NEW ENERGY WILL SAVE MILITARY LIVES - STUDY

Energy Security – America’s Best Defense; A study of increasing dependence on fossil fuels in wartime, and its contribution to ever higher casualty rates
November 9, 2009 (Deloitte)
and
Pentagon could save lives by cutting fuel use-study
Andrea Shalal-Esa, November 10, 2009 (Reuters)

SUMMARY
Commanders in Iraq have been saying for several years now that the military's dependence on oil is a crippling weakness that is getting U.S. troops killed.

Energy Security – America’s Best Defense; A study of increasing dependence on fossil fuels in wartime, and its contribution to ever higher casualty rates, by General Charles F. Wald (USAF Ret) and Tom Captain (Deloitte Vice Chair), documents the 175% increase in fuel consumption by the military in the decades since the Vietnam War, at a rate of 2.6% per year. It demonstrates how implementing New Energy and Energy Efficiency can reduce the numbers of convoys needed to deliver to fuel in battle theaters and other dangerous places and thereby reduce the lives lost and bodies maimed in service to feeding this nation's unnecessary oil addiction.

A key conclusion of the study is that the effort in Afghanistan could see a 124% increase in U.S. casualties through 2014 if the military does not move to New Energy and Energy Efficiency.

click to enlarge

COMMENTARY
The Deloitte study examined energy use by the military from World War II to the current wars in Middle Asia. The 2.6% increase in consumption per year and 175% increase since the Vietnam War has resulted in the military’s present use of 22 gallons of fuel per day per soldier due to:
1-increased mechanization of war technology,
2-increased expeditionary operations using mobility over long distances, and
3-irregular operations in rugged terrain.

The military has adopted more efficient internal combustion and jet engines and for its armored vehicles, tanks and planes, as well as nuclear power for aircraft carriers and submarines but the sheer multiplying of vehicle and operation numbers has outstripped the advances in old technologies.

click to enlarge

Convoys must often traverse long distances over treacherously hostile IED- and roadside bomb-compromised ground to deliver vital fuel. Only the introduction of methods to reduce dependence on these convoys will prevent casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq from increasing 17.5% per year for a cumulative increase of 124% through 2014.

But New Energy and Energy Efficiency technologies offer the opportunity to change the game in the military’s favor. The report mentions wind and solar energies, alternative fuels from algae and biomass, the use of battery electric vehicles and experimental concepts such as fission, fusion and fuel cells. Such technologies offer the opportunity not only to save lives but to help move the world to emissions-free energy and improve the economics of the military equation as well.

click to enlarge

From statistics on the military’s use of oil, the study moves to the world’s increasing dependence on oil, citing International Energy Agency predictions that world oil use will rise from today’s 85 million barrels per day to 94.4 million barrels per day in 2015 and 106.4 million barrels per day in 2030. This dependence is leading to the exhaustion of economically extractable oil reserves and driving the cost of fuel to unaffordable levels.

With its consumption of nearly 20 million barrels per day, the U.S. makes itself dependent on countries that are largely “unstable or prone to conflict” and expends enormous reserves of its blood and treasure protecting its supply. As the single biggest user of oil in the U.S., the Department of Defense (DoD) is the most vulnerable of all to the costs. In 2008, DoD spent $16 billion for 120 million barrels of oil, a million barrels every 3 days.

click to enlarge

The Air Force uses the most. Weapons and war tools use an ever bigger portion. In 2008, 2.1 million barrels of fuel per month (90 million gallons) went to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Dependence on oil makes the U.S. and the U.S. military vulnerable along a specific set of “lines of communication (LOC)” at a specific set of “chokepoints:”
1-the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf (the most important chokepoint in the world because it sees 17 million barrels of oil go through every day),
2-the Strait of Malacca near Indonesia in the Indian Ocean,
3-the Suez Canal leading from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea,
4-the Panama Canal connecting the Pacific Ocean, through the Caribbean Sea, to the Atlantic Ocean,
5-Bab el-Mandeb on the West Coast of Africa, and
6-the Bosporus/Turkish Straits connecting the Mediterranean to Central Asia and Russia.

click to enlarge

2008 costs due to Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), enemy attacks, rough weather, traffic accidents and pilferage: 44 trucks, 220,000 gallons of fuel. IEDs caused 43% of U.S. deaths in Iraq from July 2003 to May 2009. For much of the 2005 to 2008 period, IEDs caused more than half of all U.S. deaths in Iraq.

From 2005 to 2009, IEDs caused 38% of U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and the numbers are climbing with the level of activity. In July and August 2009, numbers were 50% higher than all of 2007.

The military is paying between $2 and $3 per gallon for fuel but when the cost of getting it to in-theater destinations is included, the cost is about $15 per gallon and when the cost of protecting it is included, the cost is about $45 per gallon.

click to enlarge

The 2008 Energy Security Strategic Plan from DoD’s Energy Security Task Force set 4 goals:
1-Maintain/enhance operational effectiveness while cutting total energy demand,
2-Increase strategic resilience with alternative and assured fuels and energy,
3-Enhanced operational/business effectiveness with institutional energy policies and solutions in DoD planning and business practices, and
4-Implement DoD-wide metrics with electric metering by 2012 and natural gas and steam metering by 2016.

click to enlarge

The Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on DoD Energy Strategy, subtitled “More Fight – Less Fuel,” made 5 recommendations:
1-Increase efficiency and use the full fuel cost to make every decision,
2-Reduce the risk of power interruptions on critical missions and in national infrastructure,
3-Establish DoD-wide metrics and goals,
4-Spend on New Energies and Energy Efficiencies at levels matching their high value,
5-Set policies and incentives to achieve near-term opportunities.

click to enlarge

Goals:

For Mobility
1-Turbine engine efficiency
2-UAV and generator efficiency
3-Vehicle efficiency

For Facilities
1-Solar
2-Geothermal
3-Other New Energies (such as ocean energies)

click to enlarge

Alternative fuels, power generation and energy strorage
1-Synfuels, limited by the 2007 energy law to those with lower greenhouse gas emissions (GhGs) than oil,
2-biofuels,
3-algae fuels, especially those that can be refined into jet fuels,
4-tactical power systems and generators, including hybrid engines,
5-fuel cell technologies,
6-nuclear fission technologies, and
7-batteries and other energy storage technologies.

click to enlarge

Using stimulus fund money and other financial resources, DoD has almost $2 billion invested in over 2,300 projects.

The Deloitte study recommendations, based on opportunities for accelerated deployment:
1-Common biofuels for aircraft and big engines, including plant and algae biofuels.
2-Hybrid electric/biofuel engines for ground transport, with built-in multiuse generators.
3-Solar technologies that are lightweight and durable for permanent and tent-like structures.
4-Engine/propulsion technologies that require the highest level of innovation.

click to enlarge

QUOTES
- Tom Captain, vice chair/Global and U.S. Aerospace & Defense (A&D) leader, Deloitte LLP/report co-author: “It is clear that our dependence on oil and other fossil fuels puts our fighting men and women at risk…We need to find ways to incorporate renewable energy sources to improve conservation and develop new fuels so that our soldiers are as safe as possible.”
- General Charles Wald (USAF Ret), director/senior advisor to the Aerospace & Defense Industry, Deloitte LLP/ co-author: “If the military can reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, it will help solve the strategic vulnerability that results from having such an oil-intense force…Many people in various sectors of the economy are realizing that energy efficiency, conservation and the use of alternative fuels are not just good for the environment, but good for business as well. In this case, it’s the business of protecting American lives.”

click to enlarge

- From the report’s conclusion: “As has been the case throughout history, all of these technologies will be applicable far beyond military use. The entire nation is on course for a new energy future, and the DoD is committed to working with existing and new partners to lead the way…First and foremost, energy security is essential to reduce wartime casualties. With the significant numbers of U.S. soldiers supporting the transport, logistics, and deployment of fossil fuel to the front lines, there is a call to action to reduce dependence on oil in war. Energy security is America’s best defense.”

MORE NEWS, 11-11: WHERE THE SUN IS; FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, NOT OF EMISSIONS TRADING; HARVEST OCEAN COLD FOR COOLING; SAILING IN SPACE ON SUN

WHERE THE SUN IS
DOE and NREL Announce Open PV Mapping Project
October 26, 2009 (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy)

"The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced the beta release of the Open PV Mapping Project…a collaborative effort between government, industry, and the public that will develop a comprehensive database of photovoltaic (PV) installation data for the United States. The project is the largest installation database with over 50,000 entries."

click thru to the Open PV Mapping site for much more info or to participate

"…[Users can] easily understand the current status and past progress of the PV industry…[and see] current and recent trends of the PV market. Additionally, users may add their own PV installation data, browse PV data entered by others, and view statistics. Moving forward, NREL will add additional data…use this information to drive further analysis of market growth…[and] gauge the progress toward DOE's goal of reaching PV grid parity by 2015."


FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, NOT OF EMISSIONS TRADING
Carbon Trading: Does It Really Reduce Emissions?
Roger Harrabin, November 4, 2009 (BBC News)
and
Re-thinking the World’s Largest New Derivatives Market
September 22 and November 2, 2009 (Friends of the Earth)

"Carbon trading could trigger a financial collapse like the sub-prime loans crisis, according to [Subprime Carbon? Re-thinking the world’s largest new derivatives market] from the green group Friends of the Earth (FoE)… the latest in a series of assaults against carbon trading as the Copenhagen climate conference looms.

"The carbon trade allows dirty industries in rich countries to offset emissions targets by paying for clean development projects in poor countries…[a trade] which could reach trillions of dollars in the next few decades…But FoE says most trades are done not by polluting industries, but by speculative traders packaging carbon credits into complex financial products similar to those which triggered the sub-prime mortgage crash…[and] warns that this could lead to a future crisis of sub-prime carbon…"

Despite a tempestuous economy and an unexpected oversupply of allowances due to decreased power demand, the EU's emissions trading system has held surprisingly steady and foresees higher prices in the future. (click to enlarge)

"The allegation was instantly rejected by Patrick Birley from the European Climate Exchange, who accused Friends of the Earth of demonstrating a loose grasp of financial markets by relating carbon trading to complex sub-prime trading…Friends of the Earth's rhetoric in this case might indeed be loose - but it is inarguable that confidence in carbon trading has been eroded after investigations showed that a substantial proportion of clean energy projects in developing countries funded by carbon finance had benefited business but not the environment…

"A recent report from Greenpeace focused on what it regards as a carbon trading failure in the Noel Kempff forestry project in Bolivia…The Bolivian government is now fervently anti-trading, insisting that rich nations should take responsibility for all their own emissions themselves…American Breakthrough Institute studies of carbon trading…concluded that a straight carbon tax (if ever it could be politically achieved) would be much more effective."

From FriendsoftheEarthUS via YouTube

"The British government agrees that rich nations must make big emissions cuts - but insists emissions trading still has a cost-effective part to play…Indeed, the EU's promise of 30% emissions cuts if other nations agree tough targets is based on carbon trading…The US position relies heavily on carbon trading too - although right-wingers in the Senate insist it cannot be trusted…

"…[I]t is eminently clear that in theory it is much, much more efficient to provide clean infrastructure in a fast-emerging economy [like China] than in our sclerotic rich countries with so much of their energy infrastructure, factories and homes already set in concrete…But it will not work if people cannot trust the trade…This will have to be bolted down very firmly if agreement is to be reached on it in Copenhagen…FoE is by no means alone in its scepticism."


HARVEST OCEAN COLD FOR COOLING
Cold Ocean Water to be Turned Into A/C
Mark Niesse, November 9, 2009 (AP via U.S. News & World Report)

"The plan to pump frigid waters from the ocean's depths to air condition downtown Honolulu isn't a pipe dream, and it could reduce the state's dependence on fossil fuels while slashing power bills that are the highest in the nation.

"The long-studied cooling project by Honolulu Seawater Air Conditioning would extend plumbing nearly 5 miles offshore, suck 45-degree water from 1,800 feet deep, circulate frosty water into buildings' existing A/C systems and then dump it back into the sea."

Schematic of the concept. (click to enlarge)

"Hawaii's government recently approved an environmental study of the project, and the company said it plans to begin construction next year, with the 40-building system expected to come online in early 2012…If the $200 million undertaking is successful in downtown, it could later be extended a couple of miles down the road into tourist-filled Waikiki hotels. [Installation costs to customers can be offset by a $300 per ton rebate approved by the state Public Utilities Commission last year.]

"According to Honolulu Seawater Air Conditioning, buildings using the system would save up to 75 percent of the electricity they currently use on air conditioning…[even including] the electricity it will take to power the vast pumping system…[because] the buildings will no longer be using their power-hungry chillers, which are the machines that reduce water temperatures in order to cool the air in a standard A/C system."

