Krispy's blog

Blog

  • The war of currents will become a battle lost

    “I have never failed”

    Thomas Edison

    The headlines from the Dutch Newspaper NRC Handelsblad on Thursday, April 26th 2012 read:

    Global player landing in Rotterdam

    We would have chosen a different headline, because the global player meant is General Electric, founded by Thomas Edison. He improved the light bulb and lay the foundation for today’s electrical distribution system. His company, GE, is an important linking pin between generating and using renewable energy. That linking pin is direct current (DC). A technology that lay at the foundation of General Electric over 150 years ago and a technology that will be used in a smart grid pilot at the municipality of Haarlemmermeer that will start soon.

    War of Currents
    In 1879 Thomas Edison introduced his improved version of the light bulb. He soon discovered that an electrical distribution system was needed to provide power to light bulbs. Therefore he built the world’s first electricity network with a voltage of 110 Volt. It was based on direct current (DC), which worked well with incandescent lamps, which were the principal load of the day, and with motors. Direct current systems could be directly used with storage batteries, providing valuable load-leveling and backup power during interruptions of generator operation. Direct-current generators could be easily paralleled, allowing economical operation by using smaller machines during periods of light load and improving reliability. The disadvantage of direct current at that time was that power generation needed to be close to the load, because there was no efficient low-cost technology that would allow reduction of a high transmission voltage to a low utilization voltage. To overcome this disadvantage Edison choose a distributed generation system.

    The alternating current system (AC) had first developed in Europe. In North America one of the believers in the new technology was George Westinghouse, one of the opponents of Edison. Westinghouse was willing to invest in the technology and hired, amongst others, Nikola Tesla to study the design of Edison and further develop the alternating current system. After vigorous campaigns by both Edison and Tesla to demonstrate the danger of using the opponents system alternating current became the dominant standard, both in Europe and the USA.

    The use of alternating current gave the opportunity to increase the distance between power stations and loads. Alternating current set the stage for large scale, centralized power generation.

    The silent revolution towards DC
    The alternating current network dates from a time that load consisted of lamps, heaters and electric motors, but the development of technology hasn’t come to a standstill since setting the standard to AC. Direct current has been returning nearby in three different forms: electronic devices, sustainable energy and energy storage.

    The invention of the “transistor” in the year 1947 forms the starting point of the silent revolution towards direct current. Transistors form the fundamental building block for the development of complex electronic equipment. Currently almost all current electronic equipment and electrical devices use DC internally. Alternating current from the grid is converted to direct current using a AC/DC transformer for internal use in electronic equipment like mobile phones, computers and led-lights.

    The last decades see a shift towards sustainable energy within the European Union. The share of power generated by wind, water, solar and co-generation is rising, especially in Germany with it’s feed-in system. All those forms of sustainable energy generate direct current which has to be transformed to alternating current to feed it back in to the grid. To be able to integrate offshore wind farms the Dutch grid operator Tennet, which owns part of the German grid, wants to construct a DC network. High Voltage Direct Current is already used for bulk transmission of energy from distant generating stations or for interconnection of separate alternating-current systems.

    Sustainable power generation will be rising in the Netherlands too. For example solar power is expected to grow rapidly in The Netherlands, as grid parity for consumers and small business is (almost) reached at current retail electricity prices. Some municipalities and local energy cooperatives are already pioneering with large scale solar energy systems, where people without a suitable rooftop crowd-fund the needed investment. In return they receive the electricity generated instead of a financial return.

    After sustainable energy has been transformed to alternating current for transport over the grid it has to be converted back to direct current again to be used by our electronic devices and led-bulbs or to be stored in (car) batteries. That doesn’t sound very efficient does it?

    This does bring us to the third form of DC we encounter close by: batteries. With the coming age of the electric car and all the fuzz about ‘range anxiety’ it might be good to know a Dutch company exists that can deliver a range of up ot 300 kilometers using a DC powertrain and replacing the AC/DC transformer with extra batteries.

    Rotterdam or GE can be the connection

    In the municipality of Haarlemmermeer Direct Current BV, Stichting Gelijkspanning (the direct current foundation) and their partners are working on a smart grid based on direct current. The pilot has received subsidy from the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture & Innovation. This regional grid will be operating on voltages in excess of 300 Volt. The smart grid based on direct current will link sustainable power generation with users of the electricity, for example charge stations for electric cars.

    Direct current could also be used to provide shore supply of electricity to ships in the Rotterdam harbour significantly improving air quality in the Rotterdam area. If Haarlemmermeer deems to far for Rotterdam perhaps a GE executive is landing at Schiphol Airport to visit the Rotterdam plant can drop by and learn more about what Stichting Gelijkspanning, Direct Current and their partners are up to with DC, the technology used by it’s founding father Thomas Edison. That would return GE to its roots and help bridge the gap between sustainable power generation, power storage and the sustainable use of electricity. It could also make the war on currents lost by GE a lost battle.

    As they say in Rotterdam:

    Not words but deeds!

    This contribution was originally written for and published at TEDxBinnenhof in close collaboration with Bob Zijderveld, independent Consultant DC, Conventions and member of the board at Stichting Gelijkspanning.

  • Dutch innovations in air quality

    The environmental policy debate has been taken over by climate change for years. With some backlash lately because of climate denialism. Most discussion about climate change focus on reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide into the air. In this post I will argue that it is better for both public health and fighting climate change to shift focus to non-CO2 greenhouse gases and air pollution for the short term, leaving the reduction of actual CO2 emission to the future. Do I hear some climate fighters cry wolf already? :P

    Let me be very clear: I trust climate scientist when they say irreversible climate change is upon us if we don’t act now. I equally understand the peak oil statements about shrinking oil and gas reserves and rising fossil energy prices. I also know a large part of The Netherlands is within European air quality standards. And still I argue the focus to combat climate change should be on air quality, especially if The Netherlands want to give their entrepreneurs a head start. As a researcher once provocatively said to me: the carbon price will be zero if Europe reaches the CAFE air quality standards timely…

    The problem
    A few years ago I attended a workshop about the interconnection between transboundery air pollution and climate change. The research presented showed it might be more effective to combat climate change by combatting soot and air pollution (like nitrogen oxides and methane).

    Carbon black, as soot was called by the researchers, is formed mainly through incomplete combustion of both fossil and biofuels. The researchers told that part of the carbon black rains down in snowy areas, where it turns the snow darker. Thereby increasing the amount of solar radiation absorbed, thus raising the temperature of the snow which makes it melt… That’s one good reason to focus on reducing air pollution by carbon black for The Netherlands.

    A second good reason to focus on carbon black has to do with human health. Carbon black is associated with a lot of human health problems ranging from asthma to heart diseases. Human health can be an important driver for environmental policy and a researcher from the Dutch Environmental Agency (PBL) recently wrote an article suggesting reducing soot can be very effective to improve impact from air pollution on human health.

    I know The Netherlands manage to comply to current European air quality standards. But still our air quality is a far cry from the long term CAFE objective:

    to achieve levels of air quality that do not result in unacceptable impacts on, and risks to, human health and the environment.

    Especially because the scientific evidence that smaller carbon black particles have more adverse health effects. Those small particles are not yet regulated, but local politicians know that their citizens are worried and either use it in their campaign or reject to build schools and houses next to highways.

