Analysis Archives • The Impact

The Power of Not-For-Profits to Drive Solar Deployments in Africa

Brian Corn — Mon, 21 Feb 2022 05:01:12 +0000

It’s become clear that the road to energy equity and carbon emissions reduction for sub-Saharan Africa runs through broad scale deployment of resilient, off-grid solar systems. We have looked at the ability of international investment via debt financing to cover some of the distance of this journey.

Not-for-profits (industry associations) represent another vehicle tracking significant mileage within the distributed solar space.

Enter GOGLA and AMDA:

GOGLA (Global Off-Grid Lighting Association) is an association focused on off-grid solar products. We spoke with Koen Peters (Executive Director) to better understand GOGLA’s story and impact.

AMDA (Africa Minigrid Developers Association) is a trade association representing minigrid developers in the sub-Saharan Africa region. Joan Chahenza (Director of Energy Access and Financial Advisory) and Emmanuella Ngororano (Communications Associate) provided us with more details regarding AMDA and its impact.

How do associations play a part in African solar?

While international investment plays a critical part in the deployment of distributed solar in sub-Saharan Africa, financial resources are only part of the need. The off-grid market would also profit from policy change, advocacy and other services to improve the overall business climate for these products and help educate market participants. Trade associations focused on the off-grid industry can play this role.

Koen explained that GOGLA’s goal, as “The Voice of the Off-Grid Solar Energy Industry,” is to create a sustainable off-grid solar products market where companies can cultivate self-sufficiency via their own profits and efforts. While he believes in philanthropy, Koen is concerned that such funds, if focused on giving away products rather than building a sustainable market, can dilute the efforts of companies acting responsibly to solve common hurdles in the sector. GOGLA seeks to provide services to complement existing financial resources and thus augment their impact.

GOGLA serves its 200+ members mostly in East Africa and Southeast Asia. Members within the sub-Saharan Africa region are selling 7-8 million products annually. While GOGLA members include some of the biggest players in the sector (d.light, Bboxx, and Greenlight Planet, to name a few), most of their members are significantly smaller in terms of annual revenue. About 85% of industry members report annual revenues less than $5M with 70% reporting annual revenues less than $1M.

Examples of current products promoted by the association are 20 to 50-watt solar panels (compared to traditionally larger panels which are around 300-watt), as well as shoe-box sized and larger batteries to provide storage for night-time energy use. Innovations by members include the integration of mobile devices and IoT-enabled solar panels. This allows for effective and inexpensive payments to be made via mobile banking by customers with little to no prior credit history. This tight integration creates incentives for timely payments, as solar panels can also be turned off via the IoT component, and aligns well with GOGLA’s goal to develop the self-sufficiency of its members.

By comparison, AMDA was founded on a simple, yet bold idea: to unify the private sector, to be able to quickly electrify rural and peri-urban communities using decentralized renewable energy systems. This notion is what brings private sector minigrid developers together. AMDA brings this idea to life through a vision of “universal energy access by 2030 using least cost, fastest technologies.” The organization supports the businesses implementing rural electrification in Sub-Saharan Africa, effectively the operators, who in turn provide reliable electricity to more than 500,000 households and MSMEs in rural and peri-urban communities. Joan characterizes the organization as more of a think tank than a traditional trade association, solving problems on the ground unique to each country. AMDA represents the voice of the minigrid industry, promoting growth and sustainable development of the sector, as well as policies that help scale.

Joan noted that the minigrid space is nascent compared to larger C&I (commercial and industrial) and even home solar systems, and thus requires a legal and financial landscape that enables scale. AMDA’s 39 private minigrid developers across 17 countries are faced with many of the same challenges as solar products companies – lack of regulatory and policy frameworks, lack of flow of concessional financing, and lack of clarity on tariffs.

What are the services offered by these associations?

Koen noted that GOGLA hosts the Global Off-Grid Solar Forum and Exhibition, the premier event for the industry in sub-Saharan Africa. This presents an opportunity for off-grid solar product companies to show off their products, network with potential investors, and learn from others in the industry. This event demonstrates the strong advocacy arm at GOGLA which also works to ensure appropriate, responsible (not heavy handed) regulations are implemented to address product quality standards, performance, and labor protections.

GOGLA also works with funders and investors within the industry to grow commercial finance separate and distinct from impact investment. He noted that the industry is not yet seeing the consistent profits to encourage commercial investment. However, Koen believes his organization’s advocacy efforts, coupled with competent results from smaller members, will turn the tides. This also involves working with governments to understand the correct level of subsidies required to help product companies serve customers.

Joan described the three arms of AMDA – financing; policy and regulation; and data analytics – as the value proposition to its members. On the finance front, AMDA envisions an environment in which long term debt can flow into the minigrid developers space with appropriate de-risking in place. In partnership with other organizations such as the World Bank, the African Development Bank, and several DFIs, AMDA works to promote the flow of concessionary capital which will unlock private capital and enable the minigrid market to scale.

Regarding policy and regulatory impact, Joan described advocating for optimal policies that benefit the minigrid industry and those served by it. Chief among activities here includes AMDA’s efforts to ensure additional subsidies are made available to the minigrid market, as the rural electrification across the globe has always relied on some form of subsidies.

Through deep data analytics, AMDA provides a platform for transparency of data to help highlight and address barriers to minigrid sector growth. For example, AMDA provides an annual benchmarking report which breaks out country-level operation cost differences between utility grid and minigrid. This information helps to educate donors and policy makers on the nuances within the minigrid market.

What are the outcomes of these associations?

Koen noted that the most impactful activity for smaller GOGLA members is the organizing of events for the industry. By comparison, larger members benefit from GOGLA’s advocacy that seeks to ensure proper regulation seeks to ensure proper government regulation.

As GOGLA members can pay as much as $15K per year, Koen sees the number of membership renewals as evidence of the value proposition for the organization to its industry. This represents skin in the game that acts to move the ball forward for all off-grid solar players.

A specific example of an advocacy win was GOGLA’s success, jointly with other market stakeholders, in convincing the Kenyan government to reinstate VAT exemption on renewable energy products to help lower the cost of these products to consumers. Koen also pointed to GOGLA’s efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic to designate off-grid solar as an essential service such that sales agents could service customers as necessary.

Joan noted that AMDA currently serves as the chair of the Mini-Grids Partnership group. AMDA was part of the team supporting and providing responses for the Energy Access Relief Fund to provide the renewable energy sector support during COVID-19. AMDA has also been instrumental in establishing the Universal Energy Facility, managed by Sustainable Energy For All (SEForALL), a results-based finance fund accessible by minigrid deployers across sub-Saharan Africa.

AMDA also joined GOGLA and other organizations in advocating for the same removal of VAT tax on solar products noted previously in this article. In her official statement, Joan said “the VAT exemptions in the 2021 Finance bill will catalyze investments in the renewable energy sector and scale up the solar Minigrid market in the country. These initiatives will contribute to the acceleration of Kenya’s SDG 7, energy access objectives, through the deployment of least cost Minigrid technology.” This reversal also represents an upstream cost reduction for AMDA’s members.

From a big picture perspective, Joan sees AMDA supporting its members’ communities by linking minigrids to productive use which in turn serves to transform socioeconomic status. In particular, she notes how allowing women to earn a livelihood through the access to reliable solar power and products is driving this transformation.

What is next for GOGLA?

Koen noted that the next bi-annual Global Off-Grid Solar Forum and Exhibition is a main focus for GOGLA in the immediate future. This event is of particular importance as the previous event was somewhat interrupted due to COVID-19. The current iteration will take place in Kigali, Rwanda in October 2022.

GOGLA will be issuing its Global Off-Grid Solar Market Report later this year to present sales and impact information for the industry.

Koen pointed to the recent launch of and continued effort to support the Power 1 Billion Lives Compact with its goal of providing clean, reliable energy for 1 billion people by 2030. This initiative supports the SDG 7 goal of “access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.”

What is next for AMDA?

Joan mentioned that the next benchmarking report for the minigrid developers industry should be available in the next month or so. This report aims to describe the current state of the sector, its opportunities, and challenges to growth, and how it has responded to the global disruptions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. It also offers insights for all stakeholders, from minigrid developers to policy makers, that provide guidance on the issues still hindering the sector’s growth, such as consumption, financing, licensing, and support given to new inexperienced developers.

In addition AMDA continues to work with donors and financiers to ensure that there is an increase in the flow of concessionary financing within the mini grid market; per the Mini-Grid Funders Group as of March 2020, only 13% of over $2B allocated to the minigrid market has been disbursed. The flow of concessionary financing is crucial in ensuring scale and in catalyzing and unlocking of private capital within the minigrid market.

AMDA is working closely with governments to ensure regulatory and policy frameworks that embrace portfolio applications which enable a reduction in the amount of time it takes to achieve regulatory compliance.

Finally, AMDA continues to work with financiers and donors to ensure that Viability Gap Funds and results-based financing programs are structured in an optimal manner and are reflective of the realities of minigrid developers in Sub Saharan Africa.

Up Next…

The next article in this series will focus on local companies addressing the long tail of the distributed solar industry in sub-Saharan Africa and how they are making an impact to reduce carbon emissions and improve the state of energy inequity.

About The Author

Brian Corn

Contributor @ The Impact

Brian most recently served as the CTO / CPO for PlanIT Impact, a SaaS platform focused on maximizing building resource (energy, water and stormwater) to cost performance for architects, engineers, and construction professionals (AEC) as well as building owners / operators. A life long advocate for climate change and environmentalism, his journey began most profoundly with the publishing of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and its subsequent activity culminating in the Live Earth concert. Since that pivotal event, Brian has followed climate change research closely with a particular interesting in environmental impacts, such as rising sea levels, shrinking biodiversity and deforestation. Currently, he is very interested in US-based efforts to drive consumer electrification, and the policy changes that need to occur to affect both supply and demand of renewables. Brian holds a BS in Computer Science from Trinity University and an MBA from University of Missouri-Kansas City Bloch School of Business.

The post The Power of Not-For-Profits to Drive Solar Deployments in Africa appeared first on The Impact.

How Corporate Partnerships Unlock Key Commercialization Pathways for Climate Tech Startups

Katherine Geusz — Wed, 16 Feb 2022 14:03:37 +0000

Get the full series showing you how to navigate corporate partnerships as a climate tech startup. Subscribing also adds you to our free weekly newsletter.

It’s easy to understand why large corporations partner with innovative climate tech startups. As the climate transition gains momentum, established players in industries from energy to CPG recognize that collaborating with external innovators is essential to meeting their sustainability goals. More than that, in any rapidly changing space, innovation is a matter of survival – disrupt or be disrupted – and in the climate tech space, corporations understand that most of the industry’s disruptive potential comes from startups.

It might be slightly less obvious why startups seek corporate partners. But for startups in general, and climate tech startups in particular, corporations unlock key commercialization pathways.

First and foremost, most climate tech startups operate in B2B spaces. Corporations, therefore, often serve as important customers, or channels to customers, for startups. Second, corporations have the specialized resources and financial scale that can help capital-intensive climate tech companies succeed – from financial capital to specialized research facilities. Finally, with their global footprints and wide-reaching market access, multinational corporations can be a springboard for worldwide deployment.

But startups fear wasting time

Startups are sometimes reluctant to pursue corporate partnerships. Corporations can be opaque and complex. Their decision-making processes are quite slow when measured on startup timescales. Startups fear that partnership discussions will bog them down without producing results.

