UK WIND: HOIST ON ITS OWN SUCCESS

The wind energy industry is growing so much, so fast, that turbine manufacturers are two years behind on orders and they can’t get the parts they need. The industry is hoist on the petard of success, hung up by all its self-generated opportunity.

Centrica, a huge UK power producer, is not backing out of commitments to build offshore wind farms. But it IS warning the government costs might come in high, compromising returns.

Demand and inflation are driving the price of structural materials like steel and copper up.

Royal Dutch Shell recently withdrew from the 1000-megawatt London Array project of the coast of Kent, citing “marginal” economics. It is the same description Centrica Director Sarwjit Sambhi used to describe Centrica’s Race Banks, Docking Shoal and Links offshore projects in the planning stages.

The London Array cost was estimated in 2003 at £1bn but is now expected to cost £2bn.

Shell left E.ON without a partner and made the entire British wind industry uneasy. Only one turbine supplier has made an offer to take Shell’s place. Centrica is innovatively turning to investment institutions instead of energy companies for partners but has not been successful.

Dieter Helm, Professor of Energy Policy, Oxford University: "Investors are saying that the current policy for wind energy in the UK is not fit for purpose…Unless the government wants to revamp and rebase its wind structure, it isn't going to get what it wants from wind…"

Both the British Wind Energy Association and the Brown government are far more sanguine, expecting the projects to get financed and the nation’s goals for wind to be met. Incentives are in place to attract financing. Britain will this year overtake Denmark and become Europe’s biggest wind power generator. The size of Britsh wind’s growth is a blessing and a curse but most of all it is a fact, a success that has its own momentum and inevitability.

Centrica is busy installing wind offshore, helping turn the UK into the world leader. (click to enlarge)

Centrica warns on wind farm costs
8 May 2008 (BBC News)

WHO
Centrica (Sarwjit Sambhi, Director)

The fate of the world's largest offshore installation is now in doubt. (click to enlarge)

WHAT
Rising costs of materials like steel and copper makes wind turbines in Britain more expensive and creates doubts about favorable return on investment for wind farm builders.

WHEN
- The UK’s current Labour government has the goal of obtaining 33 gigawatts of wind generated electricity by 2020.
- Centrica's Lynn and Inner Dowsing project will begin delivering power to Britain’s National Grid the week of May 8.

click to enlarge

WHERE
The Lynn and Inner Dowsing project is off the coast of Skegness. The
Race Banks, Docking Shoal and Links offshore projects are in the same region.

WHY
- Centrica is one of the biggest UK power providers.
- Two companies produce wind farms for the UK market, Denmark-based Vestas and Germany-based Siemens.
- Vestas has ~£4bn in undelivered orders.
- The Lynn and Inner Dowsing project has doubled in cost over the last 3 years due to the prices of steel and copper.
- Facts on the Lynn and Inner Dowsing project: Each of the 54 3.6 megawatt turbines (1) powers 2,500 homes, (2) is 100m high and nearly 100m in diameter, and (3) weighs approximately 260 tonnes.

click to enlarge

QUOTES
- Sarwjit Sambhi, Director, Centrica: "The economics at the moment make the returns marginal…The worrying trend is that if the manufacturing costs continue to increase, then I think that the wind target is under threat…"
- Charles Anglin, British Wind Energy Association (BWEA): "The fact that the government was slow to wake up to the opportunity of wind did push up uncertainty, and that has affected prices and meant that manufacturers have delayed investment…"

MALAY BIG BUSINESS MOVES INTO PALM OIL

The United Nations’ Clean Development Mechanism (UN CDM) allows companies in developing countries to sell Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) in emissions trading markets. The CDM certifies the number of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) a company’s project prevents. A CER equals one tonne CO2e prevented.

Palm oil, an agro commodity with nutritional and industrial value, is also in high demand as an agrofuel that replaces petroleum fuel. In this latter form, it earns CERs. Offering these multiple revenue streams of financial potential makes palm oil a highly valued commodity. Skyrocketing world agrofuels prices have led to skyrocketing palm oil prices that in Malaysia are driving the conversion of marginal land into palm oil plantations.

The marginal land, unfortunately, is often precious rainforest.

There is money to be made in palm oil. There is no money to be made in protecting the rainforest. YTL Corp, a Malaysian power and telecom conglomerate, just got into the palm oil business and is looking to make money from the commodity and the CERs. Aware of the bad rap it will get for allowing its business interests to supercede the protection of the rainforests, YTL wants to add waste biomass-to-biogas-to-electricity facilities at its palm oil mills to clean up the business’s image.

YTL Francis Yeoh, Chief Executive, YTL: "Biomass and biogas are very high in emissions that cause the greenhouse effect, so if we could recycle them and give it a commercially viable story, that would help keep our palm oil industry from being attacked so much…"

“Give it a commercially viable story…” That’s what he said. He’s going to proceed to aggressively destroy his nation’s rainforests and he wants to “…give it a commercially viable story…”

The CDM is working on a project to save the rainforests by selling CERs for preserving them. It’s called Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD). Unfortunately, it will not be implemented before the next phase of the Kyoto Protocols in 2013 and only then if the world community can work out the many kinks in the concept that would prevent the program from being gamed by hucksters like Mr. Yeoh.

The World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) has been working on a Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) that would bring environmentalists to the table with folks like Mr. Yeoh and work out compromises between environmental values and market values.

Somebody better do something before the only rainforests left are the ones in the Jurassic Park movies.

