NewEnergyNews

THINGS-TO-THINK-ABOUT FRIDAY, 7-10:

YESTERDAY:

REPORT CARD GRADES WIND’S PROGRESS TOWARD 20%

MORE NEWS, 7-9 (A FILM ABOUT A CHOICE ; ND BUYS IN ON MIDWEST WIRES FOR WIND ; NC DEAL FOR RALEIGH SOLAR POWER PLANT )

Friday, July 10, 2009

ACTIVISTS WANT ACTION

Greenpeace Makes Urgent Call for Climate Action From Face of Mt. Rushmore; Challenges President Obama to lead the world in fighting global warming
July 8, 2009 (Greenpeace USA)

"…11 daring Greenpeace climbers hung a banner on Mount Rushmore challenging President Obama to show real leadership on global warming. The banner, measuring sixty-five feet high by thirty-five feet wide, features an unfinished portrait of Obama with the message, "America honors leaders not politicians: Stop Global Warming.” The demonstration comes as President Obama meets other G8 leaders…to discuss the global warming crisis in the lead-up to UN climate treaty negotiations in Copenhagen this December…

"To highlight the issue, 11 activists completed a challenging climb to the top of Mount Rushmore, and three rappelled down, hanging the nearly 2300-square-foot banner as they descended. The activists, highly trained in rock and industrial climbing, took special care not to damage the monument, using existing anchors placed by the National Park Service for periodic cleanings…[O]ther Greenpeace activists hung banners on coal plant smokestacks calling attention to the collective failure of leadership on global warming at the G8…"

The action. Greenpeace sees the situation as too urgent for politics. (click to enlarge)

"The best science shows that to avoid catastrophic global warming, governments must take action to keep global temperature rise as far below 2 degrees Celsius as possible…Earlier this year, the experience with climate legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives, which was drastically weakened by lobbyists for the oil and coal industries and other big polluters, showed that unless the president provides strong leadership on this issue, special interests will win out over the common interest…"

The banner. Greenpeace doesn't speak incrementalism. (click to enlarge)

"Greenpeace is calling on President Obama to use every tool at his disposal, both within and outside Congress, to strengthen U.S. climate policy with scientific integrity, and to take that policy to Copenhagen in December as evidence the U.S. will do what it takes to solve the climate crisis.

"… Greenpeace is calling on President Obama to…Strive to keep global temperatures as far below a 2 degrees Celsius increase as possible…Set a goal of peaking global emissions by 2015 and be as close to zero as possible by 2050…Cut emissions in the U.S. by 25-40 percent by 2020…[E]stablish a [G8] funding mechanism that provides $106 billion per year by 2020 to help developing countries adapt to [unavoidable] global warming impacts…[H]alt tropical deforestation…Greenpeace is also calling on President Obama to attend the Copenhagen conference personally…"

WILL THE U.S. DO CAP&TRADE FOR COPENHAGEN? FOR CHRISTMAS?

Obama's drive for climate change bill delayed
Richard Cowan (w/Eric Beech), July 9, 2009 (Washington Post)

"President Barack Obama's push for quick action by Congress on climate change legislation suffered a setback…[T]he U.S. Senate committee leading the drive delayed work on the bill until September.

"Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer said her self-imposed deadline of early August for finishing writing a bill to combat global warming has been put off until after Congress returns from a recess that ends in early September…Boxer did not guarantee Congress will be able to finish a bill and deliver it to Obama by December, when he plans to attend an international summit on climate change in Copenhagen…"

click to enlarge

"Senate Democratic leaders' quick timetable for writing a bill [to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions] has run into two complications: the competing priority of passing healthcare legislation and dissension in Democratic ranks over the climate bill.

"While Obama has made climate change legislation one of his top priorities, he also has made clear that he wants Congress to first push through healthcare reform."

click to enlarge

"Many committees in the House and Senate are struggling with the legislation to expand healthcare insurance to the 46 million Americans now without coverage…Some of the Senate's main players on climate change, such as Senator Max Baucus, also are central to the healthcare reform debate in Congress…

"The second issue is that environmentalists in the Senate are faced with difficulties getting enough support to pass a bill. Even though Democrats control 60 of the 100 seats in the Senate, there are enough moderate Democrats who might not support a climate change bill. So several Republican votes will likely be necessary for passage…"

PLUG IN VEHICLE PROGRESS TRACKER

Plug-In Vehicle Tracker: What’s Coming, When
(July 2009) (Plug In America)

"Virtually every major auto manufacturer in the world, along with several smaller outfits, is developing a plug-in vehicle and Plug In America is tracking their progress…[The list] will be updated monthly. It represents highway-capable cars and trucks, 2- and 3-wheeled and commercial vehicles. Low-speed electric vehicles and conversions are not included…"

click thru to tracker site

"If you have an update to this list, last revised on June 3, 2009, please fill us in by emailing info@pluginamerica.org. Plug In America needs your support to keep this matrix current…"

A FIGHT FOR NEW ENERGY TRANSMISSION

Green groups sue US agencies over Western transmission corridors
8 July 2009 (Platts)

"A coalition of environmental groups has sued several US federal agencies over recently established power transmission corridors in 11 Western states.

"The groups said…the corridors benefit fossil-fueled generation and want the government to shift the corridors to link renewable zones to Western markets, according to the suit filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco…"

click to enlarge

"The federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 required federal agencies to designate corridors for oil, gas and hydrogen pipelines, and electricity transmission and distribution facilities on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. The US Bureau of Land Management and Department of Energy failed to consider reasonable alternatives or consider the environmental effects of designating in mid-January nearly 6,000 miles of energy corridors in the West, the suit said."

click to enlarge

"The suit argues that the federal agencies violated the energy policy act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.

"The suit was filed against the Department of Interior and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, the BLM and BLM Director Mike Pool, the Department of Agriculture and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, the US Forest Service and Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell and the DOE and DOE Secretary Steven Chu."

BUILD WIND INTO TRANSMISSION TOWERS

New Design Integrates Wind Turbines Into Transmission Towers; Concept incorporates vertical-axis wind turbines directly into transmission towers already dotting the landscape.
Timothy B. Hurst, July 6, 2009 (Clean Technica)

"Three Frenchmen, architects Nicola Delon and Julien Choppin, along with engineer Raphaël Ménard, believe they have stumbled upon a scalable design that would not only allow wind turbines to work in virtually any landscape, they believe it avoids some of the aesthetic hurdles normally facing large wind farms. The Wind-it concept would fuse vertical-axis wind turbines directly into new or existing electricity transmission infrastructure.

"The team estimates that if a third of France’s high-voltage electricity towers were renovated with turbines, they could rival the power generation of two nuclear reactors, or about 5 percent of the country’s energy needs..."

The scheme. (click to enlarge)

"Making its public debut in May 2007 as part of an exhibition about energy and design sponsored by the national utility Électricité de France, the Wind-it concept more recently garnered attention when featured in Metropolis Mag’s 2009 Next Generation contest…"

The scale. (click to enlarge)

"While praising it, technical experts who judged the design expressed some concerns…

"Electricity towers aren’t built to accommodate the vibration and stress produced by wind turbines, so existing structures would likely require a magnitude of structural reinforcement likely to make retrofitting of existing towers cost-prohibitive."

Thursday, July 09, 2009

REPORT CARD GRADES WIND’S PROGRESS TOWARD 20%

20% Wind Report Card: B Overall, Transmission Lags At C-; National Policy Commitment Urgently Needed to Ensure Greater Use of Clean, Abundant Energy Source
July 8, 2009 (American Wind Energy Association)
and
Pickens Pulls Up Stakes; After encountering some Texas-sized opposition to his alternative-energy plans, oilman T. Boone Pickens has shelved plans for a giant wind farm
Susan Berfield, July 8, 2009 (Business Week)

SUMMARY
In Spring 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) described as feasible the possibility of wind energy providing 20% of U.S. power by 2030.

The 20% Wind Energy By 2030 2009 Report Card, from an in-house team of American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) experts, some of whom worked on the DOE report, analyzes the wind industry’s progress toward its 20% goal in the key areas of Technology Development, Manufacturing, Transmission & Grid Integration and Siting.

The most important conclusion from AWEA’s Report Card is not about this year’s grade but about next year’s grade. Supportive policies are to energy industries what good teaching is to students: Without it, the chance of keeping grades high is low.

click to enlarge

The wind industry’s overall grade for 2008 was a B. New installed capacity once again set records and wind power accounted for 40% of new U.S. power generation.

Installations for the first part of 2009, coasting on last year’s momentum, have remained somewhat prolific. But the momentum is slowing. If numbers do not rise, volumes for the year will likely fall to levels not seen since the early, pre-boom years of this decade. And, given the recessionary economy, installation numbers are unlikely to rise again without a boost from the passage by Congress of a national Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) requiring regulated U.S. utilities to obtain a significant portion of their power from New Energy sources by 2020 or 2025.

Obviously, the failure of Congress to institute a national RES by now would be cause for a poor grade if AWEA were to give a grade on the subject of Policy but, since that subject was not part of last year’s DOE report, AWEA did not grade it in the 2009 Report Card.

click to enlarge

Technology Development earned an A-, Manufacturing got a B+, and Siting got a B to help keep the wind industry’s grade point average up. Where wind fell was in Transmission and Grid Integration. It earned a C-.

There is crucial legislation now before Congress that addresses the planning, financing and siting obstacles blocking the building and integration of new transmission. The Report Card findings suggest it would behoove lawmakers to get to work on that legislation.

To provide 20% of U.S. power by 2030, the wind industry must keep growing uninterruptedly. The report calculated the industry would need to add 3,260 megawatts in 2008 and reach a cumulative capacity of 17,970 megawatts. It actually added 8,500+ megawatts last year to reach a cumulative capacity of 25,300 megawatts.

To get to the cumulative 300,000 megawatts that will be 20% of U.S. power in 2030, the industry must be adding 16,000 megawatts a year in 2018. It must add 4,180 megawatts in 2009 and 2010 and 6,350 megawatts in 2011 and 2012. Even with the financial downturn and uncertain policy support, AWEA predicts there will be 5,000 megawatts built this year and most economists predict a return to expansion in 2010. But without suppoortive policy, growth will continue to flag and could stall.

(1) On the Report Card’s Technology Development evaluation, challenges and current status are provided for turbine productivity, offshore wind, small turbines and component reliability.

(2) On the Report Card’s Manufacturing evaluation, challenges and current status are provided for investment in American manufacturing, increasing domestic content in turbines installed in the U.S., workforce development, overcoming supply bottlenecks, and collaboration between states, federal entities and businesses.

(3) On the Report Card’s Transmission & Integration evaluation, challenges and current status are provided for transmission policy, transmission planning, transmission cost allocation, transmission siting, more efficient use of existing transmission, less balkanized grid, updates to grid operations, ancillary services markets, wind energy forecasting, interconnection standards and wind integration studies.

(4) On the Report Card’s Siting evaluation, challenges and current status are provided for comparative wildlife impacts, wildlife research, risk analysis, regulation, approval processes, public education and federal and state offshore wind.

The high number of issues requiring comment for transmission and integration is indicative of the complexity of those subjects. The complexity adds enormously to the cost. The cost must be financed. Financing under the best of circumstances is challenging. The present economy cannot be described as the best of circumstances.

click to enlarge

COMMENTARY
As if to validate the accuracy of the low grade given by AWEA to transmission, legendary energy entrepreneur T. Boone Pickens shook the New Energy world with his announcement he would postpone his planned multibillion dollar 1,000-megawatt Texas wind project because, among other things, inadequate transmission makes the undertaking uneconomic at present.

A variety of factors played into Pickens’ postponement of his Pampa, Texas, wind project. Political opposition stopped his controversial plan to pipe underground water from the Texas Panhandle wind region to Dallas. He suffered billion-dollar hedge fund losses from the market crash. But the final blow to the Pickens Plan, for which T. Boone spent $60 million promoting increased use of wind power for electricity and compressed natural gas heavy vehicles to end dependence on imported oil, was his inability to get financing for the transmission system needed to deliver the abundant winds of the West Texas plains to the populous demand centers in Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston.

Without the ability to deliver his wind-generated electricity to market, the $2 billion, 667 turbine project planned by Pickens’ Mesa Power was almost pointless. With the financial downturn, financing to build new transmission has simply become too expensive, even for T. Boone Pickens.

Oh the irony. The day he proclaimed Energy Independence Day was the day the news hit. From PickensPlan.

But transmission is only part of Pickens' story. From the beginning, the wind project was linked to a plan to pipe water and sell it. In his speech at the AWEA convention last May, Pickens joked that his friend Ted Turner’s land holdings make his own seem small, but Pickens’ water rights will sooner or later be far more valuable than Turner’s arid real estate. Pickens owns more water than any other single individual, not just in drought-ridden Texas but in the entire nation.

Like a character from a Western horse opera, Pickens has been buying up water rights in the Panhandle for years and waiting for the moment when Dallas, 250 miles to the southeast, became thirsty enough to pay him to drink. His plan was to use the power of eminent domain to force Texas landowners along a proposed water pipeline to allow him to build. He got the bill he needed from the Texas legislature but the State Justice Department stopped him when the landowners rebelled.

He stopped pipeline construction in September 2008. Though he has continued to confidently talk wind, money troubles were mounting, especially in the absence of the anticipated return on the water. In the end, however, the water project back story is a cautionary tale and an uncompleted distraction from the much more serious matter of wind and transmission.

The bottom line is this: Without transmission, there is no wind project. Without wind projects, the U.S. must turn to Old Energies that either spew greenhouse gases or radioactive waste.

Losing the water project pleased landowners in the Texas Panhandle who didn’t want to give up chunks of their land to see their water transported elsewhere. Losing the wind project – and all the benefits to the local communities like jobs, tax revenues and economic revitalization – pleases nobody.

If things continue along these lines - or perhaps that should be "without these lines" - the nation will remain dependent on Old Energies, droughts everywhere will worsen, the rich who own water will get richer and the wind industry's grades will plummet.

Pickens continues to buy water rights and will tranfer the turbines he purchased for Pampa to smaller installations in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wisconsin.

