://www.harmony-house.ca/index.html

• solar panels to generate electricity equivalent to annual use

crazy premium (for now)

P A G E 30

Buildings’ Emissions:net zero houses

one has been built nearby!

• solar panels generate all its electricity

• why expensive? All parts are imported!

• 20,000 built in Europe since standards set (1996)

crazy premium (for now)

P A G E 31

Lots of work to do…

but lots of people are doing work!

e.g. industry,

forestry,

buildings

Where Fuel Cells focus

Ballard focuses on this slice(electricity)

Let’s go in-depth…

2. Where we are now b) electricity

P A G E 33

Global Electricity (2010)

mainly wind

http://www.pewclimate.org/technology/overview/electricity Figure 12

P A G E 34

Global Electricity (2010)

http://www.pewclimate.org/technology/overview/electricity Figure 12

coal is dirty:

40% of electricity,

75% of CO2

mainly wind

P A G E 35

Coal…

cheap

dirty

dangerous

http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/files/images/blogentry/smoke%20stack.JPG

http://www.worldcoal.org/coal-the-environment/coal-use-the-environment/

NOx

SOx

mercury

arsenic

uranium (!)

smog

P A G E 36

Coal’s big effect

Two provinces have high per-capita coal use

http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_report/2008_trends/trends_eng.cfm#toc_3

2008 GHG emissions (tonnes CO2 / person)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

BC AB SK MB ON QC NS NB PEI NF

P A G E 37

Coal’s big effect

If we magically eliminated coal

remove 8 gigatonnes CO2 emissions

17

124

http://www.pewclimate.org/technology/overview/electricity Figure 13

P A G E 38

Nuclear

fewest deaths per kWh

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_168.shtml

annual coal deaths: 4,000

Fukushima deaths: 0

Chernobyl deaths: 3,000

Chernobyl evacuees: 250,000

P A G E 39

Nuclear

but even before Fukushima there wasn’t a comeback, because…

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_168.shtml

P A G E 40

Nuclear

but even before Fukushima there wasn’t a comeback, because…

it’s unbelievably, unbelievably,unbelievably expensive!!

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_168.shtml

http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/15/nuclear-power-plant-cost-bombshell-ontario/

Cost for Ontario (2.4 GW)

coal: $5 billionnuclear: $26 billion

plus overruns

P A G E 41

The Achilles’ heel

Electricity use fluctuates during the day…

personal correspondence

P A G E 42

The Achilles’ heel

…but coal and nuclear don’t easily turn off:

they aren’t a complete solution

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

P A G E 43

Natural Gas

cleanest fossil fuel… still emits CO2

mainly “peak plants”

• high demand periods

• slow to adjust up/down

recently, baseline too

• for now, natural gas iseven cheaper than coal!

must start up hours before use hits efficiency, cost

P A G E 44

Natural Gas – a new map

shale gas (natural gas in shale ‘rock’)

• newly-accessible deposits cheaper

• but wells deplete fast need to keep drilling

• could replace coal for primary power plants

http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2010/01jan/ShaleGasBasinsNorthAmer300px.jpghttp://www.chartsrus.com/chart1.php?image=http://www.sharelynx.com/chartstemp/free/chartind1CRUvoi.php?ticker=FUTNG

P A G E 45

Natural Gas – a new map

shale gas (natural gas in shale ‘rock’)

• newly-accessible deposits cheaper

• but wells deplete fast need to keep drilling

• could replace coal for primary power plants

• but fugitive emissions could make it worse *

http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2010/01jan/ShaleGasBasinsNorthAmer300px.jpghttp://www.chartsrus.com/chart1.php?image=http://www.sharelynx.com/chartstemp/free/chartind1CRUvoi.php?ticker=FUTNG

* http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/GHG%20emissions%20from%20Marcellus%20Shale%20--%20with%20figure%20--%203.17.2010%20draft.doc.pdf

P A G E 46

How Shale Gas becomes worse than coal

most people run the faucet awhile, before filling their water bottles

the first bit of water goes down the drain…

the rest is captured for later use.

