The affordable energy team was created at SEWA with the objective of reducing the consumption of electricity, water, and gas in Sharjah by 30 percent over the next five years to position Sharjah globally as a city of conservation. However, this goal cannot be achieved without having partners who buy in and give full commitment towards energy efficiency and conservation building based on the principles in ISO 50001 energy management.
Usually, we meet once a month, whenever we have new suppliers and strategic partners joining us, to achieve our challenging conservation target of positioning Sharjah as a city of conservation.
Working closely with our suppliers and vendors made a big difference in positioning Sharjah as a city of conservation in the region, and we see the fruits of our work earlier than we anticipated, and I am happy to share with the readers that I was recognized by SACEM Industries in Tunisia and awarded a trophy and a certificate titled “Award for excellence in energy saving and reduction of CO2 emissions.”
Some of the big challenges I have faced during my journey at SEWA are high consumptions of energy and water, aging equipment, and a weaker network with more frequent peaks. While I was trying to strategize to find solutions, an idea came into my mind. It was the peak hour. Looking at our load data, I noticed that a high demand occurs during summertime in July, especially in the first week, during which time the temperature reaches 50°C.
As per the recent surveys conducted by SEWA on the consumption trends during the last five years, July 1, registered the highest demand for energy and water owing to the high temperatures and humidity, particularly when such time coincided with the holy month of Ramadan. Therefore, such a peak time, July 1, from 02:30 to 03:30 p.m., has been selected as the hour for the launch of peak hour initiative every year to raise public awareness of the consequences of high power consumption and its adverse impact on SEWA systems and the environment.
I personally proposed the initiative to His Highness Sheikh Dr. Sultan bin Muhammad Al Qasimi, supreme council member and ruler of Sharjah, which he approved right away and instructed me to announce the peak hour on July 1 every year, between 02:30 to 03:30 p.m., with the aim of changing public behavior towards power and water consumption.
To spread awareness about this initiative, awareness messages are launched through the media to urge the community to avoid using appliances consuming more power during the peak hours to enhance the efficiency of power networks, save our natural resources, and reduce CO2 emissions to preserve our environment. SMS messages are sent to encourage the people to contribute and participate in this initiative. Messages offer tips on best practices, including this: “Changing the temperature of the AC just 1 degree can cut your energy use up to 10 percent.”
I am happy that the public is contributing and responding very well to this initiative. More than 500 staff members at Zulekha multidisciplinary hospitals in Dubai and Sharjah took part in this initiative by having posters placed throughout the facilities on behalf of SEWA to increase awareness of the peak hour initiative. On July 1, 2015, a major effort was made by all by using minimal lighting in the hospitals and switching off unused equipment and devices, as well as controlling the cooling system. The Zulekha Healthcare Group makes conscious efforts to select and procure energy-efficient medical equipment, mechanical equipment, and less-power-consuming LED lights within its hospitals. Thank you, Zulekha. Keep going green.
Promoting this initiative, Taher Shams, president of the Zulekha Healthcare Group, said, “As a responsible health-care provider, we recognized the importance of SEWA’s commitment to a sustainable lifestyle beyond the hour and willingly turned off any unused equipment and lighting on July 1, to mark the inaugural peak hour.”
My dream is to reduce the energy demand during the peak hour by 30 percent. To achieve this smart goal, we do a lot of things and hold events. One significant event that I remember, which took place on June 30, 2016, is when the Conservation Department of SEWA took the challenge to their hearts, extended their awareness plan for the peak hour, and came up with an entertaining event at Mega Mall Sharjah. I expect this initiative to continue to draw a lot of cooperation from the public. Together we can bring great change!
We tell great success stories to attest that this initiative can achieve even a 50 percent energy reduction. Working with US energy utilities, Nest allows its owners to earn money or credit by reducing their energy use during peak hours. This setup has achieved an incredible 55 percent reduction in energy consumption at peak hours.
A BBC Radio 5 Live survey suggested that people in the UK support the use of clean energy and think that the government is not going green enough. However, during times of economic difficulty, people say that cheap energy is more important than reduced emissions. Do we have to choose between the two? The survey, which was conducted by ComRes, showed broad support for the harnessing of clean and green energy sources.