This concept fits broadly into the category of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion in Hawaii but at lakesides and riversides is a form of geothermal cooling. (click to enlarge)

"While the seawater A/C system is innovative, it's not revolutionary. This technology is already being used around the world in locations that have easy access to cold water, including Toronto, Stockholm, Bora Bora and Hawaii's Big Island…An early version of seawater air conditioning began nearly 30 years ago at the National Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority at Keahole Point, which initially used a truck radiator and box fan system…That rudimentary system lasted about six months, and the three-building system has since been upgraded to a system similar to the one planned for Honolulu…

"Honolulu Seawater Air Conditioning plans to cover downtown buildings including the 30-story First Hawaiian Center, the tallest building in Hawaii. Others include the federal courthouse, state government offices and the four-story headquarters of the state's main electric utility, Hawaiian Electric Co…The project will eliminate the equivalent of 84,000 tons of carbon dioxide from the air annually…roughly equal to 15,000 cars staying off the road…"


SAILING IN SPACE ON SUN
Setting Sail Into Space, Propelled by Sunshine
Dennis Overbye, November 9, 2009 (NY Times)

"…About a year from now, if all goes well, a box about the size of a loaf of bread will pop out of a rocket some 500 miles above the Earth. There in the vacuum it will unfurl four triangular sails as shiny as moonlight and only barely more substantial. Then it will slowly rise on a sunbeam and move across the stars.

"LightSail-1…will sail a few hours and gain a few miles in altitude. But those hours will mark a milestone for a dream that is almost as old as the rocket age itself, and as romantic: to navigate the cosmos on winds of starlight…Even as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration continues to flounder in a search for its future, [Dr. Louis Friedman, director of the Planetary Society] announced… that the Planetary Society, with help from an anonymous donor…[will, over] three years… build and fly a series of solar-sail spacecraft dubbed LightSails, first in orbit around the Earth and eventually into deeper space."

LightSail 1. (click to enlarge)

"…[ Ann Druyan, a film producer and widow of the late astronomer and author Carl Sagan, said it is in part for Sagan], who loved the notion and had embraced it as a symbol for the wise use of technology…There is a long line of visionaries, stretching back to the Russian rocket pioneers Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and Fridrich Tsander and the author Arthur C. Clarke, who have supported this idea…The solar sail receives its driving force from the simple fact that light carries not just energy but also momentum…The force on a solar sail is gentle, if not feeble, but unlike a rocket, which fires for a few minutes at most, it is constant. Over days and years a big enough sail, say a mile on a side, could reach speeds of hundreds of thousands of miles an hour, fast enough to traverse the solar system in 5 years. Riding the beam from a powerful laser, a sail could even make the journey to another star system in 100 years, that is to say, a human lifespan.

"Dr. Friedman said it would take too long and involve too much exposure to radiation [for humans]…[T]he only passengers on an interstellar voyage — even after 200 years of additional technological development — [are] likely to be robots or perhaps our genomes encoded on a chip, a consequence of the need to keep the craft light, like a giant cosmic kite…In principle, a solar sail can do anything a regular sail can do…[Ii]t can act as an antigravity machine, using solar pressure to balance the Sun’s gravity and thus hover anyplace in space…And [requires little] rocket fuel…[M]any of NASA’s laboratories have studied solar sails…But efforts by the agency have dried up as it searches for dollars to keep the human spaceflight program going…Japan continues to have a program, and test solar sails have been deployed from satellites or rockets, but no one has ever gotten as far as trying to sail them anywhere…"

click thru for a complete NASA report on the concept

"[LightSail’s sail] is made of aluminized Mylar about one-quarter the thickness of a trash bag. The body of the spacecraft will consist of three miniature satellites known as CubeSats, four inches on a side…One of the cubes will hold electronics and the other two will carry folded-up sails…[T]he whole thing weighs less than five kilograms, or about 11 pounds…The LightSail missions will be spread about a year apart, starting around the end of 2010…[ piggybacking] on the launching of a regular satellite…[The first flight will be a brief proof-of-concept]…

"The next flight will feature a larger sail and will last several days, building up enough velocity to raise its orbit by tens or hundreds of miles…For the third flight, Dr. Friedman and his colleagues intend to set sail out of Earth orbit with a package of scientific instruments to monitor the output of the Sun and provide early warning of magnetic storms that can disrupt power grids and even damage spacecraft. The plan is to set up camp at a point where the gravity of the Earth and Sun balance each other — called L1, about 900,000 miles from the Earth — a popular place for conventional scientific satellites. That, he acknowledges, will require a small rocket, like the attitude control jets on the shuttle, to move out of Earth orbit, perhaps frustrating to a purist…"

THE TOO, TOO COSTLY CASE OF NUCLEAR POWER

Report: If Congress Ignores Wall Street's Warnings on New Nuclear Reactors, New Industry 'Meltdown' Will Leave Taxpayers and Ratepayers at Grave Risk; Market Refusal to Finance New Reactors Reflects Unacceptable Financial Risks That Should Not be Ignored by Lawmakers; Taxpayers and Ratepayers Beware:
Loan Guarantees and Other Subsidies Will Not Turn 'Uneconomic' Reactors Into
Sound Investments
November 5, 2009 (PRNewswire via Reuters)
and
Mark Cooper, Senior Fellow for Economic Analysis, Releases New Report
November 2009 (Vermont Law School Environmental Law Center Institute for Energy and the Environment)

SUMMARY
Nuclear power is just plain bad business.

In All Risk, No Reward for Taxpayers and Ratepayers: The Economics of Subsidizing the ‘Nuclear Renaissance’ with Loan Guarantees and Construction Work in Progress, Dr. Mark Cooper demonstrates clearly just how bad that business is.

With conservatives in Congress talking about using taxpayer money to facilitate 100 or more new nuclear power plants in the next 2 decades, it is crucial to heed Dr. Cooper’s advice, which is simple: Not even Wall Street is reckless enough to buy into nuclear power, so why is Congress trying to sell it to the American people?

While the slow growth of New Energy is a classic case of market failure and requires intervention, the poor economics and high risks associated with nuclear projects are a classic example of the wisdom of the market and taxpayers and ratepayers should not be forced to bear that burden.

click to enlarge

COMMENTARY
In The Economics of Nuclear Reactors (June 2009), Dr. Cooper’s analysis found that new nuclear reactor’s cannot be built at a price of less than 12-to-20 cents per kilowatt-hour while New Energy and Energy Efficency can be built at 6 cents per kilowatt-hour. 100 new nuclear reactors would cost from $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the lifetimes of the plants than would building the same capacity with New Energy and Energy Efficency.

As a result, private capital has largely abandoned the nuclear industry.

click to enlarge

Cooper’s calculation of the cost of new nuclear power was based on an analysis of some 36+ proposed new projects. It found that the price of building has quadrupled since 2000. This repeats the seven-fold increase in the cost of nuclear power projects in the 1960s and 1970s that resulted in the abandonment or cancellation of half the planned reactors.

Intent on capturing a share of the federal impulse to drive the growth of emissions-free power generation in the face of global climate change and an anticipated huge increase in demand for domestic sources of electricity, the nuclear industry and its political allies seem intent on bypassing the market’s wisdom.

Direct subsidies sought from taxpayers and ratepayers by the nuclear industy, potentially amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars:
1-A major increase in loan guarantees and new rules allotting funds for New Energy to nuclear power;
2-Elimination of taxpayer protections against loan defaults;
3-Major increases in tax and insurance subsidies; and
4-Construction work in progress provisions allowing for accelerated and guaranteed construction costs recovery from ratepayers.

click to enlarge

Even with such subsidies, according to Dr. Cooper’s calculations, nuclear would still be more expensive than New Energy and Energy Efficiency. Should the federal government provide such subsidies to new nuclear projects, however, it would induce utilities to buy nuclear, costing ratepayers still more in over-runs and lost opportunities.

Because of the enormous risk in financing a nuclear project that is essentially not market-worthy, the nuclear industry has devised a strategy, supported by its political allies, to shift the risk to taxpayers and ratepayers by (1) having the federal government guarantee inordinately high loans over inordinate periods of time, and (2) having ratepayers pay stipends on their utility bills to support construction in progress.

One of the most severe blows yet dealt to the nuclear industry, and one of the clearest indicators of how hardnosed Wall Street investors regard it, were the ratings given nuclear projects pursuing financing by Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s. The venerable bond rating agencies listed more than three dozen specific risk factors in six categories (technology, policy, regulatory, execution, marketplace, financial) that make investments in nuclear projects little more than gambles.

click to enlarge

The judgment of investors leaves the fate of the nuclear industry in the hands of the federal government and the big utilities. The study enumerates 5 ways underwriting nuclear projects is bad for ratepayers and taxpayers:
1-If a utility invests in generation that is more expensive, it means higher bills for the ratepayer.
2-Federal subsidies induce utilities to invest in the nuclear projects with which they are familiar rather than familiarizing themselves with the less costly and less risky New Energies.
3-The over-run costs common to nuclear projects are shifted to the ratepayers.
4-The poor performance of nuclear investments results in utilities getting financial downgrades, making them less able to effectively serve their customers and making future projects more expensive due to the higher interest rates charged to lower-rated utilities.
5-The cost of money unnecessarily spent by ratepayers and of taxpayer money unnecessarily tied up in unnecessarily expensive investments reverberates through the economy in lost opportunities of literally inestimable value.

click to enlarge

Nothing speaks more precisely to the unaffordability of nuclear power than the pro-nuclear 2009 MIT study that concluded the only way an economic case could be made for it would be if (1) a cap&trade system or carbon tax makes greenhouse gas emissions (GhGs) very expensive, AND (2) the cost of fossil fuels gets out of control, AND (3) the price of nuclear project construction drops, AND (4) the federal regulatory process is streamlined.

As the Cooper paper and the bond rating agencies’ evaluations make clear, none of those 4 conditions is in sight.
(1) The cap&trade system working its way through Congress is designed to keep GhG prices moderate for the foreseeable future so as to bring a broad array of players into the market. A carbon tax remains politically unlikely;
(2) A drop in demand and newfound natural gas reserves and a rise in New Energy capacities has kept fossil fuel prices low to moderate;
(3) The cost of nuclear projects continues an upward trend unabated; and,
(4) The nuclear project licensing process is laborious and inefficient because plant designs are poorly conceived and site specific.

click to enlarge

As a result, most states refuse to subsidize nuclear reactors or allow utilities to do so with ratepayer money and special concessions.

Nevertheless, nuclear industry advocates continue to argue that subsidized financing through loan guarantees from the taxpayer and construction work in progress funding from the ratepayer will lower project financing costs and pay off in the long run. This shifting of risk, however, will inevitably end up costing taxpayers and ratepayers:
1-in higher electricity prices,
2-in incentives to utilities to make bad investments,
3-in unanticipated cost and schedule over-runs that will drive up utility bills,
4-in bad credit ratings for utilities that will force them to pay higher interest on project loans that will end up creating higher electricity prices and utility bills, and
5-in lost opportunities to use taxpayer and ratepayer monies in more economy-building ways.

click to enlarge

The actual cost to taxpayers and ratepayers can only be estimated. It will be the result of:
1-The number of the proposed new nuclear projects put into construction, which could be as low as 45 and could be as high as 187 and is most often mentioned by Congressional advocates as 100 or 125;
2-The cost of new projects, which keeps going up;
3-The number of projects that begin but get cancelled or abandoned, which is usually a substantial percentage of those planned;
4- At what point in the projects the cancellations and abandonments occur;
5-The options lost due to investment in nuclear projects.

Indications of a bad nuclear project investment:
1-The project is far bigger than prudent or necessary;
2-The utility taking on the project cannot find partners;
3-There is a bad report from the governing federal agency on the risk of the loan guarantee, which occurs about half the time;
4-A large risk premium is recommended by the nuclear industry consultant, often twice the normal rate of return; and
5-There are delays and downgrading of financial ratings, often before concrete is poured.

click to enlarge

The risk factors listed above were the ones that emerged in the last wave of nuclear enthusiasm in the 1960s and 1970s when:
1-half of the reactors ordered were cancelled or abandoned;
2-completions took twice as long as projected and cost twice the original estimate;
3-80% of utilities that took on nuclear projects were downgraded financially; and,
4-significant investor owned and publicly owned utilities were bankrupted.

A repeat of that history now would cost hundreds of billions in losses for taxpayers and trillions in excess costs for ratepayers.

click to enlarge

It is possible, from Dr. Cooper’s point of view, to use federal incentives and subsidies to drive nuclear research, development and demonstration (RD&D) without repeating the blunders of the past by:
1-Not using loan guarantees for deployment of mature, expensive, and risky
technologies;
2-Making loan guarantees subject to rigorous fiscal, technology and administrative oversight; and
3-Structuring loan guarantees with maximum taxpayer protections and transparency.

