Energy Management -Demand Optimization And Biogas Production: Fill & Download for Free

An anecdotal answer by me :-Most of us, who are daily drivers, often have associated environmental concerns conveniently parked somewhere in the back of our minds. These concerns tend to be louder, however, when we pull in at the gas station and fill up the guzzler. We know it’s bad for the environment in terms of climate change and pollution with particulate matter and nitrogen oxides. The combustion engine is closely connected with our bad conscience and a lot of us mainly drive a car because our everyday would in no way work without it.What if we could drive a combustion engine car with a good conscience and didn’t have to worry about our contribution to climate change and pollution. Is it possible? Of course, you can buy a battery electric car with the limitations it has in terms of finding charging poles and having limited range, the latter particularly in wintertime due to heating and defrosting demands. Battery electric cars steadily improve and in 5 or 10 years these worries may be gone entirely. At the same time, the battery electric vehicle has the advantage that it sources its energy from the power grid which continues to become greener in many countries. In Denmark for example, more than 60% of the electricity has a renewable feed-stock, either as wind, sun or biomass.Figure 1 Number of vehicles globally. Source: Statista 2017The car as we know it – with the combustion engine – still has some advantages, it’s a well-known and relatively cheap technology supported by a global network of mechanics, spare parts and a fueling infrastructure. The technology is reliable and in modern cars range is mostly very long – we simply fill the tank, crank up the heat or AC and press the right foot down. When the tank indicator flashes we fill it up, simple as that. The car does what it is supposed to and our everyday works. None of us want to think about what would happen if it was gone tomorrow.The car is here to stay but we must do something about its effects on our climate and environment.Figure 2 Vehicles imported in Western Europe in 2016, sorted by type of fuel. The combustion engine on fossil fuels continues to dominate. Source IEA, 2017Engine Experts at Lund University Develop the Combustion Engine of the FutureResearchers at the Department of Energy Research at Lund University in Sweden have worked with combustion engine optimization for many years, trying to improve the efficiency of engines for passenger vehicles, trucks and ships. Many types of engines have been tested as well as types of fuel to see what combinations yield the highest effect with the least pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.The internationally recognized research takes place in advanced engine laboratories where the parameters of fuel, engine and exhaust can be controlled and measured accurately. Fuels more benevolent to the climate such as biodiesel and -ethanol are examined in terms of yield, influence on engine parts and emission of particulate matter, hydrocarbons and toxins. The researchers look for the optimal fuel in the optimal internal combustion engine design. One of the reasons they do that is because the combustion engine is difficult to replace in heavy duty and long-haul trucks as well as in ships. That’s why industrial partners like Scania, Volvo, Toyota, Cummins and Finnish Wärtsilä actively support and engage in the research in Lund.When you determine an engine’s efficiency you look at its ability to convert fuel to mechanical energy transferable to the wheels of a car for example. When you look at the properties of fuel you’re particularly interested in its energy content (density) but also its ability to burn as cleanly as possible in the engine’s combustion cycle. Furthermore, you look at the fuel’s chemical and mechanical effects on the engine components.Figure 3 Test setup, where parameters of fuel, engine and exhaust can be controlled and measured. The University of Lund is among the leading institutions in International combustion engine research. (Photo: University of Lund)Alcohols are the most Efficient and Clean FuelsDiesel is the fuel with the highest energy content per volume unit, at the same time it is the most polluting of all car engine fuels as well. Alcohols like ethanol and methanol (wood spirit) are among the cleanest fuels available with a minimum of harmful emissions of particulate matter, toxic and greenhouse gases. Furthermore, they yield up to 20% more power in the engine (more horsepower). The alcohols also deliver a large amount of mechanical work in relation to CO2 emissions.The energy content of alcohols is less than diesel or gasoline. One liter of ethanol contains roughly 60% of the energy in 1 liter of gasoline. In methanol it’s even lower, around 45%. Nevertheless, alcohols are more efficient fuels because they cool the cylinders better during injection, whereby more air for the combustion process can be sucked into the cylinder, providing a more complete and clean combustion. Add to that that they burn more cleanly by themselves as they contain up to 35% oxygen in the chemical bonds. Gasoline and diesel must get all the oxygen needed for combustion from the ambient air sucked into the cylinder.Figure 4 Results from the research in Lund. Engine efficiency and soot emissions. ”HD Engines”=Heavy Duty, typically truck or ship engines. (GIE=Gross Indicated Efficiency = the effect of the mechanical force transferred to the cylinder head by the combustion process measured as a percentage of the chemical energy content of the fuel. Friction and other losses are not included in this measurement. SI = Spark Ignition engine, DICI = Direct Injection Compression Ignition, typical for diesel engines, DF = Dual Fuel, 2 types of fuel are used simultaneously in the same engine. New = new engine design tested in Lund, e.g. PPC (Partially Premixed Combustion). Source: Martin Tunér, Department of Energy Research, University of Lund.Despite the chemical energy content being only half that of gasoline, methanol delivers up to 60% of the mechanical work as gasoline per volume unit. That is due to the chemical and thermal properties of alcohols mentioned earlier. Furthermore, cylinder compression can be increased as the octane rating of methanol is 109 as opposed to regular gasoline that typically is 95 (in Europe). Higher compression means higher effect when the fuel explosion expands in the engine cylinder which translates into more horsepower. The lower energy content of alcohols calls for a slightly bigger tank or more frequent filling.Alcohols are the Sustainable Fuels of the FutureThe researchers in Lund see the alcohols as a very promising fuel type for the future combustion engine. Emissions of particulates, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and CO2 from alcohols have been proved to be significantly lower than other hydrocarbons. Particulate counts from alcohol used as engine fuel are below the so-called EURO VI standard, even without exhaust catalyst treatment and the NOx-emissions have been measured to a factor 100 to 1000 less than gasoline and diesel. Lastly, the CO2-emissions are lower for the same amount of delivered effect as alcohols contain less carbon per energy unit whereby they produce less CO2 when combusted using oxygen.Figure 5 WTW (Well to Wheel) = Energy consumption for extraction, production and distribution of an energy source plus energy consumption for vehicle propulsion. This chart shows CO2-emission as well as the previously mentioned total energy consumption per 100 km, measured in Megajoule, for various vehicles and energy sources. No doubt – the battery electric vehicle wins on all parameters when charged with renewable electricity (CO2-production by vehicle and battery manufacture not included). MeOH is methanol. Source: Martin Tunér, Department of Energy Research, University of LundIf the alcohols are made from biomass up to 90% reduction of human made CO2 can be attained when used in a combustion engine. Ethanol is primarily made by fermenting crops and/or biological waste materials from forestry, industry or agriculture. The production process includes distillation to 99.9% pure ethanol before it can be used as engine fuel.Methanol is produced in many ways from biomass including chemical synthesis of biogas