It’s true that without a clear sense of direction, startup-corporate partnerships can falter. It’s helpful, therefore, to have a structure in mind when navigating these relationships.

Navigating three phases of partnership development

Broadly speaking, all partnership activity has the same end goal: commercializing the startup’s technology at scale because of the market access and/or resources provided by the corporation.

Startups can therefore envision the partnership trajectory as having three main phases toward this goal:

exploration
testing
commitment

The partnership trajectory begins with exploration.

In the exploration phase, startups and corporate partners learn about each other and evaluate their long-term relationship potential. The exploration phase can be beneficial for startups in and of itself. During exploration, startups can ask corporations to provide insight into target markets and help with customer discovery.

For their part, corporations usually want to evaluate a startup’s technology during exploration. Startups may receive helpful technical feedback as a result of these discussions. It’s a good idea to have NDAs in place for exploratory partnerships and to exclude the possibility of joint IP creation until later in the partnership trajectory. Startups can rest assured that corporations usually want NDA protection just as much as startups do.

Not to be overlooked, one of the most important outcomes of the exploration phase is simple trust-building.

If exploration goes well, the next step in the partnership trajectory is testing. Proof-of-concept projects (little tests) and pilots (big tests) are two common testing formats.

In the testing phase, a hypothesis is formulated and results are generated. The hypothesis may seek to demonstrate performance levels for the startup technology or test the startup technology’s compatibility with the corporation’s technology, for example.

As opposed to the exploration phase, a testing phase has a defined timeline, objective, and, most importantly, clear next steps that are unlocked based on the results of the test. A critical function of the testing phase is that it secures the corporation’s attention for the duration of the test and builds a bridge to long-term commitment.

During the exploration phase, relationships continue to be evaluated and strengthened during the testing phase.

The final phase of the partnership trajectory is commitment.

In the commitment phase, formal partnerships materialize in a variety of forms, from CVC investments, to commercial agreements, to licensing deals, to acquisitions, and more.

Often, rather than an ending, these partnerships signify the true beginning of a startup and corporation’s joint efforts toward commercializing the startup’s technology at scale. What makes the commitment phase significant is the fact that both parties have put capital – financial, reputational, or both – on the line to achieve shared success.

While the evaluation and testing phases of the partnership trajectory have standalone benefits for startups, commitment partnerships are the ultimate prize of partnership activities. They represent the startup and corporate working together in an enduring way to commercialize the startup’s technology at scale.

Is it always so cut-and-dry?

Absolutely not! The path from exploration to testing to commitment is sometimes nonlinear. Some partnerships develop quickly; others (many) progress more slowly.

Some partnerships focus on technological or market synergies alone, while others seek pure financial investment. More commonly, however, I see two or three of these activities pursued in parallel, as startups and corporations seek to evaluate strategic alignment across multiple axes.

The world of climate tech startup-corporate partnerships has never been more dynamic or exciting. With this simple framework in mind, startups can organize their efforts and increase the odds that the time they invest in pursuing corporate partnerships yields meaningful results.

About The Author

Katherine Geusz

Senior Director of Programs @ Greentown Labs

Katherine works at Greentown Labs leading partnership acceleration programs for climatetech startups and corporates. She has worked on topics from circular economy to carbon capture to offshore wind to hydrogen. Her pre-climatetech background is in commercial strategy and internal consulting.

The post How Corporate Partnerships Unlock Key Commercialization Pathways for Climate Tech Startups appeared first on The Impact.

Debt Financing Via International Investment

Brian Corn — Mon, 31 Jan 2022 04:07:07 +0000

For Africa to truly decarbonize and elevate their energy poverty, there must be significant international investment to develop resilient, off-grid solar systems. Financing projects in sub-Saharan Africa – where these resilient, off-grid solar systems can have the greatest impact – is a complex topic.

One of the most popular mechanisms for financing and enabling these solar projects to go live in Africa is debt financing.

Enter Trine & SunFunder:

Trine is a Swedish-based financing company whose mission is to “give people a triple return on investment – earn a profit while making a social and environmental impact.” Trine has been focused on driving impact in sub-Saharan Africa since 2015. We spoke to Cristoffer Falsen (Founder & Head of Investment) and Emma Andersson (Communications Manager) from Trine.

SunFunder is a financing company with offices in Kenya, the UK, and France “dedicated to solving climate change and energy access.” SunFunder has been hard at work on these goals since 2012 and focused on the sub-Saharan Africa region. We spoke to Nico Tyabji (Head of Strategic Partnerships) from SunFunder.

Why international investment in African solar?

After the investment bust of Cleantech 1.0 – where nearly $25B was plowed into cleantech startups from 2006-2011 – there were still organizations that believed in the promise of cleantech solutions. These organizations needed a better way to model the returns they would see on their investments.

This seems to be the genesis of the debt financing approach – perhaps less risky than equity to the impact investors, and easier to navigate from a financial perspective in local sub-Saharan Africa economies.

Cristoffer and his fellow founders at Trine were working on the premise that “alternative” investing at the intersection of solar and sustainability would be key to success. They looked at regions with the greatest need that were best suited for unique financing.

Ultimately, Trine determined that East Africa, with its openness to foreign investment paired with its early adoption of residential distributed solar systems, was a perfect market.

This represented a different level of scale, far below that of utilities (typically 20+ MW), and certainly underserved. Debt financing could play a role in servicing micro-loans to meet the need.

SunFunder, being a mission-driven organization, realized early on that 1.2B people in Africa were living off-grid, with that number increasing.

While there were some early solar startups in play, they had minimal access to equity or debt financing. They were too small for international banks, and their potential customers were unable to acquire loans from local banks to purchase their products.

Nico spoke about how the “efficiency revolution” complemented the fall in solar and storage costs a decade ago. The early off-grid solar pioneers built distribution models around these technology drivers, but struggled to find debt financing to scale up their businesses. This drove SunFunder’s founders to develop its crowdfunding financing solution in 2013, the first platform for off-grid solar. The “efficiency revolution”, as per Nico, is where reduced solar costs, reduced storage costs, and increased efficiency of small, solar-powered devices are being advanced due to the demand for smaller system footprints driven by the lower purchasing power of the people of sub-Saharan Africa.

To these ends, the initial model for SunFunder was focused on providing loans for solar home systems (SHS) via crowdfunded investments, but then soon moved onto launching larger fund investment opportunities as those companies needed more capital.

What is the investment and project mix today?

Trine still has about 80% of its solar portfolio in sub-Saharan Africa. However, they are beginning to shift to more productive use – typically in the commercial and industrial sectors – where greater climate and social impact is expected.

About three years ago, Trine decided to begin shifting into larger-scale projects to increase their impact and speed up the energy transition.

Consider that Nigeria, which has the highest GDP in Africa, still obtains 50% of its energy from diesel. Christoffer explained that while Trine’s previous investment mix sought to replace candles, flashlights, and perpetual darkness with solar, they now seek to replace diesel gensets with solar. This shift enriches local communities by moving more people further up the energy ladder.

SunFunder continues to focus on residential systems, but is now seeing some early traction with products like solar irrigation pumps.

In addition, Nico noted that the company has launched a new fund, the Gigaton Fund, with a goal of making more than 130 clean energy investments. By tapping into the power of development financial institutions (DFIs), such as DFC, SunFunder is setting itself up for handling private institutions providing for larger sized projects.

They are approaching the tipping point at which larger institutions are willing to consider these investments due to positive track records, better risk mitigation through organizations such as SIDA, and more attractive, bigger ticket projects.

What are the outcomes of these investments?

A unique quality of solar systems is the inherent data collection capability. This allowed Trine to develop their own technology infrastructure to collect this information in real-time to track actual outcomes (usage, consumption, payment data, etc.) and thus measure impact.

To make the successful shift into larger-scale projects, Trine is working to update this data collection infrastructure. The investment in sub-Saharan Africa has created somewhat of a virtuous circle for Trine with the following outcomes as of this writing:

Over 549K tons of CO2E avoided
Nearly 2.6 million people with new electricity
Over €63M invested
Nearly €33M repaid
Over 12K investors

SunFunder has experienced similar successes:

Over 750K tons of CO2E are avoided annually
Nearly 10 million people impacted through investments
Over $162M closed
Over 50 investors from institutional and impact
57 investees

In addition, Nico also spoke to the promising shift happening amongst the poorest of the poor in these regions newly touched by solar. Instead of spending money on the worst fuels, they are putting money down to fund micro-payments against solar systems.

This shift effectively attacks climate change, energy inequity and inadequate personal financial profiles all at the same time. He sees local banks benefiting from the international investment and building their own competencies in financing some of these projects. SunFunder has subsequently launched an advisory consultancy to help scale up these companies.

What is next for Trine?

Trine has set a goal of achieving €1B under management through the shift into the commercial and industrial sectors. They hope to continue to build upon their track record by demonstrating the long-term stability of their debt financing model and its success as a high-impact investment.

What is next for SunFunder?

With the previously noted Gigaton Fund, SunFunder aims “to catalyze over a gigaton of GHG reductions, help vulnerable communities avoid and adapt to the worst effects of climate change, and impact over 100 million people with improved access to energy”. Nico also believes that eMobility may prove to be one of the next verticals for SunFunder investments in sub-Saharan Africa.

Up Next…

The next article in this series will contrast this deep dive into the world of debt financing via international investment with not-for-profits seeking to address these same climate change and energy inequity challenges via distributed solar deployments.

About The Author

Brian Corn

Contributor @ The Impact

The post Debt Financing Via International Investment appeared first on The Impact.

Lake Kivu • The Danger Of A Limnic Eruption

Stanley Lee — Mon, 17 Jan 2022 03:40:00 +0000

Lake Kivu is one of the African Great Lakes, located on the border between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda. Its claim to fame is not pristine waters, rare fish, or an elegant shoreline. Instead, Lake Kivu, along with Lake Nyos and Lake Monoun, share the deadly habit of sporadically belching massive gas clouds of carbon dioxide.

These limnic eruptions, a rare type of natural disaster where dissolved carbon dioxide will suddenly and violently erupt from deep lakes, form lethal gas clouds that suffocate wildlife, livestock, and humans. The danger lies in the carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfite, and methane that reside and accumulate in the depths of Lake Kivu. When the lake becomes oversaturated with gases, an eruption is imminent.

Putting the Threat of Limnic Eruptions into Context

Lake Nyos’s limnic eruptions in 1986 released over 80 million cubic meters of carbon dioxide, which killed around 1,700 people and 3,000 livestock by asphyxiation. Today, if mismanaged, Lake Kivu has the potential of a limnic eruption that dwarfs the one in Lake Nyos by comparison. This would initiate a blast that could kill millions of citizens in one day through a toxic cloud release containing 2000 ppm hydrogen sulfide.

The impact would be catastrophic, requiring an unprecedented disaster recovery effort just to bury the dead once safe to enter the zone. Recovery from this event could take years. It would destroy the nearby ecosystem, killing all fish and animals, exacerbating food and water insecurity. The lake water would no longer be potable after a turnover, as it becomes eutrophic. The limnic eruption would also emit 2 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere that day – the approximate equivalent of one-third of the total annual emissions from the United States in a given year.

Why Previous Projects on Lake Kivu Fail to Avert Potential Catastrophe

Decades ago, scientists discovered that these types of outgassing events were occurring every thousand years or so when gas concentrations became so large that they triggered limnic eruptions. They realized that safely releasing the gases from the lake before too much accumulated was key to preventing another catastrophic blowout. This has proven to be a challenge to successfully implement.