Palm oil is a growth industry - but not growth of rainforests. (click to enlarge)

Malaysia’s YTL targets palm oil carbon credits
May 2, 2008 (Reuters via Yahoo News)

WHO
YTL Corp; SV Carbon; YTL-SV Carbon (Soeren Varming, Managing Director)

Under a smart system, saving the rainforests could be more profitable. (click to enlarge)

WHAT
Power and telecom conglomerate YTL Corp bought a controlling majority stake in SV Carbon to form YTL-SV Carbon in order to capitalize on emissions credits trading in the palm oil sector.

WHEN
- 2007: Malaysian crude palm oil output was 15.8 million tonnes
- 2008: Malaysian crude palm oil output expected to be 16.5 million tonnes
- YTL-SV Carbon has 30 emissions credits projects now and expects to be handling 1,000 in 3 years.

REDD is an effort to create a system of emissions allowances to save the forests. (click to enlarge)

WHERE
YTL-SV Carbon sees palm oil project opportunities in Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam, the Philippines and Thailand.

WHY
- SV Carbon is Malaysia’s biggest emissions credit trader.
- Malaysia is the world's second largest palm oil producer.
- YTL-SV Carbon is working on improving the emissions and environmental profiles of the palm oil mills by using waste to generate biomass for their power as well as composting.
- No financial details of the purchase were released.

The Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil has a noble goal but few results to date. (click to enlarge)

QUOTES
- Soeren Varming, Managing Director, YTL-SV Carbon: "Palm oil is where the big opportunity is in Malaysia…The paradigm is changing, from a waste producer to a sector that will actually utilise the waste."
- Varming, YTL-SV Carbon, on the value of turning a palm oil plant into a CDM-certified project: "CDM allows, in some cases, an incremental project income that will go straight to the bottom line, in other cases it allows projects you would never have thought of before, and in yet others, you'll see new business models become possible, because the income stream of the carbon credits allows this…"

RUSSIA, LIKE CHINA, INDIA & U.S., WON’T CUT SPEW

Scientists with the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) say it is imperative that world greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions peak BEFORE 2025 in order to head off the worst impacts. An April 28 announcement by Russia makes it unanimous: None of the 4 biggest GhG spewers will commit to doing so.

Either get ready for droughts, floods, heatwaves and rising seas OR figure out a way to turn the Big 4 around OR build a space ship.

European Union (EU) leaders are opting for none of the above and holding on to blind hope. Barbara Helfferich, spokeswoman, EU Executive Commission: "We hope that reason prevails…"

Right. Like in the Darfur situation.

One good thing about the Russia announcement: It made President Bush’s empty promise to stop U.S. emissions growth by 2025 (but not before) look positively noble.

Russia and U.S. leaders see their nations in stringent economic competition with China and India. They will not commit to cutting emissions unless the rising Asian powers do so. China and India will not, putting national economic growth out of poverty ahead of any international responsibilities. They demand the right to the same emissions-intensive economic expansion Russia and the U.S. experienced in the 19th and 20th centuries.

They also suggest Russia and the U.S. consider bringing per capita emissions down toward Chinese and Indian levels.

A recent report suggested a 2-tonne-per-capita level must replace the current 7-tonne-per-person level to turn global climate change around.

Reason to believe: Much will change after the November U.S. election. All of the current presidential candidates are more amenable to international agreement on the climate change than President Bush. If the U.S. shifts its position, the other 3 may very well respond.

Nick Mabey, head, London environmental think-tank E3G: "You have to take the Russian position with a pinch of salt…They have a falling population so the pressure on emissions is much lower than in the United States where population is rising…And the Russians still have a lot of potential for energy savings."

Russia objected to the Kyoto Accords at every stage and then ratified them.

Bill Hare, scientist, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research: "In my experience Russian negotiators want to be good global citizens and that is something we can work with…We must wait for a new administration and Congress before we see what the United States is ready to meaningfully discuss ... No one expects China, or less India, to take on binding national caps."

Russia isn't the problem. (click to enlarge)

Russian climate plans show tough path to new UN treaty
Alister Doyle (w/Catherine Evans), 30 April 2008 (Reuters)

WHO
The United States, China, Russia and India

click to enlarge

WHAT
The four biggest greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions generators in the world have now announced they are against regulations to create timely GhG cuts.

WHEN
Leaders of the process for developing new climate agreements for the next phase of the Kyoto Protocols, beginning in January 2013 hoped to have an agreement by the end of 2009. With this resistance from the 4 biggest players, that is unlikely.



WHERE
- The new agreement was scheduled for the Copenhagen meeting in December 2009.
- If GhGs are not cut globally, there is no point in cutting them locally.

WHY
- The Big 4 all refuse the kind of binding caps EU countries and Japan currently have under present Kyoto guidelines.
- The cap the EU EC wants is to bring GhGs at least 20% or even 30% below 1990 levels by 2020. Even better would be 40%.
- China and India generate high gross GhG levels but very low per capita levels.
- Russia’s emissions were 2.0 billion tonnes in 1998, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and a loss of much industrial activity. By 2005, following a period of economic growth, its emissions were up to 2.13 billion tonnes, still 28.7% below the Kyoto 1990 baseline. It should have no real problem meeting its Kyoto targets for 2008 and 2012.