or gases from gasification of wood, straw or other plant material. Methanol can be made 100% synthetically by electrolyzation of water to hydrogen and oxygen and subsequent synthesis of the hydrogen with CO2 via a catalytic process driven by electricity. In fact, this synthesis method makes it possible to store excess renewable electricity as methanol. The only thing you need is hydrogen (from water electrolysis), CO2 and electrical power. Carbon dioxide is already present in the atmosphere. It is, however, still too difficult and expensive to separate and harvest CO2 from the air.On the other hand, it is quite simple to produce synthetic methanol if you have access to a concentrated CO2-source. Such a source could be the industrial exhausts from cement or steel production. Any source without contaminants such as sulfur will work. The conversion efficiency rate can be as high as 60% which means that 60% of the electrical energy used in the synthesis is converted to chemical energy in the methanol.On longer terms when CO2-extraction from the atmosphere is practically and economically viable you can speak of a circular system. This means that you don’t add more CO2 to the atmosphere instead you recycle it.Significant Improvements of Combustion Engine EfficiencyUsing an efficient light duty engine (a typical car engine), running on methanol, the researchers in Lund have obtained that 43% of the chemical energy content of the fuel is converted into usable mechanical work transferable to the wheels of a car. With ethanol efficiencies have reached 44%. The best gasoline car engines today have an efficiency rate of 33-34 percent. Hybrid gasoline cars like the Toyota Prius frequently reach engine efficiency rates of 40% as the engine runs in its optimal mode most of the time due to the parrallel electric drivetrain taking over in drive cycles that would normally be very inefficient if they were to be performed by the combustion engine by itself. Such drivecycles are acceleration and sudden changes in rpms and load due to gear changes etc. The most efficient diesel car engines have an efficiency rate of 41% although it comes with a heavy pollution penalty of particulate matter, soot and NOx. Measuring the effect at the engine’s power outtake – typically an axle of some sort - is referred to as Break Thermal Efficiency(BTE). As opposed to Gross Indicated Efficiency (GIE) explained in the above figure 4, BTE is the actual usable efficiency you get from the engine.With truck- and marine engines even better BTE efficiencies have been obtained. Up to 51% of the fuel’s energy content is transferable to propulsion. It is research work which is very important to heavy road- and maritime transportation that continue to be dependent on the combustion engine for years to come due to lack of alternative drive-trains with the same range and flexibility. According to research manager Martin Tunér at Lund University, the researchers expect to hit a 60% BTE efficiency rate in the foreseeable future as current tests with renewable, carbon neutral, fuels show promise.Figure 6 Results for engine efficiency measured as a percentage of the chemical energy content of the fuel that can be utilized from the engine’s axle also known as “BTE”= Brake Thermal Efficiency. Furthermore, soot emissions for various engine types and fuels. They are all Heavy Duty engines (HD) used in trucks and ships. It shows that high efficiency rates can be obtained with ethanol in the PPC engine type (Partially Premixed Combustion). E85 is 85% ethanol mixed with 15% gasoline. Source: Martin Tunér, Department of Energy Research, University of LundThe alcohol fuels may become useful in ordinary cars as well. Since 2016 China’s largest car manufacturer Geely (owns Volvo and some domestic brands) has tested cars, running on synthetic methanol, produced with renewable electricity, hydrogen and CO2 from a geothermal power plant near Reykjavik. Geely has announced that the company wants to introduce methanol cars on the European market. The car industry in the Western world is moving fast towards electric, hybrid and fuel cell cars – in that perspective it could be difficult for Geely to gain a foothold also considering the lack of a methanol fueling infrastructure for cars in Europe.Figure 7 Results of engine efficiency and soot emissions for light duty engines (car engines). The fuel type ”Me93Di7” is 93% methanol and 7% diesel. The engine type RCCI (Reactivity Controlled Compression Ignition) that uses this fuel has big potential for efficiency and low emissions. Even a spark ignition engine running on pure ethanol shows high efficiency and low emissions. Source: Martin Tunér, Department of Energy Research, University of LundThe efficiency of a battery electric car, like the Tesla, is far better than the 43% obtained with methanol in car engines in Lund. Up to 70% of the power coming through the charging cable is transferred to wheel propulsion. Batteries have a few drawbacks though. They’re heavy compared to the amount of energy they can store and they retain the stored energy poorly over extended periods, that is they discharge slowly by themselves. Extremely cold weather also reduces capacity although newer battery cars use various techniques to mitigate that.A chemical fuel like gasoline, ethanol or methanol stores well and do not lose energy over time. The energy content per weight- and volume unit is much higher than batteries (10-30 times more per volume unit). This level of energy density is needed in heavy road and sea transportation that move over great distances with a high and constant energy consumption level.There is a Future Place for the Combustion EngineThe ”Best Before” date is not due for the combustion engine yet and in combination with renewable CO2-neutral fuels it can be climate- and environmentally friendly.Fuel Expert and Observer in the International Energy Agency (IEA) Per Koustrup from the fuel-broker Nordic Green, says about the continued relevance of the combustion engine:"Mainly four challenges exist with the internal combustion engine as we know it today. It has low efficiency, it emits NOx, which is a problem to diesel engines in particular, it emits particles and finally it uses fossil energy which means it emits CO2 and thus contributes to global warming. By choosing the right fuel all four problems can be solved and at the same time we can keep the advantages that made the engine so popular, namely, it is made of relatively cheap materials, it’s quite robust and cheap to run plus the fuels are available almost anywhere due to an extensive infrastructure developed over decades. Finally, it works in all climates and locations from Greenland to Saudi Arabia.”Research Manager Martin Tunér, at the Department of Energy Research at University of Lund, who together with 35 researchers and technicians have obtained the significant results, says:”In the future, the battery electric and the hybrid electric car will probably be the smart choice for most private car owners in the Western world. Heavy transportation on the other hand, will continue to be dominated by the internal combustion engine for quite a while as energy running costs are more important and because the vehicle will have to work under many geographical, climatic and societal conditions. Transportation in many non-Western countries will not work with electricity or hydrogen fuel cells due to a complete lack of supporting energy infrastructure for years to come.Despite the environmental friendliness of battery electric and hybrid-electric cars some consumers in the Western world will continue to prefer a car with a combustion engine because it is cheaper to produce and thus with current taxation structures, cheaper to purchase. With current fuel prices, it will also be very competitive in terms of running costs.The combustion engine will continue to dominate in many sectors due to supply security demands and operational security for many civil and military functions. The carbon-based fuels provide great operational range and reliability and they can be stored geo-strategically without losing energy content plus they work independently of the power grid and are less susceptible to breakdowns in it.Within maritime transportation strict international demands are rolling out in terms of sulfur, NOx and CO2 reductions. Luckily it is possible to