From 1965 until 2003, extraction of the gas was small-scale. The extracted gas was used to run boilers at the Bralirwa brewery owned by Heineken near Gisenyi. More recently, in 2015, Rwandan KivuWatt, owned by ContourGlobal, began operation of their 26 MW facility that took seven years to build. Still in construction is Symbion Power Lake Kivu Limited (later purchased by Shema) who developed a design with the same technology to extract methane for power generation.

However, the Rwanda Environmental Management Authority (REMA) did not accept the Symbion Feasibility Study nor their ESIA and refused to issue a permit for them to build a full-scale plant on Lake Kivu. So, for now Shema is only allowed to build a demonstration-scale project to test the impact on the lake.

Rwanda and Congo formed a joint working group called Expert Working Group on Lake Kivu Gas Extraction. In 2009, they published the project evaluation document called Management Prescriptions (MPs) for Lake Kivu Development. This document is legally recognized in both countries.

According to a 2020 peer-reviewed paper by Hirslund and Morkel, of the 14 requirements listed by the document, both Shema and KivuWatt fail to comply with most of them. The peer-reviewed paper set out these non-compliances of KivuWatt’s design. Shema’s demo facility is still under construction, so commissioning and testing still need to be completed. However, the MPs are not guaranteed to remain as robust, especially against lobbying from operators to bend the safety rules. As the facility was designed by the same engineering company as KivuWatt’s, there’s been little material change to improve compliance with the MPs.

Their key non-compliance is not returning the degassed water to the required depth at which it must re-stratify with equal density, below the main gradient. Both operations release degassed water too shallow for their density, and the resultant dense plume descends through the main gradient at a 260-meter depth. This destabilizes the gradient layer, weakening the most important feature governing the lake’s stability and its defense against a limnic eruption.

Can Anything Promising Be Done About This Threat?

Lake Kivu has the potential to create an extinction zone and potentially start new conflicts due to competition for resources. These potential humanitarian impacts could surpass the Rwandan genocide in numerical and speed comparisons. Another limnic eruption would consume a massive proportion of our carbon budget with a spike that dwarfs all other daily, global emissions.

In order to avoid a natural disaster – gas must be consistently siphoned out of Lake Kivu. Right now, it’s imperative that outgassing plants optimize their designs and comply with regulations.

About The Author

Stanley Lee

Independent Contributor

Stanley is currently evaluating his next steps as an individual contributor adapting and mitigating climate change. He has diverse background in technology and business. Most recently helped COSMIC Medical (cosmicmedical.ca) get off the ground by connecting with other like-minded altruists to solve complex problems related to access to medical treatments. He has also co-organized online events with MDG Boston. Stanley holds a BS in Electrical Engineering from University of British Columbia.

The post Lake Kivu • The Danger Of A Limnic Eruption appeared first on The Impact.

How African Solar Addresses Energy Inequity

Brian Corn — Mon, 20 Dec 2021 16:53:04 +0000

Community solar may not seem like an energy source with enough ground shaking force to make an impactful dent in the goal to reach net zero emissions. However, with scale comes strength. As of the end of Q2 2021, there was an estimated 3.4GW of community solar installed and available in the US. While this only represents roughly 0.77% of America’s energy consumption in 2020, that’s enough stand-alone power to supply 600,000 homes.

For those unfamiliar, the U.S. Department of Energy defines community solar as “any solar project or purchasing program, within a geographic area, in which the benefits of a solar project flow to multiple customers such as individuals, businesses, nonprofits, and other groups. In most cases, customers are benefitting from energy generated by solar panels at an off-site array.”

Essentially, having the wrong type of roof, a suboptimal azimuth, or a hundred-year-old oak tree shading the bulk of one’s roof no longer prevents homeowners – or renters who have no home to benefit from local solar – from leveraging solar energy to offset coal and other carbon-intense fuel sources for electricity.

Talking with Sanjiv Sanghavi, former Chief Product Officer with Arcadia, regarding the current state of community solar, he believes the technology obstacles have been largely overcome for this form of renewables.

Sanghavi sees the current challenge as one of “dispersion” or distribution of these technologies. This requires successfully navigating a combination of policy shift, consumer education, financial infrastructure acumen, and regional differences. Community solar providers have largely broken down these barriers for the domestic market through utility bill credits, behind the scenes handling of billing integration, and pre-selling in appropriate markets. As a result, the drive to build sufficient community solar to power five million homes in the US by 2025 will address over 3% of current housing stock or 6% of homes ineligible for local solar.

What about the global impact of and need for community solar? What are the unique hurdles and what are the potential rewards? In this first article of this series, we’re going to begin a deep dive into sub-Saharan Africa and the impact of community and off-grid solar. This is a part of the world in which current energy demands (350 kWh per person) are roughly one-tenth those of the worldwide average.

The Need to Address Energy Inequity

In sub-Saharan Africa, two-thirds of people persist without access to grid electricity. This represents more than half of the population of Africa and approximately 9% of the global population. Lack of grid access impacts quality of life, health, education and economic activities. Access to more reliable home refrigeration via off-grid solar products maintains the quality of medicines and over-the-counter health care items. Similar products can be used to provide extended lighting into the evening to allow children and adults to study and further their education and potential. Keep in mind that in those homes without grid access, the fuel comes from kerosene, candles, torches and even dung. This leads to additional health risks and contributes to GHG emissions. So, finding ways to provide increasingly clean and reliable energy has a holistic impact on the people in this region.

3 Key Off-Grid / Microgrid Solar Approaches

Unlike community solar in the US, which requires a grid connection to bestow its benefits, sub-Saharan Africa requires solutions that are independent of their highly unreliable electric grid. Community/microgrid solar and off-grid solar can help these countries most in need. It provides a pathway to true social justice in climate change as it helps to elevate both the quality of life and economic outcomes for these communities.

As it relates to dispersion tactics, there are three basic approaches in play that we will discuss in this series:

Foreign investment in African off-grid solar start-ups to support scale.
Not-for-profits creating clearinghouses for off-grid solar products for direct marketing to consumers.
Private African companies working to provide off-grid solar products directly to consumers within a specific country.

There is a more complex fourth option that involves foreign companies installing, owning and operating large-scale solar plants on behalf of utilities. Unfortunately, this option requires stable grid access, so it does not address the two-thirds of sub-Saharan Africa considered here.

For Africa to truly decarbonize their electric grid, it’s going to require a rebuild with resilient, off-grid solar systems. Because their grid is still developing, we’re currently in a unique time frame where there’s enough of an open canvas left for foreign investments to leave a bright mark.

About The Author

Brian Corn

Contributor @ The Impact

The post How African Solar Addresses Energy Inequity appeared first on The Impact.

A Recipe For Biomass-Based Carbon Removal

Christina Zhou — Mon, 29 Nov 2021 23:15:51 +0000

In Waste to Carbon Credits 101: Biomass-Based Carbon Removal, we covered the absolute basics of biomass-based carbon removal and its potential impact.

Let’s revisit: On a high level, how does it work, and what factors influence how well it works?

Waste biomass input -> process (pyrolysis) -> CO2 removal via conversion of biomass to a stable output (biochar and bio-oil).

We can think of these different components like a recipe. Similar to how the ingredients, bake time/temperature, and food storage impact the longevity and deliciousness of your favorite cookies, the feedstock, process, and application of the final material play a role in determining the carbon removal benefits of biochar and bio-oil, and co-benefits of biochar.

Biomass:

This can mean any organic matter to be used as fuel/feedstock for a process. Many companies have turned to waste biomass as the source material for these processes. Examples include timber byproducts, agricultural waste/crop residues such as walnut shells or corn stover, or even sewage waste.

Feedstock variables to consider include:

Availability: How reliably can the feedstock be sourced?
Processing: How well it can be processed (e.g. does it need to be dried or chopped)
Location relative to processing plant: Will the feedstock need to be transported long distances for processing?
What would have happened to the biomass if it was not diverted for carbon removal/biochar production? This is critical for determining additionality.
Nutrient mix: this was found to have the biggest impact (versus pyrolysis type and temperature) on biochar properties with respect to its use as a soil amendment. Conversely, utilizing more nutrient feedstocks such as manure or sewage waste may increase the risk of toxic compounds in the biochar produced.

Process:

Pyrolysis, a process that involves heating the biomass with low or no oxygen, yields biochar, bio-oil, and syngas. Gasification is a similar process you’ll often find mentioned alongside pyrolysis – this also produces biochar but with much lower yields, and is more relevant for using biomass to produce syngas for energy production.

Variables to consider for pyrolysis include:

Type of process:

Slow pyrolysis: produces more biochar (400-600C, 20-50% biochar yield, residence time hours to days)
Fast pyrolysis: produces more bio-oil (400-600C, 5-20% biochar yield, residence time seconds)
Torrefaction: Also known as mild pyrolysis. Produces more biochar (~200-300C, 70-80% biochar yield, residence time minutes to hours).

Temperature

A whitepaper by Pacific Biochar highlights research that finds biochar produced at higher temperatures (>500C) is more durable from a carbon removal perspective. However, increased temperatures generally decrease the biochar yield relative to syngas.

Scale

Homegrown: This is how biochar production got started. If you search “how to make biochar”, you’ll find guidance on how to burn biomass in a pit in your yard, or how to build or purchase a small system.
Mobile/Smaller-scale systems: Takachar is an example of a company in this bucket. These are simplified, smaller-scale reactors that can be deployed near a biomass source and are advantageous in rural areas without much infrastructure.
Industrial Scale: Producing biochar at this scale has benefits with respect to efficiency and consistency, such as leveraging the gases produced in pyrolysis for other purposes (e.g. biomass processing). One example of a company that falls under this category is Carbo Culture.

Output of processes:

Biochar: This is solid carbon that has been produced on a small scale for thousands of years (it is thought that the use of biochar originated with the indigenous production of Terra Preta in the Brazilian Amazon). Research suggests that it can persist in soils for hundreds of years, if not thousands.
Some of biochar’s potential applications include but are not limited to:

Soil: This is the most well known application of biochar, and includes agriculture, remediation, and green infrastructure applications.
Building Materials: at this point, there are limited commercial applications of biochar in building materials, though projects do exist. Potential benefits include enhanced strength, fire resistance, and humidity control, among others.
Do nothing (e.g. bury underground): Self explanatory.

Bio-oil: Bio-oil is often treated as an intermediary to other fuel sources, as it isn’t particularly usable on its own. However, the company Charm Industrial is taking advantage of its properties for high-quality CO2 removal by storing it underground in disposal wells. Bio-oil slowly solidifies over time, which makes it attractive from a carbon removal perspective when pumped underground. At this point, there do not appear to be many other companies that specifically seek to produce bio-oil for the purpose of carbon removal.

Syngas: This is a mixture of gases typically consisting of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, and hydrogen. Ideally, this is captured and used in the processing of biomass (e.g. drying the biomass), energy production, or at a minimum burned off to prevent emissions of these gases to the atmosphere.

In summary – the feedstock and processing of that feedstock impact the ratios and qualities of the three outputs, and how those outputs are used ultimately determine the climate impact and any additional benefits potentially involved

Next up – we’ll take a closer look at the business landscape for this space.

About The Author

Christina Zhou

GTM Operations & Enablement @ Instrumental Inc.

