California may lead the US to more renewable energy....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 2-25-2009
California has more solar energy potential than most of the states in the United States although this is less true of wind energy.
But, of more importance, significant innovations in California are often gradually or even rapidly adopted throughout the rest of the United States.
So, for those two reasons, what California does to bring more renewable energy online not only benefits people in California, it will likely also begin to benefit people throughout the United States.
Similarly, significant innovations in California and the rest of the United States are often copied elsewhere in the world.
As you know if you have been reading this post or know renewable energy well, Germany is now the world leader in building new renewable energy. They have developed and are still using an innovation called feed-in tariffs that has enabled them to install HALF the world’s solar energy with only a tiny part of the world’s solar energy potential.
So this method works incredibly well. And, it’s still working. Just last year Germany added about 10 times as much new solar as all of California.: “In 2008, Germany added 1.5 gigawatts of solar while California added less than 160 megawatts -- a factor of nearly 10 times even though 160 megawatts, from the RPS and CSI programs combined, set a record for California!“
This method is called the Feed-in Tariff. No new taxes or government money need be spent or authorized as the new renewable energy is paid for as the renewable energy comes online by gradual and relatively small increases in the utility rates.
Despite its incredibly effective success in Germany, it has NOT been widely copied or emulated in the United States.
THAT may be about to come to a screeching halt.
A man called Craig Lewis is working to have a very carefully worked out feed-in tariff used soon throughout California.
Anything you can do to help him succeed from lobbying your local California representative to praying for his success, please do it.
This is because if it is enacted and used in California in its present form, it will be used even more in California; AND it will be used throughout the United States and in more of the world than now uses feed-in tariffs.
This should be front page news in every newspaper in California.
As you may know or have read here, it is critical that we bring very large amounts of renewable energy online in just the next two or three decades for many reasons. Having a robust economy is one of them. Economies run on energy; and fossil fuels are beginning to be and already have been too dangerous to use; they will keep getting bid up in price if there is no large scale competition for them; and they will run out relatively suddenly at some point if we have no alternatives in place which will cause world wide economic collapse.
So, if California adopts this program for feed-in tariffs, it has huge and dramatically positive implications.
Even better, by focusing on relatively small installations near existing electrical transmission hubs, the renewable energy will come online quite soon!
That’s equally important. But once we do this feed-in tariff program, we need to add a longer acting feed-in tariff to develop larger installations and those that will go into areas that have very large solar potential but do not as yet have transmission lines in place.
Craig sent me this.:
“The Renewable Energy & Economic Stimulus Act of 2009
SUMMARY
REESA will direct the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to follow the December 2008 recommendation by the California Energy Commission (CEC) to immediately implement a comprehensive, cost-based Feed-In Tariff (FIT) in California. The REESA FIT creates a highly effective regulatory tool for bringing renewable energy online in a timely manner. The frustratingly slow progress of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) program, and the limited nature of the California Solar Initiative (CSI) and the Small Generator Incentive (SGIP) Program, require that a far more effective solution is implemented for achieving California's current RPS mandate of 20% of delivered electricity by 2010, and the goal of 33% renewables by 2020, which is likely to become law this year. The RPS program is many years behind schedule due to many factors that include the typical 10-year dependency that large projects have on significant transmission improvements. The REESA FIT is a simple and streamlined program that will bring significant levels of renewable energy capacity online in a timely manner -- capacity that will not require major transmission improvements. The economic benefits of the REESA FIT include substantial in-state job creation, with all REESA FIT facilities being built within the State of California, providing a vital boost for the many California-based, renewable energy and clean-tech companies.
BACKGROUND
For economic, energy security, public health, and environmental reasons, California desires to be a leader in transitioning from fossil fuel energy sources to renewables. Unfortunately, California's RPS program is many years behind schedule, and the CSI and SGIP programs are too limited in scope to bring significant levels of renewable energy online. At the same time, many countries around the world have introduced effective FIT programs that are bringing renewables online in levels that are orders of magnitude greater than California has achieved over the last eight years under the RPS program. This is true despite the fact that California has far better solar, wind, and other renewable energy resources. For example, while Germany has the solar intensity of lower Alaska, it has consistently added far more solar capacity than California: In 2008, Germany added 1.5 gigawatts of solar while California added less than 160 megawatts -- a factor of nearly 10 times even though 160 megawatts, from the RPS and CSI programs combined, set a record for California!
FIT programs have now been implemented in dozens of countries around the world, and have proven to be the most effective policy mechanism for bringing renewable energy online in a timely manner.
EXISTING LAW
California currently has three programs for attracting renewable energy generation: the RPS program, which is focused on attracting large central station renewables, and the CSI and SGIP programs, both of which facilitate relatively small, behind-the-retail-meter installations that rely on net metering benefits combined with incentives.
The REESA FIT is designed so that it will not interfere with any of the existing programs. Rather, it fills a critical programmatic gap by unleashing the tremendous potential of the Wholesale Distributed Generation (WDG) market segment: the 20 megawatt-and-under market segment in which projects are interconnected to the distribution grid. REESA FIT facilities will have dedicated meters that measure all energy generated, and as such, the energy generated will not offset any onsite load, be net metered, nor be eligible for CSI or SGIP incentives. Instead all the energy will be sold to utilities, bundled with the renewable energy attributes, including the Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), which will count toward utilities' RPS requirements.
THIS BILL
The REESA FIT will direct the CPUC to implement a comprehensive FIT with rates that are not limited by the Market Price Referent (MPR), which has proven to be a contentious pricing construct used in the RPS program. Features of the REESA FIT include the following:
" Applies to all RPS-eligible technologies in projects sized 20 megawatts and under.