States utility commissions can protect themselves by:
1-Rejecting construction work in progress and similar plans that make ratepayers fund construction;
2-Fixing the costs of construction and making contractors rather than ratepayers responsible for over-runs; and
3-Imposing hard incentive/penalty mechanisms to control cost overruns.

Most importantly, nuclear energy is a mature technology and nuclear project financing should be left to private capital markets. Nuclear advocates are typically among the strongest supporters of free markets and the most vociferous critics of government interference. Let them live by their principles instead of running to U.S. taxpayers and ratepayers for "socialized" nuclear power.

Leave federal incentive programs to the New Energies which, despite a playing field tilted against them by Big Oil and Big Coal, have - by the sheer undeniability of their superiority and inevitability - clawed their way into the the game and require only the rectification of the market failures now supporting the Old Energies to take their rightful place and power the world.

click to enlarge

QUOTES
- From the report: “On the basis of historical and contemporary data, a recent analysis of The Economics of Nuclear Reactors concluded that nuclear reactors are uneconomic, in fact vastly more expensive than a wide range of alternatives that are currently available. Recent studies from the National Research Council7 and the California Energy Commission support that finding. The National Research Council concluded that unsubsidized power from nuclear reactors is between three and four times as costly as reducing the demand for electricity through investments in energy efficiency. The California Energy Commission identified a dozen supply-side options that produce power that is at least 40 percent lower in cost than the power from nuclear reactors…”

Two last points: (1) Accounting for all their radioactive accidents makes the economics of nuclear projects even worse. (click to enlarge)

- Moody’s, May 2008: “We remain concerned over the absence of details regarding key elements associated with the decision process to proceed with a project of this scale. Information is needed regarding the all-in construction costs and break-down of those costs; the construction timeline and schedule; the Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) contractual arrangements and the allocation of fixed versus variable costs within those arrangements; the financing structure, expected sources of financing and pro-forma capitalization; and, the ultimate impact on consumer rates…”
- Moody’s, June 2009: “Given these long-term risks, a company’s financial policy becomes especiallycritical to its overall credit profile during construction. In general, we believe a company should prepare for the higher risk associated with construction by maintaining, if not strengthening, its balance sheet, and by maintaining robust levels of available liquidity capacity…”

Two last points: (2) With no disrespect for Dr. Cooper, the great and brilliant Amory Lovins has been preaching this sermon for a long time. (click to enlarge)

- From the report: “From the societal point of view, the push to subsidize dozens, if not hundreds, of reactors in the next couple of decades is not compelling. While it can be argued that a few of the challenges that nuclear reactors face can be seen as “market failures” that might justify government intervention, most of the obstacles are not market failures; they are a reflection of the market’s sound judgment about the nature of the technology and the economic conditions [for] new nuclear reactors. The rejection of new reactors by financial markets is not a case of market failure, it is an example of market success, markets properly assessing risk and acting accordingly by refusing to underwrite unacceptable risks. The existence of numerous lower cost, lower-risk options to meet the need for electricity in a low-carbon environment undercuts the claim that nuclear reactors are the solution to the externality problem of climate change.”

MORE NEWS, 11-10: VOTERS WANT ACTION ON CLIMATE; THE SOLAR LEASE; WIND POWERS >50% OF SPAIN FOR A DAY; BIOFUELS & HEALTH INS REFORM

VOTERS WANT ACTION ON CLIMATE
Voters in Key States Overwhelmingly Support Action on Energy and Global Warming
Brandon MacGillis, 9 November 2009 (The Pew Environment Group)

"Recent surveys of voters conducted in three swing states and five swing congressional districts find overwhelming support for a two-part plan to reduce global warming emissions and to require use of clean energy sources.

"There is support in all three states for the combined proposal to reduce emissions and require clean energy sources. When asked, 'Congress is considering an energy plan that has two key parts. One part would require factories and power companies to reduce their emissions of the carbon pollution that causes global warming by 17% (20% in MO) by the year 2020 and by 80% by the year 2050. The other part would require power companies to generate 15% of their power from clean energy sources like wind and solar by the year 2025. Would you favor/oppose this entire plan?'"

click to enlarge

"[Democratic and Republican pollsters found from August through October that] 75% of voters in Michigan favor…68% of voters in Ohio favor…67% of voters in Missouri favor…"

click to enlarge

"Surveys in five congressional districts also found that voters favor elements of the two-part plan to reduce emissions and require use of clean energy sources passed by the House. When asked [almost the same question]…61% of voters in Florida's 2nd district support…69% of voters in New Mexico's 2nd district support…63% of voters in Ohio's 16th district support…70% of voters in Virginia's 5th district support…68% of voters in Washington's 8th district support…

"In the statewide polls, voters were asked if they would support requiring power companies to generate 15% of their power from clean energy sources. This number differs from the 20% that voters in the district polls were presented due to developments with the targets in the Senate legislation…"


THE SOLAR LEASE
SolarCity aims to make solar power more affordable
Julie Schmitt, November 8, 2009 (USA Today)

"…[I]n three years [SolarCity] has grown to become a leading residential solar installer in California, the nation's largest solar market…[and] has emerged as one of the top consumer brands in solar at a time when green is hot and President Obama makes solar and other renewable energy sources front-page news.

"Last year, SolarCity helped pioneer a way to bring solar to the masses and remove one of the biggest hurdles to its widespread adoption: costs of $15,000 or more for homeowners to go solar. With a SolarCity residential lease, customers can lease a system at no money down, and in many areas, save 10% to 15% a month on their combined electric and lease-payment bill…[O]ther companies offer similar financing options, [but SolarCity has created the first brand in solar]…The company claims 4,500 residential and commercial customers in California, Arizona and Oregon, including eBay and Intel."

click thru to use the SolarCity calculator

"[President and CEO Lydon] Rive says SolarCity's revenue will grow 40% this year – despite the recession – and 250% next year, given orders on the books. SolarCity employs 450 and plans to add 180 workers in the next quarter…It also aims to expand to at least five states in the next year. Rive, while not releasing revenue for the privately held SolarCity, says it turned its first profit in the recently finished third quarter…

"Nationwide, hundreds of solar companies and installers vie for business [in the competitive solar market], especially in SolarCity's key market, California. Competitors, such as REC Solar, Akeena Solar, GroSolar, SunPower and others, are also building successful brands…[S]olar provides 1% of the USA's energy…[but] many states still lack strong enough incentives and laws to move broad solar adoption…Financing and incentives can also be touch-and-go…[but]SolarCity has…a $100 million fund by US Bancorp to finance its lease deals…"

From solarcity100 via YouTube

"…[O]ne of Solar City's biggest challenges is overcoming homeowner skepticism that its lease deal is too good to be true…SolarCity's leases run for 15 years. The company designs, installs and maintains the system. SolarCity owns the system and gets the accompanying federal tax credits and state incentives. Homeowners pay SolarCity for the lease and the electricity they use. That's typically about 15% less than their traditional monthly electric bill…Lease rates go up each year by up to 3.9%, no matter how much or how little electric rates move. And people who don't use a lot of electricity [bills under $150 a month ] aren't likely to see savings…

"Given federal tax credits, homeowners with available cash may also do better financially to buy a system…[Most companies offer] outright sales, as well as leases or leaselike options…But for those without cash or the gumption to maintain their solar systems, leasing is a [good option]…[which is why] SolarCity has raised $80 million in venture capital funding…[A]bout 65% of SolarCity's new residential customers choose to lease vs. buy a system…The key to SolarCity's future success, [CEO] Rive says, is getting every homeowner-customer to feel like a VIP – whether they lease or buy…"


WIND POWERS >50% OF SPAIN FOR A DAY
Spain’s wind turbines supply half of the national power grid
Graham Keeley, November 10, 2009 (UK Times)

"Spain was celebrating its commitment to renewable energy yesterday after wind turbines dotted across the country produced more than half of all its electricity for the first time.

"High winds across Spain on Sunday meant that for over five hours, over 53 per cent of the country’s power came from wind energy. The towering white wind turbines which loom over Castilla-La Mancha — home to Cervantes’s hero Don Quixote — and which dominate other parts of Spain, set a new record in wind energy production…Most of the wind power was used immediately, 6 per cent was stored and 7.7 per cent was exported to France, Portugal and Morocco."

click to enlarge

"In the past decade Spain has relentlessly invested in wind power, along with other renewable sources, making it the third-biggest supplier after the United States and Germany…José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Spain’s Prime Minister, a strong believer in renewable energy, has hinted his Government may phase out nuclear plants…The move has provoked opposition from within the nuclear industry, his own party and from the opposition conservative Popular Party.

"Spain began its wind power push in 1997, but five years ago critics believed it could not produce more than 14 per cent of the country’s electricity…Wind farms have produced 17,700 megawatt-hours (mWh) of electricity so far this year, but renewable energy industry figures believe this figure could rise to 40,000mWh by 2020."

click to enlarge

"Spain’s Socialist Government invested €991 million (£890 million) in wind power in 2007. Already it has reaped a return on its investment; in 2007 it saved €1 billion on fossil fuels, according to the Spanish Environment Ministry…[T]his year wind power is expected to produce 13 per cent of all electricity, hydroelectric power 10 per cent and solar power 2.5 per cent…Spain’s solar industry is one of the fastest growing in the world.

"Nuclear energy produced 20.9 per cent of Spain’s energy needs last year and critics claim the country cannot dispense with a source which supplies almost a fifth of its power…During a meeting with Mr Zapatero at the White House last month, [President Obama] praised Spain as a “worldwide leader” in renewable energy."


BIOFUELS & HEALTH INS REFORM
How Biofuel Leaked Into the House Health Bill
David M. Herszenhorn, November 8, 2009 (NY Times)

"At first glance, it might seem as if House Democrats were so overwhelmed by their ambitious legislative agenda that they confused their big climate change legislation with their big health care bill.

"A package of last-minute changes to the Democrats’ health care bill…included a curious tax provision related to the production of biofuels, including ethanol. By changing some of the rules related to tax credits for biofuel manufacturers, the provision would raise about $24 billion in additional tax revenue from the biofuel companies over 10 years."

From a January 2009 report by the Environmental Working Group (click thru for the report)

"So what do biofuel producers have to do with health care? Actually, nothing. The change was all about the money… “Pay-for” and “revenue-raiser” …are just fancy ways [in Congress] of describing a tax: something that “pays for” legislation, or “raises revenue” to pay for legislation…But good revenue-raisers are hard to find. And when one is available, lawmakers often fight over it…Senate Democrats swiped a revenue-raiser that House Democrats had included in their health care legislation: a delay in a tax code change, which would result in multinational corporations’ paying $26.1 billion in taxes over 10 years that they would otherwise be spared…

"[T]hat move left a hole in the House Democrats health care bill…The solution was a change in the “second generation biofuel producer tax credit” which will make up most of the money taken by the Senate…[It] means some biofuel producers will receive less in tax credits than under current law. (The House also retained a limited version of the tax code change for multinational companies, which will generate $6 billion for the health care bill.)"

Health insurance reform has reformed biofuels subsidies. (From a January 2009 report by the Environmental Working Group - click thru for the report)

"Representative Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, who sponsored the biofuel amendment on behalf of the House Democratic leadership, said that it was both a good way to raise money and an improvement in alternative energy policy that Democrats would have carried out anyway…[and] the Senate’s swipe of the tax provision…left the House no choice but to find more money….

"Such a tug-of-war over revenue-raisers is hardly unusual in Congress. But…[this one] highlights how increasingly difficult it has become for lawmakers to generate revenue without imposing new taxes that will be felt directly by the constituents who elect them. President Obama’s promise not to raise taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000 a year has made that challenge even harder…"

NEW ENERGY WILL BRING BLUE COLLAR JOBS BACK TO THE U.S. MIDDLE CLASS - STUDY

Clean energy to boost US manufacturing jobs-study
November 4, 2009 (Reuters)
and
Report Shows Green Technologies Will Revitalize U.S. Manufacturing
November 4, 2009 (Blue Green Alliance)

SUMMARY
The answer to the lingering malady of today’s jobless recovery from the Great Recession of 2008-09 is the New Energy economy. By making a commitment to the New Energy economy, policy makers and private enterprise will stimulate the flagging national fortunes in ways that haven't been seen since the post-World War II expansion.

Building a Clean Energy Assembly Line: How Renewable Energy Can Revitalize U.S. Manufacturing and the American Middle Class, from the Blue Green Alliance, documents the many ways that the New Energy economy will jumpstart U.S. business activity by reinvigorating its core strength, the hardworking middle class.