Christina manages Sales Enablement programs at Instrumental Inc, a cloud manufacturing optimization platform that partners with electronics brands to improve engineering efficiencies and reduce scrap/waste. Her professional background is in energy efficiency, with roles in revenue operations and sales development at Carbon Lighthouse, following an academic background in environmental engineering. Outside of the climate world, she supports the San Francisco Beacon Initiative as a member of their Associate Board, and in her spare time is an avid enthusiast of hip hop and house dance, the outdoors, and good food.

The post A Recipe For Biomass-Based Carbon Removal appeared first on The Impact.

Out on the Arctic Frontier: Exploring Pleistocene Park’s Attempt at Rewilding the Tundra

Loni Olowookere — Mon, 22 Nov 2021 14:41:49 +0000

The Arctic permafrost zone is proving to be one of the many frontiers in the impending battle to reverse climate change. This past summer, climate scientists sounded a loud alarm – the Arctic is warming at more than twice the global rate and this warming together alongside increasing wildfires are accelerating the thaw of the Northern permafrost. Permafrost can be described as large swaths of permanently frozen ground that spreads across countries like Russia, Canada, United States etc. Permafrost zones are becoming increasingly subject to carbon-cycle positive feedbacks – a series of processes that is fuelled by planetary warming and allows more carbon escape into the atmosphere from the rapidly thawing land. While no country has a coherent strategy to tackle this permafrost feedback challenge, two scientists in other-worldly Siberia are taking a uniquely experimental approach to handle this issue. This experimental project known as Pleistocene Park (aptly named after the last geological epoch when the Arctic was home to millions of animals including the woolly mammoth) intends to rewild extensive swaths of the Arctic by settling thousands of animals on highly productive grazing areas.

Pleistocene Park was pioneered by famous scientist Sergey Zimov and is currently headed by his son, Nikita Zimov. Nikita has lived on the Northeast scientific station since early childhood and left the region briefly in 1998 to attend university and returned in 2004. In a brief chat with Nikita, we discussed the inspiration behind the rewilding project, its potential and possible future pathways for the park.

Background

Originally Pleistocene Park was conceived as a rewilding project to convert the low-producing Arctic tundra to a productive grassland ecosystem. Sergey Zimov who pioneered this project noticed two things;

That the permafrost across the Arctic was getting eroded quickly
That whenever there is any form of disturbance in the modern Arctic, whether fire or the presence of automobile vehicles, animal and human presence, grasses start to dominate even in the cold climate.

So, based on these two discoveries, he concluded that in the past, the millions of animals who inhabited the Arctic created this disturbance effect through roaming, therefore allowing grasses to be the dominant vegetation in the ecosystem. Pleistocene Park was started as an experiment to replicate that disturbance effect in the Arctic region by resettling animals in a grassland ecosystem. The urgency for this project is underlined by the current state of the permafrost which is a ticking carbon time-bomb that can release vast amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. However, this highly productive grazing ecosystem being proposed in the Arctic helps to maintain the cold state of the permafrost as animals in the park trample down the snow into soil. All these phenomena make Pleistocene Park a potentially formidable bulwark against climate change.

Gauging the risk factor and potential impact

I know, tackling global warming in Siberia sounds almost as unhelpful as diverting floods away from the Sahara but that is a limited viewpoint. 60% of Russian territory is in the permafrost zone, if the permafrost continues on the path of degradation, a large portion of public infrastructure will be severely destroyed due to the melting of ice and the resulting depression in the landscape. Buildings, roads, pipelines or railway tracks will be damaged. Furthermore, Russia’s agricultural base in the Southwestern and Western regions of the country may have to be relocated if the Earth continues to get warmer. This will be an expensive adjustment for the government, for the agricultural businesses and for everyone in general. Therefore, a rewilding project with the potential of encapsulating as much space as 3 million km2. seems equal to the task at hand. A grassland ecosystem of that size can sequester 2-3 times more carbon than the total amount of emissions Russia creates annually and in the carbon market, this could yield an income comparable to what Russia makes from oil and gas.

The benefits of this approach to the surrounding environment include economic development, tourism, sustainable meat production and a rich ecosystem that improves the quality of life for the indigenous people. Due to the isolated location of Pleistocene Park, the activities on the park are conducted far away from human or animal populations of any kind, therefore there is usually no ecological conflict of interest.

Carbon sequestration through grass instead of forests

Forests are commonly referred to as the metaphorical lungs through which the earth breathes and this is because they absorb nearly 40 percent of the fossil-fuel emissions we produce. While this fact is very applicable to the tropics, in the Arctic, the case is vice-versa. Arctic trees take a longer time to grow, are much smaller than those in the tropics and there remains the risk of forest fires despite the sparse tree population. Arctic soils on the other hand are cold and frozen for most of the year, therefore the decomposition process that goes on within them is much slower. Replacing Arctic trees with grass vegetation makes a lot of difference because grass plants can form deeper roots unlike trees in the Arctic that have their roots on the soil surface. Potentially Arctic soils can accumulate up to 100 kilograms of carbon per square metre which is 50 times more than what can be stored in the wood biomass in the region. Moreover, building a wide swath of grassland in the Arctic also contributes significantly to the health and fertility of the soils there.

Animals on the Park

Pleistocene Park is still a small-scale experiment with 20 kilometres of fence and 150 animals right now and the immediate plan is to expand the fenced territory in a few years to 144 square kilometres. The next phase of the project involves extending the fenced area to accommodate 2000-3000 animals. In the past, different species of animals like sheep, cows, yaks have been introduced in the park, but the current focus is on procuring animals such as Bisons, Muskoxen, Yakutian horses etc. As long as there is sufficient forage and an animal population adapted to the area, there will be a 20-30% increase in population annually. With this growth rate in mind, a population of 1000 animals can explode exponentially within a couple of decades.

When the milestone of 2000 animals in the park is achieved, the introduction of predator species will be considered as they are an important component of a sustainable grazing ecosystem. Herbivores will naturally overgraze and overpopulate if they are not properly balanced and shepherded by a predator population, therefore introducing predators will help maintain a healthy pasture and moderate grazing density among the herbivores. According to Nikita’s estimation, a population of 3000 animals in the park is needed to obtain proof of concept, to know what works and what does not, however for the project to have any significant bearing on reversing climate change, tens of millions of animals will be needed to populate the region.

Concerning the adaptability of animals to the region, Nikita is more optimistic. He believes the main issue has little to do with the temperature but rather the yearlong availability of forage. The main challenge is creating productive pastures that will give enough energy even in winter when animals have to dig through the snow to get to the forage. However, with proper grass cultivation in Arctic soils during the growing season from June to early September, the vegetation remains frozen down with all the nutrients intact, providing herbivores with fresh grass even in the winter season.

The Near Future

Pleistocene Park remains open to all forms of collaboration.There has been a lot of traction on the research front and partnership has been struck with other scientists in order to understand the most effective methods for rewilding and converting an ecosystem. Efforts are being made currently to de-extinct the woolly mammoths and resettle them in the park in 6-10 years. Also, the Park received a financial boost earlier in the year, when Alrosa (a Yakutia based diamond company) agreed to fund the expedition to procure 25 muskoxen next year, this will be an important milestone for the park. However, to achieve success on a grander scale, the park needs to acquire more space and millions of animals and that will require huge financial commitments both from the government and other willing financial sponsors.

Conclusion

Pleistocene Park appears like a play for the long-term but that does not discount its seriousness or the urgency of the issues it was set up to correct. There is no silver bullet solution to end climate change, it has to be tackled from different sides using different approaches. While other solutions and approaches are being debated for other geographical regions, Pleistocene Park might be the viable option for the Arctic. In the words of Nikita, “It took billions of humans 300 years to bring this impending crisis to our doorstep and anyone who thinks that there is an easy and cheap solution is overly optimistic”

Pleistocene Park Foundation is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization in the United States.

About The Author

Loni Olowookere

Communications Strategist | Greenstand

Loni is a communications support strategist with Greenstand (greenstand.org). His skill-set includes content creation, account-based marketing advocacy, copy-writing, channel segmentation, brand storytelling and stakeholder management. He is also a regular contributor with The Impact. He has several years experience in client-facing environments and he is highly interested in applying his professional skills in social development contexts. His passion is at the intersection of climate, renewable energy and circular economy.

The post Out on the Arctic Frontier: Exploring Pleistocene Park’s Attempt at Rewilding the Tundra appeared first on The Impact.

Biomass-Based Carbon Removal

Christina Zhou — Mon, 01 Nov 2021 00:26:59 +0000

Carbon sequestration as a concept has captured the imagination (and invited criticism from skeptics) for some time now. Those words may invoke the highly engineered image of pulling CO2 out of the air and pumping it underground via direct air capture, or purchasing swaths of forests to store CO2 through the carbon cycle.

Here, we’ll focus on biomass based carbon removal. On a basic level, this means that biomass, typically waste biomass, is converted through some process into a more stable form. If this process did not occur, the biomass would produce CO2 over time either through decomposition, burning, or other processes, so converting it to this more stable form at least delays the conversion of organic matter to greenhouse gases.

On a high level, how does it work?

Waste biomass -> process (pyrolysis) -> CO2 removal by stabilizing biomass as biochar, bio-oil, etc.

How to evaluate impact?

Before diving into the impact of these technologies, let’s walk through some principles for evaluating carbon offset projects in general. Some core concepts according to Carbon Direct are additionality, durability/permanence, leakage, reliability of accounting methods, and negative impacts/externalities (“do no harm”). You may encounter different terminology used to describe similar concepts.

Additionality: means that the carbon removal would not have occurred without the purchase of those credits. One example: if a credit for some portion of forest was purchased, but it had already been preserved long before, is the purchase really resulting in additional impact?

Durability: How likely will the carbon be re-released into the atmosphere. For example, a forest in a zone that frequently experiences wildfires would be considered less durable than a forest in an area without that same risk. Permanence is another word that describes this attribute.

Leakage: This term simply means that the emissions haven’t been displaced to another location. For example: if deforestation is prevented at one location, the demand for timber may result in deforestation occurring elsewhere.

Accounting methods: This primarily means 1) how the impact of the projects are quantified upfront and 2) how this impact is monitored over time. In particular, whether the quantification is repeatable, verifiable, and with known + conservative uncertainty estimates is critical. In addition to having stringent accounting methods, many platforms opt to have third party verification of carbon removal processes (here’s an interview with Puro.earth and Energy Link Services, an auditor describing the auditing process)

Negative impacts: Hypothetical example of a negative impact: a carbon removal program that dramatically degrades air quality for nearby communities.

What is the impact of this technology?

So what is the promise of biochar or bio-oil based carbon removal from an impact perspective? The rosiest picture might look like the following scenario: Agricultural waste, which often would have otherwise been burned, is converted through pyrolysis to biochar. This results in negative emissions for hundreds of years while producing a soil additive that improves the drought and pest tolerance of plants. Not to mention the local air quality improvements in agricultural communities or a potential revenue stream for an otherwise troublesome waste product. This is a scenario that biochar advocates will promote, and at face value, seems almost too good to be true. So let’s dig a bit deeper!

Let’s start by considering the impact of this technology from a carbon removal perspective, with a focus on biochar production. Additionality is easier to prove for waste biomass, and one protocol requires that projects involve biomass that would’ve been burned, left to decompose, or landfilled for it to count as additional. For biochar production, about half the carbon embodied in biomass is emitted in the production process, while the other half that would have decomposed over a few decades is stabilized with a durability of hundreds of years. Leakage seems irrelevant in this scenario, as the processing of some waste biomass shouldn’t displace the production of waste biomass elsewhere. As for accounting methods – this is also highly variable based on the degree to which carbon removal is the primary product offering for a given company. For a more in-depth look, here are the criteria that Microsoft and Carbon Direct use as criteria for carbon accounting, including a specific callout for biomass-based sources.