QUOTES
- Bill Hare, scientist, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research: "The positions ... are just the tip of the iceberg of the problems ahead…"
- Barbara Helfferich, spokeswoman, EU Executive Commission: "Climate change needs to be fought globally. We need everybody on board and we regret the fact that any country would preclude any binding commitment at this stage…"

Smart Cities Are Energy Efficient Cities

Energy efficiency is the cheapest, most immediately available New Energy. From Echelon via GreenEnergyTV.

The Story of Stuff #5: Consumption

The credit crunch: It all starts here. 1% of all consumer goods last more than 6 months...Planned obsolescence wasn’t good enough so they invented PERCEIVED obsolescence. 6 minutes that could change the life of someone willing to listen. Via YouTube.

Stirling Energy Systems – Energy from the Sun

Alien invaders? No. The newest thing in solar power plants. Via YouTube.

$7.5 MIL FOR OCEAN ENERGY R&D

Assistant Energy Secretary Karsner said the $7.5 million in R&D funding made available to wave-tide-current energies by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is in service to President Bush’s goal of stopping U.S. greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions from growing by 2025. No doubt that is why the amount invested is so trivial compared to R&D spending on fossil fuels and nuclear energies: Inadequate goal = inadequate investment.

Don’t misunderstand, New Energy will take the money. Just don’t expect it to win any votes.

This is typical DOE shortsightedness.

Wave-tide-current energies don’t have the cost effectiveness more thoroughly developed New Energies now have but that’s because they’re so new they’re still struggling for development funding. The upside potential is enormous, emissions-free and there's no need to import oceans because the U.S. has one on each coast. Not to mention a big gulf to the south, huge lakes up north and lots and lots of rivers.

Wave power is obtained from devices riding waves, capturing the up-down energy and sending it along cables to onshore switching stations. Tide energy, transmitted in the same way, is captured from the motion of incoming and outgoing tides by mechanical devices at the edge of the coast. In current energy turbines are installed on ocean and river floors to capture the energy of flows.

There may be two trillion watts of electricity in ocean energy alone.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Finavera Renewables are planning the Humboldt County Offshore Wave Energy Power Plant, the first U.S. commercial wave energy plant. Off the Northern California coast, it will have eight buoys 2.5 miles offshore and produce 2 megawatts. It is expected to be online in 2012.

Like other energies that use natural resources, wave-tide-current energies face environmental impact issues. Protection of marine habitat, whether on the surface, at coastlines or in the seabed, is vital. Toxic leaks or accidental spills from hydraulic systems must be prevented. Visual and noise impacts must be muted. Conflicts with other waterway users (ex: commercial shipping, recreational boating) must be avoided or mitigated. Site selection is the key.

EERE: "Wave energy system planners can choose sites that preserve scenic shorefronts. They also can avoid areas where wave energy systems can significantly alter flow patterns of sediment on the ocean floor."

Wave-tide-current energies will someday make a significant contribution to world and U.S. electricity supplies. But not under this DOE.

click to enlarge

Feds Fund Energy Generation from Ocean Waves, Tide
May 5, 2008 (Environment News Service)

WHO
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) (Andy Karsner, assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy); Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) (Fong Wan, vice president); Finavera Renewables

Turbines on river floors capture current flows. (click to enlarge)

WHAT
DOE announced the availability of $7.5 million in federal funding for research and development of wave-tide-current energies.

WHEN
- Applications due June 16, 2008.
- As many as 17 awards will be made for projects to begin in FY2008.

Ocean currents are even bigger energy sources. (click to enlarge)

WHERE
Northeastern and northwestern U.S. coasts are rich in potential wave power.

WHY
- The $7.5 million is designated for advancing the viability and cost-competitiveness of wave-tide-current energy systems.
- The money will go to industry-led partnerships for R&D and field testing.
- Applicants must be project teams with an industry and a university or national laboratory partner.
- A minimum 50% non-federal financing share is required.
- University-led groups are eligible for advanced research funding to collect/disseminate information on best practices.
- Research topics: technology testing, experimental and numerical modeling, wave forecasting, environmental impacts, corrosion-resistant materials research.


For capturing tide energy. (click to enlarge)

QUOTES
- Andy Karsner, assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, DOE: "Water covers more than 70 percent of the Earth's surface. Using environmentally responsible technologies, we have a tremendous opportunity to harness energy produced from ocean waves, tides or ocean currents, free flowing water in rivers, and other water resources…"
- DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE): "In the Pacific Northwest alone, it's feasible that wave energy could produce 40-70 kilowatts per meter (3.3 feet) of western coastline…"
- Fong Wan, vice president, PG&E: "Harnessing the ocean's energy on a utility scale is a critical achievement in renewable energy technology and this project represents our first step in that direction…"

STUDY OF UTILITIES, EFFICIENCIES

With demand expected to rise 30% by 2030, Keeping the Lights On: Our National Challenge, a new study from Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and Edison Electric Institute (EEI) showing utilities how to cut consumption 7% to 11%, is indeed welcome. It will not, however, excuse government and industry of the responsibility for building a New Energy architecture comprised of a 21st century smart grid and 21st century smart technology.

Oh, and one other thing: New Energy power generation.

Diane Munns, executive director, EEI: “No matter how you slice it, we’ll have to build significant new generation to ensure that we meet demand. The greater gains we make in energy efficiency, the better off everyone will be, because we’ll have more cost-effective options for serving our customers…But if we overestimate what can be accomplished, we could find ourselves without an adequate supply of electricity to meet consumer needs.”

NewEnergyNews reported extensively on the topic of coming transmission needs earlier this week. See SOLAR2008: DAY 3 – GRIDLOCK?.