Since December 2007, the U.S. manufacturing sector has lost two million jobs, 14.6% of the workforce, and ~90,000 U.S. manufacturers, more than 25%, are considered “at risk.”

The New Energies provide 3-to-6 times as may jobs, per dollar of investment, as the Old Energies. These are jobs that are un-outsource-able and invest in people instead of pollution. Because the power the New Energies generate does not include the cost of fuel, the jobs can pay well and have good benefits. Because the fuel the New Energies use is infinitely renewable, the jobs can last for the working life of the people who do them and generations beyond.

The Blue Green Alliance, launched by the Sierra Club and the United Steelworkers in 2006, is a partnership of labor unions and environmental organizations seeking to further the common ground between them. The new report is based on research by the Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP).

Pew Research showed New Energy opportunities aleady growing. (click to enlarge)

COMMENTARY
The calculation that the New Energies provide 3-to-6 times as may jobs, per dollar of investment, as the Old Energies, includes manufacturing, installation, operation and maintenance jobs in the count.

In addition to that impressive statistic, the report includes many other vital key findings:
1-A national Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) requiring regulated utilities to obtain 25% of their power from New Energy sources by 2025, in conjunction with other proposed policies, would result in enough demand for the wind turbines, solar panels and the range of New Energy hardware to create 850,000 jobs in existing U.S. manufacturing companies.
2-The industrially aching Midwest will especially benefit from such a scale-up in the New Energies. Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Wisconsin and Michigan would be among the top 10 New Energy job-creating states.
3-Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin and Indiana would be among the top 5 states to generate jobs in wind turbine component manufacturing.
4-The 2 states of California and Texas would create 155,000+ New Energy jobs.
5-With a jump in demand for New Energy hardware, there are 42,000+ existing manufacturing companies that would see growth.

Pew Research showed New Energy opportunities aleady growing. (click to enlarge)

The report lists specific policy recommendations needed to build a U.S. New Energy assembly line and create hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs with long-term stability and good benefits:
1- A national Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) requiring regulated utilities to obtain 25% of their power from New Energy sources by 2025 would build markets.
2-A national cap&trade system with an effective allocation of emissions allowances would also build markets by putting a price on the generation of emissions and making investment in New Energy a better economic choice for big power consumers.
3-Feed-in tariffs at the state level would generate demand for New Energy.
4-Federal investment and production tax credits (ITCs and PTCs), national net metering and improved interconnection standards would all encourage New Energy developers and other entrepreneurs to build New Energy infrastructure.
5-A national Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS) would generate assembly line jobs in the manufacture of Energy Efficient appliances, windows and other efficiency hardware from Smart meters to caulking guns.

click to enlarge

6-The cap&trade system, by capping emissions and upping the demand for New Energy, will increase the value of New Energy in electricity markets.
7-Improved revolving loan programs, loan guarantees and other benefits support New Energy developers in obtaining the financing they need.
8-Zero-interest Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs) would help municipalities, state agencies and other public entities provide financing for New Energy development.
9-Supply chains can be built through an expansion of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP).
10-Innovation can be spurred through federal investment in Research, Development and Deployment (RD&D) to fund early-stage basic and applied research until it is ready to attract private-sector capital.

click to enlarge

The report only mentions in passing the hundreds of thousands of jobs that would come from the construction and maintenance of New Energy projects. A solar photovoltaic (PV) installation creates at least 7 times as many jobs as the building of natural gas power plants and one study suggested it could be as high as 33 times as many jobs. One leading wind contractor already has ~400 construction jobs running on a daily basis.

Existing U.S. manufacturers of steel towers, control systems, ball bearings and other such New energy equipment components will boom if the nation’s leaders face up to their responsibility to fight global climate change by passing a 25% by 2025 RES to drive the building of New Energy infrastructure.

click to enlarge

In places where public policies have supported the development of New Energy such as Europe, Japan and China, New Energy has flourished and the New Energy assembly line has grown. This is also true for states in the U.S. that have instituted supports for New Energy, like the 29 states with their own RESs. Recently built New Energy projects such as the 230 megawatt Wild Horse wind installation near Ellensburg, Washington, show in concrete terms the potential for permanent jobs in New Energy. Where policies do not support New Energy, job force growth the New Energy assembly line is behind the curve and falling out of the competition.

A wind turbine has ~8,000 parts, from steel towers, to blades, to high precision gearboxes, to state-of-the-art software control systems. Turbine blades require special carbon fiber materials and electronic computerized control systems to adjust them to wind speed and direction changes. A huge supply chain is necessary for companies like GE and Siemens with their names on the nacelles. Growth will follow their expansion just like Detroit car brands grew huge supply chains to make their cars go.

click to enlarge

Reversing a long period of outsourcing and job loss, foreign wind manufacturers are already building facilities in states like Colorado, Minnesota, Indiana, North Dakota and Pennsylvania where public policies suggest there will continue to be big wind installation activity. These new facilities are adding significant numbers to the U.S. employment roles.

As recently as 2005, U.S. suppliers filled less than 30% of the domestic wind industry supply chain. 2007 and 2008 saw the construction of 20 new facilities and 17 expanded facilities by foreign manufacturers. In 2008, with this growing manufacturing base driving demand and new business investment, U.S. suppliers filled ~50% of the supply chain. Another 30 new manufacturing facilities were announced in 2008, suggesting the New Energy assembly line is in for still greater growth in the immediate future.

Total direct jobs added in the U.S. wind industry in 2008: 35,000. Total direct jobs in the U.S. wind industry in 2008: 85,000. The wind industry numbers include turbine manufacturing jobs as well as jobs in project development, operations and maintenance, legal and marketing services.

click to enlarge

Every megawatt of wind power, which is enough electricity for ~300 homes, creates 4.85 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) jobs in manufacturing, installation and operation and maintenance. Existing U.S. companies and businesses could manufacture 70-to-75% of the component parts for the burgeoning New Energy industries. That's a lot of FTEs.

In the absence of policies that support the New Energies, those FTEs (jobs!) will go to Europe, China, Japan and India.

WITH those policies, the REPP supply chain analysis (using categories established in the National American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) to track manufacturing activity) showed that a 25% by 2025 RES requiring 18,500 megawatts of New Energy every year for 15 years would generate 850,000+ New Energy jobs that would pay well, be long-term, provide high-quality benefits and serve a secure, domestic, emissions-free energy supply.

An ASES study shows New Energy opportunities emerging across a wide spectrum in the next 2 decades. (click to enlarge)

QUOTES
- From the report: “For a generation following World War II, America’s factories were humming at full capacity while workers built a vibrant middle class. Thirty-five years later, our industrial heartland is fading in the face of global competition. And since the current recession began in December 2007, the manufacturing sector has lost two million jobs, or 14.6 percent of the workforce…In fact, more than a quarter of American manufacturers — some 90,000 — are now deemed “at risk” due to their inability to keep pace with global competitors…Today, we need a comprehensive industrial policy to rebuild manufacturing — and by extension, “Main Street” — across the United States. A critical component of a new industrial policy will be a program to make the U.S. the world’s leading manufacturer of new, green technologies and components. This is not a pie-in-the-sky goal. It makes good economic sense and we have the capacity to do it.”

An ASES study shows New Energy opportunities emerging across a wide spectrum in the next 2 decades. (click to enlarge)

- From the report: “The new, clean energy economy is fundamentally different than the 20th century economy and its reliance on polluting fossil fuels imported from distant regions of the world. Whether wind or solar, biomass or geothermal, clean energy is home-grown. What’s more, it can be cheap — it just needs to be captured efficiently and transformed into electricity, hydrogen or clean transportation fuels. This process of capture and transformation can jumpstart our struggling economy by lowering energy costs and creating millions of jobs, including hundreds of thousands of family-supporting manufacturing jobs. Development of clean energy invests directly in people, substituting labor for fuel expenses…”

An ASES study shows New Energy opportunities emerging across a wide spectrum in the next 2 decades. (click to enlarge)

- From the report: “Strong and consistent federal policy support, including passage of comprehensive climate and energy legislation, would greatly accelerate growth in wind-turbine manufacturing, and extend economic opportunity to smaller and less mature industries in the solar, geothermal and biomass sectors. We need robust supports for manufacturing in such legislation to ensure that strengthening and revitalizing America’s manufacturing base is a national priority. There is no reason why America and its workers should not lead the world in green manufacturing. Failure to support a world-class domestic renewable manufacturing sector in the U.S. in the face of greatly expanded demand for renewable energy will likely have negative consequences for job creation in the U.S. Foreign competitors will capture most of the new manufacturing sector jobs and revenues.”

MORE NEWS, 11-9: THE DEMISE OF SOLAR POWER PLANTS?; ALGAE VS. CORN; BUSINESS CAN CUT EMISSIONS – STUDY; MIT WANTS MORE R & D

THE DEMISE OF SOLAR POWER PLANTS?
Ausra Sells Planned Plant to First Solar
Todd Woody, November 5, 2009 (NY Times)

"Ausra is continuing its exit from the business of building solar-power plants…[I]t has sold a planned California solar farm to First Solar.

"The Carrizo Energy Solar Farm was one of the three large solar-power plants planned within a few miles of each other in San Luis Obispo County on California’s central coast."

click to enlarge

"Together they would supply nearly 1,000 megawatts of electricity to the utility Pacific Gas and Electric.

"First Solar will not build the Carrizo project, and the deal has resulted in the cancellation of Ausra’s contract to provide 177 megawatts to P.G.& E. — a setback in the utility’s efforts to meet state-mandated renewable-energy targets…But it could speed up approval of the two other solar projects, which have been bogged down in disputes over their impact[s]…"

click to enlarge

"First Solar is only buying an option on the land where the Ausra project was to be built…The deal will let First Solar revamp its own solar farm, a nearby 550-megawatt project called Topaz that will feature thousands of photovoltaic panels arrayed on miles of ranch land… The third solar project, a 250-megawatt photovoltaic farm, is being developed by SunPower.

"The deal with First Solar allows Ausra to stop spending millions of dollars on the Carrizo project and focus on selling solar-thermal technology to other developers. But the continuing shakeup and consolidation of the solar industry has complicated the moves of utilities to secure renewable energy supplies…"


ALGAE VS. CORN
Brasher: Algae as a fuel could skew corn's role
The corncob could be losing its special place in the nation's energy future.

"The 2007 energy bill required that refiners start using biofuels made from cobs, wheat straw, grasses and other sources of plant cellulose by 2010, with the mandate growing annually to reach 16 billion gallons by 2022…[N]ow there is an effort in Congress to expand that mandate to include fuels made from algae and microorganisms…[by replacing] the requirement for use of cellulosic biofuels with a broader mandate for "advanced green biofuels."

"The change could encourage investors to put more money into developing algae fuels. Until now, companies focused on turning cellulose into ethanol have had the mandate, and the powerful investment incentive it represents, all to themselves…"

It's easy to see why corn ethanol producers would be threatened by algae biofuels producers. (click to enlarge)

"Kevin Book, an analyst with ClearView Energy Partners, said the new definition could hurt cellulosic developers while aiding the algae sector. The fact that the Senate bill includes the expanded definition shows there is growing support for expanding the 2007 mandate beyond cellulosic fuels…Robert Brown, director of Iowa State University's Bioeconomy Institute, said he believes the mandate is big enough to accommodate algae- and cellulosic-based fuels…Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., is leading the effort to open the biofuel mandate to algae. The mandate "needs to be more technology- and feedstock-neutral," he said…An ethanol trade group, Growth Energy, is OK with expanding the mandate so long as it still covers cellulose…

"Algae — called "green crude" by supporters — consume carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, and produce fats that can be refined into gasoline, diesel or jet fuel. There is no need for the large amounts of land or the vast transportation and storage systems required for production of cellulosic fuels. Algae can be grown in ponds or even in vertical columns...ExxonMobil Corp. last summer invested $600 million into algae fuel research with Synthetic Genomics, a San Diego company led by J. Craig Venter, a pioneer in mapping the human genome. Officials with another San Diego firm, Sapphire Energy…said they will have small amounts of diesel and jet fuel available by 2011…[Ethanol producer] Green Plains Renewable Energy…has a pilot project producing algae with the carbon dioxide emitted by the plant."

An algae field could be like a corn field in the desert. (click to enlarge)

"The airline industry has shown interest in algae. The Air Transport Association is a member of a new trade group, the Algal Biomass Organization…Continental Airlines tested algae fuels in a plane last January…Airlines are worried about the volatility of oil prices and potentially higher costs for jet fuel as nations act to cut greenhouse gas emissions….