" Sets technology-differentiated rates that are based on typical manufacturing costs, typical renewable resource intensities, and profit margins commensurate with those allowed for utility-owned generation.
" Sets an upper limit on FIT rates, assuring that California ratepayers are well protected.
" Follows a simple and streamlined Standard Must-Take Contract (SMTC) that is developed by the CPUC.
" Applies to all California utilities, investor-owned (IOUs) and publicly-owned (POUs), but provides more discretion to POUs in developing their program.
California's RPS program is many years behind schedule, and the CSI and SGIP programs are too limited in scope to bring significant levels of renewable energy online. At the same time, many countries around the world have introduced effective FIT programs that are bringing renewables online in levels that are orders of magnitude greater than California has achieved over the last eight years under the RPS program. This is true despite the fact that California has far better solar, wind, and other renewable energy resources. For example, while Germany has the solar intensity of lower Alaska, it has consistently added far more solar capacity than California: In 2008, Germany added 1.5 gigawatts of solar while California added less than 160 megawatts -- a factor of nearly 10 times even though 160 megawatts, from the RPS and CSI programs combined, set a record for California!
FIT programs have now been implemented in dozens of countries around the world, and have proven to be the most effective policy mechanism for bringing renewable energy online in a timely manner.
EXISTING LAW
California currently has three programs for attracting renewable energy generation: the RPS program, which is focused on attracting large central station renewables, and the CSI and SGIP programs, both of which facilitate relatively small, behind-the-retail-meter installations that rely on net metering benefits combined with incentives.
The REESA FIT is designed so that it will not interfere with any of the existing programs. Rather, it fills a critical programmatic gap by unleashing the tremendous potential of the Wholesale Distributed Generation (WDG) market segment: the 20 megawatt-and-under market segment in which projects are interconnected to the distribution grid. REESA FIT facilities will have dedicated meters that measure all energy generated, and as such, the energy generated will not offset any onsite load, be net metered, nor be eligible for CSI or SGIP incentives. Instead all the energy will be sold to utilities, bundled with the renewable energy attributes, including the Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), which will count toward utilities' RPS requirements.
THIS BILL
The REESA FIT will direct the CPUC to implement a comprehensive FIT with rates that are not limited by the Market Price Referent (MPR), which has proven to be a contentious pricing construct used in the RPS program. Features of the REESA FIT include the following:
" Applies to all RPS-eligible technologies in projects sized 20 megawatts and under.
" Sets technology-differentiated rates that are based on typical manufacturing costs, typical renewable resource intensities, and profit margins commensurate with those allowed for utility-owned generation.
" Sets an upper limit on FIT rates, assuring that California ratepayers are well protected.
" Follows a simple and streamlined Standard Must-Take Contract (SMTC) that is developed by the CPUC.
" Applies to all California utilities, investor-owned (IOUs) and publicly-owned (POUs), but provides more discretion to POUs in developing their programs.
" Bundles all renewable energy attributes with the energy sold.
" Allows any party to own FIT facilities, including 3rd party developers, utilities, and utility customers.
" Limits the REESA FIT program to two percent of annual delivered energy for each utility for each year of the FIT program.
" Mandates a program start-date of 1 July 2010.
" Assures total separation from CSI and SGIP programs by requiring dedicated FIT meters, instead of net metering on retail meters. Among many benefits, separate meters expand renewable energy generation opportunities to owners of leased properties and/or multi-unit buildings, and to any site that has a deployment capacity over the 1 megawatt incentive limit of the CSI and SGIP programs.
" Utilizes Rule 21 to assure that interconnection system upgrade costs are either minimal or covered by FIT project developers.”
The Renewable Energy & Economic Stimulus Act of 2009
SUMMARY
REESA will direct the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to follow the December 2008 recommendation by the California Energy Commission (CEC) to immediately implement a comprehensive, cost-based Feed-In Tariff (FIT) in California. The REESA FIT creates a highly effective regulatory tool for bringing renewable energy online in a timely manner. The frustratingly slow progress of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) program, and the limited nature of the California Solar Initiative (CSI) and the Small Generator Incentive (SGIP) Program, require that a far more effective solution is implemented for achieving California's current RPS mandate of 20% of delivered electricity by 2010, and the goal of 33% renewables by 2020, which is likely to become law this year. The RPS program is many years behind schedule due to many factors that include the typical 10-year dependency that large projects have on significant transmission improvements. The REESA FIT is a simple and streamlined program that will bring significant levels of renewable energy capacity online in a timely manner -- capacity that will not require major transmission improvements. The economic benefits of the REESA FIT include substantial in-state job creation, with all REESA FIT facilities being built within the State of California, providing a vital boost for the many California-based, renewable energy and clean-tech companies.
BACKGROUND
For economic, energy security, public health, and environmental reasons, California desires to be a leader in transitioning from fossil fuel energy sources to renewables. Unfortunately, California's RPS program is many years behind schedule, and the CSI and SGIP programs are too limited in scope to bring significant levels of renewable energy online. At the same time, many countries around the world have introduced effective FIT programs that are bringing renewables online in levels that are orders of magnitude greater than California has achieved over the last eight years under the RPS program. This is true despite the fact that California has far better solar, wind, and other renewable energy resources. For example, while Germany has the solar intensity of lower Alaska, it has consistently added far more solar capacity than California: In 2008, Germany added 1.5 gigawatts of solar while California added less than 160 megawatts -- a factor of nearly 10 times even though 160 megawatts, from the RPS and CSI programs combined, set a record for California!
FIT programs have now been implemented in dozens of countries around the world, and have proven to be the most effective policy mechanism for bringing renewable energy online in a timely manner.
EXISTING LAW
California currently has three programs for attracting renewable energy generation: the RPS program, which is focused on attracting large central station renewables, and the CSI and SGIP programs, both of which facilitate relatively small, behind-the-retail-meter installations that rely on net metering benefits combined with incentives.