convert many marine engines to methanol fuel which eliminates the emission problem, even CO2, the latter provided ‘green’ methanol is used.Our research is mainly aimed at heavy transportation where emissions are intensive and large due to dominance of diesel and bunker oils. The environmental benefits will be correspondingly big as we find new fuels and refine various engine technologies.Passenger vehicles do present a problem, however, since currently only 15% of the world population use or have access to a car. As global wealth increases the global car stock will increase as well. Unfortunately, such cars will probably not be battery electric or even hybrid-electric due to higher purchase costs as well as a lack of supporting energy infrastructure. The combustion engine car will be the apparent choice for such a consumer. Here it is of the outmost importance that we make the right fuels available to avoid the global catastrophe it will become if just 30% of the global population drive cars on fossil fuels.”According to Tunér the global power production constitutes the most urgent climate task as 40% of the World’s power is produced with fossil coal. In his perspective, renewable electricity is still too scarce and too precious to be used for purely electric cars. Instead we should use all available renewable electricity to replace coal power even across national borders. As the global consumption of power continue to grow fast we affront a challenge surmountable only if we use all available renewable energy AND renewable CO2-neutral fuels in an intelligent way.Battery Electric Cars not that Environmentally FriendlyCoal power is still the single most dominant power source globally and a battery electric car that runs on ’coal’ has a Well-to-Wheel efficiency of 20-30% and larger CO2-emissions than a diesel car.According to Tunér, if you look at the life cycle analysis, a battery electric car running on the best renewable electricity has a poorer climate performance than a combustion engine car running on renewable CO2-neutral fuels. The energy involved in making an electric car with a large battery pack tips the scales in favor of the combustion engine. That’s why it is important to minimize battery size by making hybrid-electric cars and perhaps even introduce electric highways where the cars get their power from a road-rail.The renewable power is for the most part intermittent which results in surplus power when sun and wind is plenty and vice versa. Surplus results in negative prices as power companies can’t sell the power to the national grid and may have to ’sell’ it at negative prices cross-border. If the surplus renewable power is not replacing coal power it should be used to produce fuels instead, methanol for example, which can be used by the transportation sector.If we are going to succeed in stopping climate change we should maximize the advantages of renewable power as well as renewable fuels and combine the production of both. It is gigantic amounts of fossil energy that must be replaced. We do that most effectively by using renewable power to replace coal power while at the same time using intermittent surplus production to produce renewable fuels such as hydrogen or methanol.”The Scandinavian countries now have an excellent opportunity to become exporters of renewable power as well as renewable fuels”, says Tunér.God bless you :)

They are too gullible. As a nuclear engineer I saw that when millions of Italians opted against Nuclear power stations in referendums. They didn’t understand that such matters should be left to the real experts and not to ordinary people: referendums are nonsense in such cases. Such benighted antinuclear choice is at the base of all difficulties Italy is facing at present especially concerning the balance of payments with the foreign countries.I am a French citizen now and I know that French bashing is very popular in all countries where Big Oil and Big Coal control the press. The French government is one of the few governments that do their homework: building safe nuclear power stations that are a real solution of the greenhouse effect problem and France even provides energy for other European countries. Solar and Wind can help but are not a global solution: GOOGLE “Murks in Germany” and read about the solar-wind fiasco in Germany. Very remarkable are the Russians who try to force us to buy their mineral oil and on the other hand sell Chernobyl technology reactors to INDIA and CHINA. Big Oil and Big Coal strategy is clear now: great financing of Wind-Solar research in the universities which creates an army of professors who push for Wind-Solar. This goes on since sixty years ago and we see little results: it helps but it doesn’t solve the global warming problem. In the meantime we are pulled into one gulf war after the others and risk some real nuclear risks: those of proliferation and conflagration. When will western governments display a more responsible attitude? When will the peoples get more truthful and up to date information about nuclear power stations and nuclear energy production risks? Remember that almost nobody died at Fukushima and on the other hand tens of thousands people die of car accidents every year with little echo in the press: why can we accept cars and not accept reactors? Buildings and dams killed 20000 people in Japan because of the tsunami and this is all but ignored by the press: why does the press only insist on Fukushima where almost nobody died? Isn’t that strange? Aren’t Big Oil and Big Coal working on that? Until the people of the world keep believing that Wind-Solar is an alternative they can go on burning and approaching the moment we are all cooked.Quoting Michael Shellenberger on “Der Spiegel”:The Reason Renewables Can't Power Modern Civilization Is Because They Were Never Meant ToMichael ShellenbergerContributorEnergyI write about energy and the environment···“The Energiewende — the biggest political project since reunification — threatens to fail,” reports Germany's largest news magazine.DER SPIEGELOver the last decade, journalists have held up Germany’s renewables energy transition, the Energiewende, as an environmental model for the world.“Many poor countries, once intent on building coal-fired power plants to bring electricity to their people, are discussing whether they might leapfrog the fossil age and build clean grids from the outset,” thanks to the Energiewende, wrote a New York Times reporter in 2014.With Germany as inspiration, the United Nations and World Bank poured billions into renewables like wind, solar, and hydro in developing nations like Kenya.But then, last year, Germany was forced to acknowledge that it had to delay its phase-out of coal, and would not meet its 2020 greenhouse gas reduction commitments. It announced plans to bulldoze an ancient church and forest in order to get at the coal underneath it.After renewables investors and advocates, including Al Gore and Greenpeace, criticized Germany, journalists came to the country’s defense. “Germany has fallen short of its emission targets in part because its targets were so ambitious,” one of them argued last summer.“If the rest of the world made just half Germany’s effort, the future for our planet would look less bleak,” she wrote. “So Germany, don’t give up. And also: Thank you.”But Germany didn’t just fall short of its climate targets. Its emissions have flat-lined since 2009.Now comes a major article in the country’s largest newsweekly magazine, Der Spiegel, titled, “A Botched Job in Germany” ("Murks in Germany"). The magazine’s cover shows broken wind turbines and incomplete electrical transmission towers against a dark silhouette of Berlin.“The Energiewende — the biggest political project since reunification — threatens to fail,” write Der Spiegel’s Frank Dohmen, Alexander Jung, Stefan Schultz, Gerald Traufetter in their a 5,700-word investigative story (the article can be read in English here).Over the past five years alone, the Energiewende has cost Germany €32 billion ($36 billion) annually, and opposition to renewables is growing in the German countryside.