    Carbon black isn´t the only air pollution problem. Ozone is another one. Although the ozone layer on high altitudes is necessary to prevent skin cancer, ground level ozone forms a threat to human health. Recent research by Plant Research International (Dutch pdf) based upon data supplied by Crops Advance shows that exposure to ozone also significantly decreases the ability of plants and trees to absorb carbon dioxide. This effect can be significantly and can reduce the Carbon Use Efficiency of commercial crops up to 46%. If plants are exposed to ozone as seedlings the effect remains even after the ozone level decreases. Perhaps it’s more logical to increase the carbon use efficiency of commercial crops by reducing air quality before spending our money on putting carbondioxide undergroud…

    The carbon use efficiency can be increased by reducing ozone concentrations at ground level. Ozone is formed as a result of other air polluting emissions, mainly volatile organic compounds (VOC’s, such as methane) and nitrogen oxides. Both are emitted by burning fossil and biofuels. But VOC’s are also released during transport and storage of fossil fuels, and some of them, like methane, are very potent greenhouse gasses. So considering the fact that non-CO2 greenhouse gases (like methane) are responsible for over 50% of the greenhouse effect focussing on air quality to combat climate change is less strange then it looks on the outset.

    The solution
    The solution to the above problem for the long term is to decrease the amount of combustion fuel needed by increasing the production of sustainable energy that don’t need combustion and electrification, like electric cars. The short term solution is to use innovations at hand to reduce the emissions of air polluting substances like VOC’s, carbon black and nitrogen dioxide. Several Dutch companies can provide such solutions and research shows that providing them a home market is very favorable to gain traction on the world market.

    So let’s show some examples of Dutch companies that can provide world class solutions to combat air pollution.

    Teigro: VentClean-system
    The VentoClean-System is a special explosion proof machine for the degassing and recovering of hydrocarbons out of tanks and hoses in the shipping industry and bulk storage. It has been developed to clean tanks and hoses from gases and residues quickly after the tanks have been emptied. Through a condensation process gases and residues are brought back to the original product in liquid form very quickly. The high speed together with the high ventilation capacity of the system are also caused by bringing back a higher optimum temperature in the tanks and hoses, this temperature is re-used from the condensation process.

    The VentoClean-Systems had advantages for both people, planet and profit. To start with the profit part: In short the VentoClean-System saves costs and increases turnover. By using the VentoClean-System the tanks are immediately employable, washing is not necessary and there is hardly any waste or slobs.

    As the system can be used independent from location and time, ships that have been equipped with the VentoClean-System become more flexible and are employable more rapidly. The extra shipping hours caused by ventilation can be brought back, port and lock costs can be reduced and a backload can be loaded more often.

    The gains for the planet consist of less waste or slobs, less washing of tanks and reducing the need for ventilation in open air decreases air polluting emissions. Less air polluting emissions is also good for people, as the system can also be used to clean tanks containing carcinogenic substances like benzene.

    Accede: Cairbags
    Fixed Roof Tank Bag 300x180Accede has developed a concept they call Cairbags for use in tanks. This short movie explains how Cairbags work.

    A Cairbag is an aircushion that is installed and inflated in the container of the trailer or truck, especially if the container is only partially filled with a liquid load. The Cairbag fills at all times that space that is not filled by the liquid, preventing the presence of free air. The effect of the Cairbag is that it decreases the emission and evaporation of liquids in a partially or fully filled tank. Therefore the Cairbag contributes to better air quality along shipping routes, both coastal and inland. A Cairbag also increases the fuel efficiency for trucks that use them.

    Cairbags can also be used in tank terminals to reduce emissions to air. When they are combined with a Linerbag emissions to both air and groundwater can be reduced to (almost) zero. Leaving a larger volume of products to sell and increasing air quality in the surrounding area.

    Greentec Oils
    Greentec Oils increases the fuel efficiency of existing engines and reduces the emission of both nitrogen oxides and soot. This is done by a combination of a special biobased oil, adjustments to the engine which make it run smoother and an addendum to improve fuel quality. Confidential data I’ve seen show generators use 10% less fuel and emission from soot and nitrogen oxides are reduced up to 80%.

    HMVT: Corona
    HMVT is developing the Corona Air Purification system together with Eindhoven University of Technology (TUe) and Oranjewoud. The name Corona refers to the phenomenon of air conducting electricity under the influence of a powerful electric field without making a full discharge circuit. The Corona Air Purifier cleanses vapours with the help of pulsed high-voltage electricity, also known as Pulsed Power. The Corona Air Purification system can remove substances like VOC’s, nitrogen oxides, particle matters and traffic emissions with rates ranging from 50% up to 99%.

    Needed action by government
    First and foremost the current separation between air quality and climate change policy should be reconsidered. People are much more likely to act on air quality, as air pollution has a direct effect on both human health and agricultural output and can have a profound and almost immediate effect.  Both local and national authorities can play their part by not settling for a C minus for air quality.

    On the second place a home market for the above mentioned companies can be created. One of the main lessons from research to the critical success factors for clean tech done by both the European Union and World Wildlife Foundation is that a home market gives a large competitive advantage to clean tech companies. Nothing is more convincing and compelling for foreign customers than being able to show that your technology is being used in your own country. After all a sales pitch containing the phrase this technology is not yet used (or not even allowed) in my own country will not be very convincing, of even a sales pitch at all!

    Creating a home market requires more than providing innovation subsidies or R&D funding. It requires an environment where government and entrepreneurs form partnerships to bring technology to the market. Also Dutch government should take an active role in setting at least European standards for clean tech, as we’ve recently done for electric cars.

    If this is done wisely the above mentioned technologies have the potential improve air quality both in The Netherlands and worldwide. Improving air quality will decrease health care cost, save millions of people from air pollution related illness, increase agricultural production (one of our top sectors) and even stall climate change as a side effect…

    So let’s hope some we’ll see some Dutch clean tech on the Catwalk for Innovation next month.

    This post was originally witten for and published by TEDxBinnenhof. Thanks to my former collegues for pointing me to the companies and research mentioned in this post. And to Ivo Stroeken, Advisor Electric Transportation, and Max Herold, owner at Managementissues.com for critically reviewing draft versions.

  • Concept verkiezingsprogramma GroenLinks 2012: voorstel voor aanpassing bij de vervuiler betaalt

    In het concept verkiezingsprogramma van GroenLinks staat uiteraard dat GroenLinks een verdere vergroening van de economie nastreeft. Maatregel 1 en 10 onder B de vervuiler betaalt van het concept verkiezingsprogramma zou ik echter graag aangescherpt zien. Ik ben zelf niet bij het verkiezingscongres (andere verplichtingen), maar hieronder mijn voorstel voor een alternatiev tekst voor hoofstuk 1B, bij punt 1 en 10.

    Hoe luiden ze nu:

    1. Alle subsidies die niet passen in een duurzame economie worden afgebouwd. Resterende subsidies worden, waar mogelijk, vervangen door overheidsgaranties en –kredieten.

    10. Er worden geen vergunningen verstrekt voor boringen naar schaliegas zolang we onvoldoende weten over de risico’s voor mens en milieu. Ook bij andere risicovolle technieken staat het voorzorgsbeginsel centraal. Initiatiefnemers moeten kunnen aantonen dat hun techniek veilig is.