3 points of interest from the EPRI/EEI report: (1) Direct energy feedback devices (aka Demand Response systems, home or commercial building controllers/thermostats that respond automatically to electricity price or demand signals) can cut energy use and save customers money. (2) A 42-inch plasma television consumes two and a half times more energy (250 watts) than a standard 27-inch TV (100 watts). (3) While refrigerators have become more efficient, smaller devices have not – two 30-watt set-top television boxes consume as much electricity as a large refrigerator.

Conclusion: Expect consumption to rise.

Much smarter grids are both possible and urgently needed. But no matter how smart the grid is, the nation and the world need New Energy. The sooner the building of solar and wind and ocean power plants starts, the sooner the spewing of fossil fuel emissions and the piling up of nuclear waste stops. At the same time, smarter grids with greater capacity and a myriad of efficiency measures must become standard features of the New Energy architecture.

Which is just another reason it is so hard to believe Congress is diddling with itself over extending the New Energy incentives. Incentives are just the beginning. Don’t they understand what the American people really want is a Green New Deal?

Voters can sign a petition telling Congress to get down to business at Support Renewable Energy Tax Credits

Efficiencies make all the difference. (click to enlarge)

EPRI Analysis Finds Utility Based Energy Efficiency Programs Could Cut Energy Consumption 7-11 Percent
April 23, 2008 (Business Wire via Yahoo Finance)

WHO
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (Dr. Michael Howard, senior vice president); Edison Electric Institute (EEI) (Diane Munns, executive director)

Efficiency is complimented and enhanced by a Demand Response system. (click to enlarge)

WHAT
Keeping the Lights On: Our National Challenge is a new study from EPRI and EEI showing the utility sector capable of implementing efficiencies to cut power consumption 7% to 11%.

WHEN
- The paper noted the expected 30% increase in demand through 2030 and reported the 7% to 11% reduction in the same time frame via implementation of efficiency strategies.
- Utilities, regulators, and policymakers are right now debating the best ways to meet rising demand and at the same time cut the U.S. economy’s carbon footprint.

Energy demand is only going one way. (click to enlarge)

WHERE
- EPRI and EEI experts agreed that to maximize savings, the best technology must be deployed nationally.
- Research is being done at EPRI’s Living Laboratory for Energy Efficiency in Knoxville, Tenn.

WHY
- The challenge: Maximize efficiency and at the same time build adequate new electric generation.
- Needed: Present building codes, appliance standards and market-driven consumer incentives will cut consumption 23%. Better ones can cut it more.
- Essential new steps: more consumer education; adoption/enforcement of aggressive building codes and appliance standards; utility business models to promote better power sector efficiency; electricity pricing policies that incentivize efficient consumption.

Efficiency and New Energy - a match made in heaven. (click to enlarge)

QUOTES
- Dr. Michael Howard, senior vice president, EPRI: “This study demonstrates the potential of energy efficiency to offset some of the projected need for new electric generation as cutting-edge technologies become available…We think a 7-percent efficiency improvement is realistic – and gains of 11 percent or more are technologically feasible...”
- Diane Munns, executive director, EEI: “While electricity rates will rise due to increasing across-the-board costs of producing electricity, energy efficiency improvements can help reduce some of these costs to consumers…energy efficiency must be treated as an energy resource on par with new generation.”
- Dr. Michael Howard, senior vice president, EPRI: “We are making remarkable technological advances in the area of efficiency…The question is how much more can we achieve? The key will be finding the will...”

EXPERT IN WIND ENERGY’S FINE PRINT

Another sign of how mature the wind energy industry is: Law classes dedicated to it. Nothing is a done deal until the lawyers have had their say.

Most wind law is exercised in defense of wind against tiny splinter groups unwilling to work WITH the industry. No industry is more aware of the law and anxious to comply, to do its thing for the betterment of all involved.

Siting is the most widely discussed area of conflict. Lawyers are presently fighting over sites from Cape Cod in Massachusetts to Galveston, Texas.

In northwest Iowa, the owner of a 10-year old wind farm suddenly cut lease payments to farmers for turbines on their land from 6% ($2100) to 2% ($750/year). The farmers were upset but the wind farm owner had the better lawyers. The farmers may still take the case to arbitration.

That’s why Neil Hamilton, Professor of Law, Drake University, is instituting a course on wind energy law. Teach the subject to enough lawyers and there will be one to take up the farmers’ side. Then there will be litigation and big legal fees all around.

By the way, guess who those farmers signed their original contract with - Enron.

Interestingly, landowners who profit from wind installations don’t get paid for royalties on the wind (unlike the oil and gas business) but for leases on the land (up to $4,000/year). Professor Hamilton: "You can claim your land rights, but how can you claim the wind?"

Hamilton expects the biggest returns on wind installation leases won’t come until a national cap-and-trade system is legislated and wind farms can sell emissions credits. Hamilton: "There may be some windfalls there…"

Need legal advice about a wind project? Lots of legal expertise at American Wind Energy Association and National Wind Coordinating Collaborative

click to enlarge

Drake professor teaches wind energy law
May 6, 2008 (AP via Chicago Tribune)

WHO
Neil Hamilton, Professor of Law, Drake University; Eight law students (including John Hibschman, Logan, Utah); Three attorneys

Iowa is Number 1. (click to enlarge)

WHAT
Hamilton just finished teaching Drake’s first course on the legal issues in wind energy.