T. Boone Pickens is betting the answer is no. Which is another reason to bet on wind.(click to enlarge)

QUOTES
- From the AWEA Report Card: “…wind farm installations were very strong in 2008, and remain somewhat strong in 2009 compared to historical levels, especially in light of the difficult environment facing the U.S. economy. However, if installation rates do not revert quickly back to 2008 levels, the U.S. could fall behind the trajectory to its goal in the early part of the next decade. The U.S. wind industry needs a policy that will provide the near-term boost to development that we would expect from a national renewable electricity standard (RES) with strong near-term targets for renewable electricity generation.”

click to enlarge

- Rob Gramlich, Senior Vice President-Public Policy, AWEA: “With Americans back to work after a long 4 th of July weekend celebrating America’s independence, we think it’s an appropriate time to take a look at one of the key ingredients of energy independence: expanding our use of renewable energyThe DOE report found that 20% wind energy is feasible and would carry with it a host of benefits for our economy, environment and energy security, including half a million jobs. While headway has been made, today could become a high-water mark unless Congress enacts a Renewable Electricity Standard with strong near-term targets.”
- Gramlich, AWEA, on the RES being considered in the Senate: “A strong RES is essential to give businesses the certainty they need to invest in factories in the U.S. and create new jobs…There is an opportunity to reach 500,000 U.S. jobs related to the wind industry alone under a 20% scenario, but a commitment from manufacturers and wind companies to add jobs requires a commitment from the U.S. policymakers to domestic renewable energy.”
- Gramlich, AWEA, on legislation streamlining transmission permitting and siting: “New transmission is critical, not only to develop our abundant renewable energy resources, but to upgrade and improve the reliability of the existing transmission system.”
- Bobby Stillwell, General Counsel, Mesa Power: "[We] got too clever..We had thought that doing [wind and water] jointly would be a convenience and maybe even a cost savings to us and the landowners. There were two things that we misjudged. To do that we would have to acquire a 250-foot right of way instead of just a 150-feet one for electricity. That was enough difference to the landowners…Secondly, they were criticizing the whole project, both water and electricity, when they were really concerned about water. We didn't want both to be subject to the same criticism."
- Robert Duncan, Texas State Senator: "Everybody kind of thought that the wind was a Trojan horse for the water. And if you look at how it all came down, it would seem to me that those were legitimate concerns."

click to enlarge

- From the AWEA Report Card, under challenges for transmission and integration: “Policies for planning, paying for, and permitting transmission need updating to effectively promote grid expansion…Planning is reactive, complex and slow; processes need to be overhauled…Broader cost allocation needed to fairly allocate costs with benefits…Streamlined siting needed to allow grid to expand as required…Promoting adoption of Conditional Firm service, other innovative techniques for using existing grid more effectively…Making grid less balkanized through balancing area consolidation…Moving from hourly to 5-or-10-minute power plant dispatch intervals…Greater use of ancillary services markets to provide needed grid flexibility at lower cost...Increase use to reduce utility wind integration costs...Address technical interconnection concerns…Conduct more integration studies”

ANYTHING FOR AN RES AND CAP&TRADE

Obama makes nuclear compromise to pass clean energy bill; Endorsement of nuclear revival suggests president is open to further compromises in order to pass climate change bill
Suzanne Goldenberg, 8 July 2009 (UK Guardian)
and
Cabinet Members Push Climate Bill on the Hill
Paul Kane, July 7, 2009 (Washington Post)
and
Obama Admin Urges Senate to Pass Energy, Climate Bill
Darren Sammuelsohn, July 7, 2009 (NY Times)

SUMMARY
It appears this is the choice: Pay off the Old Energies in order to get a "framework" for big New Energy incentives in place and in order to get a "someday" effective and "potentially" effective price on greenhouse gas emissions (GhGs). Or pay off the Old Energies and get nothing.

The Obama administration clearly chooses the former. Appearing before the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif), Secretary of Energy Steven Chu gave a full-throated, uncompromising endorsement to the backing of new nuclear energy initiatives.

Secretary Chu’s endorsement carries enormous weight because of his authority as a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and the former Director of the Lawrence-Berkeley National Laboratory. He said DOE is in the process of approving $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for 4 new nuclear facilities. No new nuclear plant has been built since before the Three Mile Island near disaster and the Chernobyl tragedy in the 1980s.

One of the Senators on the Committee mentioned he would be more supportive of nuclear energy if there were a solution for how to safely manage radioactive nuclear waste. The topic was not pursued.

The endorsement of federal spending for new nuclear plants may make it hard for conservative Democrats and more moderate Republicans to turn their backs on the controversial energy and climate bill now making its way through the Senate after winning passage by the House of Representatives in June. Because he cannot be accused of being unaware of the risks nuclear energy represents, Secretary Chu's backing of it must be seen to be an affirmation of how urgent it is to the Obama administration to get the energy and climate bill passed.

click to enlarge

The Energy Secretary said as much with his descriptions of summer Arctic polar ice cap losses (half in the last half-century), rapidly rising sea levels and an approaching tipping point after which it will be impossible to stop a 10-degrees Fahrenheit global average temperature increase.

Secretary Chu appeared before Senator Boxer’s Committee along with Lisa Jackson, head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. None of the other Obama administration lieutenants objected to Chu’s endorsement of new nuclear plants.

Secretary Salazar gave the strongest pitch for New Energy, stressing the capacity of it to supply a significant portion of U.S. power if it gets adequate policy support and the necessary new transmission.

Secretary Vilsack talked about how the cap&trade portion of the energy and climate legislation could be of big economic benefit to farmers, ranchers and rural landowners when they learn how to earn offset credits for using soil sequestration methods to reduce GhGs.

The House energy and climate bill and the Senate’s version of it include historic breakthrough provisions including the first-ever U.S. Renewable Electricity Standard (RES), requiring regulated utilities to obtain 15% of their power from New Energy sources by 2020, and the first-ever U.S. cap&trade system, putting hard caps on U.S. emissions that would mandate a GhG reduction of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% by 2050 and creating an emissions trading market to facilitate the reductions.

click to enlarge

Activist progressives have accused House Democratic leaders of having compromised effectiveness out of the legislation to get it passed. When asked if she endorsed the bill, EPA head Lisa Jackson urged the Subcommittee to give New Energy stronger backing so the U.S. would not be left at a disadvantage in the emerging international New Energy economy. She described the development of New Energy as the “space race” of this time.

In a later session of the Committee, Governor Haley Barbour (R-Miss), who some say is considering a 2012 Presidential bid, gave strong testimony against cap&trade. Not an overt climate change denier, he nevertheless opposes a trading system to cap GhGs because he feels it is a scheme that will be abused by the financially sophisticated at the expense of U.S. utility ratepayers.

Conservatives do not like cap&trade. (click to enlarge)

Chairwoman Boxer says she intends to finish work on the bill and submit to the rest of the Senate before the summer recess in August but there are reportedly few indications the Committee’s minority will cooperate.

Senator Kit Bond (R-Missouri) complained, as many Republicans in both houses of Congress have, of the the legislation’s daunting (6,706 pages, Bond said) voluminousness. Committee Ranking Member Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla) echoed the complaint. Chairwoman Boxer said she has always planned to accommodate Republican requests.

The public strongly supports an RES. (click to enlarge)

COMMENTARY
Secretary Chu’s endorsement adds impetus to the drive by the nuclear energy industry to regain a share of the building of new power generation in the U.S. because the Department of Energy (DOE) which Chu oversees is in charge of all U.S. nuclear matters, from weapons and waste to facility decommissioning.

The Obama administration faces the political dilemma of how to get its energy and climate legislation, which won House passage by essentially a single vote, through the Senate, where it must be backed by 60 of the 100 members in order to avoid blockage by a filibuster-weilding minority.

Though the addition of Senator Al Franken (D-Minn) gives Obama’s Democratic Party 60 votes, it is a tenuous, testy coalition that includes progressives and conservatives. Compromises in the bill that pleases those at one end of the spectrum is likely to alienate those at the other end.

Some environmental groups do not support the energy/climate bill (click to enlarge)

With this move to back a “nuclear renaissance,” the Obama administration appears to have chosen to move toward the wing of its party that might garner it some Republican support as well. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz), Obama’s opponent for President in last year’s election, is a nuclear energy advocate and has called for 100 new nuclear power plants by 2030, as has Republican Senate power broker Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn).

It is likely the endorsement of nuclear is tied to new reports from pollster Mark Mellman that the public is not responding positively to cap&trade and has even recoiled from the subject of “global warming.” Mellman's advice to Democrats is to focus on the goals of reducing dependency on foreign oil and creating new jobs and to stay away from “scientific” concepts like cutting carbon emissions.

In Committee testimony, Ms. Jackson called the energy and climate bill “a jobs bill.” Secretary Salazar said it is “about saving our children.”

Environmental groups tend not to be enthusiastic about nuclear energy either. (click to enlarge)

There is probably no strategy or language that will win over Senator Inhofe (R-Okla), probably the most adamant and irrational climate change denier in the Senate. He has repeatedly proclaimed that "the science isn't there" and once gave a speech calling the sophistiated computer modeling used by climate scientists "games."

The support for nuclear will find strong support (France) and strong opposition (Germany) among EU nations when the President goes to the crucial Copenhagen summit in December. Controversy may cool if the President's strategy pays off in the passage of his energy and climate legislation. With the U.S. on an equal footing with the other nations of the world in having a stated New Energy requirement and a cap&trade program, Mr. Obama would be in a strong position to push emerging economies like China, India and Brazil on cooperation at cutting GhGs.

Senate Democratic leaders hope to get a version of the energy and climate legislation through 6 other committees -- Agriculture; Commerce, Science and Transportation; Energy and Natural Resources; Finance; and Foreign Relations – and to the Senate floor for a vote by mid-September.

The RES that made it through the House is not this strong and if one gets through the Senate it may be weaker. But it can still accomplish these goals. (click to enlarge

QUOTES
- Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy: "I think nuclear power is going to be a very important factor in getting us to a low carbon future…Quite frankly, we want to recapture the lead on industrial nuclear power. We have lost that lead as we have lost the lead in many energy technologies and we want to get it back."
- Lisa Jackson, head, EPA: ""That is what the president wants, that's what I want…I believe many senators want the same thing. Please consider the Environmental Protection Agency a partner in this effort to get America running on clean energy. And please, please keep up the momentum…It sends the right signal and you all in the Senate have work to do…Clean energy is to this decade and the next what the space race was to the 1950s and 60s and America is behind…Governments in Asia and Europe are ahead of the United States in making aggressive investments in clean energy technology."

click to enlarge

- Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla), Ranking Member, Senate Environment & Public Works Committee: "[The Senate energy and climate change legislation is a way of] subsidizing the East and West Coasts at the expense of the heartland."
- Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.): "As we [double the number of U.S. nuclear plants] we could begin to close dirty coal plants…Why are we ignoring the cheap energy solution to global warming, which is nuclear power?"
- Senator Kit Bond (R-Missouri): "What needles are the majority trying to hide in the haystack?"
- Governor Haley Barbour (R-Miss), describing a recent discussion about cap&trade at a bipartisan gathering of Southern business leaders: "There was little dissent about who would bear the cost . . . the consumer…Many Americans worry it will end up being an Enron-style manipulation scheme."
- Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy: "Denial of the climate change problem will not change our destiny…A comprehensive energy and climate bill that caps and then reduces carbon emissions will…America has the opportunity to lead a new industrial revolution of creating sustainable, clean energy. We can sit on the sidelines and deny the scientific facts, or we can get in the game and play to win."

MORE NEWS, 7-9 (A FILM ABOUT A CHOICE ND BUYS IN ON MIDWEST WIRES FOR WIND; NC DEAL FOR RALEIGH SOLAR POWER PLANT)

A FILM ABOUT A CHOICE
WindWorks! Northwest Announced the Release of Its Short Documentary Film, “Chasing a Legacy: the Story of Wind Power in Kittitas County”
June 25, 2009 (Business Wire)

"WindWorks! Northwest, a regional organization that advocates for wind power development, announced the release of its short documentary film, Chasing a Legacy: The Story of Wind Power in Kittitas County."

"The film features residents of rural Kittitas County, Washington, making the case for bringing wind farms to their community...[and] tells the story of ranchers, small businesspeople and local residents standing up to Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) opponents…"

From WindWorksNW via YouTube.

"The story also features experts like Dr. James Walker, outgoing President of the American Wind Energy Association, who highlight the value of wind energy.
Denis Hayes, environmental advocate and author, compares the story told in “Chasing a Legacy” to the protracted fight over the Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound…

"A celebration of the film’s release, hosted by law firms Gordon Thomas Honeywell and Perkins Coie, will be held in Seattle in July. The film’s director, Sarah Koenigsberg, of Square Pixel Media, a graduate of Whitman College and resident of Walla Walla, will briefly share her experience…"

ND BUYS IN ON MIDWEST WIRES FOR WIND
3,000-mile Green Power Express has ND partner
James MacPherson, July 7, 2009 (AP via Forbes)

"Bismarck-based MDU Resources Group Inc. is the first to join a Michigan company developing a high-voltage power line that its backers say would transmit wind energy from the Dakotas to homes in Chicago and other cities.

"ITC Holdings Corp., of Novi, Mich., has proposed the Green Power Express project, a 3,000-mile, 765-kilovolt power line from the Dakotas to the Chicago area. It would cost up to $12 billion and go online in 2020. Backers say the Green Power Express is intended to move wind-powered electricity through parts of North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana."

click to enlarge

"…[T]erms of the agreement are still being negotiated and will not be disclosed. The project, which is still being planned, will still need other backers and financing to move forward…MDU's participation should spur agreements with other companies…

"MDU, an energy, mining and construction company with operations in 44 states and Brazil, is North Dakota's only Fortune 500 company. It also is based in a state touted as among those with the best wind energy potential in the U.S. The state is among the windiest in the nation because its flat, largely treeless terrain is at the "polar front," an area where cold air from Canada meets warm subtropical air…"

It's easy to understand why a big energy company would want to get this to market. But is it an excuse to get more coal to market? (click to enlarge)

"…[T]he exact spot where the line would begin in North Dakota has not been set…[T]he project is not designed to tie in with existing wind farms in North Dakota, or to supply power to North Dakota…North Dakota would benefit from jobs during the construction phase and from tax revenue…The line is still in the early planning stages and faces several regulatory hurdles…[I]t could be years before the project is under way…

"…[D] evelopers have identified 12,000 megawatts of wind-generated electricity that could be sent through the line…Under federal law…the power line also could be used to transmit electricity from other sources, some not considered so green…"

NC DEAL FOR RALEIGH SOLAR POWER PLANT
Raleigh land to sprout solar panels; Project could power 200 homes
David bracken, July 8, 2009 (Raleigh News & Observer)

"Ten city-owed acres at Raleigh's southeastern edge will soon be used to generate solar electricity under a plan approved by the City Council…The project, a public-private partnership involving Progress Energy Carolinas and two other companies, will allow Raleigh to burnish its green credentials without investing any taxpayer money.

"The deal calls for Raleigh to lease 10 acres of farmland next to its Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant to Morrisville-based Southern Energy Management and Charlotte-based NxGen Power. The two companies will install solar panels that are expected to generate 1.7 million kilowatt-hours of electricity a year…the energy used by 200 homes annually, or the amount of power required to operate the wastewater treatment plant for a month."