The REESA FIT is designed so that it will not interfere with any of the existing programs. Rather, it fills a critical programmatic gap by unleashing the tremendous potential of the Wholesale Distributed Generation (WDG) market segment: the 20 megawatt-and-under market segment in which projects are interconnected to the distribution grid. REESA FIT facilities will have dedicated meters that measure all energy generated, and as such, the energy generated will not offset any onsite load, be net metered, nor be eligible for CSI or SGIP incentives. Instead all the energy will be sold to utilities, bundled with the renewable energy attributes, including the Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), which will count toward utilities' RPS requirements.
THIS BILL
The REESA FIT will direct the CPUC to implement a comprehensive FIT with rates that are not limited by the Market Price Referent (MPR), which has proven to be a contentious pricing construct used in the RPS program. Features of the REESA FIT include the following:
" Applies to all RPS-eligible technologies in projects sized 20 megawatts and under.
" Sets technology-differentiated rates that are based on typical manufacturing costs, typical renewable resource intensities, and profit margins commensurate with those allowed for utility-owned generation.
" Sets an upper limit on FIT rates, assuring that California ratepayers are well protected.
" Follows a simple and streamlined Standard Must-Take Contract (SMTC) that is developed by the CPUC.
" Applies to all California utilities, investor-owned (IOUs) and publicly-owned (POUs), but provides more discretion to POUs in developing their progra
California's RPS program is many years behind schedule, and the CSI and SGIP programs are too limited in scope to bring significant levels of renewable energy online. At the same time, many countries around the world have introduced effective FIT programs that are bringing renewables online in levels that are orders of magnitude greater than California has achieved over the last eight years under the RPS program. This is true despite the fact that California has far better solar, wind, and other renewable energy resources. For example, while Germany has the solar intensity of lower Alaska, it has consistently added far more solar capacity than California: In 2008, Germany added 1.5 gigawatts of solar while California added less than 160 megawatts -- a factor of nearly 10 times even though 160 megawatts, from the RPS and CSI programs combined, set a record for California!
FIT programs have now been implemented in dozens of countries around the world, and have proven to be the most effective policy mechanism for bringing renewable energy online in a timely manner.
EXISTING LAW
California currently has three programs for attracting renewable energy generation: the RPS program, which is focused on attracting large central station renewables, and the CSI and SGIP programs, both of which facilitate relatively small, behind-the-retail-meter installations that rely on net metering benefits combined with incentives.
The REESA FIT is designed so that it will not interfere with any of the existing programs. Rather, it fills a critical programmatic gap by unleashing the tremendous potential of the Wholesale Distributed Generation (WDG) market segment: the 20 megawatt-and-under market segment in which projects are interconnected to the distribution grid. REESA FIT facilities will have dedicated meters that measure all energy generated, and as such, the energy generated will not offset any onsite load, be net metered, nor be eligible for CSI or SGIP incentives. Instead all the energy will be sold to utilities, bundled with the renewable energy attributes, including the Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), which will count toward utilities' RPS requirements.
THIS BILL
The REESA FIT will direct the CPUC to implement a comprehensive FIT with rates that are not limited by the Market Price Referent (MPR), which has proven to be a contentious pricing construct used in the RPS program. Features of the REESA FIT include the following:
" Applies to all RPS-eligible technologies in projects sized 20 megawatts and under.
" Sets technology-differentiated rates that are based on typical manufacturing costs, typical renewable resource intensities, and profit margins commensurate with those allowed for utility-owned generation.
" Sets an upper limit on FIT rates, assuring that California ratepayers are well protected.
" Follows a simple and streamlined Standard Must-Take Contract (SMTC) that is developed by the CPUC.
" Applies to all California utilities, investor-owned (IOUs) and publicly-owned (POUs), but provides more discretion to POUs in developing their programs.
" Bundles all renewable energy attributes with the energy sold.
" Allows any party to own FIT facilities, including 3rd party developers, utilities, and utility customers.
" Limits the REESA FIT program to two percent of annual delivered energy for each utility for each year of the FIT program.
" Mandates a program start-date of 1 July 2010.
" Assures total separation from CSI and SGIP programs by requiring dedicated FIT meters, instead of net metering on retail meters. Among many benefits, separate meters expand renewable energy generation opportunities to owners of leased properties and/or multi-unit buildings, and to any site that has a deployment capacity over the 1 megawatt incentive limit of the CSI and SGIP programs.
" Utilizes Rule 21 to assure that interconnection system upgrade costs are either minimal or covered by FIT project developers. “
As you can see, it is fairly detailed and designed to work without interfering with existing programs and will add huge amounts of renewable energy soon if we do it.
I think this should be enacted within 30 days if it can be.
In an email to me Craig added this.:
“Note that a relatively sophisticated impact analysis has been run on the REESA FIT showing that, acting alone, the REESA FIT can satisfy more than 90% of the anticipated 33% RPS requirement by 2020. At the same time, the analysis shows that maxing the REESA FIT to its annual program limit would have a worst-case ratepayer impact of less than 1% per year. This translates into a ratepayer impact of less than 10% over a 10 year period, while nearly satisfying the entire 33% RPS requirement on its own! I believe that it is safe to say that such a low 33% RPS ratepayer impact is far lower than nearly everyone expects -- it is even considerably less than the avoided inflationary effects that are forecasted over the same period; meaning that ratepayers are likely to benefit from a net savings.
I would like your support for the REESA FIT and would appreciate your help in getting the REESA in front of key organizations, like leading environmental and social justice organizations (clean energy, clean jobs, preempting the use of dirty power plants in poor neighborhoods, etc)...