    Hoe zou ik ze graag willen zien (cursief is toevoeging op basis van avondje knutselen, dus is vast nog voor verbetering vatbaar):

    1. Alle subsidies en fiscale regels en investeringsarrangementen die niet passen in een duurzame economie worden afgebouwd. Resterende subsidies worden, waar mogelijk, vervangen door overheidsgaranties en –kredieten.

    10. Er worden geen vergunningen verstrekt voor boringen naar schaliegas zolang we onvoldoende weten over de risico’s voor mens en milieu. Ook bij andere risicovolle technieken staat het voorzorgsbeginsel centraal. Initiatiefnemers moeten kunnen aantonen dat hun techniek veilig is. De Nederlandse overheid sluit investeringen in schaliegas via Energiebeheer Nederland uit.

    Waarom?

    De formulering van 1 bevat een kleine voetangel. Het klinkt namelijk zo mooi, maar het werkt net als met de hypotheekrenteaftrek. Ministers van Financien hebbe deze de afgelopen jaren stelselmatig weigeren te beoordelen op effectiviteit. Het is juridisch gezien namelijk geen subsidie of belastingheffing, maar een aftrekpost. En het effect van aftrekposten wordt niet geevalueerd.

    Evenzo kan Bernard Wientjes (ondanks zijn oude uitspraak duurzaamheid = innovatie) rustig volhouden dat er geen sprake is van subsidies voor bv. fossiele energie. Economisch heeft hij ongelijk, fiscaal en juridisch heeft hij echter gelijk. Het gaat namelijk om fiscale voordelen (bv. vervroegd afschrijven van investeringen in kleine gasvelden), investeringsregelingen (bv. de risicodragende investeringen van Energiebeheer Nederland in exploratie en exploitatie van Nederlandse gas- en olievelden, dus ook van teerzandolie en in de toekomst van schaliegas) en degressieve tarieven (bv. van de energieheffing waar het idee is dat bedrijfsleven en particulieren beide 50% van de opbrengst ophoesten). Voor vergroening is het dus zaak om te zorgen dat ook fiscaal voordelige regels en investeringsregelingen aangepast worden. Dat is een taaier proces dan subsidies afschaffen, maar wel broodnodige voor een duurzame economie.

    Bij de huidige formulering van punt 10 weten olie- en gasbedrijven nog steeds dat ze voor 40% van het benodigde kapitaal voor de winning van schaliegas een beroep kunnen doen op de Nederlandse staat (zoals Nederland via EBN ook in de winning van teerzandolie in Schoonebeek investeert). Die investeringen zijn risicodragend, wat betekent dat de Nederlandse staat tot 40% (of minder als de staat een kleiner deel van het veld heeft) van het financiële risico van proefboringen (exploratie) en winning voor haar rekening neemt. Sinds de RSV affaire is de olie- en gasindustrie de enige sector die permanent op zulke ruimhartige risicodragende ondersteuning kan rekenen. Het lijkt me hoog tijd dat GroenLinks zich hard gaat maken om daar wat aan te doen. Dat zorgt meteen voor een stukje extra risico en onzekerheid voor fossiele grondstofwinning. Voor de leden die het belang daar neit van snappen: Ik denk dat ieder lid van Holland Solar gratis komt uitleggen wat extra risico doet met je business case…

    Het is wel zaak om nog na te denken over de manier waarop je de aardgasbaten regelt als EBN niet investeert in schaliegaswinning.

    De concept tekst voor een amendement van deze strekking vind je hier.

  • Van zelflevering naar duurzame energiebaten

    Na het afsluiten van het Lenteakkoord is wel weer duidelijk geworden dat mooie plannen van politici makkelijk kunnen stranden in de angst voor verlies aan energiebelasting van ambtenaren. Daarom wordt de btw op zonnepanelen niet verlaagd en komen er slechts pilots met zelflevering van elektriciteit. Waarmee Nederland respectievelijk terug gaat naar de oude SDE situatie waarin het installeren van zonne-energie niet eens als seizoensarbeid aangemerkt kan worden en de pilot van Eneco en De Windvogel van een paar jaar weer dunnetjes overgedaan gaat worden.

    In een artikel in de NRC verwoord Liesbeth van Tongeren een aantal angsten van de ambtenaren van Financiën. De belangrijkste lijkt te zijn dat de btw verlaging een open einde regeling is, waarbij je niet weet hoeveel mensen er gebruik van gaan maken. Wat ook maakt dat het lastig is om het budgettair effect in te schatten. Alsof de energiebelasting bij de huidige tarieven en de doorgaande prijsdalingen voor duurzame energie nog een lang leven beschoren is op de particuliere woningmarkt? En dan hebben we het nog niet over de administratieve hel die uitbreekt als particulieren hun elektrische of plugin hybride auto in de toekomst als buffer gaan gebruiken… Het wegvallen van de opbrengst van energiebelasting lijkt ook de belangrijkste drijfveer achter de weerstand tegen “zonnetuintjes” of andere vormen van zelflevering. Liesbeth van Tongeren geeft aan er een warm voorstander van te zijn, daarom hieronder nogmaals de doorrekening van het alternatief voor de huidige energiebelasting: duurzame energiebaten.

    De probleemstelling

    Wanneer we zoals GroenLinks bij monde van Liesbeth van Tongeren uitgaan van particulieren hebben we het over een verlies aan inkomsten voor de belastingdienst van ongeveer € 0,15 per kWh (Energiebelasting € 0,1140, BTW: € 0,0364).

    In de huidige situatie maakt het uit waar of je voor of achter je meter elektriciteit opwekt. Heb je een geschikt dak dan vergelijk je de kosten van het zelf opwekken van elektriciteit met de prijs inclusief energiebelasting en btw die je betaalt aan je energiebedrijf. Het goedkoopste tarief dat ik vandaag kon vinden op Gaslicht.com was Greenchoice 1 jaar vast met een kostprijs van € 0,2278 per kWh, daarvan is € 0,0774 bestemd voor Greenchoice.

    Als je in de huidige situatie een zonnetuintje wil beginnen vergelijk je de kosten daarvan met € 0,0774, want je moet energiebelasting en btw betalen. Bij een kostprijs van € 0,08 per kWh ben je dus een dief van je eigen portemonnee totdat de energieprijs stijgt. Het risico ligt bovendien volledig bij de particuliere investeerders.

    Wat we dus zoeken is een alternatief systeem dat (een deel) van de vijftien Eurocent die Financiën ontvangt per kWh terugverdient voor de Nederlandse staat en bij voorkeur tegelijkertijd particulieren die investeren in een zonnetuintje, gezamenlijke windmolen of biovergister zekerheid biedt over de kostprijs.

    Een mogelijk alternatief: Duurzame energiebaten

    Duurzame energiebaten kunnen zo’n alternatief zijn. De opzet is gelijk met de opzet van de aardgasbaten: de Nederlandse staat investeert tot 40% risicodragend in duurzame energieprojecten en ontvangt daarvoor 40% van de opbrengsten, ook mag voor deze projecten geen SDE+ aangevraagd worden. Als het inkomstenverlies voor de rekenmeesters van Financiën te groot is kan het verkleind worden door een verlaagd energiebelastingtarief in te voeren voor duurzame energie, zoals dat bij de BPM ook bestaat voor energiezuinige auto’s.