NC is one of the few states with a "solar carve out." (click to enlarge)

"The installation, which is expected to be in operation by early next year, will be the state's largest solar installation on property owned by a local government…Progress Energy has agreed to buy all the electricity produced for the first 20 years the system is in operation. Raleigh will have the opportunity to buy the system from Southern Energy and NxGen after six or seven years."

click thru for more info

"The project is the fifth, and largest, solar-array installation announced by Progress Energy Carolinas since the company sent out a request for such projects last year…Progress and other utilities are under pressure to comply with legislation passed by the General Assembly in 2007…[requiring] utilities such as Progress get at least 3 percent of their retail sales from renewable energy sources [and solar energy] by 2012…

"The project is part of a larger effort by Raleigh officials to make the city more energy-efficient…[T]he cost of the solar installation [is estimated] at $8.5 million…[T]he success of the project could help the city determine whether additional solar installations would make sense…"

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

CONCENTRATING PHOTOVOLTAICS

Solar Companies Merge Technologies in Bid for Utility-Scale Production
Katie Howell, July 7, 2009 (NY Times)

SUMMARY
Concentrating photovoltaic (CPV) technology is a hybrid of 2 familiar solar energy concepts. The most widely recognized and developed concentrating solar energy technologies use mirrors to concentrate the sun’s heat, on a solar power plant (SPP) scale. The familiar rooftop solar systems use solar photovoltaic (PV) panels to transform the sun’s light into electricity.

The hybrid concentrating PV concept uses a small, highly efficient mirror-lens system to concentrate the sun’s light on a small, highly efficient PV panel and transform the sun’s light into electricity with a very high degree of efficiency.

CPV is a new variation that could improve the cost-effectiveness of solar power plants but has yet to prove itself. A few companies, including SolFocus, are working to perfect and demonstrate it.

click to enlarge

The SolFocus CPV system directs sunlight onto an optical rod with a 2-mirrored system. The rod acts as a lens to concentrate and focus the light "of 500 suns" on a tiny, 1-square centimeter PV cell. A panel consists of several of these units. A row of panels is mounted on a tracking rack that rotates with the sun across the sky, maximizing the light hitting the panels.

Emcore Corp. uses powerful lenses that focus a 500-sun concentration of light onto a highly efficient multi-junction (thin film) solar cell. The “multi-junction” architecture makes the cell capable of capturing more of the light concentrated on it.

Semprius Solar is using a similar concept but concentrates "1,000 suns" and is working to make the its micro-transfer thin film manufacturing technology that simulates a printing process less expensive so the price of the CPV panels will be more affordable and, therefore, cost effective.

click to enlarge

Cost remains CPV’s obstacle. It is still more expensive than rooftop silicon solar panels or thin film solar panels, though SolFocus says it is on track to match the other panel materials by 2010 and be cheaper by 2011. A recent report from Spain estimated CPV will reach grid parity, the cost for electricity production that matches the cost of traditional generation sources, between 2011 and 2015. That is the same time frame in which the other solar panel materials manufacturers anticipate reaching grid parity.

To bring its costs down, CPV will have to get a bigger part of the market. And, of course, to get a bigger part of the market it will have to bring its costs down. Estimates put present CPV investment at ~$1 billion worldwide, which represents a few small-scale projects, mostly in Europe.

SolFocus has done a half-megawatt installation in Spain and is doing a 10-meagawatt installation in Greece but only has ~10 kilowatts installed domestically. Emcore has installed a megawatt of CPV in Spain but less than 500 kilowatts in the U.S.

SolFocus panels. (click to enlarge)

Advocacy group CPV Consortium wants federal buy-in. Federal labs and grants have pushed CPV R&D. Now the CPV industry wants the government to provide loan guarantees or installation money for demonstration projects on federal lands.

As many as a dozen companies, from start-ups to a 50-year veteran solar panel manufacturer Sharp Corp, are experimenting with a variety of mirrors, lenses, dishes, troughs and carousels to maximize reliability, increase the delivery of sunlight to ever-smaller, ever more efficient PV cells or cut production costs.

Semprius panels. (click to enlarge)

COMMENTARY
Because CPV panels use less silicon, they are – like solar thin film – less expensive. Also like thin film, CPV is better suited for use in larger, solar power plant (SPP) arrays than for small, rooftop systems where silicon panels remain the standard because of their durability and lack of need for maintenance.

The competition will be between CPV, which uses the sun’s light, and SPP technologies that use large flat mirrors to concentrate the sun’s heat on a solar power tower or parabolic trough mirrors to concentrate the sun’s heat on flowing liquid.

click to enlarge

Because solar power plants are built in intensely hot desert areas, CPV’s most immediate advantage over SPP mirror technologies is that it uses significantly less water. The SolFocus technology uses 4 gallons of water per megawatt-hour of electricity produced, mostly to keep the panels clean of dust. The widely-used solar power plan technologies reportedly use 850 gallons of water per megawatt-hour.

CPV systems are also largely made of aluminum and glass and are, therefore, 97% recyclable. The energy payback for all materials in a CPV system may be as little as 6 months.

click to enlarge

Finally, the modular configuration of CPV allows installations to be set up to accommodate the space rather than dominating the space the way the larger plants do. SolFocus says its panels can even be set up to allow the growing of crops or grazing of animals in between.

Because CPV is modular, it lends itself to SPP installations of any size whereas the economics of the big-mirror SPP technologies make them more cost-effective at larger sizes. Perhaps, for the time being, CPV might work better as 1-to-10 megawatt supplementary installations, such as those currently being tried at natural gas plants, while the 50-megawatt and up solar power tower and parabolic trough mirror systems would be the cost-effective choice for stand-alone power plants.

click to enlarge

QUOTES
- Nancy Hartsoch, vice president of marketing, SolFocus and director, CPV Consortium trade group: "In a lot of ways, it's merging the advantages of photovoltaic technology with the efficiency and ability to capture more sunlight that you get with concentrated…You're basically focusing 650 suns onto that cell, so you're able to use a very, very small amount of photovoltaic material to capture a tremendous amount of sunlight and then convert it at very high efficiency."
- Brad Collins, director, American Solar Energy Society (ASES): "I think there's a huge space [for CPV technology]…Solar deployment on a utility scale will explode in the next five years…It doesn't compete with traditional PV. The applications are different…One's going to be a power plant, and one is a distributed resource. It's not comparing apples to apples."
- Hartsoch, SolFocus and CPV Consortium: "There are the big concentrating solar power plants -- the solar thermal stuff that's been around a long time -- and they use mirrors as we do in a different way…I guess you could say [CPV’s water use is] a drop in the bucket [compared to that]…"

click to enlarge

- Sarah Kurtz, CPV researcher, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE): "When compared with solar thermal approaches, CPV provides a qualitatively different approach, typically with lower water usage, greater flexibility in size of installation and the ability to respond more quickly when the sun returns on a cloudy day…"
- Hartsoch, SolFocus and CPV Consortium: "The battle for a new technology like this, the challenge it faces, is the reason it's good…What it brings is high efficiency, low carbon footprint, all those things. What comes with it is the risk of new technology…You're now talking about small grants ... to develop new technologies and some showcasing, but if you want to take this big-scale, there's one more hurdle…What can you do to help us assure that it's safe to deploy?"
- Anita Balachandra, senior vice president, TechVision21: "So many of these technologies have originated in the United States, but where they've really flourished and been taken to scale has been outside of the United States…They've drawn them, and long term, we lose competitive advantage."

click to enlarge

- Brian Gibson, director of business development, Emcore: "We are pursuing larger projects at this point in time, but as with any newer technology, there's going to be reluctance of the financial institution to take risk…It's difficult to get anything sizable financed. We are looking at some 10- and 20-megawatt projects, but from a practical standpoint, you've got to do some 1- to 3-megawatt projects before anyone will finance you."
- Kurtz, NREL: "In the last 10 years, the solar industry has mushroomed, and the CPV industry is now growing rapidly…With the overall PV market growing in the gigawatt range, CPV has an opportunity to enter the market with production of tens or hundreds of megawatts per year... This is significant because CPV is unlikely to achieve low costs when manufacturing at less than tens of megawatts per year."

THE HAPPENINGS IN HYDROKINETIC ENERGY

How to Invest in Ocean Wave and Hyrdopower Sustainable Energy
James Rickman, June 8, 2009 (Seeking Alpha)

SUMMARY
Hydro = water. Kinetics = motion. Hydrokinetics = the motion of water. Hydrokinetic energy = energy from the motion of water.

The ocean is the biggest solar system in the world, transforming surface heat into deeper cold. It translates the planetary force of the moon into tides. And it is the biggest wind energy system in the world, transforming winds into waves. The mechanical force of waves can be captured and transformed into electricity, as can the mechanical force of the tides and the temperature differential between the ocean surface and the ocean’s depths.

Nevertheless, there are fewer than 12 megawatts of installed ocean energy capacity in the world.

A series of reports to the the International Energy Agency (IEA) in the first half of 2009 summarize the state of Ocean Energy Systems (OES) development worldwide. The reports include (2) The International Energy Agency Implementing Agreement on Ocean Energy Systems 2008 Annual Report, (2) Ocean Energy: Global Technology Development Status, (3) Potential opportunities and differences associated with integration of ocean wave and marine current energy plants, in comparison to wind energy and (4) Key features and identification of improvement needs to the existing relevant interconnection guidelines for facilitating integration of ocean energy pilot projects.

click to enlarge

Worldwide research and development of ocean energies is expected to reach $2 billion over the next 3 years, driving the installation of prototypes and pilot projects around the world.

Tidal energies are present at coastlines around the world and considered highly accessible for energy capture. The turbines to harvest tidal energy are frequently described as very like wind turbines placed in any strong tidal flow. The only obstacle to success so far has been turbine sturdiness.

Because the flow of water is calculated to be 800 times denser than the flow of wind, ocean and tidal energy turbines have to be heavier and more expensive but can capture more energy for the effort and cost.

click to enlarge

Wave energy is even more widespread than tidal energy and represents even greater potential. On the energy-rich Pacific Northwest coast of the U.S., waves could generate 40–70 kilowatts (kW) of electricity per meter (3.3 feet) of coastline. Worldwide, analysts believe there is enough wave energy to generate 2 terawatts (2 trillion watts) of electricity.

The biggest obstacle, at present, to wave energy development is its many, many competitive technologies. Without a single agreed-on technology (like wind energy’s 3-blade turbine) or technologies (like the solar industry’s few competing versions of solar panels and its handful of competing solar power plant designs), there can be no directed incentives, no production technologies at utility scale, no volume to bring costs down.

Right now, the best UK wave energy technology in place is producing power at something like 6.7 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Settling on a set of technologies, moving them toward efficient performance and building them in commercial quantities to develop economies of scale would, it is estimated, bring the cost of wave energy-generated electricity down near the cost of wind power-generated electricity, ~4.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.

click to enlarge

Big coal plants, already built and operating on the expense basis of the last generation of energy sources, produce electricity at ~2.6 cents per kilowatt-hour (according to some estimates). New coal plants cannot be built at costs allowing for electricity to be generated that cheaply and few new coal plants are, in fact, being licensed in industrial nations because governments are holding off in the empty hope of a breakthrough in “clean” coal technology.

New natural gas plants, the biggest source of new power generation in the U.S. and most developed countries, can get costs down to ~3 cents per kilowatt hour but it is usually closer to 5 cents per kilowatt-hour and higher.

And the cost of electricity from both coal and natural gas will rise as the price on greenhouse gas emissions rises, as it inevitably will when society begins charging fossil fuels for the harm they do. That is why there is so much interest in the New Energies in general and in the hydrokinetic energies in particular.

The U.S., Brazil, Scotland, Germany, Portugal, Canada and France are all aggressively developing wave energy projects. The expectation is of 30+% growth over the next 5 years.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently awarded $18+ million in grants for Advanced Water Power Projects in 3 categories, (1) Technology Development, (2) Market Acceleration and (3) National Marine Energy Centers. This significant public investment should contribute to the technologies' maturation.

click to enlarge

COMMENTARY
The DOE grants went to the outstanding names in ocean energy. It is likely the names on the DOE grant list will be the companies that will lead in the field.

For Technology Development, awards of up to $600,000 over up to 2 years, went to:
(1) Electric Power Research Institute, Inc, (EPRI) for fish-friendly hydropower turbine development & deployment.
(2) Verdant Power Inc., for improved structure and fabrication of large, high-power kinetic hydropower systems rotors.
(3) Public Utility District #1 of Snohomish County (SnoPUD), for a Puget Sound tidal energy in-water testing and development project.
(4) Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for in-water testing and development of the WaveConnect Wave Energy Project.
(5) Concepts ETI, Inc, for the development and demonstration of an Ocean Wave Converter (OWC) power system.
(6) Lockheed Martin Corporation for an advanced composite Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) cold water pipe validation test project.

click to enlarge

For Market Acceleration, awards of up to $500,000 went to:
(1) EPRI, for wave energy resource assessment and GIS database development for the U.S.
(2) Georgia Tech Research Corporation, for the assessment of energy production potential from tidal streams in the U.S.
(3) Re Vision Consulting, LLC, for the study of best siting practices for marine and hydrokinetic technologies with respect to environmental and navigational impacts.
(4) Pacific Energy Ventures, LLC, for the writing of siting protocols for marine and hydrokinetic energy projects.
(5) PCCI, Inc., for the identification of potential navigational impacts and mitigation measures of marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies.
(6) Science Applications International Corporation, for international standards development for marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy.

click to enlarge

For National Marine Energy Centers, awards of up to $1.25 million over up to 5 years, went to:
(1) Oregon State University, and University of Washington - Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center, to further develop the Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center with a full range of capabilities to support wave and tidal energy development in the U.S.
(2) University of Hawaii National Renewable Marine Energy Center to further facilitate the development and implementation of commercial wave energy systems and to assist the private sector in moving ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) systems beyond proof-of-concept to pre-commercial long-term testing.