Cheers,
Craig Lewis
Principal, RightCycle Enterprises
Advisor, GreenVolts
16 Palm Ct
Menlo Park, CA 94025”
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
How to have more renewable energy here....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 2-18-2009
To have more renewable energy in the United States, three new things need to happen.
1. Every political jurisdiction and utility company in Canada needs to put feed-in tariffs for renewable energy producers. In Canada, that will be mostly solar photovoltaic & wind. Some new transmission lines may help.
2. Every political jurisdiction and utility company in the United States needs to put feed-in tariffs for renewable energy producers. We have wind, solar photovoltaic, and solar thermal we can develop. Since wind & solar potential, particularly solar thermal potential, is often in a different part of our country than where the most people live, we definitely will need new transmission lines for much of this renewable electricity.
3. Every political jurisdiction and utility company in Mexico needs to put feed-in tariffs for renewable energy producers. The map we posted some time back of solar potential shows that almost all of Mexico has about three to five times as much or more potential for solar photovoltaic and solar thermal as the entire Southwestern United States.
This one is a bit more complex. It will also be important to help Mexico use this power to build clean industry that can provide jobs to people in Mexico and to help Mexico become enough safer in many places to allow investment and travel to reach its full potential. The good news is that if this is done, Mexico will still have enough electricity generated by renewable sources that by also building some new transmission lines, they will be able to export electricity to the United States.
Between these 3 countries, by using feed-in tariffs in each one, in 15 years or so we could easily have 60 to 100 times more renewably generated electricity as we do now.
Feed-in tariffs have been proven to work. (Germany has about as much solar potential as just British Columbia and over the past 15 years or so has built something like HALF the world’s solar capacity. They make building the renewable energy projects fundable by banks. And they are paid for as they come online by the utility ratepayers. They do NOT need new taxes to pay for the renewable energy. And, the ratepayers see only gradual increases in their bills. Even better, as fossil fuel sources become more expensive for several reasons, the utility bills using feed-in tariffs will eventually be LESS than they would otherwise have been.
Ask your representatives in your government and your local utility companies if they know what feed-in tariffs are. And if they do, why aren’t they already using them.
They work and are the key to fast and fundable increases in renewable energy.
Today’s post: Wednesday, 2-18-2009
To have more renewable energy in the United States, three new things need to happen.
1. Every political jurisdiction and utility company in Canada needs to put feed-in tariffs for renewable energy producers. In Canada, that will be mostly solar photovoltaic & wind. Some new transmission lines may help.
2. Every political jurisdiction and utility company in the United States needs to put feed-in tariffs for renewable energy producers. We have wind, solar photovoltaic, and solar thermal we can develop. Since wind & solar potential, particularly solar thermal potential, is often in a different part of our country than where the most people live, we definitely will need new transmission lines for much of this renewable electricity.
3. Every political jurisdiction and utility company in Mexico needs to put feed-in tariffs for renewable energy producers. The map we posted some time back of solar potential shows that almost all of Mexico has about three to five times as much or more potential for solar photovoltaic and solar thermal as the entire Southwestern United States.
This one is a bit more complex. It will also be important to help Mexico use this power to build clean industry that can provide jobs to people in Mexico and to help Mexico become enough safer in many places to allow investment and travel to reach its full potential. The good news is that if this is done, Mexico will still have enough electricity generated by renewable sources that by also building some new transmission lines, they will be able to export electricity to the United States.
Between these 3 countries, by using feed-in tariffs in each one, in 15 years or so we could easily have 60 to 100 times more renewably generated electricity as we do now.
Feed-in tariffs have been proven to work. (Germany has about as much solar potential as just British Columbia and over the past 15 years or so has built something like HALF the world’s solar capacity. They make building the renewable energy projects fundable by banks. And they are paid for as they come online by the utility ratepayers. They do NOT need new taxes to pay for the renewable energy. And, the ratepayers see only gradual increases in their bills. Even better, as fossil fuel sources become more expensive for several reasons, the utility bills using feed-in tariffs will eventually be LESS than they would otherwise have been.
Ask your representatives in your government and your local utility companies if they know what feed-in tariffs are. And if they do, why aren’t they already using them.
They work and are the key to fast and fundable increases in renewable energy.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Algae, coal, & biofuels....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 2-11-2009
To protect our economy and prevent sudden energy shortages or horrible cost run-ups that would cause worse problems than the current economic slowdown, we need to do several things.:
We need to mostly reverse the huge excess of CO2 release world-wide because of the large, and perhaps unnecessary, rise in costs due to extreme weather disasters, coastal flooding, and agricultural disruptions the CO2 will cause. We at least need to minimize these costs for modern economies to continue to exist.
We need to switch to getting our energy to mostly getting our energy from renewable sources, at least half and 80 % is better and doable; we may need to use some nuclear power; and we should get most of the rest from carbon neutral biofuels.
We also need to make the transition with as little increase in the cost of energy as possible.
And, we need to at least double our economic productivity per unit of energy. (Preventing waste and creating much more energy efficient products and services is happening; but it needs to be accelerated.)
Clearly wind, solar photovoltaic, and solar thermal need to provide 100 or more times the energy than they do now.
But, to keep the costs down and cut excessive CO2 emissions soon; plus allow the United States and China to become more energy independent and less dependent on oil for energy and fuel, we also need to do several things as a key part of this.
Yesterday, Reuters online news had a story they titled.:
“Can algae save the world - again?” In it they point out that algae once removed enough CO2 from the air and added enough oxygen to make our current lives possible. So, the title implies that maybe they can do this again for us now.
It’s certainly worth doing as a way to generate carbon neutral biofuels if for no other reason. But the article points out that it may also provide a way to reduce or slow the release of CO2 from the burning of coal.