"Algae fuels are many years away from being commercially available…[but there] are signs that the young industry is making headway in an area where its ethanol rivals have had a long head start: Clout with Congress."


BUSINESS CAN CUT EMISSIONS - STUDY
Scheme 'can cut extra emissions'
8 November 2009 (BBC News)

"…[The Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC), a government efficiency scheme] could slash energy bills and cut carbon emissions by 50% more than anticipated, a study by the Environment Agency will claim…

"…[Government and businesses] could reduce CO2 emissions by 11.6m tonnes…the equivalent of taking four million cars off the road…[more energy use cuts] than originally estimated…"

click to enlarge

"There has been long-standing scheme to force heavy industries to reduce emissions, but the little-known CRC is the government's new attempt to spread the effort more broadly across business and services…[to] around 5,000 large organisations including construction, food, manufacturing and local authorities.

"The Environment Agency report says hotels, restaurants, shops and government departments have huge potential to cut energy use…The main tools are better management of heating, air conditioning and lighting."

click to enlarge

"The study quotes the example of Kings College London, which carried out a refurbishment which allowed its buildings to use natural ventilation rather than air conditioning. Window shutters - another important insulation measure - were also added…As a result, the report says, the college is saving around £96,000 per year on its energy bills…[B]y simply turning lights off in areas that are not being used, businesses could shave 15% off their energy bills…

"Under the CRC, organisations will be required to buy CO2 "allowances" for each tonne of CO2 they emit…The revenue raised from selling allowances will be "recycled" back to participants…Those doing best will get more money back than they put in - and those doing worse will lose out."


MIT WANTS MORE R & D
MIT President Says Security Risked Without U.S. Energy Research
John Lauerman and Jim Efstathiou, November 6, 2009 (Bloomberg News)

"The lack of U.S. government investment in energy research is increasing the risk to national security and hindering the creation of breakthrough energy technologies, [Susan Hochfield,] the president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said.


"A federal funding effort modeled on the National Institutes of Health [NIH], which has pioneered treatments for AIDS and heart disease, is needed to sustain energy research at a level that will reduce dependence on imported oil and gas…The NIH…grants about $31 billion annually to university scientists to produce technological advances, which are often commercialized by industry. President Barack Obama added $10 billion in two-year stimulus funding. Obama’s request for $6.7 billion in U.S. energy-research funds isn’t enough to move the U.S. toward energy independence, Hockfield said…"

click to enlarge

"…MIT conducts research on solar energy, batteries to store energy, wind and wave power and technology to remove carbon dioxide from power plant emissions…In 2006, MIT established an initiative that focuses on developing clean energy technologies that can displace fossil fuels. Last year, MIT and…Fraunhofer USA, which operates research facilities at universities in Maryland, Michigan, Boston and Delaware, opened a center to study renewable energy…

"Since the mid-1990s U.S. investments in energy research and development have accounted for about 1 percent of the country’s total research spending. From 1961 to 2008, the U.S. spent about $4 trillion on all research, with defense accounting for at least half in every year except one…"

click to enlarge

"Department of Energy funding for basic and applied research rose to $5.8 billion in 2008 from about $3.8 billion in 2000…Federal energy efforts fall short in terms of their overall spending and focus [according to a Brookings Institution report]… Most research is conducted within “siloed” labs that are too far removed from the marketplace, according to the report…Instead, the government should create dozens of research institutes at universities or national laboratories, each with as much as $200 million in annual federal support…The facilities would link scientists and engineers and help move innovations into the market…

"Without plentiful new sources of energy, the U.S. will remain dependent on supplier countries, Hockfield said. That reliance threatens consumer and industrial supplies, as well as the U.S. armed forces’ energy needs…If other countries take the lead on alternative sources, the U.S. will remain dependent, according to Hockfield…The U.S. needs more industry leadership in energy research, Hockfield said. Of 14 companies that are partners in the MIT Energy Initiative, a university-wide effort to modernize energy systems, just two are U.S.-based, she said…"

WIND PROJECT IS WIN-WIN-WIN FOR CHINA, TEXAS AND THE CLIMATE

Shining some light on the Chinese wind farm deal
Tom Gray, November 7, 2009 (Reve)

"...[T]here has been much debate over the announcement by a Chinese firm and a Texas wind developer that the two intend to cooperate on a 600-MW wind farm with turbines to be manufactured in China. [See CHINA TO BUILD TEXAS WIND]

"Concern about...the green manufacturing jobs it might create in China, is understandable. Still, the larger picture of wind energy and foreign imports into the U.S. tells a very different story...In 2008, China accounted for less than 5% of the imported value of wind turbine components for the U.S. ...[T]he trend has been towards more domestically manufactured components and wind turbines in the U.S. Overall, about 50% of the value of turbine components was made in the U.S. in 2008, up from less than 30% in 2005...[In those] three years, the U.S. increased its domestic manufacturing 12-fold, from producing $450 million worth of components in America to $5.6 billion in 2008."

What's good for China is good for the U.S.: Manufacturing and jobs, from one end of the nation to the other. (click to enlarge)

"...Leading global wind turbine manufacturers like Vestas (1 globally) and Gamesa (3 globally) have opened major manufacturing facilities here in the U.S.; Mitsubishi just recently announced [another]...[A]s of October 2009, there are nine original equipment wind turbine manufacturers (OEM)s (Acciona, Clipper, Dewind, Gamesa, GE, Nordic, Siemens, Suzlon, and Vestas) now operating U.S. manufacturing facilities, with Siemens and Vestas also investing...An additional six turbine manufacturers (Continental, EWT, Fuhrlander, Global Wind Systems, Mitsubishi, Nordex) have announced plans...This welcome trend toward investment...which creates local jobs, needs to be nurtured.

"...The reality is that we need to catch up after decades of energy policy neglect...The wind energy market is global, and leading companies such as Vestas, GE, Gamesa, Suzlon and many others operate on a global scale. These companies will direct their investments to where markets are certain...where there is a firm renewable energy policy..."

There's an unprecedented level of foreign and domestic investment in wind manufacturing and job creation. (click to enlarge)

"...A strong national Renewable Electricity Standard will provide the market and policy certainty that is still needed in the U.S...[to attract investment and build] its manufacturing base...[C]omprehensive climate and energy legislation including a meaningful RES will give us the means to... compete with other strategic markets like Europe and China, avoid carbon, and create jobs.

"... American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) economic stimulus funding [is]...allocated on the basis of projects built here... These projects create construction, engineering, operation and maintenance, and a host of other jobs here...[It] is NOT a zero-sum game—if a company is awarded a grant for a project, it does not mean that another company won’t get funding...A healthy mix of global (Iberdrola, EDP Renewables) and U.S. (NextEra, AES, First Wind) companies are receiving ARRA grants or have announced their intention to apply... Nothing is keeping more U.S. utilities and companies from applying...The economic stimulus legislation is providing the short-term support needed to keep the U.S. wind energy market alive. A strong Renewable Electricity Standard would build upon that short-term base and ensure American clean renewable energy job growth into the future."

THE FORCES OF RUIN

The Global Climate Change Lobby; Key Findings

"Starting in July 2009, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists fielded an eight-country team of reporters to uncover the special interests attempting to influence negotiations on a global climate change treaty. Relying on more than 200 interviews, lobbying and campaign contribution records in a half-dozen countries, and on-the-ground reporting from Beijing to Brussels, our team pieced together the story of a far-reaching, multinational backlash by fossil fuel industries and other heavy carbon emitters aimed at slowing progress on control of greenhouse gas emissions. Employing thousands of lobbyists, millions in political contributions, and widespread fear tactics, entrenched interests worldwide are thwarting the steps that scientists say are needed to stave off a looming environmental calamity…

"The project fielded reporters in eight of the major economies deemed essential to a successful treaty: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Japan, and the United States, as well as the European Union…[F]indings include:"

click to enlarge

"…[1] Both developed and developing countries are under heavy pressure by fossil fuel industries and other carbon-intensive businesses to slow progress on negotiations and weaken government commitments. The clash cannot simply be framed as one between richer and poorer nations…[2] China’s moves to hasten development of renewable energy, Brazil’s pledges to curb Amazon deforestation, and other steps to address climate change in the developing world have prompted a strong pushback from domestic in-country interests determined to maintain the status quo.

"…[3] Instead of a broad frontal assault on the climate science…[lobbyists are] acknowledging there is a problem while focusing on slowing or easing national commitments…[4]… [O]fficial registers reveal that thousands of industry representatives have attempted to influence climate legislation. In the United States, there are now about 2,810 climate lobbyists — five lobbyists for every member of Congress — a 400 percent jump from six years earlier. And in Australia, Canada, and the European Union, hundreds more lobbyists are at work…"

click thru for the interactive map and more on the forces of ruin

"…[5] Powerful corporations [like Peabody Coal, the world’s largest coal company, and oil giant Exxon Mobil] are fielding multinational efforts to influence the debate…[O]pponents of a strong climate change treaty are employing similar fear tactics worldwide, including threats of massive blackouts and job losses.

"…[6] [B]usiness advocates for stronger climate change policy, including alternative energy companies and would-be players in the carbon market, can barely be heard above the clamor of the older, well-capitalized, and deeply entrenched industries…[7] As a result…no developed nation has made a firm pledge for the kind of emissions cut scientists say will be needed within the next decade to stave off catastrophic climate change."

PUTTING MOROCCAN SUN TO WORK

Solar energy: Morocco's bright – and green – idea; Tapping sunlight for power may allow Morocco to spark economic development, cut its reliance on foreign energy sources, and safeguard the environment
Siham Ali, 2009 –11-06 (Magharebia)

"Morocco hopes to slash its dependence on foreign energy sources and protect the environment by rolling out a major solar power project.

"The $9 billion project targets creating capacity of 2,000 MW by 2020, and aims to reduce the kingdom's reliance on imports of electricity, oil and gas, which in 2007 accounted for 96% of Morocco's power…The "massive project" will combine economic and social development with environmental protection and efforts to tackle climate change…King Mohammed VI and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was in Morocco for the 6th Forum for the Future, attended the project's opening ceremony."

click to enlarge

"The solar initiative comes in the context of an overall Moroccan energy security plan, announced last year, to reduce dependence on foreign energy sources by cutting waste, increasing efficiency and boosting the use of sustainable energy…The targeted capacity of 2,000 MW by 2020 will equal…14% of the nation's total electric power…By that time, solar power could meet 10% of Morocco's demand for electricity. The overall project will be implemented at five sites with a combined surface area of 10,000 hectares.

"The first of the sub-projects is Morocco's first photovoltaic power plant, which was built in Tit Mellil in 2007. It has a capacity of around 50 KW…In 2008, work began on the second sub-project, a solar and thermal plant in Ain Beni Mathar. This combined cycle plant, which will have a capacity of 472 MW, including 20 MW from solar energy, is still under construction…A third sub-project consists of solar water heating panels, 200,000 square meters of which were installed in 2007. The target for 2012 is to raise the total to 400,000 square meters."

One of the Moroccan projects is a pioneering natural gas-solar hybrid plant. (click to enlarge)

"To ensure that these goals are achieved, the project will involve the introduction of solar energy programmes at colleges of engineering and universities, as well as training for technicians…[T]he project will be financed by domestic and foreign funds from both public and private sources, and implemented through public-private partnerships…

"Moroccan officials say their country has a number of advantages…including 5 kWh per square metre per day of solar radiation and 3,000 hours of sunshine per year…[which will make for] a more environmentally-friendly Morocco…"

CUTTING EMISSIONS IN MEXICO

Report: Reducing Emissions Growth in Emerging Economies Could Be Cheap
Elisabeth Malkin, November 3, 2009 (NY Times)

"How much would it cost to stop increasing greenhouse gas emissions in Mexico? According to [Low-Carbon Development for Mexico], not very much.

"The [World Bank report] estimates that Mexico could flatline its emissions growth, using a variety of measures, for about $64 billion over the next 20 years — or $3 billion annually…just 0.4 percent of the country’s gross domestic product each year… Without the measures, emissions in the country are expected to grow by 73 percent, to 1,137 million tons in 2030…

click to enlarge

"The report is one of six studies on low-carbon growth in emerging economies that the bank has been carrying out — though it is the only one likely to be ready before the United Nations climate change conference next month in Copenhagen. The other analyses — for China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Indonesia – have been stalled by bureaucracy or by governments’ reluctance to provide data ahead of the global negotiations…

"The Mexican government, meanwhile, published its Special Program on Climate Change, which proposes to reduce carbon emissions by 11 percent over 2000 levels by 2030. The bank has granted Mexico $2.7 billion in loans during 2008 to 2009 to support environmental sustainability…"

click to enlarge

"For Mexico, the costs of not moving ahead are already clear. The country is likely to suffer disproprotionately from the effects of climate change through a combination of drought, more violent storms and damage to its fertile Gulf Coast wetlands.