“The politicians fear citizen resistance” Der Spiegel reports. “There is hardly a wind energy project that is not fought.”In response, politicians sometimes order “electrical lines be buried underground but that is many times more expensive and takes years longer.”As a result, the deployment of renewables and related transmission lines is slowing rapidly. Less than half as many wind turbines (743) were installed in 2018 as were installed in 2017, and just 30 kilometers of new transmission were added in 2017.Solar and wind advocates say cheaper solar panels and wind turbines will make the future growth in renewables cheaper than past growth but there are reasons to believe the opposite will be the case.It will cost Germany $3-$4 trillion to increase renewables as share of electricity from today's 35% to 100% between 2025-2050AG ENERGIEBINLANZENDer Spiegel cites a recent estimate that it would cost Germany “€3.4 trillion ($3.8 trillion),” or seven times more than it spent from 2000 to 2025, to increase solar and wind three to five-fold by 2050.Between 2000 and 2019, Germany grew renewables from 7% to 35% of its electricity. And as much of Germany's renewable electricity comesfrom biomass, which scientists view as polluting and environmentally degrading, as from solar.Of the 7,700 new kilometers of transmission lines needed, only 8% have been built, while large-scale electricity storage remains inefficient and expensive. “A large part of the energy used is lost,” the reporters note of a much-hyped hydrogen gas project, “and the efficiency is below 40%... No viable business model can be developed from this.”Meanwhile, the 20-year subsidies granted to wind, solar, and biogas since 2000 will start coming to an end next year. “The wind power boom is over,” Der Spiegel concludes.All of which raises a question: if renewables can’t cheaply power Germany, one of the richest and most technologically advanced countries in the world, how could a developing nation like Kenya ever expect them to allow it to “leapfrog” fossil fuels?The Question of TechnologyThe earliest and most sophisticated 20th Century case for renewables came from a German who is widely considered the most influential philosopher of the 20th Century, Martin Heidegger.In his 1954 essay, “The Question Concerning of Technology,” Heidegger condemned the view of nature as a mere resource for human consumption.The use of “modern technology,” he wrote, “puts to nature the unreasonable demand that it supply energy which can be extracted and stored as such… Air is now set upon to yield nitrogen, the earth to yield ore, ore to yield uranium…to yield atomic energy.”The solution, Heidegger argued, was to yoke human society and its economy to unreliable energy flows. He even condemned hydro-electric dams, for dominating the natural environment, and praised windmills because they “do not unlock energy in order to store it.”These weren’t just aesthetic preferences. Windmills have traditionally been useful to farmers whereas large dams have allowed poor agrarian societies to industrialize.In the US, Heidegger’s views were picked up by renewable energy advocates. Barry Commoner in 1969 argued that a transition to renewables was needed to bring modern civilization "into harmony with the ecosphere."The goal of renewables was to turn modern industrial societies back into agrarian ones, argued Murray Bookchin in his 1962 book, Our Synthetic Environment.Bookchin admitted his proposal "conjures up an image of cultural isolation and social stagnation, of a journey backward in history to the agrarian societies of the medieval and ancient worlds."But then, starting around the year 2000, renewables started to gain a high-tech luster. Governments and private investors poured $2 trillion into solar and wind and related infrastructure, creating the impression that renewables were profitable aside from subsidies.Entrepreneurs like Elon Musk proclaimed that a rich, high-energy civilization could be powered by cheap solar panels and electric cars.Journalists reported breathlessly on the cost declines in batteries, imagining a tipping point at which conventional electricity utilities would be “disrupted.”But no amount of marketing could change the poor physics of resource-intensive and land-intensive renewables. Solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear plants, and wind farms take 700times more land than natural gas wells, to produce the same amount of energy.Efforts to export the Energiewende to developing nations may prove even more devastating.The new wind farm in Kenya, inspired and financed by Germany and other well-meaning Western nations, is located on a major flight path of migratory birds. Scientists say it will kill hundreds of endangered eagles.“It’s one of the three worst sites for a wind farm that I’ve seen in Africa in terms of its potential to kill threatened birds,” a biologist explained.In response, the wind farm’s developers have done what Europeans have long done in Africa, which is to hire the organizations, which ostensibly represent the doomed eagles and communities, to collaborate rather than fight the project.Kenya won't be able to “leapfrog” fossil fuels with its wind farm. On the contrary, all of that unreliable wind energy is likely to increase the price of electricity and make Kenya’s slow climb out of poverty even slower.Heidegger, like much of the conservation movement, would have hated what the Energiewende has become: an excuse for the destruction of natural landscapes and local communities.Opposition to renewables comes from the country peoples that Heidegger idolized as more authentic and “grounded” than urbane cosmopolitan elites who fetishize their solar roofs and Teslas as signs of virtue.Germans, who will have spent $580 billion on renewables and related infrastructure by 2025, express great pride in the Energiewende. “It’s our gift to the world,” a renewables advocate told The Times.Tragically, many Germans appear to have believed that the billions they spent on renewables would redeem them. “Germans would then at last feel that they have gone from being world-destroyers in the 20th century to world-saviors in the 21st,” noted a reporter.Many Germans will, like Der Spiegel, claim the renewables transition was merely “botched,” but it wasn't. The transition to renewables was doomed because modern industrial people, no matter how Romantic they are, do not want to return to pre-modern life.The reason renewables can’t power modern civilization is because they were never meant to. One interesting question is why anybody ever thought they could.Michael Shellenberger, President, Environmental Progress. Time Magazine "Hero of the Environment."Quoting Rod ADAMS of , Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.Nuclear energy makes a cameo appearance in Jeff Gibbs’s Planet of the HumansNuclear energy makes a cameo appearance in Jeff Gibbs's Planet of the Humans - Atomic InsightsApril 24, 2020 By Rod AdamsMichael Moore and Jeff Gibbs teamed up to produce a piercing, controversial, gut punching documentary titled Planet of the Humans. Partly as a result of the global closure of theaters, and partly as a result of wanting to make an impact on the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day, they released their film for free on Youtube.It’s worth watching. I watched it once straight through and have enjoyed spending additional hours reviewing and clipping key highlights.Like many Moore films, this one has a cast of white-hatted scientists and activists opposing black-hatted billionaires, bankers, corporate leaders and politicians. In what may be upsetting to some, this film’s black-hatted group includes the leaders of numerous major environmental groups including the Sierra Club, 350.org: A global campaign to confront the climate crisis, and Riverkeepers.Michael Brune of the Sierra Club, Al Gore, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from Riverkeepers are all shown as being willing recipients of contributions, donations and outright payments from billionaires including Michael Bloomberg, Richard Branson, Jeremy Grantham, and the Koch Brothers, corporations like Archer Daniels Midland, and investment banks like Blackrock and Goldman Sachs.By implication, it also highlights the huge sums of money involved in the process of moving more material faster and farther. One component of the money churning process includes the inevitable need to replace machinery and infrastructure after its useful life is over.What we know that ain’t soThe narrator seems genuinely shocked to learn that much of what he has been taught about alternative energy