WHEN
Hamilton expects the wind energy industry and legal practice associated with it to expand dramatically when there is a federally mandated emissions reduction program involving a cap-and-trade system in place.

click to enlarge

WHERE
- Drake University is in Des Moines, Iowa.
- There are 3 courses in the legal aspects of wind energy in the U.S.: Hamilton's class at Drake, one at the University of Texas at Austin and one at the University of Oregon.

WHY
- Hamilton’s class covers legal workings of wind energy, including land-use regulations, easements and leases, utility regulation and energy and environmental policies.
- Iowa has the 4th highest wind energy capacity in the U.S. and is first in percentage of electricity obtained from wind energy.

click to enlarge

QUOTES
- Professor Hamilton: "With turbine farms going up all over Iowa, it's the next logical step…"
- Student Hibschman: "Wind energy isn't as well-developed in Utah as here…But you can tell it's coming. I hope to be able to specialize in a practice."

NEW ENERGY BILLS: POLITICS AS USUAL

Originally posted May 8.
Fresh from the American Solar Energy Society annual conference, it is especially hard to see the Republicrats and Demmicans bickering over ridiculosities in their competing versions of a "new" Energy Bill.

After hearing former Senator Gary Hart's passionate condemnation of the nation’s so-called energy policy and Van Jones' stirring call for a Green New Deal, and Jigar Shah's frank description of the sorry state of the U.S. transmission infrastructure, it is hard to take the Senate's ideas of solutions very seriously.

Senate Republicans' want to drill in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) just to get a few extra months of oil. They also want to legislate a requirement to produce coal-derived gasoline, the idea that lost World War II for Germany and Japan.

Democrats want a 25%, 2-year windfall profits tax on oil company profits not invested in new refinery capacity and the same $17 billion in cuts from fossil fuel industry tax breaks and subsidies that have been defeated 3 times in the last year. Knowing a recalcitrant minority of Republicans mired in 1950s thinking will surely use filibuster rules to again defeat the package, the Democrats are cynically rolling out the populist measures as an election year maneuver.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev): "With this bill Democrats are protecting consumers…Instead of helping Big Oil make more money at the expense of average Americans, we are forcing oil companies to change their ways."

The only thing these “great” political leaders agree on is that the country should stop putting oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) while it costs so much. Brilliant. Like that's going to significantly impact gas pump prices. Gas is going to be expensive now and more expensive soon and more expensive than that later. What the nation needs is a Stategic Solar Reserve and a Strategic Wind Reserve.

Why aren’t they doing something to drive U.S. demand down, like adding a tax to the pump price, a piece of the action they can use to build New Energy? China and India would probably take up the slack in world consumption, keeping prices high, but the U.S. would move more quickly away from the internal combustion engine to cars are not immoral to drive.

The only comfort is that nothing is going to get done at all. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky): "Talk is cheap, but gas is not…" And these Senators aren’t going to do anything about either.

Why is that a comfort? Because these folks have a track record worse than “Heck-of-a-job Brownie.”

The 2007 Energy Bill’s 2 biggest accomplishments were: (1) Upping U.S. auto fleet mileage requirements in 2022 to BELOW what China NOW requires and (2) upping required U.S. production of ethanol and agrofuels, which resulted in the unintended consequence of dramatically adding to a world food crisis.

The 2007 bill had no national Renewable Electricity Standard (RES), no extension of vital New Energy production tax credits (PTCs) and investment tax credits (ITCs), no incentives for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles or significant new efficiency measures.

And it carefully protected all existing fossil fuel industry tax breaks and subsidies. President Bush hailed it as important energy legislation and signed it into law.

So it is just as well these characters go on blowing hot air up each others’ noses about drilling more oil and gas tax holidays until they have to face the voters in November. Think the primary season has been messy? Check out the Senators on each others’ energy bills. McConnell (R-KY), on the Democrats’ package: "…predictable, more taxes, more bureaucracy." Reid (D-NV, on the Republicans’ package: "…more of the same failed energy policies that brought us to this point."

Watch this space for information on who has supported New Energy incentives and who has been recalcitrant. And get ready to elect the right leaders in November.

Tell Congress voters are watching them at Support Renewable Energy Tax Credits

Electon Day this year is November 4 but the gimmick is the same. (click to enlarge)

Senators ready dueling energy plans
Chris Baltimore (w/Christian Wiessner), May 1, 2008 (Reuters via Yahoo News)
and
Senate Democrats seek to tax oil companies
H. Josef Hebert, May 7, 2008 (AP via Forbes)

WHO
Senate Democrats (Majority Leader Harry Reid) and Republicans (Minority Leader Mitch McConnell)

It may be over but the Republicans are still partying. (click to enlarge)

WHAT
Party leaders from both sides of the aisle introduced competing versions of a 2008 Energy Bill.

WHEN
- The Republicans rolled their bill out May 1. The Democrats replied May 7.
- Senator Reid says he wants a vote on the package by late May, before the Memorial Day recess.

Not funny. (click to enlarge)

WHERE
Republicans emphasize the supply side and Democrats emphasize the demand side.