We already know that biofuels as they exist now tend to make fuels that work well in temperatures of over 45 degrees Fahrenheit. But they do less well for fuels at lower or much lower temperatures.
There are already efforts to turn coal directly into clean fuels rather than burning it directly.
By adding biofuels to fuels from coal, we may be able to almost completely get away from burning oil for fuel. Even if we are only partly successful at first, once we get production in volume at reasonable cost, it will prevent the kind of extremely fast run up in fuel prices we saw recently.
And, though we should stop burning coal to the largest extent we can, we depend on it now & to switch to other sources successfully, we need to transition away from burning it at the lowest possible cost. We also need to avoid the economic disruption of simply tossing the existing coal industry on the scrap heap. Switching to non-oil fuels made from coal and biofuels may be a way to do this.
But the Reuters article makes a key point that would make this work even better. Once we have the right algae strains and efficient biofuels production methods from them, we can also use these algae to turn the CO2 from coal fired plants we cannot yet afford to shut down by literally feeding the CO2 from the coal burning to the algae.
Even better, for this to work in part by protecting the algae, or as a relatively cost effective addition to the system that feeds the coal exhaust to the algae, this process can likely be made to remove the acids and particulate pollution not now removed from the exhaust from coal.
Then coal can become a complement to biofuels as a way to replace oil and to protect against the day when we run out of oil that can be used cost effectively.
This will ease the transition from coal both for cost reasons; because it preserves the use of an existing resource; and it will take the pressure off of oil prices.
Lastly, it will help enable the United States to grow economically while ceasing to import oil or having to drill in ever more locations for it.
As a bonus, it provides a way to produce fuels that do NOT use oil that also does NOT compete with leaving existing forests in place or raising crops which corn based ethanol has been doing.
The article shows that there is progress in this area already.:
“Many companies are working on algae and biofuels including U.S. groups Sapphire Energy, OriginOil, BioCentric Energy and PetroAlgae.
Among uses, Japan Airlines had a test flight last month with a jet fuel and biofuels blend including algae oils.
Brazil's MPX Energia plans to trap 10-15 percent of carbon emissions from a coal-fired power plant by feeding them to algae when it starts in 2011.
Plymouth Marine Laboratory says it is taking what we know about algae in the world's oceans and applying it to biotechnology, an approach which differs from much of the commercial research underway, where some claims about the possibilities of algal biofuels are overstated, according to Carole Llewellyn, a marine chemist.” This article says that this lab is in England.
Meanwhile, there are many other companies that are working to produce biofuels from Algae in a cost effective way.
Solazyme in South San Francisco in California is another. There are very likely at least 20 more such companies, some of which will grow to substantial size.
The CEO of the solar photovoltaic company Nanosolar, points out that we can harvest and use much more of the sun’s energy for transport per unit area with solar than we can by growing algae.
But algae may indeed help save us from C02 based global warming by helping replace oil in already installed engines currently in use; and maybe also by removing C02 from exhaust and C02 that is already in the air. (It might pay us to cultivate algae we do NOT burn for fuel as well as algae that we do turn into biofuels we burn.)
So, the title of the article is extremely well chosen.
Today’s post: Wednesday, 2-11-2009
To protect our economy and prevent sudden energy shortages or horrible cost run-ups that would cause worse problems than the current economic slowdown, we need to do several things.:
We need to mostly reverse the huge excess of CO2 release world-wide because of the large, and perhaps unnecessary, rise in costs due to extreme weather disasters, coastal flooding, and agricultural disruptions the CO2 will cause. We at least need to minimize these costs for modern economies to continue to exist.
We need to switch to getting our energy to mostly getting our energy from renewable sources, at least half and 80 % is better and doable; we may need to use some nuclear power; and we should get most of the rest from carbon neutral biofuels.
We also need to make the transition with as little increase in the cost of energy as possible.
And, we need to at least double our economic productivity per unit of energy. (Preventing waste and creating much more energy efficient products and services is happening; but it needs to be accelerated.)
Clearly wind, solar photovoltaic, and solar thermal need to provide 100 or more times the energy than they do now.
But, to keep the costs down and cut excessive CO2 emissions soon; plus allow the United States and China to become more energy independent and less dependent on oil for energy and fuel, we also need to do several things as a key part of this.
Yesterday, Reuters online news had a story they titled.:
“Can algae save the world - again?” In it they point out that algae once removed enough CO2 from the air and added enough oxygen to make our current lives possible. So, the title implies that maybe they can do this again for us now.
It’s certainly worth doing as a way to generate carbon neutral biofuels if for no other reason. But the article points out that it may also provide a way to reduce or slow the release of CO2 from the burning of coal.
We already know that biofuels as they exist now tend to make fuels that work well in temperatures of over 45 degrees Fahrenheit. But they do less well for fuels at lower or much lower temperatures.
There are already efforts to turn coal directly into clean fuels rather than burning it directly.
By adding biofuels to fuels from coal, we may be able to almost completely get away from burning oil for fuel. Even if we are only partly successful at first, once we get production in volume at reasonable cost, it will prevent the kind of extremely fast run up in fuel prices we saw recently.
And, though we should stop burning coal to the largest extent we can, we depend on it now & to switch to other sources successfully, we need to transition away from burning it at the lowest possible cost. We also need to avoid the economic disruption of simply tossing the existing coal industry on the scrap heap. Switching to non-oil fuels made from coal and biofuels may be a way to do this.
But the Reuters article makes a key point that would make this work even better. Once we have the right algae strains and efficient biofuels production methods from them, we can also use these algae to turn the CO2 from coal fired plants we cannot yet afford to shut down by literally feeding the CO2 from the coal burning to the algae.