In terms of negative externalities with respect to biochar, a literature review from Brtnicky et al highlights potential negative side effects (impacts on earthworms, the fungi: bacteria balance in soils, and erosion/water retention properties depending on the soil type), and a general need to holistically consider how biochar might interact with a specific type of soil. There is also the possibility of particulate matter impacts from production or from soil application, which diminishes the potential benefit of avoiding crop burning. There is likely more to be learned on this front given the lack of large scale studies on biochar to date.

With that said, research suggests that biochar is generally beneficial for improving water retention, soil health, as well as removing pollutants. Biochar seems to be most effective in soils that are poor or contaminated, which has attracted (at least as of a few years ago) heightened interest from China as a tool to remediate soils, divert agricultural waste which would have been burned, and improve crop yields beyond what chemical fertilizers are capable of.

On the bio-oil front, if stored underground the durability can be on the order of thousands of years. There are potential applications for bio-oil conversion to hydrogen fuel/syngas that the startup Charm Industrial is exploring — these are still carbon negative, though the emissions reduction potential would be impacted by this additional processing.

Perhaps the most common criticism of carbon removal initiatives as a whole is that they distract us from known interventions to reduce our impact (e.g. electrification, renewable energy). Consequently, if carbon removal is to scale, it must do so with high-quality offsets, and without negatively impacting existing efforts.

In summary – technologies that convert waste biomass to biochar/bio-oil and remove carbon in the process may be incredibly compelling as a means to solve several environmental challenges at once. However, these technologies are not a monolith – variations in the feedstock, the processing, and the application (if applicable) of the end product can make a big difference in how impactful this is from a carbon removal perspective and beyond.

Next up – we’ll explore how it works from a technology perspective. Lastly, we’ll take a look at the business case and challenges associated with this space.

———
Many thanks to Katie Holligan from Charm Industrial, Kevin Kung from Takachar, and Tim Preisenhammer from Carbo Culture.

About The Author

Christina Zhou

GTM Operations & Enablement @ Instrumental Inc.

The post Biomass-Based Carbon Removal appeared first on The Impact.

Reforestation’s Crucial Role as a Carbon Sink

Stephanie Zulman — Mon, 04 Oct 2021 16:13:08 +0000

As a North Carolinian, I’ve grown up watching the forests and farmland around me make way for commercial and residential development. Watching my hometown grow is exciting. Still, it can be hard to balance conflicting feelings of wanting progress and profit with hating the ugly face of concrete replacing the acres of greenery that used to envelop so many familiar roads.

I’m comfortable with the fact that I too am a bit shaky on the line of hypocrisy when it comes to helping protect trees.

“It is what it is,” I whisper to myself as I defensively clutch my newest paperback book to my chest. I try to not let the guilt of my own participation in naughty practices like shunning an electronic screen for the smell, feel, and aesthetic of a printed book or silky lined page sway me from embracing the fact that promoting planting trees is still a better way to apologize to Mother Nature than a handwritten note.

This issue will explore the feel-good role of repopulating the Earth with her original terrestrial carbon storage tanks: trees. It’s essential that we start aggressively tackling reforestation projects to help Earth’s interconnected ecosystems find a new balance, and so we don’t overheat the planet to the point of no return.

Reforestation has started to garner a larger portion of the general public’s attention. Its importance in habitat and wildlife conservation, its key role in supporting rural populations, and the growing need to reforest areas ravaged by wildfires are all strong motivators. Our forest ecosystems hold approximately 45% of all carbon stored on land. Companies are beginning to get more involved in reforestation efforts as government policies, consumer awareness, and the carbon market evolves. In other words, the advantages of restoring degraded land are increasingly being recognized as critical for both the scientific and economic benefits of environmental remediation.

If you’d like a bit more background on the trees of the worlds’ ingenious design that helps regulate our planet, I’d advise starting at the foundation: Understanding the Carbon Cycle. If you’d rather hear about why we should all start protecting our forests, I’d recommend reading a summary on Conservation’s Crucial Role. Don’t worry, this article won’t make you start guilt-tripping yourself every time you reach for a paper towel. That’ll be in a few weeks, so enjoy your clear conscience for now.

Basics on the Importance of Planting Trees

For everyone’s sake, it’s good to first go over a few key points before diving into the topic of reforestation. Trees are a type of biomass, which means that they’re a renewable organic material that’s kindly provided by the Earth to eat up carbon dioxide and provide oxygen. The vast forests that span(ned) the Earth are a key element to maintaining our ecosystems’ natural rhythm taking carbon out of the atmosphere and repurposing it for some other use. Trees are the original carbon capture tool, naturally engineered to perfection. Human efforts to replicate this magic are an ongoing effort…

Ideally, we want our forests to be carbon sinks, which means that they suck up more carbon dioxide (through photosynthesis) than they give off. Nature’s ingenious design enables trees to help regulate the climate and support the health of the planet’s terrain, water, and air. Overall, the system works well and can take a bit of stress. Unfortunately, humanity’s recent pollution spree has put so many emissions into the sky that we’ve reached the point where drastic action has to be taken. Since, thanks to us, trees are both a huge source of anthropogenic emissions and a key pillar in keeping the carbon cycle in balance, it’s crucial that we both protect and restore them. However, it’s good to remember that while planting and preserving trees is vastly important, it’s no panacea to the larger problem of preventing cataclysmic climate change.

Afforestation, a term that sometimes gets lumped in with reforestation, is defined as planting trees in areas where no tree has rooted before. Often, this is done for commercial use. New forests are also planted by governments as “I’m sorry for taking all your natural habitat” gifts for displaced animals. Still, both reforestation and afforestation have important roles to play in organic carbon storage. Afforestation also acts as a replacement to using natural forests for consumer products, saving carbon and creature’s homes. Reforestation has arguably a much prettier payoff when it comes to our main concern here–carbon capture. Science shows that new rainforests grown on degraded land, known as secondary forests, can store up to 11 times more carbon than old-growth rainforests, where tree growth has generally plateaued. Unfortunately, we must remember to remind ourselves that these benefits will take as long a time to be realized as it takes for those trees to mature.

A 2019 study published by an international research team in the Journal of Science estimated that if we planted over half a trillion trees on the 900 million hectares (2.2 billion acres) of Earth’s viable land, we could capture around 205 gigatons of carbon. This would reduce atmospheric carbon levels by a quarter and negate, based on our current emissions rate, two decades’ worth of human pollution. While this would serve as a welcome speed bump, both the pros and cons of this measure are best described by the Chinese proverb I’ve seen quoted often during my research: “The best time to start planting trees was twenty years ago. The second-best time is now.”

Classifying Reforestation: Tree Plantations, Newly Planted Forests, & Naturally Regenerating Forests

Reforestation efforts fall into two main categories: natural regeneration and artificial regeneration. Natural regeneration, the least complex of the two, is the birth of new seedlings and sprouts directly from the original source. As the name indicates, this doesn’t require direct human intervention and enables new tree growth with the use of native species that are inherently compatible with the region and its soil.

That being said, natural regeneration can also serve as a much more cost-effective way for rural property owners to use biomass, compared with creating a whole new artificial plantation for harvesting. Their task is as easy as lighting some candles, sprinkling rose petals in an alluring trail, and putting on some smooth R&B to create the right conditions for reproduction. Artificial regeneration is similarly pretty self-explanatory. Human hands choose, plant, and monitor the growth of new trees from seed to sapling to full maturity. With so many factors to control, this approach is much more complex and entails a greater level of planning and cost.

Currently

The Global Forest Resources Assessment, conducted in 2020, provides good insight into the present state of reforestation efforts and the growing need for more ambitious initiatives. Currently, 93% of Earth’s forests are naturally regenerated. The remaining 7% of forest growth, encompassing 290 million hectares, is replanted trees. This significantly smaller category has two main subsets: tree plantations (3%) and newly planted forests (4%).

Tree plantations serve a similar purpose to a sugarcane or banana plantation– they’re sowed in order to produce feedstocks fed into various supply chains. These intensively managed plantation forests generate both wood and non-wood forest products (NWFP) that are traded internationally as lumber, pulp, paper, biomass fuels, gums, resins, and latexes. NWFPs are essentially all other plant and animal products found in and around trees: tannins, foliage and fruits, extracts and oils, fibers and medicinal plants, gums, and resins. South America has the highest share of plantation forests, while Europe has the lowest.

Plantations, while not the solution to increasing our carbon sink, are a major source of subsistence for millions of rural and poor peoples and are firmly entrenched in our international markets. Construction, energy, and manufacturing rely heavily on materials harvested on plantations. Many of these substances, like resins and gums, are so essential and their applications so broad that they could fill full articles by themselves. For those interested in diving deeper into the production, trade, and consumption of forest products, the Food & Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) provides a wealth of data and analysis.

Newly planted forests come with their own benefits and challenges, as planting trees comes with its own nuances. The type and number of different tree species chosen, climate/geographic location, land characteristics, timing, and intentions of the planter are all significant. Some trees are like cats; if you periodically feed and maintain their environment they’ll be good to go. Many are like a doodle puppy; they need to be constantly watered and told how special they are if you want them to thrive. Imagine the amount of time, energy, and money you’d need to sink into a forest of doodles.

Also like a poorly trained, unsocialized dog, a badly planned reforestation effort can end up having counterintuitive effects. The consequences of neglect can be trees releasing more carbon dioxide and negatively impacting local biodiversity. Projects can wither and die as time and costs inflate. It shouldn’t be underestimated how much thought and effort is needed to go into successfully cultivating new forests. I’ll be singing accolades about one company in particular that’s tackling this challenge extremely intelligently in the next piece (Terraformation), where we’ll explore businesses currently in the tree planting game.

Global Reforestation Efforts & Impacts

So, what else is being done around the world to address this issue? We’ve all heard about the Paris Climate Agreement that not one of the world’s largest economies is on track to actually achieve. There are the EU’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) that have started making their way onto business websites as sustainability becomes a hotter topic.

Currently, 61 countries have united under the Bonn Challenge, launched in 2011, to restore 350 million hectares of degraded land by 2030. The good news is that their first goal of restoring 150 million hectares by 2020 was successfully surpassed. The most recent USA-specific data available from the Bonn Challenge’s barometer shows that from 2010 to 2018, the US invested ten billion dollars, created 55,000 jobs, and sequestered 5.2 million tons of CO₂. This was done through the restoration of 16,959,000 hectares (41.9 million acres) of land. That amounts to the addition of approximately 21.2 billion trees in the US alone. While this positive metric shows that we are actively making progress in reforestation efforts, it still isn’t enough… In 2018 the US alone emitted 4.98 million kilotons (multiply a ton by 1,000) of carbon dioxide. Artificial reforestation requires both the huge time and capital investments needed to make reforestation happen and the positive economic benefits countries can enjoy.

Changing environments have massive, long-term repercussions. Climate change is already increasing the number of internal and external refugees countries must manage and protect. Historically, the reasons why people flee have never changed; people leave their homes when there’s no food, safety, or opportunity.