isn’t true. Wind, solar and biomass aren’t successfully replacing fossil fuels or reducing human environmental footprints.Instead, they are dependent on fossil fuel-derived materials and fossil fuel powered machinery. Wind turbines and their towers are massive and have lifetimes measured in small numbers of decades. Solar panels covering vast quantities of land produce an inadequate amount of power, especially on cloudy days and during winter months.Even solar thermal energy plants like Ivanpah promise much more than they deliver. The mirrors are failing, and the power conversion system needs to routinely burn a large quantity of natural gas in order to keep systems warm and ready to run once the sun comes up.Physically large collecting systems for diffuse power sources require massive material inputs, and they don’t least very long. When they no longer function, the areas that were scraped clean to house the equipment are virtually unusable wasteland that no longer supports much life.Biomass and biofuels receive special animosityA substantial portion of the film is spent documenting the ways that burning biomass for electricity isn’t sustainable or carbon-neutral despite all of the messaging to the contrary.These scenes also document the forest industry’s generally successful efforts to influence perceptions of their industry. Often, those efforts have included creative carbon accounting as well as targeted contributions to non-profit groups willing to accept money in return for greenwashing.Those influence efforts include lobbying for subsidy programs or for redefining terms to qualify for already existing subsidy programs.The film credits Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org: A global campaign to confront the climate crisis, for helping to encourage a wave of interest among college students and administrators for converting on-campus coal furnaces to biomass burning furnaces.The evidence supporting this thesis is straight from the horse’s mouth in the form of video clips of McKibben speaking at Vermont’s Middlebury College in 2009. He lauds the opening of the the college’s new wood chip-burning boiler.McKibben: What powers a learning community? As of this afternoon, the easy answer to that is wood chips. It’s incredibly beautiful. To stand over there and see that big bunker full of wood chips. You can put any kind of wood in, you know oak, willow, whatever you want. Almost anything that burns we can toss it in there if we can chip it down to the right size.McKibben has taken offense at the way Planet of the Humans portrays him and his organization. He claims that his position on biomass burning has changed dramatically in the decade since he lauded his college’s wood chip-burning furnace. That change happened as soon “as more scientists studied the consequences of large-scale biomass burning”.He even claims that he and his organization have been attacked by the biomass industry as a result of negative pieces written in 2016, 2019 and 2020.But that defense is weak, especially considering a different scene in the movie where Gibbs gives McKibben ample opportunity to state his current position on biomass.Gibbs: I’d like to see us come out against any burning of trees for clean energy.McKibben: Alright, go ahead and do it. Although I confess I stoke my wood stove almost every night of the winter, so I’m not really the right person to ask.Gibbs: But that doesn’t mean it’s green energy for power plants.McKibben: I don’t know. That’s not what today is about.Dialog from “Planet of the Humans” time stamp 1:08:20Emphasis on human prosperity and population as part of problemBetween scenes depicting both environmental devastation and the financial flows that enable established infrastructure and materials interests to continue doing what they do best, Gibbs talks with scientists and activists to find out if there are any solutions.Almost unanimously, those interviewed experts suggest that humans are the root of the problem. They emphasize how our numbers have expanded almost geometrically since we began exploiting fossil fuels. They also decry our collective and individual desires for mobility and material goods.It’s easy to get the impression that since renewables have issues that are similar to those that handicap fossil fuels, the only path available is reducing both populations and standards of living.Though I may be guilty of seeing what I want to see, I caught a brief flash indicating that the filmmakers might be hoping for a more optimistic sequel.An alternative with a uniquely useful set of attributesAs a nuclear fission expert and enthusiast, I could not help wondering when Gibbs and Moore were going to address my favorite fossil fuel alternative.Finally, an hour and 22 minutes into the hour and 40 minute movie, nuclear energy made a 6 sec cameo appearance.But immediately after noting that GE produces both nuclear energy and wind turbines, the documentary moves on to show a GE spokesperson extolling the virtues of converting biomass – especially seaweed – into liquid fuel.A critical viewer might wonder why a corporation with a seven decade-long history of selling nuclear energy systems is more interested in talking about its interest in biofuels than in marketing advanced developments in nuclear energy.As shown in the film, corporations, billionaires and banks that have successfully educated customers about the virtues of wind, solar or biomass have ignored nuclear energy. None of the interviewed activists or scientists mentioned a desire to consider using nuclear as an alternative to both fossil fuels and the more heavily popularized renewables.Perhaps it is because nuclear fission, using elemental fuels that contain several million times as much energy as a similar mass of fossil fuels or biomass, changes everything.What’s so different about fission?Fission doesn’t depend on a massive infrastructure of ships, pipelines or railcars. Its conversion equipment is rarely exposed to the weather and its shielding and external hazards protection enables structures, systems and components that last many decades.Fission provides a virtually unlimited source of power to enable humanity to flourish while gradually shrinking our environmental footprint.Aside: Commodity businesses like energy don’t like anyone to know that accessible supplies are virtually unlimited. That knowledge doesn’t support high prices. End aside.Fission isn’t wildly popular, especially among people and corporations that have prospered by moving vast quantities of extracted or harvested material rapidly through supply lines that span the globe.Nuclear fission power also isn’t popular among nihilistic scholars who consider Albert Camus to be an inspiring visionary.People in the “peak oil” wing of Malthusian thinking almost purposely ignore fission. They forget that M. King Hubbert’s 1956 paper titled “Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels” was the seminal paper that inspired their worried projections.That paper included a virtually ignored pair of graphs that should have been the source of incredible optimism among thinking people. But some studiously avoid any and all causes for optimism, especially when it comes to respect, growth and development of their fellow human beings.This optimistic – scary to multinational petroleum interests – pair of graphs were on the last slide in a March 1956 presentation by M. King Hubbert to the American Petroleum InstituteAt least one other reviewer for Planet of the Humans thought about nuclear energy while watching a film that barely mentions it. Here is a quote from Peter Bradshaw’s piece in The Guardian about the film.I found myself thinking of Robert Stone’s controversial 2013 documentary Pandora’s Promise, which made a revisionist case for nuclear power: a clean energy source that (allegedly) has cleaned up its act on safety and really can provide for our wholesale energy needs without contributing to climate change, in a way that “renewables” can’t.Gibbs doesn’t mention nuclear and – a little lamely, perhaps – has no clear lesson or moral, other than the need to take a fiercely critical look at the environmental establishment. Well, it’s always valuable to re-examine a sacred cow.