"The World Bank study proposes 40 measures that can be implemented at low cost — including switching to more energy-efficient appliances; investing in renewable energy, particularly wind power; avoiding deforestation by managing forests; and, promoting public transport, especially bus rapid-transit systems…The forestry sector offers the single greatest potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions…[through] measures that would reduce deforestation and forest degradation."

IRELAND LOOKS TO GET INTO THE WATER

Catching the global ocean energy wave; With continuing State support, energy from the sea could be key to our economic future
Lorna Siggins, October 23, 2009 (Irish Times)

"…Ireland, Scotland and the southern ocean in Antarctica have some of the most energetic wave locations on the globe…The awarding of €4.3 million in funding from [Sustainable Energy Ireland (SEI)] to 10 Irish ocean energy companies…for continued research and development is a signal in difficult fiscal times that the Government is very committed to the sector…

"…Ireland’s renewable energy potential in wave power could surpass Denmark’s achievements in wind…The industry – which has recently formed its own lobby group, the Marine Renewables Industry Association (MRIA), for companies involved in both wave and tidal energy development – is certainly more upbeat than it was six months ago. Then it seemed that a €26 million ocean energy plan… was mired in bureaucracy."

Look at that resource! (click to enlarge)

"That plan included development of an ocean energy unit…and the introduction of a new feed-in-tariff for wave energy of €220 per megawatt (mW) hour…It also allocated €1 million towards University College Cork’s (UCC) national ocean energy facility…and €2 million to develop a grid-connected wave energy test site at Annagh Head/French Point… [N]orth Mayo’s exposed coast…has some of the most energetic waves among Atlantic seaboard counties…

"Interest in wave and tidal energy is not new here, but was given a fresh impetus…[by the development of ] the McCabe wave pump…[Ireland’s] estimated practical wave energy resource [is] greater than 6,000mW [and Ireland could meet its own domestic needs, and also export electricity generated by offshore wind, wave and tidal energy] but…wave converters…must be capable of surviving extreme weather, which could prove costly…[T]idal energy outputs [are] more predictable and regular, but could have limited resource potential…[In 2005] a quarter-scale wave energy test site was established…and two companies – Wavebob…and Ocean Energy – completed trials…"

From juhani via YouTube

"The international race to develop the technology sustained a setback almost a year ago. Scottish company Pelamis had located what was billed as the world’s first commercial wave farm off the coast of Portugal. It had already installed a full-scale prototype and generated electricity…However, the three Pelamis wave energy converters, capable of generating 75kW of power each, hit technical problems several months after their deployment in autumn 2008 and had been towed ashore…The company…also [encountered] financial problems…Meanwhile…[a] Finavera Renewables…test buoy was lost off the Oregon coast…[However] Finnish wave energy technology firm AW-Energy has signed a $4.4 million (€2.93 million) contract with the EU…[Its] “WaveRoller” unit, which has a nominal capacity of 300kW, is to be deployed off the Portuguese “wave capital”, Peniche, and connected to the grid. [Wavebob…has been developing US links…[and] OpenHydro, which has also established international links with British energy supplier EDF and Nova Scotia Power, recently shipped a 10-metre open-centre turbine…to the Bay of Fundy in Canada…

"The big issue for the sector remains the cost of power generation. According to media reports, Scottish firm Aquamarine Power expects to sell its wave energy device at “less than $6.5 million per megawatt installed”, a figure that compares to “about $1.5 million per megawatt installed” for wind energy…[But] Ocean Energy’s chief executive John McCarthy…believes the correct technology could create up to 20,000 jobs and boost [Ireland’s] export earnings…"

Partying Dirty And Too Dirty

This is another funny entry in the Dirty/Too Dirty series, giving coal the context it deserves. From NationalSierraClub via YouTube

In It For The Money?

Vice President Gore has returned to the public forum to sell Our Choice, his new book about climate change and the New Energy answers to it. His many opponents are once again raising insidious questions about his motives. Here’s how Gore answered such accusations last spring. Some insightful commentary follows. From TheYoungTurks via YouTube

What Wind Can Do

There is no reason in the world why the wind industries in the U.S., the UK and many other countries can’t do what Denmark has done. What has Denmark done? That’s what this engaging little 3 ½ minutes is all about. From vindmolleindustrien via YouTube

QUIZ – PICK THE GREEN

It's Easy Being Green: Which Is Greener?
November 4, 2009 (Center for American Progress)

[Washington think tank The Center for American Progress asked readers to pick the greener choice between:]
1 of 10: "Washing your car at home or going to a car wash?"
2 of 10: "Hand washing or using a dishwasher?"
3 of 10: "Dryer sheets or fabric softener?"
4 of 10: "A gas stove or oven, or an electric one?"
5 of 10: "Trains or airplanes?"
6 of 10: "Canned vegetables or frozen vegetables?"
7 of 10: "Wine in a bottle or wine in a box?"
8 of 10: "Reading a book in print or on an e-reader?"
9 of 10: "Plastic bags or paper bags?"
10 of 10: "Shopping locally or shopping online?"

click to enlarge

[Answers:]
1- "The car wash is likely to use less water—some only use 30 gallons, which is as much as a hose will pump out in four minutes. But just make sure you don’t have to drive too far to get there!"
2- "Even less efficient dishwashers generally use only half the energy, one-sixth of the water, and less soap than if you’re washing by hand. But Energy Star-rated dishwashers are always best."
3- "It’s a trick question. Both contain chemicals known to be toxic with sustained exposure. Baking soda or white vinegar can be a clean, green alternative."
4- "Gas ovens and stoves are generally more efficient because they turn on and off instantly; electric ovens and stoves take longer to heat up and cool down."
5- "Even when you consider the train cars, tracks, stations, and all other infrastructure, trains still use less energy and emit fewer greenhouse gasses."
[continued below]

click to enlarge

[More answers:]
6- "The packaging for frozen vegetables requires less energy to make, but the canning process is less energy intensive than the freezing process, and canned vegetables do not take energy to store like frozen ones do."
7- "The packaging for wine in a box requires less energy to produce and the process emits less greenhouse gas. But fewer people recycle their wine boxes."
8- "E-readers surpass printed books once you download approximately 23 books instead of buying them in print."
9- "Neither are good—a reusable bag is always the best option. But a plastic bag actually takes less energy to produce than a paper one."
10- "Over half of the emissions from shopping come from driving to and from the store—even if it’s not that far. So as long as you have to drive to get to a store, its better to shop online."

BIRDS IN THE WIND

Birds Doomed—Not
2 November 2009 (Into the Wind via the American Wind Energy Association)

"It was frankly distressing to see [the Los Angeles Times headline] "Wind Power Might Blow a Hole in Bird Populations" …[T]here is simply no scientific basis for this sort of fear-mongering.

"…[L]et us just offer a quote from a detailed discussion on wind and birds from a highly credible pro-wildlife group, the Defenders of Wildlife: “…Bird mortality from wind turbines should be put into perspective. The Cato Institute projects: ‘Ten thousand cumulative bird deaths from 1,731 MW of installed U.S. capacity [as of 1995] are the equivalent of 4.4 million bird deaths across the entire capacity of the U.S. electricity market (approximately 770 GW)’ (Bradley 1997), and uses this figure as argument against expansion of wind energy. However, in reality, even if wind power supplied all of the country’s electricity, bird fatalities would still be dwarfed by the mortality figures for other types of structures: vehicles, 60 to 80 million; buildings, 98 to 980 million; power lines, up to 174 million; communication towers, 4 to 50 million (Erickson et al. 2001). Furthermore, the American Bird Conservancy estimates that feral and domestic outdoor cats probably kill on the order of hundreds of millions of birds per year (Case 2000). One study estimated that in Wisconsin alone, annual bird kill by rural cats might range from 7.8 to 217 million birds per year (Colemen & Temple 1995)..."

click thru for more details from Curry & Kerlinger, LLC

"To be fair, although it does seek to dramatically inflate the threat of bird collisions with wind turbines, the [LA Times] article's emphasis is more on the impact of wind turbines on grouse habitat. On that issue, which is admittedly thorny, three important points should be kept in mind:

"First, it's very difficult to unravel wind's effect from many other human activities that are intruding on grouse habitat, such as roads, ranchettes (rural getaway homes on modest acreage), agriculture, oil & gas development, and so on, and to make sure that wind is treated fairly…Second, because it emits no carbon, wind power helps combat climate change, which threatens many hundreds of species with extinction by destroying their habitats…Third, wind power uses no water, unlike fossil-fueled or nuclear power plants. This makes it one of the best options for generating electricity while at the same time conserving scarce water supplies in the windy, arid states of the Plains and Intermountain West."

Mountaintop removal coal mining destroys avian habitat and coal-burning induced climate change will destroy everybody's habitat. (click to enlarge)

"Finally…the [LA Times] article is flat wrong [in this statement]: …[R]epresentatives from the wind industry sitting on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Wind Advisory Committee have agreed to recommend large 'no go' buffer zones around sage grouse and prairie chicken breeding grounds.

"Not true. The committee of environmental group representatives, industry representatives, and government reps has not made its final recommendations yet. Until its report goes to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, nothing has been ‘agreed to.’…Somebody needs a fact checker."

WIND ON THE WIRES

You Do Have to Know Which Way the Wind Blows on the Grid – Study
Peter Behr, October 30, 2009 (NY Times)

"How and when the fickle winds blow are increasingly critical issues for operators of the nation's electricity grid, concludes a new 10-year assessment of regional outlooks for renewable energy…The questions already matter to the energy companies, funds and speculators that trade more than $500 billion in over-the-counter electricity contracts annually.

"The North American Electric Reliability Corp. released [The 2009 Long-Term Reliability Assessment]…its annual assessment of the long-term vulnerabilities of its eight regional grid organizations and asked them to consider a scenario with 15 percent of electricity output coming from renewable generation -- primarily wind…Meeting [that target] by 2018 would require more than 95,000 megawatts of new wind and solar generating capacity, or nearly one-quarter of all power plant capacity, NERC said…[potentially presenting significant] operational challenges…{It stressed] the need for more transmission lines, both to maximize the potential for wind and solar generation and to reduce threats to the transmission grid from overloaded lines….Texas, one center of wind power production, will require 660 miles of high-voltage alternating and direct current lines, including a direct DC link from Western wind centers to Houston…Wind generation in the Great Plains -- the other wind hub -- grew by 50 percent between June 2008 and this past June, and could grow to 32,100 megawatts in 2017, meeting 42 percent of electric power requirements…"

click to enlarge

"…[A]long with the familiar warnings about transmission shortages, NERC's report also gives a hard push to the need to improve wind and weather forecasting…[though] the rapid growth of wind power has not [yet] created any general reliability or power line congestion problems…But wind power is projected to grow rapidly…

"…[G]rid operators are developing more sophisticated forecasting models…[thanks to] commercial innovations…Genscape's Enva marketing intelligence group and WSI Corp. announced a new analytical tool that will provide seven-day hourly wind forecasts, updated throughout the day…[using] several thousand sensors…deployed around the country, which read the power flows on high-voltage transmission lines leading away from wind farms and other generator sites…This enables [Enva] to combine wind data, hourly changes in power line congestion, and spot wholesale electricity prices at "nodes" or transmission line hubs where traders and utilities buy and sell electricity. The forecasting systems are being offered in Texas and the Great Plains-Midwest regions…[Enva's] forecasting tool is designed to predict how changes in wind production could cause prices to separate between two nodes…The rapid growth of wind power in both regions is producing dramatic spreads in wholesale power prices in Texas and the Midwest, and transmission line congestion is the key element…"

click to enlarge

"On Feb. 24 this year, at 9:30 a.m., for example, wind generation west of Minnesota's Twin Cities was so plentiful relative to demand that wind farms were paying more than $10 an hour to utilities to take their electricity. Wind generators can afford to sell at a small loss because they make $19 a megawatt-hour from a federal production tax credit. But congested power lines prevented the excess wind from moving through northeastern Iowa toward population centers in the Midwest, where prices jumped above $40 a megawatt-hour in that hour…Understanding -- and accurately predicting -- how wind shifts affect prices is a central issue to the future stability of the grid, and not just the profit goals of traders…

"Coal-fired power plants cannot be ramped up and down efficiently or effectively by the hour or the day to match swings in wind generation. So grid managers may have to choose which kind of power is crucial to keeping the grid operating safely. As wind power expands, so will natural gas-fired generation, NERC predicts, and that could make electricity markets more vulnerable to the volatility of gas prices, or compel utilities to invest in gas pipelines or storage…"