There are companies that come up repeatedly in every summary of ocean energy technology. They are the companies to watch:

(1) Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). Its troubled Finavera Renewables AquaBouy 2.0 wave energy installation in Northern California could eventually be the first working U.S. project, perhaps in 2010.
(2) Siemens AG. Voith Siemens Hydro Power Generation owns Wavegen, Scotland's first wave power company. Wavegen is an oscillating water column (OWC) which, as a stable device near the shoreline, has to take less punishment from the harsh ocean environment. A small device is already connected to Scotland’s grid and they are planning another for Northern Spain.
(3) Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. OPT's PowerBuoy is used to supply wave energy-generated electricity. Iberdrola is paying for a PowerBuoy station off Santona, Spain, is talking with French oil major Total about a project off the French coast and is developing plans for England, Scotland, Hawaii, and Oregon.
(4) Pelamis Wave Power, formerly known as Ocean Power Delivery. A groundbreaking Scottish technology, Pelamis has won funding from General Electric Energy and Norsk Hydro, among others, and is being watched by Chevron. Pelamis Wave Power may put Scotland at the forefront of Europe's New Energy sector.

click to enlarge

(5) Endesa SA ADS. Endesa is the Spanish electric utility that partnered with Pelamis, the world’s first full scale commercial wave power installation off Aguçadoura, Portugal. Though the first phase failed in the harsh ocean conditions and was towed ashore last fall, a second phase could be as big as 20+ megawatts and change the wave energy game.
(6) RWE AG ADR. A German management holding company, RWE has 6 power and energy divisions and is developing wave power stations in Siadar Bay on the Isle of Lewis off the coast of Scotland.
(7) Oceanlinx. Its oscillating wave column design has been funded by RWE and it is planning projects in Australia, the U.S., South Africa, Mexico, and Britain.
(7) Alstom. In a sign of things to come, the multinational power and utility giant has begun developing wave and tidal projects.

click to enlarge

The Future of Ocean Energy:
- Tidal technologies are on the verge of maturity.
- River current energy pilot projects are proceeding successfully but ocean current pilot projects have been defeated by the elements.
- Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) projects are purely experimental.
- The potential of wave energy is impressive.
- There are potential wave energy development sites worldwide.
- Site selection will be one key for wave energy: (1) Enviromental impacts, thought to be benign, remain unsettled and will slow development. (2) The fishery industries must be accommodated. (3) Ocean recreation must be accommodated. (4) Shipping and Naval concerns must be addressed.
- Cost competitiveness is in doubt and will remain in doubt until the technology matures.
- To mature, ocean energy technology must prove sturdy enough to endure the intensely harsh ocean environment.
- Environmental hardening must be done cost competitively and the technology maturation that is necessary for cost competitiveness has not been achieved.
- Once built, operation and maintenance costs of adequately sturdy devices will be low and fuel will be – FREE.

click to enlarge

QUOTES
- Gary Shanahan, Deputy Director, Severn Tidal Power: “There are a number of technologies that can be used to generate power from the tidal range – the difference between high and low tides – of an estuary, bay or river. When the water level outside the impoundment changes relative to the water level inside, the head created enables the production of power from turbines…The most well understood technology is a tidal barrage in which a barrage spans the estuary, bay or river, which can then be considered in a similar way to a hydroelectric dam. Other technologies that are being considered for exploitation of energy from a tidal range are tidal lagoons, tidal fences and tidal reefs…”

click to enlarge

- Stated vision of the IEA-OES: “To realise, by 2020, the use of cost-competitive, environmentally sound ocean energy on a sustainable basis to provide a significant contribution to meeting future energy demands.”
- Stated mission of the IEA-OES: “To facilitate and co-ordinate ocean energy research, development and demonstration through international co-operation and information exchange, leading to the deployment and commercialisation of sustainable, efficient, reliable, cost-competitive and environmentally sound ocean energy technologies.
- From the Introduction to Ocean Energy: Global Technology Development Status: “The energy in the ocean waves is a form of concentrated solar energy that is transferred through complex wind-wave interactions. The effects of earth’s temperature variation due to solar heating, combined with a multitude of atmospheric phenomena, generate wind currents in global scale. Ocean wave generation, propagation and direction are directly related to these wind currents. On the other hand, ocean tides are cyclic variations in seawater elevation and flow velocity as a direct result of the earth’s motion with respect to the moon and the sun and the interaction of their gravitational forces. A number of phenomena relating to earth rotational tilt, rate of spinning, and interaction among gravitational and rotational forces cause the tide conditions to vary significantly over time. Tide conditions are more apparent in coastal areas where constrained channels augment the water flow and increase the energy density. The forms of ocean renewable sources can be broadly categorized into: (a) Tides (b) Wave (c) Marine Current (d) Temperature Gradient, and (e) Salinity Gradient…”

MORE NEWS, 7-8 (FEDS FUND FARM & RANCH SMALL WIND; TOYOTA PLUG-IN BY 2012; KICKING THE COAL HABIT)

FEDS FUND FARM & RANCH SMALL WIND
USDA Small Wind Turbine Grants Cover 25% of All Costs - Applications due July 31, 2009
July 7, 2009 (PR Newswire)

"Farmers, ranchers and rural business owners have until July 31, 2009 to apply for the USDA Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) grants. The grants provide funds to purchase and install small wind turbines (or other renewable energy systems). Farmers, ranchers and rural business owners are eligible for grants to cover 25% of the total installed cost of the small wind turbine system. These USDA grants, when used in conjunction with the Federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC), can help a farmer install a small wind turbine system for roughly 50% of the normal cost.

"These incentives, when coupled with the cost savings realized from producing one's own electricity, can result in impressive investment prospects…[I]n locations with 11 mph average wind speeds and with utility rates of $0.12 per kWh, a farmer could realize a 12% annual rate of return on her investment and a payback of 8 years…[I]n certain locations where the local utility cooperative (or rural electric association) offers a rebate to its members…farmers may realize an even greater return on investment and a shorter term payback."

Looks like its about to boom even bigger. (click to enlarge)

"The grant program is designed to assist farmers and ranchers who gain 50% or more of their gross income from agricultural operations. Rural small businesses with less than 15 employees are also eligible. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) offers examples of farmers and small business owners who have successfully installed small wind turbine systems on their property…[A]pplications must be submitted to local USDA Rural Development offices by July 31, 2009. It may take up to 2 weeks for a farmer to fully complete an application thus it is recommended to begin the process as soon as possible.

"For more information…Renewable Options & Investments (david@renewable-roi.com, 517-812-3285) …USDA Rural Development Offices (http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/scrty/sdirs.html)… Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy (DSIRE) (www.dsireusa.org)…American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) (www.awea.org)…"

TOYOTA PLUG-IN BY 2012
Toyota to mass produce plug-in hybrids from 2012 –Nikkei
Chang-Ran Kim and Nobuhiro Kubo (w/Valerie Lee), July 4, 2009 (Reuters)

"Toyota Motor Corp plans to start mass producing plug-in hybrid vehicles in 2012, with a projected first-year output of about 20,000 to 30,000 units, the Nikkei business daily reported…

"Toyota has said it would start leasing 500 plug-in cars globally by the end of this year, primarily for government and corporate use, but has not said when it would commercialise them."

Who will emerge from the pack? (click to enlarge)

"Plug-ins can be cleaner than regular hybrids as they can run purely on electricity but the need for more batteries makes them expensive.

"Toyota wants to price its plug-in hybrids at a comparable price to Mitsubishi Motors Corp's all-electric car, which debuts this month to fleet customers in Japan at 4.59 million yen ($47,800) before government subsidies, the Nikkei said…Toyota's new Prius gasoline-electric hybrid costs less than half that, starting at 2.05 million yen in Japan."

Unless it recharges Japan. (click to enlarge)

"Toyota's plug-ins will be able to run 20-30 km (12.4-18.6 miles) on battery power alone at full charge…Toyota has said the car will be powered by lithium-ion batteries developed and produced by its joint venture with Panasonic Corp…

"Toyota's plug-in hybrids would fan competition against General Motors Corp's much-hyped Chevy Volt plug-in, which can also be charged at home through an electric socket…GM is aiming to launch the Volt -- a showcase vehicle for its effort to reinvent itself after filing for bankruptcy last month -- by the end of 2010 and plans to have a total 14 hybrid models in production by 2012."

KICKING THE COAL HABIT
Los Angeles will end use of coal-fired power
Bernie Woodall (w/Marguerita Choy), July 2, 2009 (Reuters)

"Los Angeles will eliminate the use of electricity made from coal by 2020, replacing it with power from cleaner renewable energy sources, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said.

"Consumers of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the largest city-owned utility in the United States with 1.45 million electricity customers, will see higher power bills in the fight against climate change, he added in his inaugural speech for his second four-year term as mayor…"

A prominent investment banker seems to think coal has some problems. (click to enlarge)

"California does not have any coal-fired power plants, a leading contributor to greenhouse gas pollution, but the LADWP now gets 40 percent of its electricity from coal plants outside the state…Coal and natural gas-fired power now account for 76 percent of the electricity delivered by the LADWP. By 2020, the LADWP expects to cut its carbon emissions by up to 60 percent from 1990 levels, according to the mayor's office.

"Villaraigosa said the LADWP will meet its goal of getting 20 percent of its power from renewables by 2010…The LADWP also wants to cut overall electricity use by 1 percent a year for the next 10 years…through energy efficiency…Deputy Mayor David Freeman said the LADWP will continue to use power from the coal-fired 2,250-megawatt Navajo Generating Station in Arizona until 2019…negotiations have not yet begun on how and when the LADWP will leave its contract as lead owner of the 1,800-megawatt coal-fired Intermountain plant in Utah…"

What is economically recoverable may not be very abundant. (click to enlarge)

"Villaraigosa and Freeman said the elimination of coal-fired power will…one day increase rates but [the LADWP 12 cents per kilowatt-hour rate] will remain competitive with the 15.5 cents per kwh of the average Southern California Edison customer…The Navajo plant can deliver power at 3 cents per kwh, and the Intermountain power is between 4 to 5 cents per kwh.

"Freeman said that coal power costs will rise as rules limiting carbon dioxide, including a cap-and-trade system, are implemented…But "costs to society" such as higher medical bills for lung-related diseases, including asthma, will drop…"

Tuesday, July 07, 2009

BLAIR REPORT SAYS EFFICIENCIES NOW, CAP&TRADE FOR THE LONG RUN

Blair Says Saving Energy Is Faster Fix Than C02 Trade
Mathew Carr and Alex Morales, July 6, 2009 (Bloomberg News)
and
UK's Blair says practical steps needed in climate fight
Peter Griffiths (w/Janet Lawrence), July 6, 2009 (Reuters)

(The content of the report's illustrations is great. The quality is not. Click to enlarge for added value. Apologies.)

SUMMARY
Technology for a low carbon future, from the Breaking the Climate Deadlock team (lead author Shane Tomlinson) and sponsored by The Climate Group and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, points the way to a measured and effective response to global climate change.

Its objective: Minimize the risk of irreversible impacts by keeping the average global temperature increase below 2 degrees C. The New Energy, Energy Efficiency and political policy tactics and strategies outlined in the report aim to hold down global temperature by stopping the growth of world greenhouse gas emissions (GhGs) before 2020 and cutting them as much as 85% from pre-2000 levels by mid-century.

The report bases its planetary prescription on 5 conclusions:
(1) The technologies, where they must be deployed and how much they will cost are known.
(2) The technologies to meet the 2020 goal are proven and available and policies that will drive their implementation are known.
(3) To bring present technologies to scale and to drive the innovation of future technologies, investment must be made now.
(4) Investment means spending, a lot of spending, but it is called investment because it will pay off in climate and non-climate benefits.
(5) The December world summit on climate change in Copenhagen can produce an international agreement and collaboration that will make New Energy and Energy Efficiency costs affordable and drive their deployment.

click to enlarge

The emissions reduction goal for 2020 is 19 gigatonnes; for 2050, it is 48 gigatonnes.

New technologies must come in 4 key sectors: (1) Power, (2) Transport, (3) Buildings and (4) Industry. It will cost $1 trillion in yearly average investment through 2050.

70+% of the 2020 GhG reductions can come from (1) Increased energy efficiency, (2)reduced deforestation and (3) deployment of nuclear (per the report) and New Energies.

7 policies, already effectively enacted locally, that will drive these changes: (1) Renewable Energy Standards (RESs), (2) Industrial efficiency standards, (3) Building codes, (4) Vehicle efficiency standards, (5) Fuel carbon content standards, (6) Appliance standards, and (7) Policies that prevent deforestation and forest degradation.

Those 7 policies must be brought to global scales. Policies putting a price on GhGs, such as cap&trade and a carbon tax, are incentives that will act in the longer term.

click to enlarge

The future options still requiring investment in research and development include (per the report): (1) CCS, (2) next generation nuclear, (3) solar power plants (SPP) that use concentrated solar power (CSP), (4) battery electric vehicles (BEVs), and (5) smart grid infrastructure.

As a long term solution, the report sees the development of a global emissions market and/or other mechanisms, such as carbon taxes, to price emissions. It contends that markets will, beyond 2020, drive innovation and commercialization of New Energy and Energy Efficiency and expects a global emissions market to cut the cost of needed GhG reductions 20%.

click to enlarge

The report does not see mechanisms that price GhGs to be effective in the absence of “top-down” government policies to drive changes.

30% of GhG abatement through 2030 will come in large emerging economies, especially India, China and Brazil. Investment there will cost an estimated $100-to-$160 billion per year from 2010 to 2020. But such investment pays off. German policies to drive innovation and commercialization created 100,000 New Energy jobs between 2004 and 2006. As the U.S. moves toward obtaining 5% of its power from wind by 2020, estimates show it will create $60 billion in capital investment in rural America, provide $1.2 billion in new income for farmers and rural landowners and create 80,000 new jobs.

The report also calls for $10-to-$30 billion per year in research, development and demonstration (RD&D) for New Energies and Energy Efficiencies through 2020.

click to enlarge

The report calls for “a comprehensive technology mechanism” to be established at the Copenhagen summit that formalizes and “sets the scale and pace” for the transition to an international New Energy economy.

Such a mechanism would:
(1) Create a Technology Development Objective to finance and commercialize New Energies and Energy Efficiencies.
(2) Create Technology Action Programmes for R&D, demonstration and commercialization of critical technologies.
(3) Reform and scale up the the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the United Nations (UN) Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) as a means for New Energy and Energy Efficiency development in emerging economies and developing nations.
(4) Create a Technology Executive Board under the (UNFCCC) to facilitate global roadmaps and action programs and establish measurable, reportable and verifiable (MRV) criteria for tracking.
(5) Facilitate technology sharing by creating a "protect and share" framework for intellectual property rights (IP R) that works within national and international law.

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

COMMENTARY
(1) The power sector can provide 38% of total GhG reductions to 2050 in New Energy and (the report hopes) carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), nuclear power and biomass.
(2) The transport sector can provide 26% of total GhG reductions to 2050 in battery electric and (the report hopes) hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and biofuels.
(3) The buildings sector can provide 17% of total GhG reductions to 2050 in improved efficiencies.
(4) Industry can provide 19% of total GhG reductions to 2050 in CCS for industrial processes and industrial motor systems.

The $1 trillion yearly investment in New Energy called for in the report is 40% of global infrastructure investment and 1.4% of global GDP but it displaces business as usual spending so it does not really add $1 trillion per year to spending but ~$317 billion per year by 2015 and $811 billion in 2030. (These estimates assume an oil price of $60 per barrel. If the oil price is $120 per barrel, the incremental additional cost of New Energy technologies is almost zero.)