Even better, for this to work in part by protecting the algae, or as a relatively cost effective addition to the system that feeds the coal exhaust to the algae, this process can likely be made to remove the acids and particulate pollution not now removed from the exhaust from coal.
Then coal can become a complement to biofuels as a way to replace oil and to protect against the day when we run out of oil that can be used cost effectively.
This will ease the transition from coal both for cost reasons; because it preserves the use of an existing resource; and it will take the pressure off of oil prices.
Lastly, it will help enable the United States to grow economically while ceasing to import oil or having to drill in ever more locations for it.
As a bonus, it provides a way to produce fuels that do NOT use oil that also does NOT compete with leaving existing forests in place or raising crops which corn based ethanol has been doing.
The article shows that there is progress in this area already.:
“Many companies are working on algae and biofuels including U.S. groups Sapphire Energy, OriginOil, BioCentric Energy and PetroAlgae.
Among uses, Japan Airlines had a test flight last month with a jet fuel and biofuels blend including algae oils.
Brazil's MPX Energia plans to trap 10-15 percent of carbon emissions from a coal-fired power plant by feeding them to algae when it starts in 2011.
Plymouth Marine Laboratory says it is taking what we know about algae in the world's oceans and applying it to biotechnology, an approach which differs from much of the commercial research underway, where some claims about the possibilities of algal biofuels are overstated, according to Carole Llewellyn, a marine chemist.” This article says that this lab is in England.
Meanwhile, there are many other companies that are working to produce biofuels from Algae in a cost effective way.
Solazyme in South San Francisco in California is another. There are very likely at least 20 more such companies, some of which will grow to substantial size.
The CEO of the solar photovoltaic company Nanosolar, points out that we can harvest and use much more of the sun’s energy for transport per unit area with solar than we can by growing algae.
But algae may indeed help save us from C02 based global warming by helping replace oil in already installed engines currently in use; and maybe also by removing C02 from exhaust and C02 that is already in the air. (It might pay us to cultivate algae we do NOT burn for fuel as well as algae that we do turn into biofuels we burn.)
So, the title of the article is extremely well chosen.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Keys to solving global warming....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 2-4-2009
NPR had a story in its online news saying that we almost need every developed and developing country to manage to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 80 % over the next 40 years or so, to halt global warming at a level short of global disaster.
And they quote a man who is working on the problem who makes the point, with which I agree, that overdoing taxes or other coercive devices to boost costs for fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide release are potentially undoable politically and economically dangerous as well.
His points are 3: We need to get the reductions anyway but we’ll need a different way to do it; innovation by dozens of new organizations that each do a little bit to solve the problem each working on their part of it at the same time may be needed; & the most critical part is using new technology to reduce the cost of renewable energy to the point it is cheaper than using fossil fuels.
The man they quote is Dan Sarewitz of Arizona State University who runs the Consortium for Science Policy and Outcomes based at Arizona State University. He is now trying to identify what institutions we need to drive that transformation in the coming decades.
His other goal is to make renewable energy as cheap as fossil fuels.
He believes there's little hope that the nations of the world will agree to tackle climate change unless that can be done. And, he says, “There's no time to lose.”
I agree with much of what they quote Dan Sarewitz as saying.
But I think there are some ways to get there that go beyond his views.
A. In an earlier post, I talk about how feed-in tariffs have proven to work in dramatically increasing the amount of renewable energy in a relatively short time. The evidence is dramatic. With a world location and area similar to just the Canadian province of British Columbia, Germany has used feed-in tariffs to install HALF of the worlds solar power. Note that they did this without severe harm to their economy AND at a time when the renewable energy produced electricity cost MORE than the electricity produced in other ways.
The feed-in tariff contracts with the solar or wind power provider to pay enough over the cost of electricity produced in other ways that the solar or wind power provider can build and deliver the renewable energy at a profit and that this rate lasts long enough the solar or wind power provider can build and deliver the renewable energy at a profit over the term of the contract.
But here’s why that works to avoid political fall out and economic disruption.
Let’s say these contracts cost double the price of energy produced by fossil fuels per unit of energy produced.
At the beginning when this only amounted to 1 % of Germany’s electricity, the increase in the net electricity bills to users was only 1%. (.99 + .02 = 1.01)
Then gradually it’s gone up to 16% where I’ve read it is now. Even if the costs did not come down, which I think they actually did do, the net increase in the net electricity bills to users was only 16% (.84 + .32 = 1.16)
So, even if we went to 100 % renewable, the total cost would only double. And the increases would be gradual.
But, when volume sales happen and new technologies come online, costs of virtually everything do gradually come down. So the increases will likely be less than that.
I think that if every nation and utility began using feed-in tariffs for renewable energy production of electricity and we used some of it for transport, an 80 % reduction in carbon dioxide release in 40 years may well be doable.
B. But what about the idea of making fossil fuel use cost more? Clearly that make sense as well because the sooner that cost is MORE than the cost of renewable energy, the more likely we are to get an 80 % reduction in carbon dioxide release in 40 years.
But if we cause fossil fuel costs to double or more in 12 months as happened recently to gasoline prices and other fuels as oil prices shot up, we’ll cause great harm to the economy and cause many individuals and businesses to suffer.
So, while causing fossil fuel use to go up in cost is not only desirable but ESSENTIAL, it’s also critical that the change be more gradual than that.
I think there are two ways to do the job but do it an economically safe pace.
1. Look first to charging the real costs of using fossil fuels to the providers.
a) As we’ve seen recently, coal ash dumped into rivers from coal mining and burning has ruinous effects. If the executives of the companies involved could go to jail for doing this; and/or the complete costs of cleaning up or preventing this damage were charged to the companies; and companies had to avoid this kind of thing as a cost of doing business, they’d have to charge more for their coal.
b) As we’ve seen recently, massive health care costs are created by health care and diseases caused or made worse by air pollution from burning coal and petroleum based fuels with in adequate pollution controls.