More than 60 percent of the people thought that the government was “not green enough when it comes to energy policy,” while only 36 percent stated that they were not bothered by where their energy came from. However, during times of economic difficulty, 60 percent said that it is more important to provide power as cheaply as possible than to reduce carbon emissions. Do we have to choose between cheap or clean energy or are the two compatible? Let us go through the opinions of several experts:
Stating the aims of an energy policy is easy: energy supplies should be reliable, affordable, and clean. Achieving them has never been harder when faced by the rapid rise in prices, the need to phase out fossil fuels to meet climate change goals, and the desire to replace monopolies with competitive markets. Prices have rapidly increased in the past decade, with electricity prices doubling and gas prices increasing by even more. These increases are almost entirely accounted for by increases in world market energy prices, not by the introduction of cleaner sources. There is little expectation that renewable or nuclear sources will be anything but significantly more expensive than gas and coal, so if we want cleaner energy, there will be additional costs. Unless a really effective energy efficiency program is introduced, the number of households suffering from “fuel poverty”—about 25 percent at present—will increase further, leading to serious health and welfare problems, as the most vulnerable households face difficult choices of whether to eat or keep warm.
In a competitive market, reliability is achieved when just enough power stations are profitable to keep the lights on. Companies cannot be held responsible for the security of the supply, and if a power station loses money, it will be closed, even if the lights will go out as a result. Since 1990, this unlikely equation has never been tested because power companies have been so profitable.
Using the words “at a time of economic difficulty” makes the question very relevant at present, which we all know is very difficult for many people. It is different from the more generic question of where our energy should go in the future. Currently, in terms of people’s views on policy priorities, affordable power is ranked first, above dealing with climate change. However, in the long term, people are fully aware that compromises may have to be made in the short term. They understand that you have to be pragmatic and that you cannot deliver a green energy system overnight.
I do not think that holding those two positions is entirely contradictory. What we do know is that since the economic recession in the United States and the UK, concerns about the environment have become less salient for people. Also, the economy and finance have gained an increased importance, whereas the environment has gone down.
The economic recession has temporarily suppressed people’s concerns about the environment. However, environmental concerns ebb and flow over time, so there is absolutely no reason to suggest that it will not come back. The “economic difficulty” question is being asked at a time when the environment is out of sight and out of mind.
A colleague talks about a “finite pool of worry;” however, there is only so much we can worry about. So if we are in dire straits to get the next paycheck, and many people are, then it is much more difficult to focus on other things. What was clear in the research is that the lowest cost is not necessarily what people are asking for. “Affordability” is a slightly different idea. Some people said that you might have a system with the lowest cost, but if it fluctuates a lot over time, then it will become unaffordable for some people. So, they said that there should not be a system which prices people out.
The so-called green energy technology has delivered higher bills (because of its need to be subsidized) and has consequently increased fuel poverty amongst the most vulnerable in society, as well as increased the industry’s costs. Wind turbines do not turn on a windless freezing day in midwinter when energy demand spikes; it is coal, gas, and nuclear power which have delivered electricity when it is most needed.
The UK has decided to base the future of its electricity-generating industry on the burning of gas. Last year, the government unveiled its Gas Generation Strategy, which is designed to replace older coal and nuclear plants. The problem with burning more gas is that it will still be taxed by the new rising carbon price floor, and Britain will become more and more dependent on imports. Consequently, the UK must develop underground coal gasification technology which can better utilize the UK’s untapped coal reserves, which are vast, while it should also support shale gas exploration and extraction. Relying on weather-dependent renewables, such as wind and solar power, is not viable, as these technologies cannot provide what is known as a baseload electricity supply, which is a steady flow of power regardless of the total power demand by the grid. Britain relied on coal last year to generate a significant 39 percent of electricity; this capacity will slowly be replaced by gas.
The UK energy policy is slowly undergoing a reality check as politicians realize that they need to deliver a new base-load-generating capacity to meet the growing electricity demand as the UK emerges from recession. The unveiling of the Gas Generation Strategy thus illustrates the failure of so-called green energy.