“Planet of the Humans review – contrarian eco-doc from the Michael Moore stable”by Peter Bradshaw, published April 22, 2020 by The GuardianGibbs’s single mention of nuclear was apparently so brief that Bradshaw missed it.I believe the film offers two clear choices, one overt and one that is barely visible.1. We can continue on our present path of depending on massive extractive industries. That path will end – whether we like it or not – with either reduced prosperity, reduced human population, or both.2. We can reject the lessons we have been carefully taught by people with vested interests and develop a truly different kind of power source. Nuclear fission is here and available, but rich and powerful interests see it as a serious threat that must be fought, ignored or both.But fission opposition backers are billionaires and we aren’t.As far as I know, there isn’t a single Atomic Insights reader that has to worry about having millions or billions of dollars worth of existing capital that will lose most of its value in a fission-powered world.We can see a much brighter future ahead.*********************************************************Update: (April 26, 2020 at 06:00 am) It seems that I was wrong about the possibility that Gibbs and his colleagues might have purposely left out nuclear because they want to introduce it in a sequel as a better path forward. Commenters like Meredith were right, Michael Moore, Jeff Gibbs and Ozzie Zehner, the creators of Planet of the Humans, simply don’t like humans and the well-powered society that we have created.Here’s the proof.In case you don’t want to take the time to watch, here is a summary of the individually expressed positions on nuclear energy.Moore has been fighting nuclear energy since the 1970s and calls it “madness”.Zehner became worried about nuclear energy as a result of his research into issues related to slurry tanks at Hanford. He believes it is almost impossible to separate weapons development from atomic energy development. He also believes nuclear power plants are enormously expensive because of the amount of material required to build the plants. He also believes that building and running the plants requires the efforts of “an enormous number of PhD scientists.” He states there is a significant, unattributed carbon and energy footprint associated with the education system required to produce those scientists and engineers.Gibbs is worried about the use of concrete and steel in nuclear power plants, the environmental impacts of uranium mining, thorium hype, micro plastics, pollution at Mount Everest, whaling, fish and soil depletion, and pollution in Antarctica produced by the small contingent of scientists there. (I realize that most of that list has nothing to do with nuclear energy, but Gibbs groups them all together in his antinuclear rant.) End Update.FacebookTwitterRedditBufferEmailFiled Under: Alternative energy, Biomass, Clean Energy, Climate change, Solar energy, Wind energyAbout Rod AdamsManaging member at Nucleation Capital, LP.Atomic energy expert with small nuclear plant operating and design experience. Financial, strategic, and political analyst. Former submarine Engineer Officer. Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast. Resume available here.Quoting James Conca:Amid COVID-19, Deep Borehole Disposal Of Nuclear Waste Marches ForwardJames ConcaContributorEnergyI write about nuclear, energy and the environment···The pandemic has certainly slowed America and the world to a crawl. But we will get back to some form of a working society, hopefully with a better perspective on what’s important. The temporary drop in carbon emissions from the lockdown of industrial and commercial activities around the world is one example, and has shown what is possible by decarbonizing society.For that, nuclear power is essential. And nuclear waste must be dealt with, relatively quickly and easily, which it can be. There are not that many reasonable paths forward, and deep borehole disposal is one of them.Elizabeth Muller, CEO of Deep Isolation, announced the completion of a Post-Closure Safety Analysis for their concept of deep borehole disposal of nuclear waste. Deep Isolation is a company out of Berkeley that is working to dispose of nuclear waste in deep boreholes in the Earth’s crust, safer and at a lower cost than existing strategies.Schematic of a deep horizontal drillhole repository. A vertical access hole is drilled to depth, ... [+]DEEP ISOLATIONA Post-Closure Safety Analysis investigates and quantifies the safety and operation of the total system, and is required by law before any attempt at licensing.Today In: Energy·People May Be Spread Among Cargo For Social Distancing On Planes·Supply Chain Faces Up To Challenge Of Low Oil Price World·Duke Engineer Focusing On Robotics Sees Oil And Gas At The Forefront Of TechnologyTheir Safety Analysis indicates that spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors can be safely disposed using this method, and that it is viable in a wide-range of scenarios and conditions, as long as the repository is properly sited and carefully characterized, constructed, operated, and sealed.The safety analysis also indicates that the long-term safety would more than comply with the regulatory maximum annual dose requirement of 10 mrem per year (0.1 mSv/yr) to an individual at the surface drinking potentially contaminated water from a well over the waste at some time in the distant future. This dose limit governs all nuclear repositories and clean-up sites.PROMOTEDUNICEF USA BRANDVOICE | Paid ProgramCelebrating Earth Day Amidst COVID-19Civic Nation BRANDVOICE | Paid ProgramYes, You Can Request More College Financial Aid—Even During A PandemicGrads of Life BRANDVOICE | Paid ProgramCOVID-19 widens the Opportunity GapThe time scale covered by the analysis starts with repository closure, contains the thermal period (when things are still hot), and then extends to ten million years, an amazingly long time that covers any dose, even if anything significant got out.The overall disposal system for spent nuclear fuel (see figure) includes a single or an array of deep horizontal drillholes bored into the host rocks using off-the-shelf directional drilling technology.Individual nuclear fuel assemblies are encapsulated in customized, corrosion-resistant canisters, which are placed end-to-end into the relatively small-diameter, cased and potentially backfilled horizontal disposal sections of the drillholes.The deep borehole disposal process begins with a vertical access hole drilled and cased from the surface through confining geologic units to a point a few hundred meters above the target repository depth.The hole and surface casings are to guide the drilling and to protect freshwater aquifers. Below the kickoff point, a smaller-diameter hole is drilled that gradually curves until it is nominally horizontal. The radius of curvature is large enough to avoid any impedance during casing installation and waste canister emplacement. After the casing in the curved section is cemented in place, a final smaller-diameter drillhole continues near-horizontally for a few hundred meters to several kilometers.The horizontal repository portion has a slight upward tilt that provides additional isolation, and isolating any mechanisms that could move radioactive constituents upward. They would have to move down first, then up, something that cannot occur by natural processes deep in the crust.For larger-diameter canisters, the horizontal section may be drilled in two stages: a first small-diameter stage for characterization and testing of the disposal section followed by a reaming operation to create a diameter large enough to house the canisters.This casing is also cemented in place, potentially with monitoring systems embedded or attached to it, which communicate real-time data about the repository condition to the surface during the pre-closure and evaluation periods.About 10 drillholes are required to dispose of the waste from operating a 1,000 MW nuclear power plant over about 30 years. Globally, there are over 450,000 metric tons of nuclear waste that await disposal, or re-use in future fast reactors, followed by disposal of that waste. And there is currently no operating disposal solution for either.Radiation release for the 3 most important nuclides, (I-129, Cl-36, Se-79) with a fault intersecting ... [+]DEEP ISOLATIONTo say these analyses are complicated is an understatement of astronomical proportions. Refer to the report for details, but