    Het vehikel om de investering te doen bestaat al en heet Energie Beheer Nederland. Een 100% dochter van de Nederlandse staat, ondergebracht bij het Ministerie van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie. Een alternatieve mogelijkheid is om de financiering te regelen via een staatsdeelneming in de onlangs door Holland Financial Center voorgestelde Groene Investeringsmaatschappij.

    Rekenvoorbeeld 1: Windbaten

    De energieopbrengst en het aantal windmolens in het rekenvoorbeeld zijn aangepast n.a.v. tweet Pauline Westendorpdie op fout wees. De betreffende fout heeft geen effect op onderstaande berekeningen.

    In het laatste nummer van 2011 van het tijdschrift Milieu (van de Vereniging voor Milieuprofessionals) stond een artikel van Geert Bosch over de kosten van windenergie. Hij rekende voor dat een windmolen een windpark met 5 windmolens van 3 MW een investering vergt van 22,5 miljoen Euro en jaarlijks gemiddeld 23.000.000 33.000.000 kWh elektriciteit levert. De kostprijs bedraagt volgens Geert Bosch 9,6 Eurocent/kWh, dat is wat hoger dan de kostprijs waar ik bij De Windcentrale op uitkwam. De subsidie bedraagt 3,6 Eurocent per kWh volgens Geert Bosch.

    Bedragen in Eurocent/kWh Huidig Windbaten Windbaten met laag EB
    Kostprijs energie 7,74 9,60 9,60
    Energiebelasting (EB) 11,40 0,00 5,00
    BTW 3,64 0,00 0,00
    Subsidie windenergie -3,60 0,00 0,00
    Windbaten
    		5,27 5,27
    Saldo overheid 11,44 5,27 10,27
    Verschil met huidig
    		6,16 1,16
    Kostprijs consument 22,78 14,87 19,87
    Verschil met huidig
    		7,91 2,91

    Zoals je ziet ‘verliest’ de overheid bij de invoer van windbaten 6,168 Eurocent per kWh, terwijl de particulier er 7,9 Eurocent per kWh op vooruitgaat. Op jaarbasis bespaart de particulier op deze manier ruim Euro 270 op z’n energierekening (uitgaande van een jaarverbruik van 3.500 kWh). Als de overheid 5 Eurocent energiebelasting instelt resteert een verlies van 1,168 Eurocent per kWh voor de overheid, terwijl de particulier 2,9 Eurocent minder voor z’n elektriciteit betaalt. Voor de particulier resteert dan een daling van de energierekening van ongeveer Euro 100.

    In bovenstaande berekening is met een aantal zaken geen rekening gehouden:

    • kapitaalkosten voor de overheid;
    • de vermindering in kosten voor de overheid door het wegvallen van de mogelijkheid tot subsidie;
    • werkgelegenheidseffect;
    • mogelijke verandering in draagvlak (en daarmee proceskosten) en gedrag als mensen zelf voordeel hebben van windenergie, of er zelfs eigenaar van worden.

    Rekenvoorbeeld 2: Zonnebaten voor de meter

    Sterk in opkomst zijn momenteel de projecten waarbij gewerkt wordt aan zonnetuintjes. Bijvoorbeeld in Nijmegen (Zonnepark Nederland) en Amsterdam. Stel nu dat we de duurzame energiebaten invoeren voor collectieve zonnestroomprojecten, zoals in Nijmegen. Dan zie je de uitkomst per kWh hieronder (gebaseerd op het rekenvoorbeeld van Zonnepark Nijmegen).

    Bedragen in Eurocent/kWh Huidig Zonnebaten Zonnebaten met laag EB
    Kostprijs energie 7,74 17,80 17,80
    Energiebelasting (EB) 11,40 0,00 5,00
    BTW 3,64 0,00 0,00
    Subsidie zonne-energie -7,00 0,00 0,00
    Zonnebaten
    		1,99 1,99
    Saldo overheid 8,04 1,99 6,99
    Verschil met huidig
    		6,04 1,04
    Kostprijs consument 22,78 19,79 24,79
    Verschil met huidig
    		2,99 -2,01

    Voor projecten die voor SDE+ in aanmerking komen gaat de overheid er 6 cent op achteruit, gelijk aan windenergie. Als het gaat om projecten die momenteel zonder subsidie van de grond komen gaat de overheid er per saldo 13 cent op achteruit. De particulier gaat er bij het systeem van zonnebaten 3 Eurocent op vooruit. Dat is minder dan bij windenergie. Op jaarbasis kost zonne-energie de particulier 170 Euro meer dan windenergie (uitgaande van een jaarverbruik van 3.500 kWh), maar de particulier bespaart nog steeds ruim 100 Euro op z’n energierekening.

    Rekenvoorbeeld 3: Zonnebaten achter de meter

    Het aantal particulieren dat investeert in zonnepanelen op het eigen dak (als ze dat kunnen) is ook sterk groeiende (al is er een tijdelijke hickup door de komende subsidieregeling). Al deze mensen leveren de belastingdienst een derving van vijftien Eurocent per kilowattuur zelf opgewekte elektriciteit op. Natuurlijk staat daar een eenmalige opbrengst in de vorm van btw over de geïnstalleerde zonnepanelen tegenover, maar per saldo resteert al snel een inkomstenderving voor de overheid.

    Op eigen dak verliest de overheid in de huidige situatie 15 Eurocent per kWh die zelf opgewekt wordt. De invoer van zonnebaten vermindert dit met 3 Eurocent (uitgaande van de kostprijs van 15 Eurocent die ik eerder dit jaar berekend had). Als je uitgaat van de kostprijs van 8 Eurocent die Vincent Dekker van Trouw hanteert dan wordt het verlies vermindert tot 9 Eurocent, terwijl de particulier nog steeds 8,9 Eurocent per kWh goedkoper uit is. Op jaarbasis bedraagt het voordeel voor particulieren ruim 300 Euro (uitgaande van een jaarverbruik van 3.500 kWh).

    Bedragen in Eurocent/kWh Huidig Zonnebaten Zonnebaten met laag EB
    Kostprijs energie 7,74 8,00 8,00
    Energiebelasting (EB) 11,40 0,00 5,00
    BTW 3,64 0,00 0,00
    Subsidie zonne-energie
    		0,00 0,00
    Zonnebaten
    		5,91 5,91
    Saldo overheid 15,04 5,91 10,91
    Verschil met huidig
    		9,12 4,12
    Kostprijs consument 22,78 13,91 18,91
    Verschil met huidig
    		8,87 3,87

    In bovenstaande berekeningen is met een aantal zaken geen rekening gehouden:

    • kapitaalkosten voor de overheid;
    • de vermindering in kosten voor de overheid door het wegvallen van de mogelijkheid tot subsidie;
    • werkgelegenheidseffect;
    • mogelijke verandering in draagvlak en gedrag als mensen zelf voordeel hebben van zonne-energie, of er zelfs eigenaar van worden.

    Het verhogen van de energiebelasting en de btw die voor 2013 op het programma staan zal het aantal particulieren (of verhuurders van woonruimte aan particulieren) dat investeert in zonnepanelen op het dak enkel laten groeien. Kortom: door de dalende prijs van zonne-energie en de stijgende consumentenprijs voor elektriciteit is heeft de huidige energiebelasting z’n beste tijd gehad. Tijd dus om na te denken over alternatieven.