WHY
- Republican ideas for more drilling in protected ANWR and offshore areas were have been rejected by this Senate last year.
- The Republican bill would (1) allow offshore drilling (2) stop filling the SPR for 180 days (3) require 6 billion gallons of coal-to-liquids fuel by 2022 (4) allow drilling in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah oil shale regions (5) repeal a law against using Canadian oil sands-derived fuel because it produces more emissions than conventional gas
- The Democratic bill would (1) impose a 25% 2-year windfall profits tax on oil company profits not invested in new refinery capacity (2) take $17 billion in fossil fuel industry tax breaks and subsidies (3) stop filling the SPR until oil falls to $75/barrel (4) penalties for energy price gouging (5) tools for regulators to prevent energy market manipulations (6) provisions for Justice Department antitrust actions against OPEC.

The last time Congress got serious about an Energy Bill it brought U.S. standards for 2022 up to where China is NOW - and added to the world food price crisis. Maybe it's better if they do nothing. (click to enlarge)

QUOTES
- Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash): "What we are hearing from the White House and from the Republicans is the same song, same dance: drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge…We know we can't drill our way out of this problem."
- Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM): "If you voted against it before, take another look at it with oil at $115 a barrel…"

MUST STOP SPEW - STERN

Originally posted May 8.
Not too many people in the world know as much about climate change as British economist Lord Nicholas Stern. He says the only way to keep change from becoming crisis is to bring the world’s greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions to a peak within 15 years, cut them to half of 1990 levels by 2050 and half again after that.

To halt the average global temperature rise at 2 degrees C. above pre-industrial levels global GhG emissions must be brought from the current 7 tonnes per person to 2 tonnes per person.

Stern sees, as the best path to emissions reduction, a mandatory international cap-and-trade system on GhGs accompanied by massive technology research, development and deployment. These tools would facilitate the growth necessary to prevent economically challenged nations from bearing the brunt of the harm done already by economically privileged nations’ spew.

The Stern Review on the economics of climate change was perhaps the most influential public statement on the subject after Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports

The original Stern Review ranks with the IPCC report in importance. (click to enlarge)

Rich world must back 80% carbon cuts – Nicholas Stern
Jeremy Lovell (w/Giles Elgood), 30 April 2008 (Reuters)

WHO
Professor Lord Nicholas Stern, economist/author/global climate change authority

The new Stern paper insists on a universal cap-and-trade system as the most accessible way to cut emissions. (click to enlarge)

WHAT
In Key Elements of a Global Deal on Climate Change, Lord Stern asserts that developed countries must agree to cut their greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions dramatically and developing nations must agree to set rigid goals soon.

WHEN
- Stern’s call is for the developed nations to cut their emissions 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 and for the developing nations to set concrete goals by 2020.
- The Stern Review on the economics of climate change was published in 2006.

Perhaps the most important insight from the Stern Review. (click to enlarge)

WHERE
- Lord Stern teaches at and is published by the London School of Economics and Political Science.
- U.S. GhG emissions: 20 tonnes/person
- Europe/Japan GhG emissions: 10 to 12 tonnes/person
- China GhG emissions: 5 tonnes/person and growing fast
- India GhG emissions: 2 tonnes/person and growing fast

WHY
- Necessary: An international understanding of the challenges and opportunities
- Necessary: Emissions targets for all nations
- Necessary: Leadership from developed nations
- Necessary: Implementing a mandatory international cap-and-trade system
- Necessary: Reducing deforestation
- Necessary: Technology implementation
- Necessary: Adaptation

The Gore movie galvanized world attention. Stern now wants to inspire world action. (click to enlarge)

QUOTES
- Stern: "There is a real hurry for this. The developed world must lead by example…"
- Stern: "Everything flows from the figures. That is the simplicity of the argument. If you buy into stabilisation at 500 parts per million (atmospheric carbon -- equivalent to two degrees rise) the rest is arithmetic…"

BOSTON UTILITY TO SELL NEW ENGLAND WIND

Originally posted May 8.
The people of Boston now have the option of supporting the development of wind energy in New England.

Massachussetts utility NStar was given approval by the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities to enroll customers in a special program to buy wind generated electricity at a small monthly premium ($4.25/month for half the power bill, $7.25/month for all of it). The money will support the Maple Ridge Wind Farm in upstate New York and the Kibby Wind Power Project in Maine.

NewEnergyNews has never been enthusiastic about this kind of “charity” program. It highlights New Energy’s failure so far to readily meet - on the uneven playing field created by subsidies to Old Energy that New Energy can't rely on - market competitive rates. On a level playing field, wind would not need such special rates.

Leadership in Washington, however, is showing every indication of ignoring even a gesture toward extending vital production tax credits (PTCs) for the wind energy industry and investment tax credits (ITCs) for the solar energy industry. It therefore becomes necessary – knowing how important it is for the next generations to have a New Energy infrastructure – to take what is available and await the time when national leadership exhibits some wisdom and vision.

So, Thanks, NStar.

Tell Congress their failure to support New Energy won’t do. Sign the petition at Support Renewable Energy Tax Credits

Maple Ridge Wind Farm. (click to enlarge)

NStar Green allows customers to buy wind energy (at a price)
Robert T. Gavin, May 1, 2008 (Boston Globe)

WHO
Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities; Massachusetts utility NStar (Thomas J. May, chief executive, and Caroline Allen, spokeswoman); Sue Reid, staff attorney, Conservation Law Foundation

Another view. (click to enlarge)

WHAT
The Mass DPU approved NStar Green, allowing the utility to obtain power from wind farms in the New England region and sell it to their customers at an increased rate to cover the extra expense.

WHEN
- NStar Green, proposed in Summer 2007, will begin enrolling customers immediately.
- Wind generated electricity will be supplied beginning in July.

click to enlarge

WHERE
NStar serves 1.1 million electric customers in Eastern and Central Massachusetts.
The Maple Ridge Wind Farm is in upstate New York and the Kibby Wind Power Project is being built in Maine.