The Sahel, a destitute, degraded region located on the southern edge of the Sahara desert, has been battling droughts, famine, and falling crop yields from increasingly degraded soil for decades. These problems have been catalyzed by both the rural area’s high population growth rate and significant temperature changes from climate change—Africa’s Great Green Wall will serve as an important case study of the efficacy of a massive forestation initiative to provide a barrier against climate change.

The Great Green Wall was started a decade ago in Africa’s semiarid Sahel region as both a proactive and reactive measure to combat poverty, climate change, and mass migration. Ultimately, the vision is for this colossal restoration effort to stretch from Senegal to Djibouti. The initiative, currently about 15% underway, pushes to combat desertification and restore native plant life by cultivating a horizontal line of trees that will span the entire width of the continent. Running through 11 countries, (Burkina Faso, Chad, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria, Niger, Sudan, & Senegal), the hope is that the restoration of 100 million hectares of land across Africa will sequester 250 million tons of carbon and create 10 million jobs by 2030.

With the help of nonprofits, local communities, individuals, investors, and philanthropists to bring this restoration effort to its fruition, the Great Green Wall will be the largest natural structure on Earth. On the official website, it states that they intend to launch an online platform by the end of this year to help connect anyone who wants to get involved and coordinate bankable projects.

However, everything needs to make financial sense and reforestation efforts are no exception. In the next edition, we’ll dig deeper into various forms of bankable reforestation efforts.

About The Author

Stephanie Zulman

Partner • Editor-in-Chief @ The Impact

Stephanie holds a BBA in Supply & Value Chain Management and in Entrepreneurship & Innovation from TCU (Go Frogs!!) and minored in both Energy and History because… why not. After a stint in LA working in lean manufacturing for a large industrial company, her most recent educational foray was as a part of the LEAP program at Boston University to explore the field of Material Science & Engineering. Stephanie’s most recent work has been volunteering with a small DAC startup in Reykjavik called Carbon Iceland. Now, she’s living the dream working in supply chain as a Procurement Analyst at the carbon capture company, LanzaTech. An aspiring tree hugger, she hopes to spend the rest of her career aiding the massive societal transition to cleaner industrial and business practices– ideally through work pertaining to carbon capture, sequestration, and the processes’ byproduct utilization to unite her love of science, sustainability, business, and supply chain. In her free time she enjoys both the American and English versions of football, growing her working knowledge of plant cultivation, and reading.

The post Reforestation’s Crucial Role as a Carbon Sink appeared first on The Impact.

Case Study: When it makes sense for utilities to island its customers

Swarnav S Pujari — Mon, 27 Sep 2021 16:08:33 +0000

It’s commonly known among people in the solar and DER (Distributed Energy Resource) space that utilities tend not to want to see their customers be islanded.

However, absolutes are never true.

In some cases it does make sense for utilities to island customers from their electric grid and BoxPower is one such company helping service that need.

Grid Edge Communities are a loss on the books for utilities

If you remember an earlier edition of the DER deep dive we’ve been doing – utilities are typically incentivized by avoiding losses more than they are about gaining new revenue. This is critical to understand because it lays the groundwork for why companies like BoxPower need to exist.

Grid Edge Communities are causing significant, guaranteed losses for utilities as regulation doesn’t allow utilities like PG&E to not service customers or rate hike specific individuals.

The reason these communities at the edge of the grid cost the utility so much is due to various factors:

Difficult terrain makes it hard to service power lines
Certain powerlines may be subject to wildfires or require heavy maintenance
Powerline upgrades are expensive especially with demand increasing and the movement towards cleaner and more variable sources of energy

Rapidly deploy and let third party entities manage microgrids

BoxPower introduces the ability for groups like PG&E to take a modular approach toward deploying microgrids. This creates a financially viable option for utilities to consider when debating upgrading power lines to increase reliability.

The modularity approach to building a microgrid – stacking batteries, solar panels and generators – definitely has proven to be a useful strategy as we see companies like Tesla standardize even residential solar install sizes as opposed to custom engineering a project each time it comes in.

However, for utilities this presents a cost effective path to go down to deliver clean and far more reliable power to customers living at the edge of the grid.

Outlook

BoxPower has begun to pilot projects with PG&E and has done deployments in places like Puerto Rico. The thing that excites me is the space of modular microgrids and how new electric retailers or utilities will take advantage of the flexibility these assets can deliver.

Companies like BoxPower or Scale Microgrid Solutions could really be key players in supplying new advances in energy technology as modularity may enable the ability to hot swap components – making the grid far more dynamic and interesting to follow as new technologies could be adopted much faster than usual.

About The Author

Swarnav S Pujari

Founder of The Impact

Swarnav has over 10 years of experience in the energy & climate tech space, holds 2 patents and is active in the tech, climate and media industries. He specializes in Product/Product Innovation as well as Go-To-Market and Growth Strategy.

By training he’s a Materials Engineer with a background in research from his time at Georgia Tech and University of Illinois (UIUC).

He founded TouchLight a utility backed energy company focused on developing IP for utilities and startups pushing electrification forward. He also serves as the appointed Chairman for the Town of Yorktown’s Climate Smart Communities Task Force, where he helps with drafting legislation and enabling sustainability efforts within the town.

Concurrently, Swarnav founded The Impact to help investors, emerging founders and driven climate enthusiasts discover and identify new climate-tech startups, technologies and opportunities before they hit the traditional media sources.

The post Case Study: When it makes sense for utilities to island its customers appeared first on The Impact.

Conservation’s Crucial Role as a Carbon Sink

Stephanie Zulman — Mon, 13 Sep 2021 17:52:00 +0000

Welcome back, my newly minted tree connoisseurs. In my quest to answer a commonly asked question of why we can’t just plant trees to capture all the harmful carbon dioxide clogging up the atmosphere, the first issue in this series focused on explaining what the carbon cycle is, why it’s essential, and all of the glorious ways humanity has overloaded Earth’s natural systems to the point that we might end up fully breaking the scale. This article builds upon this knowledge by exploring conservation’s importance to protecting trees’ role as a carbon sink.

Many of us have heard the philosophical teaser: If a tree falls in the middle of a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

I am here to inform you that this question is meaningless. The more pressing concern should be the fact that that tree, loud or not, has now had its years of quiet, dedicated work storing carbon eviscerated. At that point, I feel like that tree deserves the emotional release of a good, full-bellied roar. It’s as if, after 142 years of building the Duomo in Florence, Italy, some random schmuck decided to Rambo the whole place to ashes.

Circling back to the plight of the commonly slain tree and the displaced carbon, birds, plants, insects, and animals that once made it their home, the damage may seem negligible when we focus on just one tree. However, one must take stock of forests’ large-scale impact as carbon sinks and guardians to biodiversity. Then, add into our analysis the current trends in global conservation efforts, and we can start to get a clearer picture of how much active tree storage we have left to work with and why it should be defended.

How Much Carbon Trees Capture

According to a 2021 study in Nature Climate Change, Earth’s forests absorb 16 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide every year. When you subtract the impact of gross emissions from deforestation and degradation, their positive impact is halved to a net 7.6 billion tons.

One way to appreciate trees’ value is by understanding how much carbon a single tree can capture. This depends on its age, climate, forest, and soil type. For the most part, it takes a decade of maturation for tree species to begin storing carbon and become active participants in the carbon cycle. At that point, the amount of carbon dioxide a tree can absorb and store as carbon will grow each year with the tree. If an oak sapling was planted in 2011, it would only begin to have the capacity to store carbon this year and just 0.10 pounds worth at that. Only at 23 years old does it even reach a full 1 pound per year absorption rate. So, by 2050, that one oak tree will have stored a total of 17.95 pounds of carbon within itself, assuming it hasn’t been burned or chopped down for timber. Based on Statista’s data of carbon dioxide emissions per person in the US, the average American would have emitted approximately 547.78 metric tons in that time frame.

If we zoom out, a protected forest of lively, 50-year-old oaks can sequester 30,000 pounds of carbon per acre. So, while trees do store a lot of carbon, unfortunately, instant gratification was simply not included in their design. It takes time. Conserving a forest simply has a much greater positive impact than planting a forest.

The Importance of Tree Conservation

There’s a reason why the Amazon rainforest has been nicknamed “the lungs of the earth,” and it’s based more on science than romanticism. Like many other parts of the natural world, the Amazon was designed to absorb CO2 and act as a mighty yet humble carbon sink. It truly can’t be overstated how important it is for us to protect these lungs.

Conservation is the simplest variable to understand. Maintaining the carbon sinks we still have is crucial to species/biodiversity preservation and creating barriers to deforestation. There are many practical drivers for banning deforestation. Tree root systems help moderate flooding and prevent erosion because, unlike concrete, they strengthen the soil around them, allowing them to better absorb and redistribute high volumes of water, and withstand wind.

Biodiversity preservation is key to sustaining natural ecosystems that are critical to saving all life. We regularly take advantage of it to make critical scientific breakthroughs that directly affect modern medicine. Of the 3,000 plants the US National Cancer Institute has classified as having potential anti-cancer properties, 70% are endemic to the Amazon Rainforest. From aspirin to malaria cures, the medicinal benefits we receive from biodiversity can’t be stressed enough. Forests also serve as irreplaceable attractions that sustain many country’s tourism industries. Here in the US, we tangibly benefit from conservation efforts through the 423 bountiful national park sites that encompass 84 million acres of land.

However, these existing natural reserves can’t sustain biodiversity by themselves. Even with conservation efforts, those protected trees are just as vulnerable to the damaging effects of climate change, and overall, protected areas only represent a tiny portion of existing forest biodiversity.

How to Measure Positive Impact

Some ways of comparing specific countries’ positive impacts on conservation are more effective than others. According to the World Resources Institute, the realms currently protecting the highest percentage of their forests are quite often the smaller countries of the world and/or are the countries that have much smaller areas of forest left. These top five percentage-wise countries are, in order, Cambodia, Poland, Bulgaria, Germany, and Slovakia.

On the other hand, the countries with the greatest quantities of protected forest area are those who naturally possess the largest amounts of forest. This metric is clearly the most important of the two when considering the total amounts of carbon dioxide being filtered out of the air by trees. The top five countries for the largest quantities of forest area protected are Brazil, Russia, Canada, the US, and Venezuela. Anyone relatively familiar with global news won’t need much explanation as to why this data is somewhat (wildly) ironic. However, we’ll get into this more in the fourth piece of this series on deforestation.

How Do We Protect Our Trees?

The easiest way to conserve trees is through legal protection, making government intervention key to protecting forests. This effort is monitored through the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), which was created by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Around one-fifth of the worlds’ forest area has some sort of legal protection carved into it with invisible lines. However, this doesn’t fully ensure that these areas are actively being protected.

On the ground, conservation takes many other interesting and fancy names. Improved Forest Management (IFM) involves delaying/avoiding harvesting timber and, overall, looking to improve the efficiency and productivity of forests. Nonprofits, such as Nature Conservancy, buy up vulnerable land so that loggers, commercial real estate, and other ambitious land clearing businesses cannot.

The preservation agenda has begun to morph into a profitable opportunity for businesses looking to offset their emissions. Offset credits (each of which equals one metric ton of carbon) have started to become a desirable currency for companies looking to show investors that they can achieve the in-vogue label of “carbon neutrality” and contribute to voluntary reduction goals. With bulging ESG funds and a need to negate without compromising on the emissions that they’ve labeled as unavoidable, investing in conservation is a relatively simple and effective way to earn offset credits and become a participant in our growing cap-and-trade systems.