it models the key radionuclides over space and time, under different conditions, with and without through-going faults, with and without canister breaching, all at different depths, temperatures and pressures.The figure above is an example of these analyses. It shows that, even under the worst conditions, radioactivity releases are a thousand times less than the normal background radiation of anywhere in America. Normal background in America is over 300 mrem/yr (3 mSv/yr), and is above even the top of this graph.The idea of deep borehole disposal for nuclear waste is not new, but Deep Isolation is the first to consider horizontal portions of the wells as well as vertical, and is the first to actually demonstrate the concept in the field showing that the technology is not just theoretical. The field demonstration occurred last year when it placed and retrieved a waste canister from thousands of feet underground.As geologists, we know how many millions of years it takes for anything to get up from that depth in the Earth’s crust, especially in tight rock formations like shale. And we have plenty of tight rocks in America.So what better way to use this technology than to put something back into the Earth that you want to stay there for geologic time. “We’re using a technique that’s been made cheap over the last 20 years,” says Muller. “We could begin putting this waste underground right away.”Like all leading climate scientists, Muller understands that the world must increase its use of nuclear energy to seriously address climate change or succeed in any Green New Deal, and knows that solving the nuclear waste problem is essential.Indeed, when queried, the “waste issue” is all that most people really worry about.Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn.James ConcaI have been a scientist in the field of the earth and environmental sciences for 33 years, specializing in geologic disposal of nuclear waste, energy-related research, planetary surface processes, radiobiology and shielding for space colonies, subsurface transport and environmental clean-up of heavy metals. I am a Trustee of the Herbert M. Parker Foundation, Adjunct at WSU, an Affiliate Scientist at LANL and consult on strategic planning for the DOE, EPA/State environmental agencies, and industry including companies that own nuclear, hydro, wind farms, large solar arrays, coal and gas plants. I also consult for EPA/State environmental agencies and industry on clean-up of heavy metals from soil and water. For over 25 years I have been a member of Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the NRDC, the Environmental Defense Fund and many others, as well as professional societies including the America Nuclear Society, the American Chemical Society, the Geological Society of America and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.Quoting QUORA about Chernobil:If Chernobyl was declared uninhabitable for 20,000 years due to radiation, how come the forest thrives there and the wild animals have returned?Let’s parse out the two core facts of this statement:1.Chernobyl was declared uninhabitable for 20,000 years due to radiation2.The forest and wild animals are alive there.The question is: can these be true at the same time?Yes. In Fact #1, you will note the verb is “declare”. Some said this.“Chernobyl is uninhabitable for 20 thousand years!”There. I just declared that too! Does declaring something mean it is truthful or accurate?Check this: this is Hiroshima after mid-1945. A nuclear bomb was detonated over it.Uninhabitable for 20,000 years? Not even.(Note the structure, preserved.)Sure, a nuclear weapon is devastating. And also, the materials in a nuclear reactor are very different.But the point is, there is a lot of worry and concern and misinformation about nuclear energy. And so it causes people to say, “This area will be uninhabitable for 20,000 years.” Not because it’s true. But because it sounds cautious and emphasizes the danger of nuclear power.The area near Pripyat and Chernobyl have a thriving forest and probably more wild life than any area in Europe right now. This area is often known as “The Exclusion Zone.”This area covers almost 1,000mi.21,000mi.2. However, because of the nature of radioactive sources, much of the exclusion zone has little radioactivity. In fact—zooming in—you have to be very close to Chernobyl to detect dangerous doses:You will note that the large scale here is 1,000 meters. Meaning that within about 3 miles of the reactor site, possible exposure doses are down to 100 millirems/hour. This is still relatively high. About the amount of a single chest x-ray per hour.But you can see how zoomed in that map is. As you go further and further away, the radiation drops off quickly. There are “hot spots”—that appear somewhat randomly. These are areas where there is some energetic material. Either because waste was processed at that site, or because weather and time have moved material and dust around.So what has happened… is that much of the Exclusion Zone is a de facto wildlife and nature habitat. Yes, they are exposed to radiation. But it has not significantly affected the animal populations. In fact, the populations have grown.And that is because the creation of the Exclusion Zone protects this animal life from something much more dangerous than fall-out from a Soviet-era nuclear meltdown: human beings.Well, not exactly. See, there are some humans who simply refused to move out of the Exclusion Zone and still live there. Of course, they don’t live right next door to the reactor.

Electric drives are not a new technology, but the adaptation for off-road vehicle applications is in its infancy as battery technology and high temperature electronics continue to develop.What’s one way to address dangerous high hydraulic pressures, hose leaks, high power draws on the engine and excessive heat loads? Eliminate them. Of course, that’s easier said than done, especially when it comes to heavy-duty off-road equipment power demands. But, as electronic systems and battery technology continue to develop, the ability to adequately replace hydraulics with electronics is becoming more likely—if not for the benefit of safety, then for the environmental benefits of reduced engine usage and thus reduced fuel consumption and lower emissions.While the advent of high volume and customer-accepted commercialized electric farm tractors may be a ways off, the technology is well understood and, in some instances, already implemented. And especially, as precise vehicle control, automation and data collection becomes commonplace, so too does the emergence of electric drive vehicle systems. “We see a continuously increasing demand for electrical power from various implements,” says Dr. Benno Pichlmaier, Head of Research & Advanced Engineering, Fendt, an AGCO brand. “Also, the demand for electric energy of the tractor systems itself has grown substantially.”The AEF (Agricultural Industry Electronics Foundation) has an entire project team dedicated to developing a proposal for a standard tractor interface that supplies power to attached machines and external components. According to AEF’s website, the idea behind the project team is that the electric motors on all standard attached machines should be compatible with every mode of tractor, and the only limitation should be the output data of the tractor engine. Locally controlled electric motors can overcome the restrictions of mechanical and hydraulic solutions and meet the requirements of a new generation of attached machines, and should also provide considerable benefits at the same time.The ISOBUS is the necessary communication bus between tractor and implement. For electrification, additional messages have to be specified while existing ISOBUS functionalities are carried over. CANbus will also be used on the implement, such as between ECU and power electronics. “We are jointly working on a consolidated proposal of a standardized tractor-implement interface under the AEF umbrella and expect the final, agreed specifications in 2016. This is an important step for our industry towards practical usability of interchangeable electric implements and tractors,” says Wolfgang Breu, Research & Advanced Engineering, Project Lead - Electrification, Fendt.Pichlmaier notes several other reasons for pursuing electric tractor technology in the agricultural