The producing companies have NOT been charged the costs of paying these bills or of installing enough thoroughly effective pollution controls to prevent it.
If over the next 15 years we gradually insisted that all the companies that burn coal or provide petroleum based fuels prevent these costs completely, by the end of that 15 years renewable energy may well cost less.
2. The key idea I think is to enact feed-in tariffs and extra financing for renewable energy production and build the new transmission grid first.
That way as the increased cost of fossil fuels begins to take hold, the renewable energy is already coming online at reasonable cost to cover our energy needs.
So, while we do need to make carbon based fuels cost more at least by adding their real and now unpaid costs to them, it will pay us to do it gradually. That is also the way it would make sense to add carbon taxes or delete existing tax breaks for those industries.
Lastly, by increasingly having coal and petroleum used for things other than burning directly such as making coal based but clean burning fuels to complement biofuels and by turning both coal and petroleum into sources of petrochemicals (as J. Paul Getty foresaw many years ago) the industries will have a safe place to land also as their income dries up from directly burning their fossil fuels.
C. We need to make an effort as great as the United States did to win World War II but on a planet wide basis to add all the renewable energy and energy efficiency we have the potential to use, or as close to it as possible and to do it for the next 40 years.
We need cost effective biofuels that can be produced in places that cause no environmental damage or compete with food production.
We need many more all electric and plug-in hybrid cars and trucks.
We need more wind power installations near existing populations and power grids.
We also need to build larger wind power farms in appropriate locations AND build the new transmission needed to get that electricity to the people and businesses who will use it but are not nearby. (This part of T. Boone Pickens’ plan is absolutely correct and should be implemented immediately.)
Both kinds of wind power should be built right away since it is already cost competitive with fossil fuels.
We need more installations of simple and reliable solar hot water or water pre-warming systems by both individuals for their homes and by businesses.
We need more solar photovoltaic installations by homeowners and by business for their buildings AND parking lot spaces.
And we need to build smaller solar photovoltaic power farms near existing populations and power grids.
We also need to build larger solar photovoltaic farms in appropriate locations AND build the new transmission needed to get that electricity to the people and businesses who will use it but are not nearby.
Similarly, we need to build smaller solar thermal farms near existing populations and power grids.
We also need to build larger solar thermal farms in appropriate locations AND build the new transmission needed to get that electricity to the people and businesses who will use it but are not nearby. Given the solar thermal potential of the whole South Western United States; almost all of Mexico; of central Australia; & and of North Africa, this is a truly huge part of the solution we need to also make sure to use. In the long run it may provide at least half the renewable energy we need. And, unlike solar photovoltaic power, solar thermal can provide electricity well after dark as well as after the sun is no longer near maximum brightness.
Ausra, the company that I’ve seen that has the best and most reliable solar thermal technology has temporarily, I read recently, stopped its efforts to build such large solar thermal farms.
It is my hope that they will plan to resume their efforts in this area once we have feed-in tariffs; a more normal banking climate or special renewable energy financing; and we’ve begun building transmission lines to these areas.
I think it’s essential we do that in the United States. Because if we do, the rest of the world will follow.
We also need to invest in LED lights; dramatically increase insulation and heat proofing of existing buildings; and insist on them in new buildings; and do everything else we can to make our use of energy more efficient without cutting our economy. In this category of things, some of them can be done within the first 5 years or even by a year from now.
They usually have a lifetime cost low enough to actually save money. And they often save money so well the payback is less than five years or even ONE year in some cases.
Since EACH of these things is doable, if we simply insist on doing them all, I think we CAN increase our renewable energy and energy efficiency AND replace enough fossil fuels by doing so to cut CO2 emissions 80 % while providing for economic and population GROWTH too.
And, if we show in the United States that it can be done & WE start doing it, we then can both bring the rest of the world along by example and providing the technologies and products (where we don’t import them ourselves.)
Plus, once that is moving well, we can consider adding import fees from countries based on how much carbon dioxide was used in creating their products.
One man said he thinks only such import fees will engage the full effort of China in fighting global warming. Based on my own reading of the Chinese, I think he badly underestimates their ingenuity, efforts already underway, and their ability to capitalize on things they see others doing well.
That said, they produce enough of the world’s CO2 each year now, once we begin actually doing ourselves what we want them to do, he may be right at that time. If he is correct then, I think that’s the time to use his solution.
My own belief is that by then it will not be necessary. But I agree with him that if it is, it would be effective.
Today’s post: Wednesday, 2-4-2009
NPR had a story in its online news saying that we almost need every developed and developing country to manage to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 80 % over the next 40 years or so, to halt global warming at a level short of global disaster.
And they quote a man who is working on the problem who makes the point, with which I agree, that overdoing taxes or other coercive devices to boost costs for fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide release are potentially undoable politically and economically dangerous as well.
His points are 3: We need to get the reductions anyway but we’ll need a different way to do it; innovation by dozens of new organizations that each do a little bit to solve the problem each working on their part of it at the same time may be needed; & the most critical part is using new technology to reduce the cost of renewable energy to the point it is cheaper than using fossil fuels.
The man they quote is Dan Sarewitz of Arizona State University who runs the Consortium for Science Policy and Outcomes based at Arizona State University. He is now trying to identify what institutions we need to drive that transformation in the coming decades.
His other goal is to make renewable energy as cheap as fossil fuels.
He believes there's little hope that the nations of the world will agree to tackle climate change unless that can be done. And, he says, “There's no time to lose.”
I agree with much of what they quote Dan Sarewitz as saying.
But I think there are some ways to get there that go beyond his views.