Investment in future solutions may seem burdensome but is less so than the costs of abating or mitigating global climate change in the absence of effective new technologies.

click to enlarge

The report finds that the cost of emissions reductions without CCS would be 70% higher through 2050. It anticipates CCS will provide 20% of global GhG reduction by 2020 and calls for spending to build 10 utility-scale demonstration plants and 8 industry demonstration plants by 2015.

Funding of the transition to the New Energy economy can come via market-based mechanisms like the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the United Nations (UN) Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) or through multilateral and public-private partnerships financing involving the World Bank Climate Investment Funds and private businesses and financial institutions.

The report calls for priority to be given to international agreements on important technologies like CCS, CSP and zero-carbon transport and suggests the Major Economies Forum (MEF) take the initiative with agreements on CCS and CSP global demonstration projects.

click to enlarge

QUOTES
- From Executive Summary of the Breaking the Climate Deadlock report: “Successfully reducing emissions to prevent dangerous climate change is without doubt a huge challenge and will require a revolution in the way we produce and consume energy, travel and design and manage our urban and rural environments. However, the pathway to this revolution is clear and, by means of ambitious international collaboration to develop and deploy low-carbon technologies, well within our grasp. We know what we have to do; this report shows us how.”

click to enlarge

- Tony Blair, former UK Prime Minister and report co-sponsor: "…[S]et the world on a new path…agree [to] the measures that people will be taking…In the short-term that is what will make the difference…We will get out of Copenhagen an interim target (for cutting emissions), whatever it may be, in the 25-40 percent range. The thing that will make the difference is people saying: 'What is more, this is how we do it'."
- Tony Blair, former UK Prime Minister and report co-sponsor: “If you want to meet a target that’s just over a decade away, there are things that we know that work, that we have to do now…Otherwise, we won’t get there.”
- Tony Blair, former UK Prime Minister and report co-sponsor: “[A global carbon market] will take time to develop, and it will yield a significant benefit.”
- Tony Blair, former UK Prime Minister and report co-sponsor: “As the carbon market develops, then the private sector will be increasingly important.”
Tony Blair, former UK Prime Minister and report co-sponsor: “What China and India and others want to know is that the West is going to take serious action…That will require a target, but it will also require realistic means of achieving it.”

BIG GREEN BUILDINGS

Iconic skyscrapers find new luster by going green
Chris Kahn, July 4, 2009 (AP)

SUMMARY
Increasingly, buildings that show “green” credentials are more successful in an ever more competitive commercial real estate marketplace. Owners and tenants are discovering that money spent for efficiency retrofits saves on power and water and attracts customers and tenants without compromising aesthetics.

As a consequence, specialists who combine renovation and retrofits around the U.S. are busy insulating porous walls in grand old buildings, adding high tech water-efficient plumbing systems to classic architecture and using energy-saving recycled material in carpets and tile flooring with unique period designs.

Case 1: The prime example of a skyscraper going green is Manhattan’s Empire State Building. Perhaps the world’s most iconic commercial architecture, the owners chose to spend $120 million on a variety of Energy Efficiency retrofits to make it a more economic as well as a more marketable address. (See NEW ENERGY EFFICIENCY FOR EMPIRE STATE BUILDING)

click to enlarge

The Empire State Building is getting a top-to-bottom renovation that includes $13.2 million in sustainable technologies to cut the building’s greenhouse gas emissions (GhGs). The 18-month makeover, which will earn the building a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) platinum certification from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), will cost little more than any other kind of renovation. It will include retrofitting all 6,500 windows and insulating radiators. The building's lighting, cold water and ventilation systems will also be upgraded. When complete, the owners expect to get energy savings of $4.4 million a year, enough to pay off the entire upgrade in ~3 years.

click to enlarge

One tenant, Skanska, chose the renovated Empire State Building for its LEED platinum certification. Another, attorney Jacques Catafago, chose it because it beats the cost of buildings uptown and saves money on operational costs.

Case 2: The Christman Building is an 81-year-old Elizabethan Revival office in Lansing, Mich., that's listed on the National Register of Historic Places. During a renovation to repair the limestone exterior and preserve unique details like the mica light fixtures, the owners upgraded to water-efficient plumbing, increased natural light and a reflective "cool" roof, at a cost of $8.5 million.

Case 3: Chicago's 36-year-old Sears Tower, a 110-story, staggered skyscraper, is doing a 5-year, $350 million green renovation. It will add solar panels, wind turbines and 35,000 square feet of sunlight-absorbing gardens to its roofs. The improvements will cut the tower's electricity use 80% and save 24 million gallons of water.

The numbers are conclusive. Does Green Pay Off?, a CoStar Group study by Norm Miller, Jay Spivey and Andy Florance, shows clearly that energy efficient and LEED-certified buildings have higher occupancies, get more rent, lease better and sell better (after controlling for age, size and location).

click to enlarge

COMMENTARY
A few years ago, the Empire State Building retrofit might have been considered a gamble. Today, it is considered a smart investment. The results of the CoStar study show in hard, cold numbers what real estate people had already begun to intuit: In recent years, environmentally friendly retrofits have begun to pay off. Companies, especially high-profile companies, want more efficient office spaces they can show off to their increasingly environmentally-aware clientele. New technology in older, more architecturally appealing buildings translates into higher property values, higher and longer leases and better occupancy rates.

As a result, forward-thinking building owners have been buying retrofits. Less forward thinking owners are buying retrofits, too, because their tenants and prospective tenants are demanding them.

click to enlarge

The Empire State Building’s experience with Skanska, which specifically shopped for a property with the USGBC LEED certification, is becoming more common. High profile companies need the “green cred” to compete, sometimes even without knowing exactly what LEED certifification means.

Transwestern management group works with tenants looking for certified properties. 9 of the properties it works with got LEED certification in 2009. They switched light bulbs, upgraded to efficient equipment and cut energy costs an average of 2%. That’s a big deal when power rates go up 10-to-40%. While Transwestern does not report increased leasing, its buildings have so far not had reduced occupancy, despite recessionary office building vacancy rates across the country that have gone from 10.9% in 2007 to 12.4% in the first quarter of 2009.

The CoStar study covered ~1200 Energy Star and LEED-certified buildings. Energy Star buildings are those in the highest 25% of efficiency. It compared them to ~2000 non-green buildings. All the buildings in the study were multi-tenanted Class A office buildings of 200,000 square feet or more, 5 stories or more, and built since 1970.

click to enlarge

Green buildings had a 90.3% occupancy rate in the first 3 months of 2009 and rented at an average of $38.86 per square foot while the non-green rate was 84.7% and the average rent was $29.80 per square foot. The study reported the increased cost of retrofits that get Energy Star ratings or LEED certification for their enhanced efficiencies to be from 1.0%-to-10.3%, depending on the rating/certification level and the location.

The CoStar study included an answer to an especially interesting question at this juncture: If a building owner finds tenants will not pay higher rents for retrofits and upgrades, is there still value in doing them?

The study says the answer is probably “yes” because (a) the building will likely have faster absorption (get bought, leased or rented sooner), which is a financial benefit, and (b) there will be lower operating expenses and cap rates in the short-term as well as the expected long-term energy-saving benefits.

click to enlarge

QUOTES
- Anthony E. Malkin, attorney and head of real estate group owners, Empire State Building: "In a good market, we're going to get the best rents for the best tenants…In a bad market like we have now, we're going to get tenants when other buildings won't."
- Allan Skodowski, Transwestern management group: "They say 'We want LEED,' …and that's it...If one extra tenant comes and looks at the building, if the owner gets an extra penny or so a foot, then at the end of the day it's paying for itself…"
- Marc Heisterkamp, director of commercial real estate, U.S. Green Building Council: "This isn't just a 'We are doing the right thing' movement…In the end, the numbers pencil out."

click to enlarge

- Spokeswoman, Skanska, an Empire State Building tenant: "We had looked at several downtown spaces, but the Empire State Building made the most sense…"
- Jacques Catafago, attorney, an Empire State Building tenant: "We'd be paying twice as much [uptown]…"
- From the Executive Summary of "Does Green Pay Off?" from The Journal of Sustainable Real Estate: “These results are promising for the benefits of investment in sustainable real estate, energy savings and for the green movement now sweeping our society. The payoff from wise green investment is easy to justify even if based on purely profit motivations.”

MORE NEWS, 7-7 (A NEW ENERGY FUND FOR GLOBAL PROSPERITY; REVIEWS OF “TWO CENTS PER MILE”; DOCKED SHIP POWERED BY SUN)

A NEW ENERGY FUND FOR GLOBAL PROSPERITY
Global Climate Prosperity Agreement: “The One Trillion Dollar Deal”
Dr. Marc A. Weiss, July 2009 (Ethical Markets)

"The Global Climate Prosperity Agreement — “The One Trillion Dollar Deal” — can become the worldwide game-changer that will demonstrate the positive path forward for human civilization in the 21st century, namely the peaceful transition from the current globally unsustainable economy to an advanced technology-driven and environmentally sustainable industrialized society.

"Key national government leaders and private sector investment executives will announce this completely voluntary, market-oriented, public-private investment and development strategy in Copenhagen in December 2009…"

click to enlarge

"Under this win-win solution for the entire world, a consortium of public and private pension funds and other private financing institutions will commit to invest one trillion dollars in the developing countries over the next decade to build a new and modern infrastructure based entirely on renewable energy and clean technologies, including plug-in electric vehicles and a “smart” electric grid.

"These investments will be supplemented and enhanced by additional funds, tax incentives, and regulatory policy support from governments, along with funds that will come from international donor agencies, official development assistance, and private philanthropy."

click to enlarge

"The Global Climate Prosperity Agreement will enable the Millennium Development Goals to be fully accomplished in developing countries by substantially raising living standards and promoting sustainable economic growth and business community development through innovation, efficiency, and conservation in the use and reuse of all natural and human resources…

"…[B]y improving the global environment and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the Global Climate Prosperity Agreement will generate significant economic and environmental benefits for developed countries…create jobs and raise incomes through increased production and distribution of renewable energy and clean technologies…[and] revive the global economy from its current market recession, stimulate massive long-term employment and income growth, and protect the economy and environment…"

REVIEWS OF “TWO CENTS PER MILE”
Two Cents per Mile: Will President Obama Make It Happen with the Stroke of a Pen?
June-July 2009 (Amazon Customer Reviews)

"… Essentially, [Two Cents Per Mile by Nevres Cefo] 'sold' me on electric cars…Electric cars are an engaging topic, which are important to know about for many reasons. Whether you are concerned about the future of our economy and consumer choice, or environmentalism and green living, or innovative engineering, electric cars are a technology you have to know about…After reading "Two Cents Per Mile", I'm convinced it's the best written introduction to the subject. Cefo carefully blends history, technical information, and brilliant insight in an accessible and informative book on a groundbreaking topic. The book covers a lot of ground…"[Jacob Brooks]

"This book is a must read for anyone concerned about transportation, the environment and public policy. The book goes far deeper than the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car in explaining what the author calls ‘the open door conspiracy’ going on between Big Oil, Big Automotive and the U.S. Department of Energy. From the eyes of an engineer but written in plain English, the book shows how instead of moving toward all electric vehicles, we are being held back by corporations who want to preserve the internal combustion engine and their precious liquid fuels…"[Tired Of Oil]

click thru to the book's Amazon page

"…[A] phenomenal book that identifies where our effort to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil should be directed. A MUST read for everyone who is concerned about the environment and the future of transportation…"[DC Brela]

"…Two Cents per Mile proves that we have the technology to produce clean, economical, affordable cars and to FREE us from our dependence on OIL. There have been 100% electric vehicles on the road in America for the past TEN YEARS! They aren't out of a science fiction novel either, they are Toyota RAV4 SUVs! How can this be? Why don't we know about them? This author (an electrical engineer) clearly explains the battery technology and explains how and why the oil and auto industries have suppressed the battery patents in these cars to maintain their power and our dependence on the internal combustion engine and oil…"[Kendra L.]

DOCKED SHIP POWERED BY SUN
Solar energy helps to power huge ship at Port of Long Beach
Ronald D. White, July 2, 2009 (LA Times)

"The huge car carrier ship called the M/V Auriga Leader idled at the Port of Long Beach, burning through enough electricity to power 100 homes as workers loaded and unloaded a fleet of Toyotas.

"But unlike any of the diesel-spewing, power-draining vessels that travel here, the Auriga Leader sports 328 solar panels on its top deck -- a small array that provides 10% of the energy used by the giant ship while she is docked."

A deck full of solar panels at a dock full of sunshine. (click to enlarge)

"The ship -- part of a demonstration project by the Port of Long Beach, Toyota and Tokyo-based shipping company NYK Line -- is the first to use solar energy to help fill all of the vessel's power needs…The practical effect is that the ship is burning less diesel fuel as its engines idle to power the ship's electrical systems. The ship's solar array can generate about 40 kilowatts or about enough power to run 10 average homes.

"Port officials, under pressure to reduce air pollution from ships as they idle at the docks, welcomed the experiment…Richard Steinke, the port's executive director, acknowledged that the facility had a long way to go before it could claim that it had substantially reduced diesel emissions. But he said the ship added one more element of clean technology to the port…"

A closer look. (click to enlarge)

"The shipping company is still evaluating how well the panels work, including whether they will hold up under the corrosive effects of salt sea air…[T]he 60,000-ton Auriga Leader is fairly large at 665 feet in length. But it's also a fairly simple vessel in terms of what it needs to do once it arrives in port…

"…[It] resembles a very large, multi-level parking garage when viewed from inside the ship. Other vessels are larger and more complex, and using alternative energy to power them would be more difficult…These vessels are also required to provide power to any number of refrigerated cargo containers carrying perishable items. On average, such ships can need as much as six megawatts of power, or enough to provide electricity to 4,000 homes…Crude oil supertankers need even more fuel. It takes eight megawatts of electricity…Port officials say that shows there is no single technology that is going to quickly reduce a ship's diesel emissions…"

Monday, July 06, 2009

COMPARING IMPACTS OF NEW ENERGY AND OLD ENERGY
Comparison of Reported Effects and Risks to Vertebrate Wildlife from Six Electricity Generation Types in the New York/New England Region
March 2009 (Environmental Bioindictors Foundation and Pandion Systems)

SUMMARY
Comparison of Reported Effects and Risks to Vertebrate Wildlife from Six Electricity Generation Types in the New York/New England Region, from the New York State Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA), shows that while electricity generation inevitably causes adverse effects on the environment in general and on wildlife and wildlife habitat in particular, the effects and levels of risk vary importantly between generation sources.

The study assessed data on the New York and New England region and its conclusions are specifically applicable only there but it is readily generalizable.