  • Electrifying the Dutch – Part 3: alternatives for the alternative

    Over the past few weeks I have written two articles on Electric Cars, part one & part two mentioning that electric cars are a valid alternative for the conventional car from an economical perspective and that these cars are offering mobility whilst considerably reducing the environmental impact. But still: can I use an electric car for my daily commute? Yes I can! Can I use an electric car to safely convey myself and my family across the Dutch countryside? Yes I can!  Can I get more than 100 km from a single charge without driving like my grandfather or without having to dress like entering an Antarctica expedition when temperatures fall? Yes I can!  Can I use an electric car to drive to Italy in my well-earned holidays? Yes I can! But I’d better make sure that I have extra time to spare.

    Obviously the present electric cars do have some drawbacks which stand in the way of an one on one substitution of conventional cars by electric models.

    First and foremost, an electric car needs time to charge. There is no denying that. Charging time differ from six to ten hours, which is generally more than the average motorist lingers at a petrol station. Adding injury to insult, a majority of households do not have a private parking space or the possibility to install a charging station. Luckily the number of public charging stations is steadily increasing, decreasing the need to carry around street lengths of extension wires. And most electric cars can use the fast charging protocol, decreasing the charging time till 90% to a mere 20 minutes. And if that’s still to long for you, some companies are aiming at replacing empty batteries with full ones in less then 3 minutes without the need to leave your car. The current aim is to realize well over 450 fast charging station across the Netherlands by the end of 2013, pretty much ending the feared syndrome known by all in the field of electric cars: range anxiety.

    Another point to be made is that, when confronted with the limited range of a battery, electric car owners are reassessing the need for mobility and are rapidly becoming the forerunners of a new breed motorist. The route to and from work, to meetings etc used to be determined by the amount of traffic, the possibility of grabbing a nice lunch of combining business with… well business, such as the daily shopping for groceries. Range anxiety and the knowledge that petrol stations are effectively around every corner called for a planning which was the most efficient for the motorist, but not necessarily the most efficient in general.

    With an electric car, users are looking for a more effective way to travel whilst meeting their demands and the effect is, to much surprise that the mileage is dropping without the number of meetings dropping. This simply means that users of an electric car are travelling more efficiently. The spacing and location of meetings is planned more effectively, decreasing the mileage. There is an increased use of car sharing programs also decreasing the mileage and – as a side-effect- decreasing the need for an employer to pay travel allowances.

    Electrifying the DutchBut still, there are few motorists who willingly substitute there fuel guzzler for an electric car (apart from perhaps the Tesla.) The question is whether we should aim for  this substitution? I believe that electric cars make a paradigm shift from ownership of mobility to access to mobility a reality.

    In the traditional way, we own a car. Or perhaps, in the case of a company car, we may not own the vehicle, but we sure feel like we own the car. One car (possibly two, for the school run), used for the daily commute, the trips to friends & family and holidays. One car, owned generally for more than four years. This car, seats four, generally transports 1,7 persons, travels less than 30 kilometers on a daily basis and carries a bag of some sorts, sometimes groceries. So it needn’t be a large car. But still it generally is, because we might want to travel to the grandparents over the weekend, or take off for a weekend to the Ardennes. So that is why we need a large conventional car, which can take us to Italy should we wish to.

    But picture this: what if we can use a small electric car for the daily commute, or, even better, use a small electric car readily available, for the commute to work or the shops. Very fuel efficient, and preferably paid only for the use of the car, instead of for owning the car. This vehicle can transport us where we want, given the radius. For example, to a train station. We hop into the train, check in with the same RIFD-card which we used to access the electric car, travel to our destination. Upon arriving, we can choose between a rental (e)bike, public transport or once again, the electric car in the vicinity of the station to transport us to the appointment. The route back home is a repetition of the above! A distant future? No, very possible today.

    And for the visit to the grandparents in Limburg, or a cycling weekend in the Ardennes? Could this limit our mobility, if we don’t have a large car with unlimited mileage given the petrol stations abound? No! All it takes is an innovative way of access to mobility! Access which delivers the car of choice (model, not necessarily make) to your doorstep without having to go through the hassle of going to a rental agency and renting a car. The car we need  would be available at the click of a button. Family with two young kids and up for a holiday trip to France? A station wagon! A romantic overnight stay? An Electric Smart! In need of a versatile, small and fast way of transport? Please. Use a bicycle!

    What about the costs of renting a different car every single time? Well, it may come as a surprise, but considering the costs of car ownership over the year, renting  a car which specifically suits your demands is significantly less expensive than paying for car ownership. And as proves earlier, an electric car as a rental makes the equation even more profitable.

    Is this possible today? Yes and no! There are very few providers who can offer such services but the main and limiting factor is us. We are very reluctant to give up the privilege of having a car at our disposal and mobility in its present form is still not too expensive for the average motorist to start reconsidering car ownership. Although some are renting their own car to others already.

    However, I, for one, am convinced that in due time, when petrol prices rise (and they will) and the travel allowance is once again being renegotiated, people will reconsider and will realize that in the end, having access to mobility far outweighs the ownership of mobility. Let’s dumb the pump.

    This post was orginally written for and published by TEDxBinnenhof in close collaboration with Ivo Stroeken, Advisor Electric Transportation, and Max Herold, owner at Managementissues.com.

  • Mijn MyC4 resultaten in maart t/m mei 2012

    Het is al weer even geleden dat ik de tijd heb gevonden om te kijken naar mijn resultaten bij MyC4. De afgelopen maanden zijn de afbetalingen wel gewoon doorgegaan en heb ik opnieuw geïnvesteerd in Afrikaanse ondernemers. In totaal heb ik de afgelopen maanden 295 afbetalingen met een totale waarde van €127.69 ontvangen. Daarmee heb ik 24 nieuwe ondernemers helpen financieren, 6 keer is dat niet gelukt omdat een andere investeerder genoegen nam met minder rente.

    Kwaliteit portfolio

    Momenteel heb ik 97 actieve leningen in portfolio. Hiervan liggen 39 ondernemers op schema met terugbetalen van hun lening. Van 25 ondernemers komt binnenkort een termijn binnen en 32 ondernemers lopen achter. Dat wat slechter dan in februari. Ik maak me echter niet zo heel veel zorgen om defaults, omdat de ondernemers die achterlopen het grootste deel van hun lening al hebben terugbetaald. Ook hoeft het feit dat ze gedurende de looptijd van hun lening een keer later zijn met betalen niet te betekenen dat het geld niet terugkomt.

    Winst/Verlies

    Tot nu toe schrijf ik in 2012 zwarte cijfers. Dat is voor het eerst sinds het startjaar 2008, dus ik hoop die stijgende lijn vast te houden. Met een rendement van 6% op het gemiddel geïnvesteerd vermogen doe ik het zelfs best aardig. Al blijft natuurlijk de vraag of ik het aan het eind van het jaar beter heb gedaan dan het resultaat van mijn dochter, voor wie ik via automatische biedingen een portfolio aan leningen heb lopen.