SUN ON THE WIRES

Will Solar Crash the Smart Grid? Utilities don’t have much time to revamp their grids to accommodate the growing popularity of rooftop solar. Here are some technologies that could help.
Jeff St. John, November 2, 2009 (Greentech Media)

"…The proliferation of solar panels will effectively transform commercial districts and neighborhoods into small, localized power plants. While that will allow utilities to cut back on coal, the unpredictable, varying nature of solar power will force grid operators to dispatch or throttle power rapidly. Solar-balancing smart grid systems now confined to pilot projects will need to become common features pretty soon…

"…[W]hat happens when 20 percent or more of the homes in a neighborhood go solar and a cloud passes overhead? That changes a neighborhood of solar power producers to utility power customers in a matter of minutes – and grids built to deliver power one way at constant voltages and frequencies have trouble accommodating that two-way, intermittent flow…Too much solar power, and local grid voltage could rise, causing potential problems for motors, lights and other equipment. Too little, and voltage can sag. That may only flicker light bulbs at home, but it can lead to million-dollar work stoppages for customers like semiconductor manufacturers and server farms that need clean power at a near-to-constant voltage and frequency…"

click to enlarge

"...[Nobody knows for sure] the maximum amount that the neighborhood distribution grids of today can take…Solving that problem is the focus of smart grid projects for utilities across the country… Some California utilities have already pushed back against efforts in the state legislature to expand the 2.5 percent cap on how much customer-owned solar power they're obliged to credit to customers…But Pacific Gas & Electric has asked the California Public Utilities Commission for permission to expand its cap to 3.5 percent…Right now, PG&E is seeing "some localized issues" with grid instability in neighborhoods where rooftop solar penetration has grown to around 5 percent…But both the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, a standards-setting body, have put limits on distributed power sources like solar panels making up more than 15 percent of a distribution substation's load…

click to enlarge

"PG&E and other California utilities might have to face a much larger percentage of their power coming from such sources in the near future…[One solution] is lots of energy storage….A lot of that would be big storage…That could include pumped hydro and compressed air energy storage, which…will remain the most economical form of energy storage, as well as large-scale batteries like the one Southern California Edison wants A123 Systems to build to manage wind turbines…Other batteries could fit into neighborhoods, where they could balance out rooftop solar sags and surges…[including] household batteries linked to solar panels…General Electric, a project partner, has said it will bring "net-zero energy homes" to market by 2015…[M]uch of today's rooftop PV comes with small batteries to cushion household wiring from the panels' ups and downs in power delivery…

click to enlarge

"Utilities…are looking at ways to control existing PV systems…[M]ost systems out there today weren't made to be controlled by, say, a smart meter calling for a battery to discharge power to meet a utility's peak demand…More smart grid-ready systems involving new batteries and inverter technologies would be useful…But they could add too much to the already daunting costs of a home solar system for most customers…Some utilities are looking at cargo container-sized flow batteries or sodium-sulfur batteries at substations…Other utilities are considering a similar, small-scale distributed approach known as community energy storage…Inverters, which convert solar panel DC output into grid-ready AC, could help by delivering short bursts of energy…That could give them a role in niche utility power needs such as frequency regulation…"

click to enlarge

"There's another form of balancing that can be done by subtracting, rather than adding, power to the grid – demand response, or the ability for utilities to turn down customer's power use when they're facing peak loads on the system…Demand response tends to be a centralized affair at present, with utility dispatchers paying agreeable customers and giving them ample advance warning to turn down their big power loads – sometimes via radio signals, text messages, emails or phone calls – when needed…But automated systems running over smart meter communications networks could open up new ways to tap the demand response potential in the home – imagine turning down the air conditioner when the solar panels detect a cloud passing overhead…

"Of course, utilities that can predict when solar panels are about to fade could fire up peaker plants or dip into demand response capacity to match it. That's where microclimate forecasting comes in…Every utility forecasts the weather as a part of their day-to-day business. It's hard to miss a heat wave's effect on air conditioning loads. Pinpointing local weather conditions in real time – and then adjusting the local grid in response – is a more complicated matter…Given the complications, projects to integrate solar panels, storage and smart grid systems are more easily contemplated in smaller units…"

EMISSIONS TRADING CAN BE REGULATED - CFTC CHAIR

CFTC chair calls for comprehensive regulation of emissions markets
Nick Snow, November 4, 2009 (Oil & Gas Journal)

"Comprehensive regulation of financial derivatives will also need to be a critical component of a well-functioning domestic emissions trading market, US Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary G. Gensler said…"

[Gary G. Gensler, Chair, US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC):] “As Congress moves forward with potential cap-and-trade legislation, I believe it should fully regulate the expanded carbon trading markets—including the futures market, the OTC market, and the cash market—without exception…Ensuring transparency, protecting the price discovery function, and addressing financial risk are every bit as critical for emissions markets as for other markets…It is crucial to ensure that carbon markets function smoothly, efficiently, and transparently. Effective regulation of carbon allowance trading will require cooperation on the parts of several regulators.”

Key design element: Oversight. (click to enlarge)

"Gensler said six regulatory components will need to be considered…[1] standard setting and allocation, [2] compliance with emissions caps and offset requirements, [3] record-keeping and registry maintenance, [4] trade execution system oversight, [5] clearing of trades oversight, and [6] protection against fraud, manipulation, and other abuses."

"The first three components, which Gensler said represent the “cap” portion of cap-and-trade, fall within other regulatory agencies’ expertise. CFTC is best equipped to handle the remaining components since it already fills this role in existing emissions trading programs…the US Environmental Protection Agency issues sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide allowances under the federal acid rain, NOx budget trading, and clean air market programs [while CFTC oversees contracts based on sulfur dioxide, NOx, and carbon dioxide allowances and offsets listed on the New York Mercantile Exchange and Chicago Climate Futures Exchange].…On a smaller scale, 10 states from Maine to Maryland form the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and issue GHG allowances…"

Key design elements: Stringent penalties and assessment. (click to enlarge)

[Gary G. Gensler, Chair, US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC):] “…[O]ther entities issue allowances, ensure compliance, and maintain the registry. The constant, however, is that the CFTC regulates the emissions futures trading markets…In other words, the CFTC has a great deal of experience regulating the ‘trade’ part of cap-and-trade…In most respects, emissions contract markets operate similarly to other commodity markets the CFTC regulates…While each contract—such as SO2, wheat, treasury bills, or natural gas—presents its own unique challenges, the regulatory scheme is essentially the same.”

"[Gensler] said CFTC has thorough processes to ensure that exchanges have procedures in place to protect market participants and ensure fair and orderly trading, that products are designed to minimize potential manipulation, and that exchanges comply with the law and regulations…Its compliance staff monitors operations to ensure that exchanges are enforcing their rules and customers are protected from abusive practices. Its surveillance staff watches for signs of manipulation or congestion and determines how to best address market threats…Gensler said he considers it important for companies to be able to make long-term capital commitments and hedge their carbon emissions allowances’ long-term price risk…"

ELEMENTS OF A COPENHAGEN CLIMATE CHANGE DEAL

Meeting the Climate Challenge; Core Elements of an Effective Response to Climate Change
October 6, 2009 (Center for American Progress and the United Nations Foundation)

SUMMARY
If it doesn't come to an international agreement now to take action, the community of nations is likely to find in another few years that global climate change has altered its world irreversibly. Yet the community of nations is dramatically split between conservative elements and disbelievers unwilling to take the lead in emissions cuts for fear it will compromise economic competitiveness for no substantial reason and progressive elements who fear not addressing climate change will harm long term economic interests, not to mention life as they know it, even worse.

Meeting the Climate Challenge; Core Elements of an Effective Response to Climate Change looks at 4 areas (New Energy, Energy Efficiency, reversing deforestation and sustainable land use) where significant enough cuts in emissions are profitably within reach between now and 2020 to dramatically turn the tide on global climate change.

Action could cut emissions 75% by 2020 and save $14 billion. Investing the savings in adaptation could enhance world economies, increase international security and protect threatened environments. These are the “core elements” in the new international climate change plan the world community should be seeking, the report argues, when it meets in December at Copenhagen to hammer out a replacement for Kyoto’s U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which expires in 2012.

click to enlarge

The core elements represent potential areas of agreement that could make it possible for disparate developed and developing nations to all sign on to:
1-Significant emissions reduction targets by developed countries;
2-Significant mitigation commitments by developing countries;
3-Significant commitments of financial assistance from developed countries to developing countries; and,
4-Mechanisms through which developed countries can assist the technological advancement of developing countries in New Energy and Energy Efficiency without compromising their intellectual property.

Absolutely vital quote to notice from the paper’s conclusion: “The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen will be THE BEGINNING [emphasis added] of a sustained international effort to address climate change.”

Footnote: Insiders are now predicting Copenhagen will not be the moment of truth for the world community because that the moment will have to wait until the U.S. hammers out its own climate legislation in 2010.

The evidence is simply undeniable. (click to enlarge)

COMMENTARY
The Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. The G-8 nations agreed in the summer of 2009 that the global average temperature rise due to the greenhouse effect caused by human-generated emissions must be no more than 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.

To keep the global average temperature below this threshold, world greenhouse gas emissions (GhGs) must be at least halved by 2050. At a September summit on climate change convened by Ban-ki Moon, the U.N. Secretary-General, ~100 world government leaders plus a raft of private sector CEOs and leaders of important international nongovernmental organizations affirmed the urgency of reaching a new agreement at Copenhagen.

Yet the grounds for agreement remains elusive because major players fear their own economic well being could be compromised by a commitment to joint effort. Innumerable previous reports, beginning with Lord Stern’s landmark work, have failed to impress on some world leaders how compromising to their economic well being global climate change could be. This Center for American Progress and United Nations Foundation paper takes a different approach by trying to impress on them how profitable and achievable a serious effort to cut world GhGs could potentially be.

To reiterate: It is within reach to make 75% of the needed 2020 emissions cuts and at the same time save $14 billion.

click to enlarge

The cuts will come from the 4 core elements: New Energy, Energy Efficiency, forest protection and sustainable land use, and adaptation. The economic, security, and environmental benefits of changes in the 4 core elements extend beyond the climate change fight and make them common ground for international action that will, nevertheless, profoundly and favorably impact the effort to reverse global climate change.

- For New Energy:

New Energy is abundant. (click to enlarge)

More than a third of the world’s ~6 billion people have no grid-supplied electricity.

Distributed generation New Energy is the best answer to their need and can help them move away from burning wood and biomass.

The EU goal is 20% New Energy by 2020. China’s goal is 15% by 2020. The U.S. has no goal at present but pending legislation would put it at 15-to-20% by 2020.

New Energy costs are improving as economies of scale develop. Moving the world to 20% New Energy sources by 2020 would cut emissions 10% at a cost of $34 billion.

It's the best deal. (click to enlarge)

- For Energy Efficiency:

The lowest hanging fruit: One recent study showed Energy Efficiency (EE) can provide a third of the cost-effective emissions cuts needed by 2020. It is universally popular, allows for wider access to electricity in the developing world yet could cut world energy demand in half by 2020.

Market barriers: (1) The cost of transition to EE can be greater than the benefits from incentives. (2) Unless utility profits are “decoupled” from energy sales, utilities have no motivation to lead the transition.

Increasing the world’s technology-associated EE improvement from 1.25% per year to 2% per year will cut emissions 12% and save $98 billion by 2020.

click to enlarge

- For Protecting Forests and Sustainable Land Use:

Deforestation is responsible for 17% of every year’s GhGs. Another 14% come from agricultural practices and livestock management. Turning climate change around will require the implementation of sustainable forest and land methods.

Sustainable practices will increase the productivity of farms, boost rural incomes, make the soil richer, save water and energy, cut polluting spew and runoff, grow jobs and revenues and reduce poverty, make food supplies more secure, make ecosystems around agricultural lands healthier, protect watersheds, and – oh, by the way - fight climate change and all its attendant ills.

Unfortunately, sustainable practices require upfront investment and provide long-term payoffs whereas current unsustainable practices provide quick returns. The only way developing nations can make the transition is through funding from developed nations. Little is being done at present.

The cost: Habitat restoration and sustainable forestry, agriculture, and livestock practices to cut present emissions in those sectors 50% would cost $51 billion in 2020, an amount that can be more than earned back by a less than comprehensive shift to EE.

click to enlarge

- For Adaptation:

Climate change has already started. Droughts, floods, water shortages, more intense tropical storms, increased disease ranges, decreased agricultural output, coral bleaching, and many other impacts are already observable in Africa and other poor regions of the world.

These impacts are the result of emissions generated in the developed world’s industrial revolution. $1-to-$2 billion is needed through 2012 to begin alleviating the ills caused and assisting those worst hit to adapt.