P A G E 47

shale gas drilling operations kinda do the same thing

post-frack, methane dissolves into the fracking fluid…

which is pumped out. The methane comes out of solution and enters the atmosphere.

Once the fracking fluid is out, the well is connected to existing pipelines (which leak a bit).

How Shale Gas becomes worse than coal

P A G E 48

It’s easy to capture the methane from the fracking fluid – but gas is so cheap that few companies do it.

It’s a scaled-up case of how we tend to waste tap water.

How Shale Gas becomes worse than coal

P A G E 49

How Shale Gas becomes worse than coal

30-95 years

In the short term, methane emissions have a much, much higher Global Warming impact than CO2.

“Fugitive” methane means shale gas could be worse than coal, on a per-unit-of-combustion-energy basis!

Not a technical issue: a financial issue (can be fixed with policy / incentives).

P A G E 50

Hydro

can turn up/down instantly (“Holy Grail”)

• “load following”

P A G E 51

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Daily Electric Usage

natural gas and hydro fill the gap

natural gas, hydro

P A G E 52

Plus and Minus

Different energy types have different “features”

Pollution (operating)

Follows Load

coal HIGH -

nuclear - -

natural gas LOW ½

hydro - Y

3. Where we are going

P A G E 54

Renewable Energy

Two future giants

P A G E 55

Renewable Energy

wind: 2.1% …doubling every 3 years

solar: 0.3% …doubling every 2 years

exponential growth

P A G E 56

Exponential Growth

does amazing things

good examples:

• compound interest (savings - hopefully!)

• computers double in speed every 18 months (“Moore’s Law”)

bad examples:

• compound interest (credit cards, student loans)

• cancers

P A G E 57

Wind

not a fluke

• exponential growthfor 15+ years

20% of grid in Denmark

China is #1 manufacturer

http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE_GSR_2009_update.pdf, page 11

P A G E 58

Wind

Grouse Mountain

• has viewing pod!

student club activity?

P A G E 59

Solar

not a fluke

• also has 15+ years’exponential growth

lots of Silicon Valley money

China is #1 manufacturer

http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE_GSR_2009_update.pdf, page 12

P A G E 60

Solar

http://www.eia.doe.gov/conference/2010/plenary/chu.pdf page 14

[US Energy Secretary] Steven Chu proves that winning a Nobel Prize doesn’t mean you know how to make a legible graph…

P A G E 61

Solar

when total install-base doubles, panel cost drops 20% (past trend)

install-base doubles every 2 years

http://www.eia.doe.gov/conference/2010/plenary/chu.pdf page 14

ie. drops to 80% of prior value

P A G E 62

Solar

when total install-base doubles, panel cost drops 20% (past trend)

install-base doubles every 2 years

in 2 years, cost is 80%

in 4 years, cost is 64%

in 6 years, cost is 51%

http://www.eia.doe.gov/conference/2010/plenary/chu.pdf page 14

ie. drops to 80% of prior value

P A G E 63

Solar

while panel cost has dropped…

…overall cost still high (system, labour)

http://eetd.lbl.gov/EA/emp/reports/lbnl-2674e.pdf page 12

P A G E 64

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

The Achilles’ heel

Wind and solar are both intermittent

• not a 24/7 solution (23/6 if widely deployed)

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

4. How fuel cells fit in

P A G E 66

Analogues

Follows Load

coal -

nuclear -

natural gas ½

hydro Y

complete solution requires natural gas, hydro

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

P A G E 67

Analogues

Follows Load

coal -

nuclear -

natural gas ½

hydro Y

complete solution requires natural gas, hydro

Follows Load

wind -

solar -

wind + solar are not a complete solution

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 240

5

10

15

20

25

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

P A G E 68

Analogues

Follows Load

coal -

nuclear -

natural gas ½

hydro Y

complete solution requires natural gas, hydro

Follows Load

wind -

solar -

batteries Y

FUEL CELLS Y

complete solution requires batteries, fuel cells, smartgrid, micro-grids, geothermal, etc.