    Interest 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
    Earned interest before tax and currency € 12,75 € 44,08 € 25,37 € 29,28 € 16,11
    Paid tax on earned interest € 1,76- € 6,37- € 3,75- € 4,06- € 2,22-
    Currency gain/loss on earned interest € 0,10- € 2,61- € 0,50- € 2,22- € 0,30
    Earned interest after tax and currency € 10,89 € 35,11 € 21,11 € 23,00 € 14,19
    Principal
    Defaulted principal € 0,00 € 116,84- € 272,57- € 15,24- € 4,01-
    Recovered principal € 0,00 € 3,92 € 7,39 € 8,45 € 0,24
    Currency gain/loss on earned principal € 0,42- € 22,21- € 5,90- € 28,26- € 8,13
    Total gain/loss on principal € 0,42- € 135,13- € 271,09- € 35,04- € 4,35
    Net result € 10,47 € 100,03- € 249,98- € 12,04- € 18,54
    Interest on average balance 5% -23% -71% -4% 6%
    Balance year start € 0,00 € 410,84 € 476,92 € 226,94 € 314,90
    Amount uploaded minus amount withdrawn € 400,37 € 166,11 € 0,00 € 100,00 € 0,00
    Balance year end € 410,84 € 476,92 € 226,94 € 314,90 € 333,44

     

    Nieuwe leningen/investeringen

    De terugbetalingen die ik de afgelopen maanden heb ontvangen heb ik opnieuw geinvesteerd in Afrika. Deze maand heb ik mijn investeringen verdeeld over ondernemers in 10 ondernemers in Kenya, 12 in Uganda, 1 in Rwanda en 1 in Tanzania.

    Country
    Kenya 10
    Rwanda 1
    Tanzania 1
    Uganda 12
    Totaal Resultaat 24

  • Gas & elektriciteitsverbruik mei 2012

    Mei was de eerste maand van het jaar waarin we onze cv-ketel meer dan een week uit hebben kunnen zetten. De zonneboiler leverde de laatste 10 dagen van mei voldoende warmte om volledig in onze behoefte aan warm water te voldoen, terwijl de kachel deze maand ook veel minder nodig was. Dat was meteen te merken aan ons gasverbruik dat ten opzichte van april met 40 m3 daalde.

    Gas- en elektriciteitsverbruik mei

    Afgaande op het aantal gewogen graaddagen was mei 2012 ongeveer even warm als mei 2011. Toch ligt ons gasverbruik in 2012 hoger dan in 2011, waarschijnlijk ligt dat aan het aantal zonuren (2011 252 uur, 2012 209 uur). Aan het verbruik per graaddag kun je zien dat ik niet gecorrigeerd heb voor het warmwatergebruik. Het elektriciteitsverbruik is even hoog als in april en ligt hoger dan vorig jaar in mei. Waarschijnlijk heeft dat te maken met vaker thuis zijn. In onderstaande tabel is wel duidelijk te zien dat het stookseizoen nu echt voorbij is. Tijd om een aantal maanden te cv zoveel mogelijk uit te houden, zodat we op jaarbasis onder de 1000 m3 gaan duiken.

    Ons waterverbruik is in mei is 8 kubieke meter. Dat is 1 kubieke meter minder dan in mei 2011.

    Maand Graaddagen Gas Verbruik / graaddag Elektra Water
    mei 2011 101 2 0,02 237 9
    april 2012 235 51 0,22 252 7
    mei 2012 108 11 0,10 251 8

    Verbruik gas, water en licht op jaarbasis

    In de tabel hieronder kun je het verloop van ons gas, water en elektriciteitsverbruik op jaarbasis zien. De getoonde verbruiken zijn het verbruik in de 12 maanden tot en met de genoemde maand. Januari 2012 laat dus het verbruik van februari 2011 tot en met januari 2012 zien.  Ons gasverbruik per gewogen graaddag stabiliseert zich rond de 0,27 kubieke meter per graaddag. Het elektriciteitsverbruik is opgelopen tot ruim 3.100 kWh per jaar. Het waterverbruik is inmiddels gedaald tot onder de 100 m3.

    Maand Gas Gas / graaddag elektriciteit Water
    januari 2011 1631 0,52 5432 167
    februari 2011 1485 0,49 5128 165
    maart 2011 1338 0,44 4802 162
    april 2011 1228 0,41 4470 161
    mei 2011 1114 0,38 4140 155
    juni 2011 1086 0,37 3787 149
    juli 2011 1085 0,37 3457 143
    augustus 2011 1069 0,36 3164 137
    september 2011 1017 0,35 2819 130
    oktober 2011 919 0,32 2540 123
    november 2011 762 0,27 2691 121
    december 2011 676 0,26 2897 117
    januari 2012 648 0,26 3067 112
    februari 2012 675 0,25 3075 107
    maart 2012 682 0,26 3117 104
    april 2012 720 0,27 3134 98
    mei 2012 729 0,27 3148 97

    Besparing op de energierekening

    Door verschillende aanpassingen aan ons huis hebben we het gasverbruik de afgelopen anderhalf jaar teruggebracht van 0,6 m3 aardgas per gewogen graaddag naar 0,27 m3 aardgas per gewogen graaddag op jaarbasis. Dat heeft ons inmiddels een besparing van een kleine 1.400 m3 aardgas opgeleverd (gecorrigeerd voor gewogen graaddagen), wat een besparing op de energierekening oplevert van een kleine Euro 820. Dat is een rendement van bijna 10% op de investering in een nieuwe hr-ketel en zonneboiler sinds de investering. De gestegen gasprijs maakt dat onze investering nog wat beter rendeert dan verwacht…

     

  • Electrifying the Dutch – Part 2: the proof of the pudding is in the numbers

    When I was thinking about writing an article on Electric Cars in the Netherlands, my stance was that I was not willing to enter the ongoing debate on whether or not one should WANT to abandon the conventional cars or not. In fact, as I mentioned in the first part, I can fully understand the merits of a particular brand of fuel powered car on the German Autobahn, or a 4×4 in the terrain.  That’s emotion, passion, even conviction.

    However, I am equally convinced that in this day and age, there is no logical reason why we should not choose an electric car over a conventional model for our daily commute and for most of business travel by car.

    The most obvious factor contributing to this opinion is the fact that an electric car is much more economical to run. Contrary to common belief, this is not achieved by driving the way my grandparents do. It is mainly due to the increased efficiency of an electric engine compared to the efficiency of a conventional internal combustion engine. The running costs of an electric car are considerably less than those of a conventional car. € 50,- would buy you enough regular petrol to get you roughly 350 km. € 50,- of electricity would get you approximately 1.000 km.

    However, every car, whether electric, petrol- or Flintstone-powered is less than 100% efficient, the images below, taken from the Tesla Motors Website clarifies this.

    Inefficiencies 300x200Inefficiencies 1 300x185

    Internal combustion engines are relatively inefficient at converting on-board fuel energy to propulsion as most of the energy is wasted as heat. On the other hand, electric motors are more efficient in converting stored energy into driving a vehicle, and electric drive vehicles do not consume energy while at rest or coasting, and some of the energy lost when braking is captured and reused through regenerative braking, which captures as much as one fifth of the energy normally lost during braking. Typically, conventional gasoline engines effectively use only 15% of the fuel energy content to move the vehicle or to power accessories, and diesel engines can reach on-board efficiencies of 20%, while electric drive vehicles have on-board efficiency of around 80%.