industry—as Fendt has with its X Concept tractor, presented at Agritecnica 2013—including sustainability, agronomic process efficiency, technical efficiency, higher safety, comfort and reliability. “Electrification is an enabler for more sustainability. Electric farm equipment can be perfectly integrated to support and stabilize renewable energy grids like solar power or biogas,” says Pichlmaier. Electric energy could even be used to power laser units to replace pesticides for weed control.In terms of dynamics, controllability and flexibility electric drives are superior to any other solution, states Breu. “For the challenges we are facing in agriculture to feed the world through achieving higher yields with fewer seeds and agrochemicals on limited land, perfect precision is a must.”Electric drive ag tractorsYears ago, John Deere unveiled the 7030E Series electric-powered farm tractor at Agritechnica 2007 in Hanover, Germany. The tractor features a flywheel with a built-in generator which replaces the standard alternator and powers all of the engine’s auxiliaries, allowing the engine to operate optimally at all times without outside power draw.According to Deere, its E-Premium tractors have been shown to use 6.3% less fuel than the non-electric 7030 Premium Series tractor. And because the vehicle’s Intelligent Power Management system starts at 1,250 rpm instead of 1,700 rpm due to the extra cooling from the electric-driven fan combined with the electric controlled coolant pump, the tractor has 15% faster acceleration that the 7530 Premium tractor.At Fendt, the first steps of electrification started in 2001. At this time the so-called MELA (mobile electric power drives in English) project was initiated. “The Fendt X Concept is a tractor which carries over a lot of the valuable experience and results of the MELA research project, such as an extraordinary safety concept (protection class II system) and exceptional performance with impressive continuous power density due to a special cooling concept and dedicated power electronics,” says Breu. “It was an obvious decision to combine our capabilities into a high power electric tractor, the X Concept. We mainly use it now to perform enduring field tests with all kinds of electrified implements and to expand our knowledge with higher voltage applications in all relevant use cases.”The X Concept’s straightforward ISOBUS communication and DC Powerbus, as well as its high electrical power capabilities have been well received by both customers and the industry, according to Pichlmaier. The machine allows nearly unlimited applications of electrified implement concepts, thus fuelling productive collaborations between tractor and implement manufacturers.Full-electric vineyard tractorsRecently, Champagne, France-based Kremer Energie (company information, 12060262) launched its electric high-clearance tractor for wine vineyard industry applications, the T4E. Kremer Energie has been pursuing the use of electrical energy in its wine-growing tractors in an effort to reduce pollution of the air, soil and plants from vehicle emissions, as well as reduced energy costs, noise and vibration. “The project of an electric high-clearance tractor was born in 2008 when my dad decided to start this great adventure,” says Aurelien Kremer, President, Kremer Energie.The first prototype, the T3E, was developed on a 3-wheel chassis with rear wheel steer. However, the market was not ready yet to accept the technology. “It took us 5,000 hours to develop a product that could satisfy most wine-growers' demands: a 4-wheel tractor, entirely electrical, provided with the latest technologies and with unequaled safety and comfort,” says Kremer. That is how the T4E electric high-clearance tractor was born.France’s Ministry of Agriculture is also currently rolling out Ecophyto 2018, a plan to reduce the use of pesticides and protect the crop. There is also a noted accelerated trend for a producer to monitor his carbon footprint in the industry and the production of goods. The producer will gradually try to demonstrate and display the environmental impact of the products of his farm.The T4E next-generation model built using recyclable materials and components, and offers more greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction capabilities with enhanced safety features and comfort for the operator. The 110 hp (80 kW) electric straddle tractor can use an alternative fuel adding to its environmental benefits. Featuring two power take-offs (PTOs), the T4E is able to pull attachments and tools used for mechanized work in narrow vineyards. It can automatically recognize the tools connected electronically and adapt to the operating requirements provided by the tool manufacturer providing energy savings and operational efficiency.Its lithium ion batteries are made in France by E4V and can be recharged in as little as 8 hours. The system is created for 3,000 cycles (1 cycle is equivalent to a single day of use, charge and discharge) and has a 5 year warranty. In order for optimal performance, the battery system will prevent charging if the temperature of the battery pack is lower than 0 C. When not in use, the battery should be stored in a dry and ventilated place in a regulated temperature between -10 and 35 C.The T4E claims a 95% reduction in energy costs with an average cost of 7 euro for an 8 hour charge versus 100 euro for 100 liters of fuel. Even more savings come with the reduced maintenance needs considering the T4E has only 10 liters of bio-based hydraulic oil and fewer moving parts.But Kremer Energie is already thinking beyond its well-received T4E, built to meet the expectations of environmentally conscious wine makers while maintaining the quality of tractors on the market for ergonomics, cabin space, operator comfort and safety. After hundreds of hours of testing during operation, Kremer is moving on to the T4E EVO2 to continue toward its ultimate goal of producing its crop in a clean and sustainable way. The EVO2 features a new operator control which changes its functions automatically based on the connected attachment.A known disadvantage of all-electric tractors is the speed and on-the-road travel. Kremer addressed this with reserve embedded energy. The company suggests that while it may have back-up reserve power, the operator should still be sure the tractor is 100% charged before use and plan the workday accordingly, keeping into consideration 10% power for the return trip. So, while electric tractors are available and being used effectively, there are still considerations to be had with the limitations of battery technology and energy storage versus expenditure.Kremer Energie was not the only company to announce an electric high-clearance tractor for sustainable wine-growing. Tecnoma of Epernay, France, showcased its Voltis electric high-clearance tractor. The tractor uses electrical energy for propulsion and to operate its tools via two PTOs or current outputs. With a power output of either 74 kW or 100 kW, the drivetrain is based on four asynchronous electrical geared motors integrated in each of the wheel hubs.Challenges now and on the horizonHigh voltage electrification faces the same challenges of any new technology, it needs dedicated development and qualification of components for careful implementation. For example, the low temperature demands of power electronics are a challenge in high temperature off-road vehicles, not to mention fitting the necessary components inside an already tight footprint inside of a tractor. “Costs are unfavorable in an initial phase as there are no substantial volumes to drive economies of scale yet, but we have experienced a significant drop over the last decade and expect this to continue for the coming years,” says Pichlmaier.Another well understood challenge is that battery technology still has a long way to go for electric tractors to be able to become a more commercialized product. High temperature power electronics development will also be essential for overcoming challenges in heat management. As demand continues to grow for more electronics and sustainable practices, it is only a matter of time before the power and technologies necessary are ready and affordable for commercial use in off-road vehicles like tractors to provide clean production while building the world around us and feeding everyone within it.