WHY
- Residential and small commercial Basic Service customers are eligible.
- Customers who buy half their electricity from wind farms will pay more $4.25/month more; those who choose to buy all their electricity from wind farms will pay $7.25/month extra.
- NStar signed 10-year contracts for a total of 60 megawatts of wind generated electricity from 2 New England wind farms. One is with PPM Energy for 30 megawatts from the Maple Ridge Wind Farm. The other is with TransCanada Corporation for 30 megawatts from the Kibby Wind Power Project.
- Several environmental groups, including Conservation Law Foundation, helped write the NStar Green program and back it enthusiastically.

Programs like this help bring the costs down... (click to enlarge

QUOTES
- Thomas J. May, chief executive, NStar: “What makes this program unique is the fact that it’s transparent -- customers know exactly where their renewable energy is being generated…"
- Sue Reid, staff attorney, Conservation Law Foundation: “Millions of Massachusetts residents will now have the option to support the development of clean, renewable energy in New England…The long-term contracts that are at the heart of this initiative are key catalysts to bringing renewable energy on-line and are a prime example of how we can use market mechanisms to combat climate change.”

SOLAR 2008: DAY 3 – GRIDLOCK?

Originally posted May 7.
Power is not the problem – it’s what to do with the power that’s the problem.

The Solar2008 Tuesday plenary session presenters made it utterly clear New Energy is building at a pace far beyond the energy establishment’s wildest expectations.

From rooftop photovoltaic panels to desert solar power plants to biomass projects to massive wind farms, the megawatts are rapidly becoming gigawatts. (A gigawatt is a thousand megawatts.)

Old Energy still doesn't really see what's coming. (click to enlarge)


Jigar Shah, Chief Strategy Officer, SunEdison, started the morning with a pitch for Distributed Generation. Distributed generation comes onto the grid from a wide variety of small, local directions (like rooftop solar panels) rather than from a central power plant source. During times of peak electricity demand, like hot summer afternoons, distributed generation reduces the strain. A smart grid can significantly expand its capacity to meet peaking loads by drawing on extra power generated variously and locally.

Rooftop solar panels are probably the most popular form of distributed generation. If solar continues growing at its current 40+% per year rate (and generating $16+ billion dollars in 2007), it will be providing 65 gigawatts of power in 10 years. That would easily meet solar’s share of the urgently needed new, non-emissions spewing U.S. power but, because much of solar’s growth will be “distributed” and require significantly less transmission on central infrastructure lines, it is even more important to the country.

The spirit of Distributed Generation. (click to enlarge)

It is Shah’s contention, in fact, that BECAUSE small solar installations require less transmission infrastructure than centralized power plants, they might turn out to be the key to preventing brownouts (and maybe blackouts) predicted by 2011 in many parts of the U.S. where power plant capacity and grid carrying capacity are overburdened.

But utilities and power planners tell Shah it’s too expensive to build solar installations. To which Shah replies, “But you’re even MORE expensive.” Insightfully, Shah insists power producers not compare solar energy cost to the cost of power generated by existing Old Energy production but to the cost of building new production from traditional sources. Considered that way, distributed solar generation – especially when the cost of building new transmission for the traditional sources is considered – is competitive right now.

Shah added that distributed solar generation is now storable, predictable if intermittent, and there are plenty of places to build it, from the rooftops of homes and businesses to the brownfields of inner cities. What is still needed, he concluded, are good incentives, innovative price schedules, net metering and a smart grid.

Chuck Kutscher, Principal Engineer, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) summarized the resurgence of solar power plants (also known as concentrating solar power), like distributed generation another rapidly rising source of output. In solar power plants, solar energy heats flowing materials that are used to do the same thing nuclear and coal plants do with the heat they make - heat water to create steam to drive turbines to generate electricity. There's one small difference, of course; solar power plants emit no CO2 and produce no radioactive waste.

Parabolic trough collectors, the most mature of the concentrating solar power (CSP) technologies, have been built in California and Nevada and are planned all over the U.S. Southwest. NREL studies show there is available, just at a small selection of best sites in the region, seven times the energy necessary to power the entire country. (Interest in potential Southwestern desert sites is so high there is land speculation on them.)

An important factor in solar power plant growth, Kutscher said, is that utilities understand and are unintimidated by the steam generation of electricity whereas they seem to regard distributed photovoltaic installations as foreign and beyond their control.

A parabolic trough -- the most mature of the power plant technologies. (click to enlarge)

One of the most exciting developments Kutscher described is in solar energy storage. It is no longer hypothetical. It is being done in Spain and storage facilities are being built with some of the new plants here. The economics of storage support power plant construction. The marginal costs of building a second solar field to feed the storage facility while the first one is generating real-time power are easily offset by the value of the stored power continuing to produce electricity during the evening peak demand periods when solar plant output would otherwise be fading.

The result: Solar energy-generated electricity can be sold at an average 14 cents per kilowatt-hour in markets where the best natural gas can do is 12 cents per kilowatt-hour. And, as Kutscher pointed out, the price of natural gas is expected to go up while the economies of scale on solar power plants are just beginning to be felt. Better reflective materials, prevention of heat loss and more efficient, durable fluids are all in the pipeline.