    Only when we take the entire chain of processes into account (for electric cars and conventional cars equally) we can make a fair comparison. Once again, the Tesla Motor Company has created an of excellent image to explain this.

    Another significant improvement of the electric car is the Well-to-Wheel efficiency. Normally fuel consumption and CO2-emissions are measured (literally) in the car. In the case of electric cars, this is not the whole story. Obviously the CO2 and other emissions at tailpipe are zero in the case of an electric car, there are emissions during the whole process of generating, transporting electricity etc. It is understandable that, when the electricity comes from renewable sources, such as solar energy, wind, water etc the emissions are far less that when the electric cars are charged from the grid, using electricity from coal-powered power plants.

    There are numerous studies being undertaken for the Dutch & European situation at this moment, but because of the increasing number of available  models, their efficiency and perhaps even more important the debate on the power sources, following the nuclear disaster in Japan, there is no real accurate study at this moment. In the US however, the Union of Concerned Scientists have released a very recent study on the electric cars in relation to the power source and grid stability in the US (This shows that even in the area’s where the grid the least stable and electricity is generated from coal, the electric car is as fuel efficient and has the same or less of an environmental impact that a relatively small car, such as a Ford Fiesta.

    So, does this end the debate? No, it does not in my opinion.Yes, electric cars are more efficient, cheaper to run, have an equal or less environmental impact than conventional cars. But an electric car cannot take me to Spain, unless I have a lot of time on my hands, the number of models are limited and obviously charging times are still very long. But I feel strongly that when electric cars are combined with smart alternatives, they can and will offer a valid alternative to the ownership of a conventional car. So stay tuned for part three: “alternatives for the alternative?”

    This post was originally written for and published by TEDxBinnenhof in close collaboration with Ivo Stroeken, Advisor Electric Transportation, and Max Herold, owner at Managementissues.com.

  • Electrifying the Dutch – Part 1: the debate

    Ever since the introduction of the Th!nk City in The Netherlands in 2009, there has been an everlasting debate on the pro’s and con’s of electric cars in the Netherlands, and there are no signs that we are anywhere near reaching consensus on this subject.

    The question is: do we WANT to reach consensus, or rather, why should we strive for consensus? I, for one, see no point in this.

    Despite the high costs of purchase, the number of electric cars registered in the Netherlands are exploding, from somewhere to 100 in January 2009 to well over 1500 by March 2012. Of course, when compared to the total number of cars (well over 7 million) this is, well, a modest start. But didn’t Confucius say:” A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step”?

    One might wonder why those early adopters went ahead and purchased these vehicles in the first place? Expensive, range of 150 km maximum, no public infrastructure for charging the vehicle other than an extension cord, the battery has to remain plugged in otherwise it would bleed and it’s range would diminish to zero in roughly a week. The owners were either admired or ridiculed, depending on the perspective. But still, they went ahead and did it and discovered something amazing.

    The sum of all fears for prospective owners (or rather, users) of an electric vehicle is called range anxiety. Only 150 km on a single charge. And refueling the car would take at least eight hours, even more. Not really versatile when compared to conventional cars. But what those hard-core users found out is that range anxiety is fundamentally non-existent. The only issue they had, was that they had to plan their journeys more carefully, to prevent the battery from running on empty. One added advantage of this was an increased efficiency of their daily business practice and a significant decrease of their travel distance, without, obviously, compromising their effectiveness! And of course, with the ever increasing number of fast charging stations (200 by the end of 2012, well over 300 by the end of 2013) the issue of running out of juice is merely a matter of pressing too hard or plain poor planning.

    Those first vehicles would set you back roughly € 40.000 which is, frankly, staggering and there was virtually no choice in brands or models. That kind of money would buy you a decent set of wheels, even back in 2009. Lease of these vehicles was no different matter, because nobody in the car business knew what the long term development of their investment in those vehicles would yield, and so the lease-prices were even more staggering. You had to be pretty convinced or determined to even consider using an electric vehicle back then.

    Today is an entirely different story altogether. Virtually all car manufacturers of conventional cars are developing new electric models from scratch, for prices which are much more interesting. Yes, those vehicles are still much more expensive than their conventional cousins. But a select number of providers, believing in the residual value of these cars, is starting to offer realistic lease prices, making the electric cars even cheaper than their conventional brethren, when comparing the annual total costs of ownership. This way, enterprises can actually start to convert part of their fleet from conventional vehicles to electric ones.

    The prospective users of those cars are, of course, an entirely different matter. There are very few ‘owners’ of a company car who make this decision based on the environmental effects of the car. And those few just might be the ones who bought the first electric cars in 2009. The vast majority makes this decision based on the brand, versatility, fuel consumption and additional tax liability. This last aspect has caused a massive increase in numbers of sales of the Toyota Prius & Auris, the Honda Civic Hybrid etc.

    Electric cars can benefit from an even greater advantage, the fuel consumption is dramatically less then it’s conventional counterparts and, due to the emissions on which the additional tax liability is based, there is a 0% tax bracket.

    The increasing number of makes & models can provide the same (or challenge even) the level of comfort and ride of the conventional car, makes the electric car a much more valid alternative. And an added bonus is the amazing torque offered an electric car. A necessity is the availability of ‘access to mobility’ providers, for, for example a weekend trip to the Belgian Ardennes in a conventional car without having to go to the hassle of renting a car. Again, certain mobility providers are offering these services as we speak, making this a reality and thus ensuring that the driver of an electric car can access the mode of transportation they need, whenever they need it.

    In this day and age, there is no logical reason why we should not choose an electric car over a conventional model for our daily commute and for most of business travel by car.

    The question I’ve started off with was, however: do we WANT to reach consensus over the electric car? No we don’t.

    I can very much understand and even appreciate ones point of view when someone states that they immensely enjoy the ability to reach 200 km/h and over on the German motorways, or how a particular brand of 4×4 really ‘does it for them’. At present it’s an illusion to think or, even more, to try to convince someone to substitute their beloved brand X for an electric car, and I for one, am not prepared to enter this debate.

    What I am convinced of, and I will prove this in ‘electrifying the Dutch, part 2: the proof of the pudding is in the numbers’, is that electric cars offer a valid, and often economically more viable alternative to conventional cars.

    This post was originally written for and published at TEDxBinnenhof in close collaboration with Ivo Stroeken, Advisor Electric Transportation, and Max Herold, owner at Managementissues.com.

  • TEDxBinnenhof: Innovation in Construction – part 2: Energy Producing Buildings

    In my first postI linked to a TEDx talk by an architect who showed a lot of innovative ideas to construct more sustainable buildings and cities. In this post I will focus on ways the construction industry is enabling him and his colleagues to actually build them. Reducing the energy use and increasing the energy generation capacity of buildings is a central theme, but the focus is shifting towards more integrated approaches. In this post I will focus on energy, because I think it still remains the question whether the Dutch regulatory framework is facilitating the transition towards energy neutral and energy producing buildings.