Of the major sources of electricity generation used in the region specifically (and in the U.S. generally), the study showed clearly that wind power, hydroelectric power and natural gas are far preferable in terms of their environmental impacts to coal, oil and nuclear energy.

Because impacts occur throughout the lifecycles of the generation sources, the NYSERDA study made a thorough comparative assessment of each energy source’s lifecycle.

Some examples of impacts throughout energy source lifecycles:
(1) coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium for nuclear energy are aggressively extracted from the ground and then transported with much energy consumption and emission spew to power plants sometimes hundreds or thousands of miles away.
(2) Hydroelectric power engages and alters a source of flowing water.
(3) Wind energy installations are built into remote sites where there are reliable wind flow patterns.
(4) Most electricity is generated remotely for consumption in population centers and therefore requires a vast built transmission and distribution system.

click to enlarge

The NYSERDSA study classified the impacts of electricity generation sources on wildlife by (1) direct and/or indirect impacts, (2) acute or chronic impacts, (3) individual or cumulative impacts and (4) local, regional, or global impacts.

The study used 3 key factors to define the well-being of wildlife populations: (1) birth rate, (2) death rate, and (3) availability of habitat. Any change in any of these factors will cause changes in wildlife populations.

Effects and risks can be injury or mortality of individuals or habitat loss and decline of entire species. The degree and extent of harm to individuals and to populations varies according to the energy generation source, although some harmful effects are perpetrated across the spectrum of sources.

The study carefully differentiated generation source harms as acute and immediate effects versus chronic, cumulative, and long-term effects.

click to enlarge

It identified (1) acidic deposition, (2) mercury bioaccumulation and (3) climate change as the 3 most significant and widespread stressors on wildlife and habitat.

It addressed the very troublesome issue of bird and bat population impacts with wind turbines but points out there are equally problematic impacts on bird and bat populations from collisions with and electrocutions by the transmission and distribution lines necessary for every generation source. Birds and bats are also seriously harmed by collisions with oil and natural gas offshore drilling platforms, coal plant smoke and steam stacks and nuclear plant cooling towers. The paper included a consideration of impacts on varying species according to their ranges, flight patterns, and migratory behaviors.

It also included a consideration of what kinds of further assessments are needed and suggests, in particular, a study to rank the recovery potentials allowed by the different generation sources from the harms they inflict on populations and habitats. The recovery possible from local impacts such as bird and bat collisions is completely different from the recovery possible from alteration of complete habitats by a change in air or water quality or of the alteration of reproductive potential by toxic depositions such as acids or mercury.

Finally, the paper suggested there is a need for a state-by-state analysis of energy generation potential risks.

The study put several important limitations on itself: (1) It did not consider risks according to the size of individual generating facilities. (2) It did not consider low-likelihood catastrophic events like nuclear reactor incidents or hydroelectric dam breaches. (3) It considered only terrestrial and aquatic vertebrate wildlife and
their habitats. (4) It focused on total wildlife impacts and risks without consideration of recovery potentials. (5) In the absence of definitive data, it was necessary to estimate the effects of some impacts.

click to enlarge

COMMENTARY
All electricity generation sources have “adverse” risks to wildlife (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals) and habitat.

The effects and risks can be: (1) injury and mortality of individuals and (2) habitat loss and decline in species.

The effects and risks can also be in (1) immediacy of response, (2) level of impact, (3) lifecycle stage effects and (4) spatial extent of response.

There can be acute and immediate effects like (a) the toxicity of an oil spill, (b) exposure to acid mine drainage, (c) collisions with infrastructure, or (d) electrocution by transmission lines.

There can also be chronic, cumulative, latent, and long-term effects like (a) biomagnification of mercury and other toxins in the food and water chain, leading to alterations of reproductive dysfunction or disease resistance; (b) acidification of soils from deposition, leading to forest decline; and (c) climate change, leading to reproduction habit changes, migration pattern disruption, or altered ranging of species.

There are 2 levels of impact: (1) individual risks, considered in the report to be Lowest to Moderate Potential risks, and (2) population-level risks, considered Higher and Highest Potential risks and more likely to come from extraction and generation than other lifecycle stages.

click to enlarge

Electricity generation lifecycle stage effects can be (1) local, like the impacts of coal mining in West Virginia, (2) regional, like acid deposition across the Northeast from coal plant emissions, or (3) global, like climate change.

The 3 most significant and widespread wildlife impacts are (1) acidic deposition, (2) mercury bioaccumulation, and (3) climate change. They come from fossil fuels and hydroelectric dams. They create Moderate to Highest Potential risks.

Acidic deposition is from coal, oil, and (less) natural gas generation. Acidification of forests, streams, and lakes has widespread effects on fish, wildlife and their habitats.

Mercury bioaccumulation comes from coal, oil, and hydroelectric generation. It is a major risk to wildlife, especially fish, birds, and mammals, but its effects can be reversible, as shown by measurements of sources and deposits of mercury emissions and biotic uptake following controls were instituted in the late 1980s.

Climate change is global and most impactful on fish, wildlife and habitat. Some impacts may not be reversible. Coal, oil, gas, and hydroelectric generation contribute (unequally).

Risks are relative but generation is presently affecting a wide variety of species, some more than others.

Generation types also vary in the magnitude of their impacts at different stages of their lifecycles.

click to enlarge

The transmission and delivery stages of all forms of generation are of Moderate Potential risk to birds and bats from collisions. During generation, birds and bats collide with offshore oil and natural gas drilling platforms and wind turbines, coal and gas plant smoke and steam stacks, and nuclear plant cooling towers.

Oil and natural gas extraction creates High Potential risks to local and regional wildlife.

Coal is “by far” the biggest contributor to acidic deposition, mercury bioaccumulation, and climate change through its higher sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon dioxide (CO2) and mercury (Hg) emissions.

Old Energy generation sources, especially coal and oil, have higher potential risks than New Energies like hydroelectric power and wind power.

click to enlarge

(1) Coal risks go from Lowest to Highest Potential. Highest Potential risks come with extraction by strip and mountain top mining. Highest Potential risks also come during generation from acidification and mercury bioaccumulation caused by combustion.
(2) Oil risks go from Lowest to Highest Potential. Extraction and transport cause Highest Potential risks because of spills. Generation causes acidification, a Highest Potential risk.
(3) Natural gas risks go from Lowest to Higher Potential risks. Generation risks are similar to oil generation risks but magnitudes are lower. Moderate Potential risks come from natural gas greenhouse gas emissions (GhGs) rather than the Higher Potential risks associated with oil GhGs.
(4) Nuclear risks go from Lowest to Highest Potential. Although nuclear shares emissions-free generation with the New Energies, its risks include the collisions with stacks and cooling towers associated with coal and oil generation sources. It also impacts the local marine habitats of adjacent water bodies used to cool plants. And there is the conundrum of radioactive leakage and waste.
(5) Hydroelectric power risks go from Lowest to Highest Potential. Construction, generation and decommissioning has impacts in land and water habitat upstream and
downstream from dams, which also cause somewhat mitigated disruptions to fish migration.
(6) Wind risks go from Lowest to Moderate Potential. Bird and bat collisions with turbines are a risk. Bird population-level risks have not been observed. Bat population-level impacts were indeterminate at the time of the study and have since been mitigated.

The construction, transmission and delivery, and decommissioning stages generally have lesser wildlife impacts. The exception is the construction, operation, and decommissioning of hydroelectric dams.

Single Net Takeaway: Choice of generation source determines impacts. Pick cancer, lung disease and the ravaging of ecosystems (coal, oil nuclear) or pick mitigatable local and specific disruptions to local fish and wildlife and their habitats (hydroelectric, wind).

click to enlarge

QUOTES
- From the NYSERDA Executive Summary: “Electricity generation causes adverse effects
on both people and the environment, including wildlife and wildlife habitat. In recent years, concerns about global climate change, caused in part by fossil fuel combustion, have focused enhanced attention on these effects and the need to move toward a mix of electricity generation sources that will reduce adverse effects of all types on the environment. The effects and relative levels of risk vary among the different electricity generation sources.”
- From the NYSERDA Executive Summary: “To objectively compare adverse effects caused by different electricity generation source types, the total life cycle of electricity generation was examined. The Life Cycle Assessment identified the stages of electricity generation: resource extraction, fuel transportation, construction of facility, power generation, transmission and delivery, and decommissioning of facility…Wildlife effects from exposure to stressors encountered at each life cycle stage were identified and compiled for each electricity generation source.”

SOLAR CONSOLIDATION

Handful of players seen ruling the solar roost
Nicola Groom (w/Patrick Fitzgibbons and Matthew Lewis), July 1, 2009 (Reuters)

SUMMARY
One thing is usually true in recessions and is especially true in this recession: Only the strong survive.

In the solar panel manufacturing industry, that means 3 names are likely to emerge from 2009-10 as the dominant players: First Solar Inc and SunPower Corp in the U.S. and Suntech Power Holdings of China.

Hard times are certainly driving the industry’s consolidation but there is another factor at least as important. Because of the shortages of capital and financing, utilities are dominating solar energy development. The utilities have a lot of capital and can finance their own projects, even when the projects are in the billion dollar range.

click to enlarge

But that billion dollars belongs to the utility’s investors and ratepayers. No utility CEO is going to take on any more risk than is necessary and therefore is inclined to select a solar panel supplier with the proven ability to deliver a high quality product. High volume, low cost foreign suppliers with a limited or compromised track record are far less likely to sell panels in this market.

Utilities may also take a close look at the financials of a panel manufacturer before making a buy. The warranty on a solar panel extends 10-to-20 years (or longer). The utility wants to be as certain as possible the manufacturer is going to be around to service that warranty.

click to enlarge

First Solar meets the utilities’ criteria because it has been in business 10 years, has been one of the 50 fastest growing businesses – not solar businesses, businesses of any kind – in the U.S. for the last 3 years and is the world’s biggest thin film solar panel manufacturer. Facilitated by First Solar’s production efficiency, its cadmium telluride (CdTe) formulation is emerging as the dominant thin film technology. Estimates suggest it is taking about half of the U.S. utility solar market right now.

SunPower Corp meets the utilities’ criteria because it is the biggest solar provider in North America and has been in business since 1985. It specializes in the more time-tested, silicon-based types of solar panels. A recent drop in the cost of refined silicon is putting SunPower’s more efficient panels back in competition with the cheaper thin film panels from First Solar.

Suntech Power Holdings, founded in 2001, is the newest of the big players. It is the biggest manufacturer of silicon photovoltaic (PV) panels in the world and is essentially as strong as China. In 2008, to move on the U.S. market, Suntech formed Gemini Solar Development Company LLC, a joint venture with solar developer Renewable Ventures. Gemini was bought by Spanish power producer Fotowatio. The group recently moved into Texas, signing onto a 30-megawatt project for Austin Energy, probably the most progressive and respected U.S. municipal utility. Anticipating the boom in utility demand for solar panels, Gemini is also planning a U.S. manufacturing facility.

click to enlarge

All 3 companies have been expanding their manufacturing capacity throughout the financial downturn, despite a slowing of gross sales and a significant drop in revenues in the last months of 2008 and the first months of 2009.

California’s major utilities (PG&E Corp's Pacific Gas & Electric, Edison International's Southern California Edison and Sempra Energy's San Diego Gas & Electric), driven by a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) requiring them to get 20% of their power from New Energy by 2010 and expected to be expanded to require them to get 33% by 2020, are building solar capacity as fast as they can. SunPower and First Solar are getting the bulk of the work.

Yingli Green Energy Holding Co Ltd is another Chinese panel maker making progress in the U.S. market, through its supply deal with AES Solar, a U.S. joint venture between AES Corp and private equity firm Riverstone Holdings LLC

click to enlarge

COMMENTARY
The new round of consolidation comes at the same time as a remarkable expansion of the industry. Already growing at unprecendented rates, the solar panel manufacturing this year may go off the charts.

Several factors are responsible, including (1) the 2008 investment tax credit (ITC) extension, (2) funding for solar development in the financial rescue packages and the Obama budget, (3) a drop in the cost of silicon, and (4) state Renewable Electricity Standards (RESs).

click to enlarge

(1) The investment tax credit (ITC) was extended for 8 years by the October 2008 financial rescue package. The ITC was also expanded dramatically in 2 ways. (a) The cap was removed so that now the tax credits go to 30% of the entire system cost instead of 30% of a small part of the system cost. (b) Utilities may now use the tax credits.

(2) A variety of benefits were allotted to New Energy in general and solar energy in particular by the 2008 financial package. Even more funding came with the February 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). And the first Obama administration budget made good on the President’s campaign promise by assigning funds to begin the doubling of U.S. New Energy capacity over the next 3 years.

click to enlarge

(3) The semiconductor industry finally advanced its capacity enough to supply adequate quantities of refined silicon to sustain the electronic chip market and at the same time meet rising demand in the solar panel market. This had 2 dimensions. (a) The recession somewhat slowed demand for chips. (b) The market for solar thin films formulated from non-silicon materials is growing as fast if not faster than the market for silicon-based panels, reducing demand for silicon from the solar industry and having a competitive impact on prices.

(4) More than 30 of the 50 states now have RESs, requiring regulated utilities to obtain portions of their power from New Energy sources in the foreseeable future. These RESs are driving demand up, price down and utilities toward big investments in wind and solar energies, the New Energies most likely to be cost effective in the RESs’ time frames.

click to enlarge

QUOTES
- Vishal Shah, analyst, Barclays Capital: "I don't think the utility landscape is going to become as competitive as the commercial market, because the barriers to entry are much higher…It takes a long time to prove your technology to the utility so they can be comfortable. So from that standpoint it limits the competition only to a handful of players."
- Mehdi Hosseini, analyst, FBR Capital Markets: "[With the recent changes] the U.S. market could potentially (and finally) become 'the promised land' that investors have been waiting for since late 2007…"
- Steve Milunovich, analyst, Bank of America/Merrill Lynch: "There is a perception of a quality difference [between U.S. and Chinese panels but the U.S. utility solar market is becoming a race between First Solar, SunPower and Suntech]...It will be a fairly oligopolistic market…As Suntech moves up I don't think there is going to be any difference there…They are going to be competitive."

MORE NEWS, 7-6 (EFFICIENCY CUTS TAXES; FED FUNDS 20 MW FLYWHEEL; CHINA NEW ENERGY PROPHET)

EFFICIENCY CUTS TAXES
Energy efficiency can also mean lower tax bills
Pamela Brust, July 5, 2009 (Parkersburg News and Sentinel)

"Replacing old doors and windows, installing insulation, remodeling and building with an eye toward energy efficiency could do more than help save on utility bills down the line, it may also translate into savings on your tax bill as well.