There are next-generation solar power plant technologies, too, such as solar power towers and Stirling dish systems. For technical reasons, the power towers may lend themselves to better storage. The Stirling dishes promise much higher efficiencies and don’t require water.

Kutscher concluded by describing the stickiest consideration for solar power plants – transmission. There is adequate wire space right now for present needs but to take advantage of the kind of sun under which the southwest languishes, a whole new smart grid and a set of high capacity lines running to the north and the east would be necessary. Europe is talking about the same kind of new lines because some dreamers there think lines under the Mediterranean can carry North African and Saudi Arabian solar energy to them.

Ed DeMeo, President, Renewable Energy Consulting Srvcs, Inc., talked about the wind energy industry’s intention to provide 20% of U.S. electricity by 2030. Tt is a level of growth much of the energy establishment does not believe wind capable. DeMeo and wind energy advocates have no doubts. Raw wind power is many times the entire U.S. power requirement. Costs are already widely competitive and as fossil fuel prices go up, wind’s value gets better.

Wind represents huge economic opportunity and job growth in the U.S. but it does have problems. Getting the siting of turbine installations right is challenging. The national demand for better New Energy incentives must be met Congressional action. And, most importantly, like CSP, wind expansion will require – and does not have – new, smart transmission.

The grid needs a makeover. (click to enlarge)

Craig Cornelius, Principal, Hudson Clean Energy Partners, shared his insights about the growth of distributed solar, CSP, wind energy and the other New Energies, calling on his perspective as the former Program Manager for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)’s Solar Energy Technologies Program.

His opening comments? “The grid is not there.”

In 2003, policy initiatives creating National Interest Transmission Corridors and allowing modes of cost recovery for transmission builders were put through but government regulatory oversight and Not-In-My-BackYard (NIMBY) attitudes still prevent new transmission from being built. It is not cost and it is not technical issues, Cornelius said, it is a matter of national will.

Despite the absence of transmission, Cornelius was upbeat about the boom in New Energy and it’s upside potential.

In a question and answer session following the presentations, NewEnergyNews asked the presenters to expand on the topic of transmission needs and explain what prevents the building of new wires.

Mr. Shah was frank. Enormous costs are involved. Mr. Kutscher said the high voltage transmission lines to carry solar power plant-generated electricity from the U.S. Southwest to major population centers in the north and the east are an exiting idea but still a long way away, as are the sub-Mediterranean lines. For the time being, some medium-sized projects in the pipeline could facilitate some expansion. He repeated what Cornelius has said: Only a change in national will would allow the kind of grid building really necessary.

“But siting new transmission lines,” Mr. DeMeo added, “…is probably the most difficult problem in the utility industry.” He then pointed to a way out of the NIMBY conundrum. It can be solved by giving people whose property is transgressed by power lines a stake in the new transmission. “We need to help those people along the right-of-way share in the revenue of that line…the whole situation would change [if] they get something out of it…we need a different way to involve the general public, to cut them in…”

Mr. Cornelius was somewhat encouraging about small transmission projects financed by entrepreneurs to make new CSP and wind projects practical. "There are many gigawatts worth of projects that can get done," he said. "…not requiring hundreds of miles of transmission…”

Mr. Shah finished up the discussion by admitting it might, in fact, take a precipitous event like a major blackout or a series of brownouts to motivate the nation’s leaders to build new transmission. He reiterated his emphasis on distributed generation, due in part to a recognition that (1) new transmission is needed, (2) it takes a long time to build, (3) it requires a complicated process that is barely started and therefore (4) an alternative is necessary.

“…In any political environment, people don’t like to take their vitamins,” Shah said. “But they like to take pain medication…Like many of the changes that have happened in the past five years, destructive events like Hurricane Katrina or very high gasoline prices… or blackouts like there were in the Northeast during…2003 will cause extraordinary change…there will be increasing strains on the grid over the next five years and when that happens there will be bouts of innovation…It IS what it is, I wish more of us took our vitamins and regularly exercised but in general a heart attack seems to do the trick for most folks.”

The Bad News: There was something left unsaid as the Q&A session moved to a different topic, something uneasy, even disturbing. Off-the-record remarks to NewEnergyNews later in the day by two of the participants confirmed it. There is a good possibility the country is headed for transmission gridlock and, like with so many other of the nation’s woes, it is a problem being left for the New Energy industries to deal with.

The Good News: These folks here at the American Solar Energy Society’s Solar2008 and the other dynamic members of the New Energy industries community are a capable, Can-Do bunch. If new transmission needs to be a part of the 21st century energy infrastructure’s New Energy architecture, these folks will take it on and they will get it done.

NewEnergyNews was honored by the opportunity to mingle with them at Solar2008 in San Diego. Here’s to next year in Buffalo!



The American Solar Energy Society’s SOLAR2008: Catch The Clean Energy Wave

WHO
The American Solar Energy Society (ASES) Day 3 plenary session speakers: Jigar Shah, Chief Strategy Officer, SunEdison; Chuck Kutscher, Principal Engineer, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL); Ed DeMeo, President, Renewable Energy Consulting Srvcs, Inc.; Craig Cornelius, Principal, Hudson Clean Energy Partners



WHAT
Day 3 at Solar 2008, the American Solar Energy Society annual conclave covering everything important in the world of solar energy.

WHEN
- Solar 2008 Day 3: May 6, 2008
- ASES was founded in 1954.

"Adios" and "au revoir" and "don't stop thinkin' about tomorrow" from San Diego. (click to enlarge)

WHERE
- Town and Country