This evolving market will continue to grow with legislation, active business participation, and the growing shift in consumer’s attention to the terror of a world on fire. Just as exciting are the new value chains growing from this fusion of our market values with climate activism/survivalism. The Nature Conservancy, the world’s largest environmental group, is already an instrumental key for many corporate giants to invest in carbon sinks. It enrolls landowners and utilizes its own preserved forests to create carbon offset projects for companies like JP Morgan and Disney to purchase credits from.

Small governments can find profit in these initiatives as well. BlackRock Inc. has directly paid the city of Albany, New York to preserve the forests around its reservoirs so that they wouldn’t be cut down. Walt Disney Co. has engaged in similar tree transactions to protect a forest surrounding a reservoir in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. In general, Disney provides an excellent example of the complexities and issues that can arise from aggressive corporate conservation investments.

However, it should be noted that the carbon offset market is more like a sparkly Band-Aid than Neosporin. Paying a company to hold off on chopping down lumber doesn’t mean that the forest isn’t going to get cut down… just that they’re getting money to hold off for a bit. Unfortunately, mechanisms like cap and trade allow large companies to put off making meaningful, operational changes. While any significant investment that reduces our net emissions should be encouraged, it doesn’t, for example, discourage BP from drilling for oil like a rabid, juiced-up mole.

Outlook

In case you missed the news, which would be entirely fair given the current state of global affairs, 2021 was the start of the UN’s Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. The aim of this glamorous banner is to unite the world to protect and resuscitate Earth’s plethora of suffering ecosystems. Always timely, it’s expected to last until the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals deadline. Whether this measure will be wholly or marginally successful will depend on the (in)actions of the powerhouse countries who have the greatest ability to control the outcome– given their GDP, global influence, and willingness to conserve and restore their abundant natural resources.

Conservation, as we’ve seen, is vastly important. It takes much more time to break, remake, and then wait for the gains to hopefully reappear. Governments and businesses alike must adjust their definition of value so that the long-term benefits of our environmental impact weigh more heavily than the short-term cost of investment and a quick turnaround to profitability. Aggressively and heavily investing in protection, remediation, and mitigation initiatives will require the emotional maturity to accept that, much like a tree’s slow timeline to grow its carbon storage capacity, many of their benefits will not be ready to show off in next year’s investor’s meeting.

In the next part of this series of carbon capture via trees, we’ll look at the second key element to maintaining our trees’ role as a carbon sink: reforestation.

About The Author

Stephanie Zulman

Partner • Editor-in-Chief @ The Impact

The post Conservation’s Crucial Role as a Carbon Sink appeared first on The Impact.

Yotta Energy Is Making Storage Easy To Deploy On Commercial Buildings

Swarnav S Pujari — Tue, 07 Sep 2021 02:20:45 +0000

The US solar industry grew by 43% in between 2019 and 2020. Most of the newly added capacity is likely coming from utility scale deployments or residential installs.

Ignoring the commercial and industrial (C&I) space for solar has become almost a status quo. While many in the industry recognize the hugely untapped opportunity of deploying solar plus storage on C&I properties – the challenges it can bring tend to drive installers to look towards the utility scale deals or focus on residential projects.

The reason C&I solar plus storage projects get avoided is because they tend to have the permitting complexity of a utility scale project, but the “smaller” check size and behavior of a residential project.

Pair this with the rise of more energy storage systems (ESS) being deployed and utilities wanting property owners to prioritize buying solar plus storage – for grid management purposes – and you run into multiple new challenges:

Financing C&I projects
System design and standardization (modularity)
Keeping project economics reasonable when including ESS in project bids
Enabling ease of deployment and maintenance of a solar plus storage

What is Yotta Energy?

Yotta [yah-tah] Energy – founded by Omeed Badkoobeh and Vikram Iyengar – is building a solution to address the system design and standardization as well as the project economics challenges plaguing solar installers in closing more deals in the C&I market.

They do this through a solar panel integrated battery system.

Much like how Enphase enabled the modularity of deploying solar on residential properties, Yotta Energy is bringing the same approach to deploying energy storage effectively.

The hidden cost of commercial storage projects

Many people see the battery cost or the inverter as the primary driver in making projects expensive in small commercial and industrial battery projects. However, as shown by the graph it’s ancillary protections and installation that can drive the cost through the roof.

The benefit of taking a modular and panel based approach – as Yotta is doing – is that it allows developers to now avoid most if not all of those “extra” costs associated with these projects.

Yotta could create MWhs of easy-to-deploy storage capacity - which may position them as a leading player in deregulated electricity markets

The monetization of energy storage through VPP contracts or by trading flexible capacity on the wholesale markets (post FERC 2222) makes Yotta a really interesting player going into the future.

The ability to rapidly deploy low cost energy storage in a market which struggles to adopt energy storage (small commercial and industrial) means they’ve discovered a way through their system architecture to bring new capacity into the marketplace.

The potential to play in these markets and generate additional revenue from the creation of this capacity makes them positioned as a strong candidate even as other similar technologies may prop up.

Outlook

Yotta excites me given their key focus on servicing the small commercial and industrial niche. This sector has remained largely untouched from a financing, install base and adoption front purely because economics have been limited even with tax incentives.

New technological approaches like Yotta’s are what are needed to open this sector up.

About The Author

Swarnav S Pujari

Founder of The Impact

By training he’s a Materials Engineer with a background in research from his time at Georgia Tech and University of Illinois (UIUC).

The post Yotta Energy Is Making Storage Easy To Deploy On Commercial Buildings appeared first on The Impact.

Everyone Should Understand The Carbon Cycle

Stephanie Zulman — Mon, 06 Sep 2021 23:28:22 +0000

Earth’s burning. Literally. And finally, we are beginning to see large swaths of our population turn their heads towards the threat of increasingly obnoxious global warming and begin to ask what they can do to help. The best way that I think I can add value is by helping address one of climate change’s most time-sensitive variables: the atmospheric oversaturation of carbon dioxide. When I brightly proclaim my aspirations to have a career in this less popular Earth-saving field called carbon capture, I’m most often met with blank stares and uncomfortable chuckles as if I’ve suddenly started speaking in tongues. So, I’ll usually give a quick explainer: “our skies are already oversaturated with carbon dioxide and other harmful particulates, and it’s crucial to suck as much of it out as we can ASAP to survive climate change.“

What has really fascinated me is that the second reaction I’m met with most often is: “Well, what about the trees? Can’t we just plant more trees?”

I usually struggle at this point with how to articulate a neat description of the practical and scientific reasons why a mass effort to plant trees will not simply solve this issue, or whether I should just scream “NO” and find the nearest bag to hyperventilate into. The global warming puzzle we now must solve is complex. Many of its pieces are wrought out of fires that we have forged ourselves. Others are linked to the very fabric of the natural world and its codependent ecosystems.

Carbon capture, an essential tool that’s finally starting to receive the attention it deserves as a necessity to combat climate change, is still a field that much of the population does not understand. Even without the heavy touch of humanity-induced climate change, capturing carbon atoms is still a pivotal component of Earth’s interconnected carbon cycle. It works well independently and can put up with a moderate number of unasked contributions. Understanding how Earth did it before we came around messing up the balance and needing more aggressive means to control our pollution propensity is the first step to appreciate why we should really all become some type of tree hugger.

The Earth & Atmosphere's Operational Relationship with Carbon

The Science Behind the Cycle

To appreciate the impact of trees, one has to first understand what their role is in the big picture of Earth’s normal operations. So, let’s talk about the carbon cycle. On the most basic level, photosynthesis (CO2 absorption) and respiration (CO2 release) are the two fundamental processes involved in exchanging carbon atoms between Earth’s atmosphere and its terrestrial biosphere (aka land-based vegetation). Through the process of photosynthesis, plants emit oxygen and store carbon to become what we call a carbon sink. Respiration provides what’s known as a carbon source. The oldest, expected emitters are animals and slain/decaying plants. However, older and larger concentrations of carbon, previously undisturbed until human intervention, have become a more venerable carbon source. Our impact has been so significant that we’ve even given our pollution contribution from human activities its own name: anthropogenic carbon emissions. In the past 80,000 years, the planet hasn’t seen anywhere near as high a concentration of particles in the atmosphere as there are right now.

The Scourge of Anthropogenic Emissions

The carbon cycle does the best that it can to balance the massive excess of carbon atoms we’ve been emitting. The terrestrial biosphere absorbs approximately one-fourth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions annually. The ocean absorbs another fourth, and the remaining half of our emissions remain in the atmosphere. While there are many other polluting particulates, CO2 is a favorite to focus on because it accounts for the highest percentage of emissions at about 80% and has been proven to be the key gas that sets the Earth’s temperature. It stays in the atmosphere for the longest period of time(scientists estimate this lifespan to be between 300 and 1,000 years), and hotboxes the Earth by trapping heat that would otherwise escape and re-emitting it back down to us.

A resounding theme we can see in nature from a macro to subatomic particle level is an innate propensity for homeostasis. Without our help or knowledge, our planet has already figured out many clever mechanisms that it deploys to create its own checks and balances system. When temperatures rise, the rate of photosynthesis and respiration naturally increase. However, at the aptly named climate tipping point, this balance is predicted to cease. At this point of atmospheric oversaturation, although the rate of respiration will continue to function normally, photosynthesis will begin to decline. So, as the scales become imbalanced, we’ll find that we all have much less oxygen to go around.

Outlook

Measuring carbon levels is important because it is our planet’s natural thermometer. Earth’s atmosphere regulates temperature and will respond to extreme imbalances much like how the human body does once it reaches an internal temperature of around 104°F (40°C): the major organs that give us life will begin to break down. At 107°F (41.67°C), the body’s most likely not going to bounce back. Scientists have determined that after the Earth’s temperature rises past 2°C (which is expected to happen by the end of this century), the planet will experience a similar phenomenon. We’re currently predicted to hit the 1.5°C marker by 2030, so expect even bigger, more dramatic changes on the murky, clogged horizon.

The doomsday level temperature increase is equivalent to a rise in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 of between 425-450 parts per million (ppm). Before humanity went all-in for fossil fuels, preindustrial levels of carbon dioxide were 280 ppm. According to NASA’s James Hansen, a top climate scientist, the “safe” upper limit was really 350 ppm. Earth, by herself, needed 20,000 years to go from 185 ppm to that preindustrial 280 level measured in 1850. According to Hansen’s op-ed, at 550 ppm, we’d reach catastrophic temperatures previously last seen when sea levels were 80 feet higher. So, we all have that to look forward to, too.

According to CarbonTracker, the global monthly mean of anthropogenic emissions sitting in the atmosphere was 416.49 ppm as of May of this year. Overall, the data shows an easy to interpret summary: the concentration of particulates in our atmosphere is consistently still on the rise every single year.

With this newfound appreciation of the carbon cycle’s importance in keeping our planet cool, we can see how and why our pollution propensity is pulling us towards catastrophic climate change. There is an urgent need to start pulling as much carbon out of the atmosphere as possible. Now begins our tree-hugging trekk to appreciate why we must both plant and protect trees, and deem the strength of their role as a carbon sink. For the sake of simplicity, this series will only examine the tree-related variables helping and hindering our progress to dial back Earth’s rising fever.

About The Author

Stephanie Zulman

Partner • Editor-in-Chief @ The Impact

The post Everyone Should Understand The Carbon Cycle appeared first on The Impact.