"According to the U.S. Department of Energy, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 extends, expands, and simplifies federal income tax credits for homeowners who make energy efficiency home improvements. The law extends consumer tax benefits through 2010; triples the total available tax credit from $500 to $1,500, and increases the tax credit to 30 percent of the cost of each qualified energy efficiency improvement. It also removes the cap on geothermal heat pumps and solar water heaters through 2016."

Efficiency saves in so many ways. (click to enlarge)

"Consumers who purchase and install specific products, such as energy-efficient windows, insulation, doors, roofs, and heating and cooling equipment in existing homes can receive a tax credit for 30 percent of the cost, up to $1,500, for improvements placed in service starting Jan. 1, 2009, through Dec. 31, 2010."

click to enlarge

"Consumers who install solar energy systems (including solar water heating and solar electric systems), small wind systems, geothermal heat pumps, and residential fuel cell and microturbine systems can receive a 30 percent tax credit for systems placed in service before Dec. 31, 2016…[I]nformation about the stimulus package is just circulating and most consumers probably are just now becoming aware of the possibilities…

"…[T]he building industry overall is up about 17 percent over the last couple of months…If a person is building a new home, according to the Department of Energy, they can qualify for the tax credit for geothermal heat pumps, photovoltaics, solar water heaters, small wind energy systems and fuel cells…More information is available on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act including specific projects and equipment it covers, go to [Alliance to Save Energy]…and click on [Energy-Efficiency Home and Vehicle Tax Credits]…and the U.S. Department of Energy's Web site..."

FED FUNDS 20 MW FLYWHEEL
DOE Backs Energy Storage: Beacon Power Scores $43M Loan Guarantee
Josie Garthwaite, July 2, 2009 (Earth2Tech via Reuters)

"A series of setbacks for flywheel energy storage last year made us wonder if the technology was just spinning its wheels. But… the Department of Energy…has awarded a conditional $43 million loan guarantee to Beacon Power to help with construction of a 20 MW flywheel energy storage plant in Stephentown, N.Y. — the first full-scale commercial deployment of the company’s technology.

"The Obama administration also announced a $16 million guarantee today for Nordic Windpower to build an assembly plant…bringing the number of awards under a much-delayed DOE program to three in the last four months…In late March, cylindrical solar panel maker Solyndra snagged the first guarantee — for a whopping $535 million — to finance a new factory…While Beacon’s guarantee is small relative to the one offered to Solyndra, it could help boost momentum for flywheel tech as well as the company, which has scored a few key deals in recent months after a rocky end to 2008."

click to enlarge

"…Beacon uses large spinning discs contained in a vacuum to keep electricity flowing over the power grid at a steady frequency — basically helping to stabilize the grid and allowing it to run more efficiently. Flywheels, which need little maintenance over their 20-year-plus life span and don’t have some of the toxic chemicals found in many batteries, are sometimes used as backup power for emergency power systems — what’s called uninterrupted power supply, or UPS…"

"Beacon had planned to raise capital and add 4 MW of capacity to a project in Tyngsboro by the end of last year, but announced in November that it would delay fund raising and slow down the expansion…But by February, Beacon landed a $3 million contract with U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command to look at flywheels for shipboard applications, and just a few weeks ago, it scored a $2 million contract with a New York state utility operator to get started on the 20 MW Stephentown project… [T]oday’s loan guarantee will…[provide] 62.5 percent of total financing for the estimated $69 million buildout...

click to enlarge

"…[T]he Stephentown energy storage plant will absorb and discharge energy to the electric grid, making it possible to use more variable renewable energy sources…[E]nergy storage represents a pivotal component of the smart grid, but until recently, it has largely played second fiddle to digital intelligence for the power grid in the eyes of Congress, investors, utilities and entrepreneurs. With one of the first three guarantees from the DOE, it’s getting attention that’s long overdue."

CHINA NEW ENERGY PROPHET
Atonement in a Drive for Wind Power
Keith Bradsher, July 2, 2009 (NY Times)

"A guilty conscience turned Min Deqing into northwestern China’s unlikely prophet of wind and solar energy…Mr. Min worked [from 1973] at the main coal-fired power plant in Lanzhou, the capital of impoverished Gansu province…[He] pushed himself up the ranks [from laborer] to operations director by 1996, partly by inventing new industrial techniques that caught on elsewhere in the Chinese power and steel industries.

"Shortly after he assumed the top job, officials from the local environmental protection bureau came to him and asked that he install modern pollution-control equipment to help improve the city’s soot-filled air…[He] knew just how bad the pollution was…But he stalled for three years before finally installing the equipment, because it was costly and he did not want to dent the plant’s profit margins. The state-owned operation was being run mainly for the benefit of its 2,800 workers, and he wanted to spend money on the workers, whom he had known his entire adult life, rather than on filters to remove soot and smog-causing gases…"

Mr. Min and...(pic from the NY Times - click to enlarge)

"…[W]hen he turned 55 in 2000 and was automatically forced to step aside from the plant’s leadership…He promptly bought a digital wind gauge at his own expense for $360 and began crisscrossing the province’s wind-swept plateaus to assess their potential for wind farms. (He wore out three wind gauges, all bought with his own money, and is now on his fourth.)…[He] documented that Gansu had some of the strongest, most reliable winds in all of China, and found the location near Dunhuang where Beijing officials have now decided to build one of the world’s largest wind farms.

"Mr. Min, a slender man who wears only the black cotton pants and simple buttoned shirts of a Chinese laborer, began proselytizing about wind and solar energy — first to Gansu officials and then to power officials across the country. He had spent three decades building connections in the Chinese power industry and he began calling his contacts, meeting them and attending conferences to lobby for renewable energy. It did not hurt that his father had been a successful power engineer in Mr. Min’s hometown of Wuhan, while his older brother helped build the Three Gorges hydroelectric dam."

...what Min hath wrought. (click to enlarge)

"…[M]ost are still skeptical…But pressure on the power industry to embrace new energy technologies is clearly increasing…[T]he Asian Development Bank…bankrolled early feasibility studies and renewable energy projects in Gansu in 2002 and 2003, long before Beijing officials forced state-owned power companies to become interested in renewable energy by setting mandatory targets for them in 2007…

"Mr. Min is an example of a phenomenon that is common in China but little studied by academics: the semiretired official who becomes a policy activist while staying behind the scenes. Having never spoken to the Chinese or foreign media before, he agreed to be interviewed in the belief that Gansu’s renewable energy industry would benefit from more attention…[He] wants to keep going at least until China completes its first 100-megawatt solar power plant — a contract for the construction of one was signed on June 16…"

Sunday, July 05, 2009

CAN U.S. & RUSSIA JOIN ON CLIMATE, ENERGY & EFFICIENCY?

U.S.-Russia Climate and Energy Efficiency Cooperation: A Neglected Challenge
Andrew Light, Julian L. Wong and Samuel Charap, June 30, 2009 (Center for American Progress)

SUMMARY
With President Obama scheduled for a summit in Moscow with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev July 6-to-8, the think tank Center for American Progress (CAP) released After the ‘Reset’: A Strategy and New Agenda for U.S. Russia Policy (Reset) that calls on the President to use 3 climate and energy issues to enhance U.S.-Russia cooperation.

The CAP policy paper argues for (1) a U.S.-Russia strategic partnership on the international climate change treaty due to be finalized in Copenhagen in December, (2) support from the U.S. for the instituting of a Russian emissions trading market, and (3) a collaboration between Russian and U.S. scientists, engineers and planners to help Russia develop energy efficiencies, improve its energy intensity and reduce its greenhouse gas emissions (GhGs).

After China and the U.S., Russia is the world's 3rd-biggest GhG-emitter (taking EU members individually). Russia’s per capita emissions are rising and are projected to match the world-leading U.S. per capita GhG spew by 2030. Russia is also the 3rd biggest energy consumer in the world and one of the world’s most energy-intensive economies.

click to enlarge

All this makes Russia likely to be a major factor at Copenhagen, and all the moreso because there are voices in Russia preaching against participation. Like some misinformed demagogues in the U.S., there are those in Russia - where the bitter cold of winter is never far from the mind - who preach they will be better off in a warmer world.

With its expanding oil and natural gas industry, its consolidating political power and its severely depressed economy, Russia has fallen far since the Cold War.

click to enlarge

The CAP Reset policy paper reaches far beyond New Energy considerations but suggests the Obama administration can use climate and energy issues to re-engage Russia, an engagement that was completely lost in the waning years of the previous administration.

Engagement on the upcoming Copenhagen climate change debate is potentially crucial and opportune. Resistance from Russia should be expected. While the U.S. is burdened by climate change deniers, Russia is burdened by climate change opportunists who see their nation prospering economically in a warmer climate.

More significant is the reluctance of Russia to take on serious GhG cuts because of the potential costs. The standard for GhG reductions in the Kyoto agreement (and therefore in its likely successor) was emissions in 1990. Russia’s emissions had dropped very low in 1990 due to its economic contraction in the wake of the Soviet Union collapse and the loss of many satellite states. Russia is not likely to meet its 2012 Kyoto obligations, which are 10-to-15% below 1990 levels, and it will take serious, economy-hampering action for Russia to drop its present GhGs near 1990 levels before the 2020s.

Russia's need to cut emissions offers the U.S. something to offer. (click to enlarge)

In response to Russia's recalcitrance, the CAP paper says the smart U.S. play is to see Russia’s resistance to serious GhG cuts as an opening gambit and go on negotiating.

The policy paper makes a special point of suggesting something the President, by most reports, is already quite adept at: Be prepared to listen next week. Effective istening was not, it is said, among Mr. Obama’s predecessor’s job skills.

When President Obama begins to talk, he needs to talk to President Medvedev in economic terms. He needs to convince Russia of the economic opportunity in GhG cuts. (It will be a good warm-up for Mr. Obama before taking on the Senate in September.)

The President can talk about the common threat both nations face and use the common threat to build trust. He can then offer cooperation in 2 areas where the U.S. has strength and experience that Russia can use: (1) Building an emissions trading market and (2) advancing energy efficiency. These are ways that Russia can gain economically while attending to climate change. These are ways the U.S. and Russia can work together on something more economically profitable for Russia than arms control and nonproliferation. The arms control and nonproliferation agreements, and even perhaps a climate change agreement, can evolve in the context of improved dialogue.

click to enlarge

COMMENTARY
Russia, the CAP paper predicts, could be key to success at Copenhagen. It was crucial to ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. After the first round of commitments to Kyoto, the requisite 55 countries had ratified but they did not meet the requisite 55% of world GhGs. Only when Russia, with its globally 3rd-ranking GhGs, kicked in did the agreement become official.

If conservatives in the U.S. and China refuse to ratify the new agreement that emerges at Copenhagen, Russia could once again be pivotal. For this reason, it would be a good idea, the CAP paper concludes, for Mr. Obama to bring Russia in early rather than allowing it a spoiler’s leverage.

How? By offering it more economic development for coming in than for staying out.

click to enlarge

First, emissions trading. Russia owns a lot of potential offsets that are worth a lot of money on world emissions markets. One estimate puts the value of credits Russia could generate from New Energy and emissions reduction projects funded by EU countries looking to offset their own emissions at 1.5 billion euros. At the frontier of the fight against global climate change, that’s a lot of "cash on the barrelhead" (as they used to say on the American frontier and as the still say in the Russian oil industry).

Because Russia is not officially linked to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) or any other emissions trading market, the U.S. can offer Russia help in capitalizing and marketing its assets. China has more ready capital to offer but virtually no experience with emissions markets. The EU has a wealth of experience with the ETS but little capital. The U.S. has some capital and some experience in building markets. It built the successful SO2 cap&trade system that turned back the acid rain problem in the 1990s and is currently creating regional and voluntary GhG markets, including the Western Climate Imitative, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the Midwestern Initiative and the Chicago Climate Exchange.

President Obama could offer U.S. trading centers and a pilot trading platform for the sale of GhGs from one or a few of Russia’s industrial sectors to Mr. Medvedev. He could toss in guidance in setting up inventory systems, tracking systems for GhG sources and sinks and systmes for building the architecture and infrastructure of trading. He could also promise links to bigger markets and access to capital when Russia is ready.

click to enlarge

The genius of this strategy is that it is likely to get Russia’s oligarchs and oilmen pushing at Mr. Medvedev (and Mr. Putin, his handler) to do the deal because there is so much opportunity (meaning money) in it. And the unstated lesson will be that there’s a lot of gold in return for getting involved in the global climate change fight.

There is something else Mr. Obama can offer Russia: Improved energy efficiency and energy intensity. This would be in keeping with the economic modernization goals the Kremlin clearly seeks.

The policy paper’s strong insistence on a strategic offer of Energy Efficiency technology is based on the 3 things: Russia needs it, Russia wants it and the U.S. can help Russia get what it needs and wants.

Russia ranks with Ukraine and Saudi Arabia in the lowest quadrant of energy efficiency and energy intensity. (click to enlarge)

The Russian government has been talking about improving its energy efficiency and its energy intensity (the amount of energy consumed per unit of gross domestic product). Prime Minister Putin issued a government order earlier this year (thoroughly reported in the September 25, 2008, issue of Russian Analytical Digest)calling for a big improvement in the Russian electric power sector’s energy efficiency. In June 2008, President Medvedev signed a decree aimed at reducing Russia's energy intensity 40% below its 2007 level by 2020. Why?

Because Russia’s energy intensity is higher than any of the world’s 10 top energy-consuming countries. It is 3.1 times the EU’s energy intensity and more than twice the U.S. energy intensity.

Russia’s poor performance to date in these areas means there is a lot of room for improvement and the U.S. has already been developing effective programs for improving efficiency and intensity – in China. A Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory/DOE program in partnership with the Chinese government, the top 1,000 energy-consuming Chinese industries and Chinese scientists and engineers has made major improvements in China’s efficiency and intensity.

The U.S. partnership with China in the "Top 1000" program produced quick and important results. (click to enlarge)

Such a collaboration could also help Russia create something like the U.S.’s joint EPA/DOE Energy Star program. Energy Star established energy efficiency standards and energy efficiency compliance codes for a full range of product categories and practices to which businesses comply in buildings and facilities. It has been successful over 17 years and in 15,000+ private- and public-sector organizations. In 2008, the U.S. obtained savings of $19 billion through the Energy Star program.

The policy paper suggests President Obama propose a similar partnership with Russia, promising the big economic advantages that come with energy efficiency and, only coincidentally, facilitating big cuts in Russia’s GhGs.

Funding for such a program could come from public-private partnerships on both the U.S. and Russian sides. It would be an opportunity for U.S. and Russian scientists to collaborate on technologies that benefit both countries. New technologies emerging from the process Could be shared.