There has been a lot of misinformation about renewables putting up our energy bills. The truth is that between March 2011 and March 2012, bills rose by around £150, and £100 of that was due to the increased wholesale cost of gas. Whilst offshore wind is expected to get cheaper as the industry grows, the cost of gas is set to increase due to a combination of rising fuel and carbon prices.
Our bills are likely to go up in all future energy scenarios, however,the government’s own advisers say that the best way to limit that rise is through increased renewable energy. So, why is the government set on building 40 new gas power stations? Their excuse is “the shale gas revolution.” However, the consumer benefits from shale gas, as claimed by David Cameron, are “baseless,” according to Lord Stern, as the price of UK gas is set on the European market.
Ofgem, Energy UK, and even Cuadrilla agree that any impact on bills will be insignificant, while DECC says that with the right policies, offshore wind may fall to the same cost as gas by 2020. There are technologies which can hugely reduce your energy bills and protect you from the volatile fossil fuel markets—energy efficiency and domestic renewables can cut your energy costs o such an extent that the electricity companies start to pay you.
Not everyone is in a position to install solar panels or a microturbine, but everyone can benefit from the most cost-effective energy technology there is: insulation.
There needs to be a sensible, balanced energy mix, in which you’ve got renewables such as wind; however, resources such as carbon or coal will still be available for some time. I don’t think it’s an either/ or because if you’ve got a lot of renewables, then you can’t be entirely sure what their output is going to be, as they’re weather-dependent. The bottom line is that the more renewables you build, the more you’ve also got to build in the way of backup, which is predominantly a gas-fired generation.
The way that renewable energy is now going to be financed is through a levy on today’s bill for tomorrow’s plant. The actual capital cost of renewables can be high, but its running costs can be quite low. At some point—perhaps as early as 2020—onshore wind may become cost-competitive. However, there is no absolute in the answer. What we think is absolutely essential is that there is a clear public debate. Too often is the public told part of the story but not the entire story.
The public has been led to believe that you can actually replace existing fossil fuel generations with a few wind turbines—not that you needed both. Thus, you cannot say, “Do you want wind or gas?” You need wind and gas.
There’s a perfectly correct, reasoned, and right argument that we need to be careful with our resources, careful with our climate, careful with our planet—and that says that where we can, we need to use renewables, and we also need to use our fossil fuels advisedly. At the moment, we’re in a transition, and that needs to be part of the proper discussion, and it should not be either hijacked by a pressure group or compartmentalized, nor should the facts be distorted to make a point.
During my research, I found an article published in the newspaper The Daily Illini, on September 14, 2016, regarding the ongoing search for reliable renewable energy sources. Two university professors are working to develop a form of solar power technology that is more affordable. Mechanical science and engineering professors Kimani Toussaint and Placid Ferreira, along with researchers from the University of Michigan and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, were selected to receive a grant from the US Department of Energy’s SunShot Initiative. This initiative, which is comparable to President John F. Kennedy’s Moon Shot initiative, aims to support research that will make renewable energy more cost competitive with traditional energy sources.
Toussaint and Ferreira’s project involves developing a specific type of solar power technology called concentrating solar power collectors, which use reflective surfaces to focus light at the point of absorption and convert that energy into electricity. Although concentrating solar power has been in the industry for decades, it has not been able to compete with photovoltaics, the type of technology used in solar panels that creates an electric current when exposed to light. The team’s goal is to reduce the cost of concentrating solar power so it can compete with solar panels and be a part of the broader renewable energy portfolio. “The challenge is that the cost of photovoltaic has become so inexpensive that the attraction to concentrating solar power is not as strong from a financial perspective,” Toussaint said.
But concentrating solar power has specific advantages over photovoltaics. One of the main challenges with photovoltaics is storage, as it relies on the presence of sunlight to keep its battery charged. By concentrating solar power, heat can be stored for much longer periods of time and accessed during nighttime operations.
“When you want to have access to power where there is no more sunlight, concentrating solar power becomes extremely attractive,” Toussaint said.
Ultimately, their goal is to create a new technology that can be put to market and used in the industry, and they hope to achieve this in a way that has not been done before. They proposed a flat structure