    Increasing the energy generation capacity of buildings
    It is becoming increasingly clear that solar power is reaching grid parity for consumers in The Nethterlands, according to some the price of solar power has fallen below grid parity for consumers already. The Dutch are becoming totally enthousiastic about collective purchasing of solar power. In 2009 Urgenda started the collective purchasing action called we want solare (Wij Willen Zon). Currently there are over 60 active collective purchasing actions in the Netherlands. Even now, more local community energy companies are starting everywhere in the Netherlands.

    For those who won’t or can’t afford the upfront investment in solar panels a growing number of solar as a service companies are starting. Zonline, for example, offers consumers solar panels paid by a fixed price per kilowatt hour electricity produced. They’ve only just started, but looking at Dutch consumer prices for electricity (around 21 to 23 Eurocent per kilowatt hour, about 70% of which are taxes) and the growth rate of it’s US partner Sungevity it promises to be a booming business. Other companies, like Rooftop Energy are applying the same business model to the business market. Which is a bit more difficult as companies pay a lower rate for electricity. Still the first examples of local governments using solar lease to get solar on their rooftops are popping up. For business placing solar on your own rooftop can be part of their CSR strategy too.

    Different forms of sustainable heating are catching up too. Sometimes (old fashioned ) based on using the waste heat of waste incinerators, but also based on heat pumps (air-to-air or air-to-water) or geo-thermal power.

    Reducing energy use
    Although solar energy is the sexiest kid on the block, it surely isn’t the only one.
    Stimulated by the energy label for buildings and rising energy prices a growing number of companies are offering help to property owners to reduce their energy use in existing buildings. Most of them demand upfront investments by the property owner. A few are exploring new business models and let property owners repay their investment through a reduction in their energy bill. In the commercial property market (offices, swimming pools) energy service companies (ESCo’s) are emerging. ESCo’s are offering a way to reduce the energy use budget neutral or even with a direct reduction in costs for the property owner or tenant. The upfront investments are done by the ESCo. The reduction in energy use can be achieved by changes to the installations, but also by adjustments to the façade of the building.

    Some companies are even exploring business models that combine ESCo’s with green lease agreements. Which is a logical combination, as even the most energy efficient building will use a lot of energy if the tenant doesn’t change it’s habits.

    Examples for the residential market include WAIFER and Qurrent. WAIFER says it can renovate a home within weeks and is currently renovating around 2500 homes from housing corporations in the Rotterdam area. Qurrent advertises as a new kind of energy company: one that wants to sell as little energy as possible.

    Dutch regulatory framework
    The Dutch regulatory framework for the construction industry used to consists mainly on construction. As energy generation is increasing because of the rise in popularity of solar panels, amongst others, the regulatory framework for the energy industry is becoming increasingly pressing. Energy regulation is mainly focused on centralized energy production making little use of lessons learned in other environmental policy fields or in other countries. Despite the subsidy for sustainable energy and many policy changes The Netherlands are lacking behind in sustainable energy.

    For example users of sustainable energy have to pay the same amount of energy tax as users of fossil energy. This means sustainable energy has to be subsidized to be able to compete with fossil energy at wholesale prices. For cars the Dutch government has chosen a different strategy making fuel efficient cars more attractive using tax incentives. Looking at the sales figures of hybrids like the Toyota Prius this has proven a very successful strategy.

    The high energy tax on (sustainable) energy does make investments in energy efficiency and solar power more attractive, especially for consumers. This will put a growing pressure on the 2 billion Euro in energy taxes the Dutch government collects from users of residential buildings each year.

    To make things worse for government budget some community owned energy companies have stopped paying energy taxes on energy used by their members/investors. They claim that there is no difference between people growing their own food and transporting it to their home via public infrastructure and producing your own energy and using public infrastructure to get the energy to your home. It is not yet known if judges will agree, but it does show that current legislation is hindering people who try to provide their own energy together with their neighbors. Pretty strange if you consider the fact that some Dutch politicians are complaining about the nimby-behaviour of Dutch citizens.

    Changes for Dutch government
    Things can be arranged differently as the Dutch government has a well established system of reaping the benefits of our natural gas supplies. Through EBN, a subsidiary of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Dutch government offers the possibility to provide up to 40% of the necessary capital for the exploration and production of natural gas and oil. Dutch government earned around 6 billion Euro from this investments in 2011 alone. So why not use the same model to finance sustainable energy now that it has become a profitable alternative?

    This alternate business model, based on the exploration and exploitation of sustainable energy, would earn a growing income for the Dutch government as opposed to the decreasing income if more inhabitants will change to solar power as a primary source of energy. It can also decrease the funds and manpower necessary for subsidizing alternate sources of energy, thus reducing the costs of reaching the sustainable energy goals set by the Dutch government.

    For solar power it can help in decreasing the costs and improving the efficiency of the installations. Take for example my own neighborhood. An average house can uphold about 6 till 9 solar panels, while larger installations are relatively cheaper to install. I would love to be able to combine my installation with the neighbors and exchange the energy generated. Current legislation makes that financially unattractive if not impossible, whereas there would be a valid business case for combining our solar energy systems under a different regulatory framework.

    Similar cases are abundant all through the Netherlands, not only for rooftop solar PV installations, but also for the production of biogas or heat recovery from waste water treatment. Adjusting the regulatory framework would also open up opportunities for other technologies like using the heat generated by roads or datacenters to cool and warm our buildings.

    Due to the current regulatory framework for energy those types of innovation need subsidy way to long and large scale application is pushed to the future setting Dutch companies on a disadvantage in the international market.

    Conclusion
    What can we learn from the above? I think the best lesson to be learned is that it’s time to shift pardigm. With sustainable energy becoming competitive with fossil energy (despite existing subsidies and tax breaks for fossil fuel) there are chances for both Dutch government, society and entrepreneurs if we can apply lessons learned from other policy fields to sustainable energy.

    For example the government could increase the amount of sustainable energy produced by variating the amount of energy tax paid for sustainable energy and fossil energy. The downside of this policy is that part of the benefit will go to foreign producers of sustainable energy and not towards more sustainable energy production in The Netherlands.

    Changing the energy tax system in such a way that no energy tax has to be paid on energy produced by your own solar panels, windturbine or part of the solar road, does have a lot of potential to increase sustainable energy production in The Netherlands. It will bring possibilities to rationalize the decision to invest for consumers. Combining solar installations with your neighbors, using noise barriers next to highways for large scale solar pv installations (like Solar Green Point is promoting) or using heat collected from highways to keep buildings warm in the winter and cool in the summer.

    To speed up the development even further and to yield some of the financial benefits the government could use part of the profits from oil and gas production for co-investing in sustainable energy production. Like some local government are already doing.

    This way the government gets more than a double dividend. The first benefit will be that the amount of necessary subsidies for sustainable energy can be reduced. The subsidy can be focused on innovative technologies, like tidal power or offshore wind. Dutch government will get a growing revenue base from investments in sustainable energy production to compensate for the expected downward trends in energy taxes. The governmentbudget can be safeguarded even more if existing tax breaks and subsidies for fossil fuels are removed or decreased, like Maria van der Hoeven executive director of the International Energy Agency calls upon.

    For investors and entrepreneurs in sustainable energy the co-investment from the Dutch government acts as an assurance that Dutch policy won’t change overnight, just like the current investments by EBN in oil and gas do for fossil fuel companies.

    This post was originally written for and published at TEDxBinnenhof with the support of Ivo Stroeken and Max Herold.