The geopolitics of the President’s upcoming summit with Russia are complex and multidimensional. Nuclear midnight is no longer quite the threat it was during Cold War days. But the world is facing another existential threat. This time it is a hot threat. It is not from war but from weather so vast it is not local but global and time so extended it is not weather but climate. And against the threat of warming caused by global climate change Russia and the U.S. find themselves on the same side, facing a common threat. It is time for their leaders to learn to work together.

click to enlarge

QUOTES
- From the CAP policy paper: “The build up to the climate summit in Copenhagen is making it clear that broad-based involvement by all countries—but especially the developed countries and major emerging economies in the developing world—is needed to create a consensus on global climate change action. Most of the attention is focused on the United States, the European Union, China, and India as the major players necessary to forge a global deal, and there is insufficient thought given to the role Russia could play in a post-Kyoto agreement. There are however at least two reasons—besides the fact that Russia is a Kyoto signatory and a major emitter—to engage Russia directly in Copenhagen.”

First, the low-hanging and quickly profitable fruit of efficiency. Later, New Energy. (click to enlarge)

- From the CAP policy paper: “Russia and the United States were incapable of discussing important issues in the final months of the Bush presidency. The Obama administration now has the opportunity to build a relationship of trust and cooperation to fight a common threat. Working together on advancing energy efficiency in Russia and demonstrating the economic advantages of attending to climate change offers both countries an ideal platform for a new era of constructive diplomacy and joint action. Climate and energy efficiency can also expand the U.S.-Russia relationship beyond the traditional areas of arms control and nonproliferation. President Obama should capitalize on this opportunity starting next week in Moscow when he meets with Medvedev. Confronting this neglected challenge may very well wind up being a key to solving the climate crisis.”

THE WIND IN AFRICA

North leads rest of Africa in wind power
Agnieszka Flak and Maha El Dahan (w/Keiron Henderson), June 30, 2009 (Reuters via UK Guardian)
and
FACTBOX-Africa wind power projects and potential
Agnieszka Flak, Maha El Dahan, George Obulutsa, Tom Pfeiffer and Keiron Henderson, June 30, 2009 (Reuters)

SUMMARY
The slogan of the African Wind Energy Association (AfriWEA) is "There is wind in Africa!" but Africa’s enormous wind power potential remains largely undeveloped, especially south of the Maghreb.

95% of Africa’s 563 megawatts of installed wind power capacity is in Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia.

With momentum in Europe continuing to drive the search for sources of emissions-free electricity generation, New Energy developers are looking to the kind of public-private partnerships that have been successful in Egypt for the funds and opportunities to do further building.

There is wind in Africa! But much of it is undeveloped and the resources of Equatorial Africa are virtually undocumented. (click to enlarge)

Egypt presently has 390 megawatts of installed wind capacity. The government’s aggressive support of New Energy has much to do with the success of public-private partnerships there. Supportive policy establishes a commitment to New Energy that makes Egypt an attractive place for Spanish, Danish and French investors to finance New Energy projects.

Egypt’s current continent-leading built wind capacity, funded by the government and multilateral organisations, will be expanded by a series of tenders begun in May for build-operate-own offers that 72 international investors have shown interest in. This influx of capital will sustain Egypt’s wind sector.

click to enlarge

A boost for the new approach recently came in South Africa, Africa’s biggest economy. Dipuo Peters, South Africa’s new energy minister, will back independent power producers in adding 400 megawatts of new wind energy-generated electricity to the national grid in the next 3 years.

Ms. Peters’ assertion of a new-found political will to build New Energy leaves only (1) the technical problem of an utterly inadequate and outdated map of South Africa’s wind resources and (2) the mindset problem of a country far too addicted to fossil fuels.

A lot of the New Energy challenges and opportunities in emerging and developing countries (E& DC) are catalogued at Developing Renewables. The Developing Renewables Report summarizes the situation through 2008.

click to enlarge

COMMENTARY
400 megawatts of new capacity will not be difficult for South Africa’s developers to achieve if energy consultant Nano Energy is even close to accurate in its assessment that South Africa has 60,000 megawatts of potential wind power.

Recent droughts in East and West Africa that diminished the generating capacity of hydroelectric projects have spurred interest in more wind development and how to do it. As Egypt has demonstrated and South Africa is about to demonstrate, harnessing the wind (and the sun and the geothermal springs and the waves and tides and currents of the powerful circum-Africa oceans) first requires policy reforms.

click to enlarge

After policy reform, the next necessary African improvement must be in the transmission and distribution of electricity. The need for new wires in service to New Energy is a lesson it is not yet clear the U.S. and the EU fully understand. but it is something the nations of Africa must eventually confront, too.

The highlights of Africa’s wind development:

EGYPT…wants to get 12% of its power from wind by 2020. That will require adding 7,200 megawatts of new wind capacity to the national grid. The Ministry of Electricity has allocated 300,000 feddans (126,000 hectares) of land in the Gulf of Suez region for wind installations.

click to enlarge

ETHIOPIA…has a $307.8 million, 120-megawatt project in development and plans to bring it on line by 2012.

KENYA…Lake Turkana Wind Power will install 300 megawatts of new capacity, about 25% of the 1,200-megawatt national electricity demand, in the windier north of Kenya by 2012.

MOROCCO…has a 125-megawatt installed capacity at present but studies show it has a 6,000-megawatt potential and the government says it wants to obtain 15% of its power from wind by 2020.

click to enlarge

SOUTH AFRICA…has a 100-megawatt installation, planned to be expandable to 200-megawatts, with a March 2010 deadline that Eskom, the national utility, has delayed. If Ms. Peters, the new energy minister, intends to reach her goal of 400 megawatts of wind power by 2012, she is going to have to get coal-dependent Eskom out of the way.

TANZANIA…has a 50-megawatt projected scheduled to be operational in its windy central region by 2015 and the Ministry of Energy and Minerals now wants to bring it on line by 2010.

TUNISIA…has a 20-megawatt project in its north-east planned for expansion to 55 megawatts. It is seeking loans to add another 100 megawatts to its national grid.

The logline: It appears Africa is on the verge of a New Energy boom.

click to enlarge

QUOTES
- Jason Schaffler, Managing Director, South Africa’s Nano Energy: "…[W]e have built our economy on coal, a fossil resource, and it will require a more serious carbon commitment and more ambitious targets to change that…"
- Sipha Ndawonde, energy analyst, Frost & Sullivan: "Loans with favourable interest payments provided by Spanish, Danish, and French organisations have assisted in developing the North African wind market ... South Africa should look to investigate similar routes…"
- Mohab Hallouda, energy expert, World Bank: "The fact that the [Egyptian] government is adopting regions and farms is a good point as you have a baseline for wind energy production…(The state) can sustain operations should going to the private sector prove to have hurdles."

MORE SUNDAY WORLD, 7-5 (PAKISTAN WILL BRING SUN POWER; UK UNFURLS; ACTION SLOW AT IRAQ OIL AUCTION)

PAKISTAN WILL BRING SUN POWER
7,000 villages to be electrified through solar energy: minister
July 2, 2009 (The New International)

"The government has set a target to electrify 7,000 villages, which cannot be electrified by grid, through solar energy in the next five years, says Federal Minister for Water and Power Raja Pervaiz Ashrraf…He was addressing the representatives of more than 120 countries in the second session of the preparatory commission of IRENA, held in resort city of Sharm el-Sheikh…

"The minister said that the world needs to develop global financial mechanism that responds to the special requirements of the renewable energy sector. ‘Pakistan feels that if level playing field is provided to the renewable energy sector, they are the least expensive, environment friendly and the most sustainable resources of energy.’"

One thing Pakistan has is sun. (click to enlarge)

"He said that Pakistan has also set high targets for itself including renewable energies to add 5% (approximately 10,000 MW) of the electricity generation on grid by year 2030 and the replacement of 5% diesel with bio-diesel by year 2015 and 10% by 2025.

"He extended full support of Pakistan to the newly perceived International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)…[and] took part in the voting proceedings for the selections of the place for Headquarter of IRENA and the election of its Director General."

UK UNFURLS
Britain Could Be Wind and Wave Titan
James Kanter, July 3, 2009 (NY Times)

"Britain could become the largest producer of electricity from offshore wind by the end of the next decade, according to the Carbon Trust, a group funded by the British government.

"With carefully targeted subsidies and regulations, Britain could build 29 gigawatts of capacity compared to a global total of 66 gigawatts by 2020, giving it 45 percent of the offshore power market, said the Carbon Trust. By comparison, Germany would have 12 gigawatts by 2020…"

Britain has already begun exploiting its remarkable offshore wind assets. (click to enlarge)

"[Carbon Trust] also noted that a quarter of all wave power technologies are being developed in Britain and that the country ‘could be the “natural owner” of the global wave power market’ this century.

"Britain could generate up to $114 billion for the economy and almost 250,000 jobs from offshore wind and wave power…"

It may have even bigger wave energy assets. (click to enlarge)

"David McVeigh, an executive from a heavy industries division of Harland and Wolff, the company that built vast passenger liners including Titanic before the decline of British shipbuilding over the last century, said he could ‘recognize a great opportunity’ in marine power…

"Even so marine environments are notoriously harsh and have posed additional challenges for renewable power developers such as how to prevent corrosion and conduct repairs efficiently."

ACTION SLOW AT IRAQ OIL AUCTION
Few Bidders to Develop Iraqi Oil and Gas Fields
Timothy Williams (w/Campbell Robertson, Alissa J. Rubin, Abeer Mohammed and Keith Bradsher), June 30, 2009 (NY Times)

"The Iraqi government stumbled once again… in its frequently delayed effort to award development rights to its most valuable oil fields…[A public auction] largely failed to attract the lucrative offers it sought from dozens of international oil companies invited to the bidding.

"After the daylong event [held in a heavily secured ballroom at the Rashid Hotel in Baghdad’s Green Zone], which was broadcast live on national television [to combat allegations of widespread corruption], the government came away with just a single deal struck from among the six giant oil fields and two gas fields it had put up for bid."

The Rumaila fields are the far south, near Basra. (click to enlarge)

"The single successful contract [pending further negotiations] went to a joint venture of BP and the China National Petroleum Corporation for the largest field offered: Rumaila, near the southern city of Basra, which has proven reserves of more than 17 billion barrels. [Now producing a million barrels of oil a day, the government says Rumaila should produce 1.75 million barrels and the oil companies say they can get 2.85 million barrels]…

"The auction, celebrated by the Iraqi government as a milestone for the fledgling democracy, came on the same day as the deadline for American combat troops to pull out of Iraqi cities.

"It is the most significant attempt to open up the country’s oil industry since it was nationalized by Saddam Hussein in 1972, and the centerpiece of a plan to raise oil production to 6 million barrels a day by 2015, from the current level of 2.4 million [but the country lacks the money to rebuild the industry that accounts for almost all of its foreign earnings]...[Iraq owns 9% of the world’s crude oil, the world's third largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia and Iran, but its pipelines and other infrastructure are aged and decaying]..."

click to enlarge

"Instead of garnering an infusion of foreign cash [from attendees such as Exxon Mobil, Lukoil, Japex, Royal Dutch Shell, Total, the Korea Gas Corporation and others] to rebuild and to prop up its limping economy, however, the auction of fields that contain about 80 percent of Iraq’s oil output appeared to further polarize the country. Four of the eight oil and gas fields…received only a single bid from oil corporations, and an undeveloped gas field in violence-plagued Diyala Province in northwest Iraq received none…

"…[O]bservers said the event could be deemed a success only if viewed strictly in populist political terms, because foreign presence in Iraq’s oil industry is a contentious issue. Many believe the 2003 American-led invasion was carried out to wrest away Iraq’s enormous oil reserves...Ruba Husari, editor of the Iraq Oil Forum,…said what remained unresolved was how Iraq was to modernize its oil industry without giving in to the desires of oil companies, which prefer owning a share of the oil they pump. Iraq has so far rejected such arrangements, which are known as production sharing agreements."

Saturday, July 04, 2009

Read All About It! The News They Ought To Be Able to Read

Leaders set aside differences...Nuclear power is dead...Economic markets soar as a result of climate pact...If only... From GreenpeaceVideo via YouTube.

How The Smart Grid Works

This is a wonderful little animation explaining what’s so smart about the Smart Grid. For good reasons, Duke Energy is not one of the anti-coal movement’s favorite utilities but they deserve credit for this little bit. From DukeEnergyMediaCtr via YouTube.

It Can Happen And It Can Happen Here

There have been cultures on this earth that thought they were the pinnacle of modernity and couldn't imagine not enduring whatever came along until along came a small change in climate that rendered them archeology. That, and nothing less, is what's at stake today. From AlesandroLopesVideo via YouTube.

NewEnergyNews

About Me

Friday, July 10, 2009

ACTIVISTS WANT ACTION

WILL THE U.S. DO CAP&TRADE FOR COPENHAGEN? FOR CHRISTMAS?

PLUG IN VEHICLE PROGRESS TRACKER

A FIGHT FOR NEW ENERGY TRANSMISSION

BUILD WIND INTO TRANSMISSION TOWERS

Thursday, July 09, 2009

REPORT CARD GRADES WIND’S PROGRESS TOWARD 20%

ANYTHING FOR AN RES AND CAP&TRADE

MORE NEWS, 7-9 (A FILM ABOUT A CHOICE ND BUYS IN ON MIDWEST WIRES FOR WIND; NC DEAL FOR RALEIGH SOLAR POWER PLANT)

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

CONCENTRATING PHOTOVOLTAICS

THE HAPPENINGS IN HYDROKINETIC ENERGY

MORE NEWS, 7-8 (FEDS FUND FARM & RANCH SMALL WIND; TOYOTA PLUG-IN BY 2012; KICKING THE COAL HABIT)

Tuesday, July 07, 2009

BLAIR REPORT SAYS EFFICIENCIES NOW, CAP&TRADE FOR THE LONG RUN

BIG GREEN BUILDINGS

MORE NEWS, 7-7 (A NEW ENERGY FUND FOR GLOBAL PROSPERITY; REVIEWS OF “TWO CENTS PER MILE”; DOCKED SHIP POWERED BY SUN)

Monday, July 06, 2009

SOLAR CONSOLIDATION

MORE NEWS, 7-6 (EFFICIENCY CUTS TAXES; FED FUNDS 20 MW FLYWHEEL; CHINA NEW ENERGY PROPHET)

Sunday, July 05, 2009

CAN U.S. & RUSSIA JOIN ON CLIMATE, ENERGY & EFFICIENCY?

THE WIND IN AFRICA

MORE SUNDAY WORLD, 7-5 (PAKISTAN WILL BRING SUN POWER; UK UNFURLS; ACTION SLOW AT IRAQ OIL AUCTION)

Saturday, July 04, 2009

Read All About It! The News They Ought To Be Able to Read

How The Smart Grid Works

It Can Happen And It Can Happen Here

Links

Current Posts

Archives