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 240

5

10

15

20

25

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

P A G E 69

“You complete me”

batteries, fuel cells,smart grid, etc.

wind,solar

P A G E 70

“You complete me”

wind,solar

investors

“show me the money!”

batteries, fuel cells,smart grid, etc.

P A G E 71

Reasons for Optimism

Let’s regraph solar, wind growth curves

Clean Energy Growth Curves(coal plant = 500 MW. Due to intermittency, need 1500 MW wind or solar to replace it)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

MW

(p

eak

cap

acit

y)

Wind (per-year installations)

Solar (per-year installations)

P A G E 72

Reasons for Optimism

Logarithmic chart looks like this

Clean Energy Growth Curves(coal plant = 500 MW. Due to intermittency, need 1500 MW wind or solar to replace it)

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

MW

(p

eak

cap

acit

y)

Wind (per-year installations)

Solar (per-year installations)

P A G E 73

Reasons for Optimism

Logarithmic chart looks like this

Clean Energy Growth Curves(coal plant = 500 MW. Due to intermittency, need 1500 MW wind or solar to replace it)

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

MW

(p

eak

cap

acit

y)

Wind (per-year installations)

Solar (per-year installations)

let’s shift the solar curve, to see how far behind solar is

P A G E 74

Reasons for Optimism

Solar is 7 years behind wind, but on same track

Clean Energy Growth Curves(coal plant = 500 MW. Due to intermittency, need 1500 MW wind or solar to replace it)

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

MW

(p

eak

cap

acit

y)

Wind (per-year installations)

Solar (per-year installations)

P A G E 75

Reasons for Optimism

Solar is 7 years behind wind, but on same track

Clean Energy Growth Curves(coal plant = 500 MW. Due to intermittency, need 1500 MW wind or solar to replace it)

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

MW

(p

eak

cap

acit

y)

Wind (per-year installations)

Solar (per-year installations)

Fuel Cells are a “little” further down - but we will follow a very similar track, too

P A G E 76

“Learning Curve” Review

Learning Curves happen for many industries

Often linked to

• higher volumes

• better use of materials(cheaper or less stuff)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_curve_effects#Reasons_for_the_effect

P A G E 77

FC Learning Curves

For fuel cells to grow, costs have to drop - and they have!

* cost to build - does not include development costs

Automotive Stacks: build cost

(1990's) (1999) (2000) (2010)

"off-scale" "very high"

P A G E 78

Cost of sample Fuel Cell Component,various product lines

(2002) (2008) (2009)

FC Learning Curves

Sample component

* cost to build - does not include development costs

design efficiency

higher volumes

P A G E 79

How Learning Curves Work

as volumes increase, overhead-per-piece drops

process improvements usually happen too

Price vs. Volume

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Pri

ce

Overhead

Material Cost

P A G E 80

How Learning Curves Work

as volumes increase, overhead-per-piece drops

process improvements usually happen too

Price vs. Volume

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Pri

ce

Overhead

Material Cost

fuel cell suppliers are here

P A G E 81

“All” that’s left

volume to get the price to get the volume to get the price to get

Price vs. Volume

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Pri

ce

Overhead

Material Cost

It looks like you’re using iMessage. Would you like a summary?

P A G E 83

Wrapping Up…

A) get rid of coal       

17

124

P A G E 84

Wrapping Up…

A) get rid of coal

B) wind and solar can help

P A G E 85

Wrapping Up…

A) get rid of coal

B) wind and solar can help

C) but they’ll need help

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

P A G E 86

Wrapping Up…

A) get rid of coal

B) wind and solar can help

C) but they’ll need help

D) from fuel cells among others

P A G E 87

Wrapping Up…

A) get rid of coal

B) wind and solar can help

C) but they’ll need help

D) from fuel cells among others

E) our learning curve will get us there, as we persist

Price vs. Volume

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Pri

ce

Overhead

Material Cost

questions?

comments?matthew.klippenstein@ballard.com

http://ca.linkedin.com/in/matthewklippenstein