Effective National Adaptation Programs of Action could, with such funding, work through community and non-governmental organizations to reach those impacted. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) could be the financial management device through which action is taken.

- National Strategies:

China:

A targeet to cut energy intensity 20% from 2005 levels by 2010 has been set.

A new goal to get 10% of its energy from New Energy by 2010 and 15% by 2020 is being set. It includes 100-to-150 gigawatts of wind, 10 gigawatts of solar power, 300 gigawatts of hydropower and 86 gigawatts of nuclear.

At the September UN summit on climate change, President Hu Jintao said his country would increase its carbon intensity target and commited to increase China’s forest cover 20% by 2010 and 26% by 2020.

click to enlarge

The European Union:

The EU “Triple 20” commits EU members to cutting emissions 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, cutting energy consumption 20% by 2020 and obtaining 20% of their power (including 10% biofuels) from New Energy by 2020.

The EU has said that if the U.S. commits to a 20% emissions cut, it will up its goal to 30%.

The EU is also acting internationally to turn back deforestation, build New Energy infrastructure in the developing world, and assist with adaptation in hard-hit poor countries.

The UN's Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) plan, if adopted as world policy, will reverse the EU Emissions Trading (cap&trade) System’s prohibition against international forest conservation investments.

click to enlarge

India:

The current 5-year plan would cut energy intensity 20% and obtain 14-to-20 gigawatts of New Energy by 2012.

A newer policy, still being drafted, would target getting 10% of India’s power from New Energy by 2010 and 20% by 2020.

A National Solar Mission aims for 20 gigawatts of solar by 2020, the world’s biggest solar target.

The draft policy also targets a 5% cut in energy consumption by 2015.

A proposed National Mission for a Green India would increase India’s forest coverage from 23% to 33%.

The proposed National Mission for Sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem and National
Mission for Sustainable Agriculture plans would implement ecosystem and agricultural adaptation projects.

Brazil:

Largely through its hydropower, Brazil already gets 89% of its power from emissions-free sources. It intends to increase that as well as up its use of ethanol in the transport sector 11% per year.

The national climate change plan pledges to cut the present deforestation rate 50% by 2018, which is 70% below the 1996-to-2005 deforestation rate. The plan will be funded by Brazil’s Amazon Fund, to which Norway has donated $1 billion.

Brazil’s plan also calls for a 10% cut from BAU levels in energy consumption by 2030 through Energy Efficiency.

The U.S.:

A House-passed bill would obtain 20% of U.S. power from New Energy sources by 2020 and cut U.S. emissions 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 through a cap&trade system but is meeting severe resistance in the Senate.

A vehicle fuel efficiency measure ups required mileage to 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016.

As demonstrated by the Executive Order imposing the new vehicle fuel standard, the Obama administration appears ready to take more aggressive action if Congress fails to move U.S. emissions cutting forward. The next 15 months will tell the tale.

A final word on funding, or, Who Pays?

Funding for the core elements will need to come from public sources until cap&trade and emissions-taxation programs generate sufficient revenues.

Such sources: The Global Environment Facility (if better funded and regulated), the World Bank (with expanded special climate initiatives), international financial institutions engaged in building New Energy and Energy Efficiency and playing in the emissions markets, and bilateral developed world/developing world aid programs.

Specifically aimed at protecting forests and at mitigation: Funding the Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).

Funding goals: Scale up of policy development and capacity building, to leverage private-sector investment and drive innovation, research, development, and deployment.

click to enlarge

QUOTES
- From the paper: “It is one of the few large-scale mitigation options that yields a positive economic return while providing a wide range of other social, environmental, and security benefits. Energy efficiency is attractive in all nations and especially in developing countries because it allows existing energy sources to serve a larger population and facilitates universal access to modern energy services…”
- From the paper: “The negotiations are challenging. Among developed countries, the United States has not offered a near-term emissions reduction target, and legislation that would support such a target is still under debate in Congress. China, India, and other developing countries have announced low-carbon growth initiatives in their national plans and policies, but they are not prepared to accept internationally binding obligations. Countries have proposed needs and institutional options for financing and technology cooperation, but these have not been negotiated… It is important to remember that the underlying policies and measures that will deliver emissions reductions and low-carbon growth most effectively are attractive in their own right and can be undertaken immediately…[and] can deliver the most immediate response to climate change while also advancing other economic, security, and environmental objectives.”

click to enlarge

- From the paper: “Vital source of financing will be the carbon markets financed by cap-and-trade programs, carbon taxes, and other measures taken by developed countries under the new international climate agreement. New international institutions may be needed to administer financial assistance and technology cooperation under the agreement. But these will take time to develop and scale up. In the mean time, substantially increased public funding through existing institutions will be essential for progress in all of the areas…”
- From the paper: “These immediate first steps will help to accelerate the larger and longer-term commitments needed to meet the climate challenge. The Copenhagen conference would provide an ideal platform to take these first steps by increasing international support for the core elements of an effective climate strategy.”

MORE NEWS, 11-5: RESCUE OR RUIN FOR CLIMATE BILL?; WIND GOES OFF THE RADAR; FORECAST FOR SUN; TIDAL ENERGY PROVES ITSELF

RESCUE OR RUIN FOR CLIMATE BILL?
Kerry, Graham, Lieberman announce a "dual track" on the climate bill
David Fahrenthold, November 4, 2009 (Washington Post)

"Even before a Senate committee could begin marking up the "Kerry-Boxer" climate bill, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) himself announced a new "track" of negotiations over climate policy that makes his original bill look somewhat irrelevant.

"Kerry, appearing at the U.S. Capitol with Sens. Lindsay O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), said the three legislators would work with business groups and the White House to forge a compromise climate measure that could get 60 votes in the Senate."

From climatebrad via YouTube

"These negotiations would be separate from the work that six different Senate committees are doing on climate legislation, including the markup that the Environment and Public Works committee was supposed to begin [but did not because]…Republican committee members, demanding more Environmental Protection Agency analysis of the bill's impacts, are boycotting that markup, so progress on the legislation has stalled."

Apparently not good enough - yet. (click to enlarge)

"Kerry said that the senators were not circumventing that committee's process or ignoring the bill being marked up…[but building on it]…Kerry gave few details about when he and the other senators would be done with their work…[He suggestion] that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would meld the various climate proposals into a single bill is not a new one: with six committees working on related bills, Democrats have long said that someone would have to stitch them all together. But [the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman] announcement was an early, and stark, signal that the committee bills would not be the only things shaping the final product.

"Kerry, Graham and Lieberman offered few details about the elements of a climate bill they considered non-negotiable. Graham said that the bill should protect the climate, but also allow for more offshore drilling, an expansion of nuclear energy and an emphasis on "clean coal" technology. Asked if the group was committed to a "cap and trade" scheme, like the one used to reduce pollution in a bill passed by the House, Lieberman said yes, but noted that the scheme [is one of many elements that are negotiable]…"


WIND GOES OFF THE RADAR
Stealth wind turbines developed to avoid radar confusion
Paul Ridden, November 3, 2009 (gizmag)

"Plans for the installation of wind farms the world over are being delayed or abandoned due to objections from the aviation community or air defense interests…[Conventional radar cannot with certainty discern] …low flying aircraft [from] wind turbines…Recent tests in the U.K. of "stealth" turbine technology could provide a solution.

"Radar technology tracks moving objects…but if an aircraft flies low over a wind farm… the radar is unable to easily distinguish…[the movement of the turbine blades from the moving airplane]…Technology consultants, QinetiQ (which was formed after the breakup of the UK Government's Defence Evaluation and Research Agency in 2001) and turbine manufacturer Vestas believe that the solution lies in hiding the turbines and blades from the radar using stealth technology."

click to enlarge

"In a project partly funded by the UK Government, radar absorbing materials were integrated in a turbine blade which was then fitted to an existing Vestas V90 turbine. Radar cross section measurements were then taken using a system developed by QinetiQ. The results showed a significant reduction in the radar signature of the turbine.

"Integrating the stealth technology into towers and nacelles as well as blades could, according to the researchers, allow any small remaining radar presence to be factored out of air traffic and air defense systems and make wind farms invisible to radar…"

click to enlarge

"Successful deployment would clear the way for the five gigawatts worth of potential wind generation sites in the UK that, according to the Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC), have been blocked due to fears of radar interference.

"In another approach to the problem, researchers from Raytheon will be spending the next 19 months working with the UK's main air navigation service to develop a system that can recognize the difference between turbines and low flying aircraft."


FORECAST FOR SUN
Solar Annual 2009; Total Eclipse
October 2009 (Photon Consulting)

"Solar Annual 2009: Total Eclipse is the definitive research report for a PV sector recovering from the recent macroeconomic crisis. The sector is set to resume its growth trajectory, but a new challenge is on the horizon - saturation of key markets…"

click to enlarge

"The risk of an ‘eclipse’ means industry players must pursue strategies that go beyond ‘volume-up/cost-down.’ In addition to detailing the strategic direction of the sector and analysis of PV market saturation, this report highlights segments of the supply chain and markets best positioned for an eclipse."

"Key points…Price benchmarks and forecast in $/kg and $/W terms for silicon, ingot, wafer, cell, c-Si module, thin film module, BOS, system by company and by market
Cost benchmarks and forecast in $/kg and $/W for silicon, ingot, wafer, cell, c-Si module, thin film module, BOS, system by company and by market…Deeper coverage of specific companies including Canadian Solar, First Solar, GCL, Hemlock, JA Solar, JFE Steel, Kyocera, LDK Solar, M.Setek, MEMC, Motech, OCI (DC Chemical), Q-Cells, REC, ReneSola, Sanyo, Sharp, SMA, Solarfun, SolarWorld, SunPower, Suntech, Trina, Wacker and Yingli, among others..."

click to enlarge

"…[The report] questions about PV supply, demand, pricing, cost and profit for the sector as a whole, for specific PV markets and for leading PV companies for the next 5 years…Provides a comprehensive 5-year outlook for the solar sector…Guides you through the solar sector with in-depth research on 7 leading companies, and dozens of potential leaders…Provides analysis based on deep knowledge of over 700 c-Si and thin film companies..."


TIDAL ENERGY PROVES ITSELF
Marine Current Turbines reveals details of SeaGen's Operating Performance
3 November 2009 (Marine Current Turbines)

"…Peter Fraenkel, Technical Director and co-founder of Marine Current Turbines, the [designer/developer of] SeaGen, the world’s only commercial scale tidal turbine [said] SeaGen is running at full power and fully automatically exactly as planned…driven by a wall of water 27m deep, similar to the height of the Tower of London, that surges back and forth with every tide through the Strangford Narrows in Northern Ireland at speeds of up to 10 miles per hour…

"SeaGen has already delivered [a more-than-expected 350+ MWh] into the Northern Irish electricity grid. The twin generators typically produce an average of 5MWh of electricity during the 6¼ hours of each ebb and each flood tide. This is enough energy to meet the average electricity needs for 1500 UK homes."

SeaGen in a strong flow, wake visible. Photo from Dr D Erwin. (click to enlarge)

"The SeaGen turbine, with its twin 16m diameter rotors, is officially accredited to OFGEM as a “UK power station”, the first tidal power system to secure this. It is earning revenue from the sale of the power that is being generated and it also earns ROCs, the Renewable Obligation Certificates that are awarded for clean renewable generation…

"…SeaGen has been operational for most of this year…[In] September…consent was given to operate it without…environmental scientists (marine mammal observers) on board and onshore. This was an initial requirement under the licensing arrangements to ensure that SeaGen did not adversely affect the marine mammals that are a protected feature of the local waters and restricted SeaGen’s uninterrupted running. However extensive experience gained so far suggests the seals and porpoises are not at any significant risk and as a result SeaGen is now permitted to operate unattended and by remote control…"

Typical output. Explanation below. (click to enlarge)

"…[A]n operator onshore will continue to monitor a sonar image of the passing flow which can show up any seal that ventures too close to the rotors, and the operator has the facility to stop the machine. As confidence and the body of evidence grows, it is expected that full 24 hour running will be permitted in the near future…

"…SeaGen’s output on a typical tide (roughly halfway between Neaps and Springs) [is graphed above]. The black trace shows the speed of the current in m/s (on the right hand scale). The red trace from the instrumentation is the corresponding response from SeaGen, showing the power and shows how it ramps up after slack tide to 1200kW at which point the control system holds the power constant. The dip in the trace was a deliberate shut-down using the pitch control system to stop the rotor safely and it shows how the system then restarted and went back to full power. This illustrates the controllability of the turbines, a vital requirement for any power plant…The area under the red trace is the [5.2MWh of] energy delivered [on that tide]…"