Why Clean Energy Startups Underestimate Selling To Utilities

Swarnav S Pujari — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 21:28:03 +0000

Working and building solutions in the energy industry is complex – especially for new energy tech startups.

Be it new geothermal solutions or even natural cave/mine based energy storage solutions – every single energy tech startup faces the same navigation hurdles in selling to utilities.

Utilities think differently and operate highly dependent on their local geography, political preferences and ISO.

This energy market is at a point where if in the US the grid nationalized, 1000s of clean energy entrepreneurs would wake up in a utopia as it would become easier to estimate what the economics of their new energy technology would deliver in each state.

These days if a clean energy startup has a team member with previous experience in selling to utilities – they may even be able to land governments as their initial customer.

You Need To Demonstrate Significant Revenue Gains Or Significant Loss Reductions

Help utilities avoid or reduce the losses on their balance sheet even more than create new revenue streams. Given the regulations around being a utility or a retailer – many times utilities will end up going deep into the red with a full region of customers. This could be due to the standard O&M costs they have with servicing those customers or even caused by the location + energy usage profiles of their customers – in turn driving up transmission costs.

Startups that can effectively demonstrate that their technology can reduce losses at a tenth of the current alternative’s cost, increase their odds of landing a contract significantly.

Even still plan for a 6-month-to-pilot and 18-month-to-contract sales cycle. If it’s a big enough purchase you’ll have to deal with the ISO as well, but that’s for a later article.

Innovation Departments Are Your Way In, But Not Where You Close

Innovation departments are great, they are paid to look for startups and have specific types of companies they are actively seeking. The best part is that they tend to know the right stakeholders within the utility you’re attempting to sell to – which means easier access when it comes time to selling to the right stakeholder.

However, many times startups get stuck in this part of the process – running pilots and losing money on deals.

Hardware is expensive and even cloud software costs money to operate. Pilot budgets rarely end up making startups net positive in terms of revenue. This strategy is perfectly fine until the startup realizes that the utility didn’t have this as a priority action within their needs list as innovation departments may run pilots for technologies they know are years away from the implementation stages.

When navigating a pilot with a utility via an innovation department the most important thing is ensuring frequent, pre-scheduled calls with the stakeholder(s) within the utility that you believe your technology makes the life easier of.

9 times out of 10 get to know the CFO…

Can You Really Beat The Economics Of Solar?

If you’re an energy tech company this answer has to be a resounding yes to even be considered for a conversation.

Now where many energy tech startups tend to falter is forgetting to check all their regions solar incentives. Speak with installers & engineering firms that specialize in utility grade solar projects – they tend to have people on staff who can do deep dives into finding and structuring solar projects in a way where tax incentives and intelligent deal structuring can effectively make your energy technology not worth a single look.

This makes it challenging for frontier energy tech solutions like geothermal to truly take off at a large scale.

While the Department of Energy funds many projects for pilot purposes, utilities rarely want to make the move to be a first mover on frontier solutions until incentives significantly drive the cost well below the cost of solar.

Does That Region Even Need Anymore Power?

This question alone can either save you months of heartache or if you’ve gone too far along it’s going to cost you months of your life and kill the project on the spot.

Community solar projects have been blocked by the Midwest ISO in Missouri because the grid already has too much capacity available, so solar would just be adding more to a system that can’t use everything available.

Solar farms in locations that have no additional demand needs can kill an entire project and if the power lines can’t support the capacity expected to be flowing through it can throw the economics out the door entirely if not kill the project as well.

Also be prepared to speak in terms of capacity factor as opposed the traditional “kWh” lingo residential and commercial solar installers convince you to purchase on – working with the grid is a different beast all together.

So how do new energy tech companies combat these challenges?

Unfortunately, they can’t easily – The best way is to come prepared.

Ensure your solution is fitting into locations where outdated peaker plants or soon to be retired coal plants are located – these are regions with capacity most likely needing to be filled
Explore every possible incentive or grant you can fall under to drive the project economics far below a solar project in the same region (don’t compare location, utilities think based on their service territories)
Most importantly find service territories where utilities actively lose money on every customer they service (utilities are obligated to service at a specified rate, even if it loses them money). If you can locate a region where your energy technology can be utilized and it results in significant savings to the utility by “islanding” customers which currently lose them money – you have a serious opportunity on your hands.

How To Think About Utility Sales Going Forward

A utility’s sole purpose isn’t to buy as much solar as they humanly can afford. Their purpose to ensure uptime across the grid and service all of their customers while making money and dealing with regulatory checks and balances.

Everyone – even those within utilities are mostly bought into the transition to clean energy sources. However, it’s the pace at which they can decommission and adapt solar or your energy technology into the grid that tends to make these projects complex.

While typically ill advised in “Silicon Valley Startup Lingo” – you need to find where you can fit your technology into the utility’s roadmap and needs for power across their service territory. Partnerships with developers may help with finding opportunities though it’s not a usually viable option in the early days.

The best way is to be intimately familiar with the region and state you believe your energy technology can dominate in. Winning a single region in the US alone is a huge success – especially if it helps drive more trust into the type of clean energy solution you’re working on bringing into the market.

About The Author

Swarnav S Pujari

Founder of The Impact

By training he’s a Materials Engineer with a background in research from his time at Georgia Tech and University of Illinois (UIUC).

The post Why Clean Energy Startups Underestimate Selling To Utilities appeared first on The Impact.

How Local Towns & Cities Could Be The Best Early Adopters Of Microgrids

Swarnav S Pujari — Tue, 13 Jul 2021 18:56:21 +0000

While microgrids and distributed energy resources (DERs) have picked up in popularity over the past few years within a small, yet vocal audience of energy infrastructure enthusiasts – like myself – it has demonstrated slow adoption.

Most companies entering into the space tend to struggle predominately with a mix of finding sources of capital to finance projects or struggle with customer acquisition.

However, many startups – whether providing a new hardware or software solution – may find success tapping into the budgets of cities and towns in climate progressive states like NY or CA.

Follow The State & Utility Subsidy Programs

I’ve worked in the climate space and in local politics for years now – predominately focused on DERs. Among the most untouched sources of capital that are rarely reported on are the ones made available directly to local governments to adopt new energy infrastructure.

Startups can leverage these programs as a means to drive adoption of their systems – mainly because cost tends to not be the barrier for adoption.

ConEdison in NY subsidies up to 100% of EV charging infrastructure for approved towns as of writing this, NYPA may cover the entire cost of putting solar on government-owned properties should the capacity result in reasonable community solar economics, and NYSERDA subsidizes a significant portion of energy efficiency upgrades through grants provided directly to the town or city.

However, many startups tend to miss the chance to bid for these projects or introduce their alternative to local town or city councils.

How To Win RFPs For State-Funded Grants

Crafting your product to fit within the constraints of the grant and creating relationships within both the grant issuing organization and local towns and cities is extremely important. Larger entities like ChargePoint or Flo will have dedicated regional sales managers who go out and actively engage in local politics as a means to understand the challenges each community is facing – which results in making effective introductions of your solution at the right time.

The best way to win or be in strong consideration for these town or city level DER related grants is to be:

Entirely or mostly subsidized by the grant giver
Highly de-risked by the grant giver (if utility issuing grant, get pre-approved through utility, this helps bypass the “previous projects” concern)

Managing Sales Timelines & Burn Rate With Government Grants

As with any SMB sale or Enterprise sale, you must plan for a 6 – 18 month close time. However, for many deep tech cleantech solutions in the DER space looking to close their first “commercial sale” it’s best to start building relationships within your local community and engaging as a thought leader in your sector well before you’re ready to begin your commercialization phase.

Most early sales for startups when dealing with local towns or cities tend to come from personal relationships.

Programs like 76West in NY are a great example of how local city partnerships can result in funding opportunities for startups.

So, if you or a team member have time over a weekend – investing early in learning about funding opportunities being issued to local towns or cities – it is highly likely you can get your first few sales with a government – though you should plan to be as competitive as possible during the RFP process.

How Local Town Climate Funding Will Prove Valuable For Climate Focused Startups

These grants are issued to help move states closer to their overarching climate goals. With bipartisan support for new renewable and resilient grid infrastructure, there are new programs being introduced across the US to help each community tap into state funding to make the climate-friendly choice.

As startups begin to learn the landscape of these grants I fully expect to see this as a preferred route for many hardware and software DER startups to get an early customer. As these grants make DER projects rather de-risked for many of these local towns.

About The Author

Swarnav S Pujari

CEO @ TouchLight | Founder of The Impact

Swarnav is the CEO of TouchLight, a utility backed energy company that develops grid-edge management software for residential and commercial properties.

Concurrently, Swarnav founded The Impact to help provide a platform for operators within the industry to share their opinions about how the cleantech space is evolving. He also is appointed as the Chairman for the Town of Yorktown’s CSC Task Force, where he helps with legislation and sustainability efforts within the town.

Swarnav has a background in building physical products and has been working in the energy space for a decade. He also holds 2 patents and is active in the tech, energy and finance industries.

The post How Local Towns & Cities Could Be The Best Early Adopters Of Microgrids appeared first on The Impact.

What Is The Cost Of Innovation In Energy?

Swarnav S Pujari — Wed, 05 Aug 2020 17:33:38 +0000

If you ain’t trying bold ideas then there is damn well sure no way we are going to make progress towards transitioning our electrical grid to clean and renewable infrastructure.

The DOE or Department of Energy is known to take risks on bold ideas. We as taxpayers provide that capital to help support frontier ideas to make it into market.

In this case the DOE loaned Tonopah Solar Energy LLC $737 Million to fund its solar thermal plant in Nevada. Sadly, Tonopah filed for bankruptcy while still owing the government $425 M on its loans…Based on the bankruptcy proceedings the government will still recover $200 M of this loan.

Now in the large scheme of things – $700 M ain’t nothing for the government to worry about – but what it does set is a bad precedent for the DOE’s loan guarantee program built under the Bush administration.

The goal was to fund risky projects that typical financiers stay away from – which is a good thing at a high level – but it doesn’t necessarily drive innovation in the way we should be focusing. More capital doesn’t allow companies to brute force into a market.

If just having unlimited piles of cash would make a company or technology profitable, the art of building business wouldn’t be what it is. In fact – what I believe this has done is set a bad taste in investors mouths for continuing to fund risky, frontier and thought provoking technologies that may have an impact.

What I believe can be done to continue to drive innovation – with support from the DOE and/or private companies is take an approach similar to what Creative Destruction Lab or CDL does with “high-tech” founders who want to bring their technology to market.

Invest in resources to monitor go-to-market potential.

Before building a plant of massive scale – build the smallest possible one to start discovering key flaws in the technology. NSF grants and certain SBIR grants do this really well. The loan program should follow those processes to the T.

While the loans may have been given to more mature risky technologies – making large scale loans to single companies ristricts the amount of innovation you can fund.

Capital is out there at every single stage of growth – clean tech especially…This space isn’t like growing a software company in the bay area but what it does bring is the opportunity to test 100s of different innovations at a relatively low cost.

New reporting suggests that this bankruptcy proceeding operates as protection and Tonopah is working on finding ways to get back into the market…even though their semi operational plant is selling power at nearly $110/MWh more than a traditional solar farm…

About The Author

Swarnav S Pujari

Founder of The Impact

By training he’s a Materials Engineer with a background in research from his time at Georgia Tech and University of Illinois (UIUC).

The post What Is The Cost Of Innovation In Energy? appeared first on The Impact.