A. In an earlier post, I talk about how feed-in tariffs have proven to work in dramatically increasing the amount of renewable energy in a relatively short time. The evidence is dramatic. With a world location and area similar to just the Canadian province of British Columbia, Germany has used feed-in tariffs to install HALF of the worlds solar power. Note that they did this without severe harm to their economy AND at a time when the renewable energy produced electricity cost MORE than the electricity produced in other ways.
The feed-in tariff contracts with the solar or wind power provider to pay enough over the cost of electricity produced in other ways that the solar or wind power provider can build and deliver the renewable energy at a profit and that this rate lasts long enough the solar or wind power provider can build and deliver the renewable energy at a profit over the term of the contract.
But here’s why that works to avoid political fall out and economic disruption.
Let’s say these contracts cost double the price of energy produced by fossil fuels per unit of energy produced.
At the beginning when this only amounted to 1 % of Germany’s electricity, the increase in the net electricity bills to users was only 1%. (.99 + .02 = 1.01)
Then gradually it’s gone up to 16% where I’ve read it is now. Even if the costs did not come down, which I think they actually did do, the net increase in the net electricity bills to users was only 16% (.84 + .32 = 1.16)
So, even if we went to 100 % renewable, the total cost would only double. And the increases would be gradual.
But, when volume sales happen and new technologies come online, costs of virtually everything do gradually come down. So the increases will likely be less than that.
I think that if every nation and utility began using feed-in tariffs for renewable energy production of electricity and we used some of it for transport, an 80 % reduction in carbon dioxide release in 40 years may well be doable.
B. But what about the idea of making fossil fuel use cost more? Clearly that make sense as well because the sooner that cost is MORE than the cost of renewable energy, the more likely we are to get an 80 % reduction in carbon dioxide release in 40 years.
But if we cause fossil fuel costs to double or more in 12 months as happened recently to gasoline prices and other fuels as oil prices shot up, we’ll cause great harm to the economy and cause many individuals and businesses to suffer.
So, while causing fossil fuel use to go up in cost is not only desirable but ESSENTIAL, it’s also critical that the change be more gradual than that.
I think there are two ways to do the job but do it an economically safe pace.
1. Look first to charging the real costs of using fossil fuels to the providers.
a) As we’ve seen recently, coal ash dumped into rivers from coal mining and burning has ruinous effects. If the executives of the companies involved could go to jail for doing this; and/or the complete costs of cleaning up or preventing this damage were charged to the companies; and companies had to avoid this kind of thing as a cost of doing business, they’d have to charge more for their coal.
b) As we’ve seen recently, massive health care costs are created by health care and diseases caused or made worse by air pollution from burning coal and petroleum based fuels with in adequate pollution controls.
The producing companies have NOT been charged the costs of paying these bills or of installing enough thoroughly effective pollution controls to prevent it.
If over the next 15 years we gradually insisted that all the companies that burn coal or provide petroleum based fuels prevent these costs completely, by the end of that 15 years renewable energy may well cost less.
2. The key idea I think is to enact feed-in tariffs and extra financing for renewable energy production and build the new transmission grid first.
That way as the increased cost of fossil fuels begins to take hold, the renewable energy is already coming online at reasonable cost to cover our energy needs.
So, while we do need to make carbon based fuels cost more at least by adding their real and now unpaid costs to them, it will pay us to do it gradually. That is also the way it would make sense to add carbon taxes or delete existing tax breaks for those industries.
Lastly, by increasingly having coal and petroleum used for things other than burning directly such as making coal based but clean burning fuels to complement biofuels and by turning both coal and petroleum into sources of petrochemicals (as J. Paul Getty foresaw many years ago) the industries will have a safe place to land also as their income dries up from directly burning their fossil fuels.
C. We need to make an effort as great as the United States did to win World War II but on a planet wide basis to add all the renewable energy and energy efficiency we have the potential to use, or as close to it as possible and to do it for the next 40 years.
We need cost effective biofuels that can be produced in places that cause no environmental damage or compete with food production.
We need many more all electric and plug-in hybrid cars and trucks.
We need more wind power installations near existing populations and power grids.
We also need to build larger wind power farms in appropriate locations AND build the new transmission needed to get that electricity to the people and businesses who will use it but are not nearby. (This part of T. Boone Pickens’ plan is absolutely correct and should be implemented immediately.)
Both kinds of wind power should be built right away since it is already cost competitive with fossil fuels.
We need more installations of simple and reliable solar hot water or water pre-warming systems by both individuals for their homes and by businesses.
We need more solar photovoltaic installations by homeowners and by business for their buildings AND parking lot spaces.
And we need to build smaller solar photovoltaic power farms near existing populations and power grids.
We also need to build larger solar photovoltaic farms in appropriate locations AND build the new transmission needed to get that electricity to the people and businesses who will use it but are not nearby.
Similarly, we need to build smaller solar thermal farms near existing populations and power grids.
We also need to build larger solar thermal farms in appropriate locations AND build the new transmission needed to get that electricity to the people and businesses who will use it but are not nearby. Given the solar thermal potential of the whole South Western United States; almost all of Mexico; of central Australia; & and of North Africa, this is a truly huge part of the solution we need to also make sure to use. In the long run it may provide at least half the renewable energy we need. And, unlike solar photovoltaic power, solar thermal can provide electricity well after dark as well as after the sun is no longer near maximum brightness.
Ausra, the company that I’ve seen that has the best and most reliable solar thermal technology has temporarily, I read recently, stopped its efforts to build such large solar thermal farms.
It is my hope that they will plan to resume their efforts in this area once we have feed-in tariffs; a more normal banking climate or special renewable energy financing; and we’ve begun building transmission lines to these areas.
I think it’s essential we do that in the United States. Because if we do, the rest of the world will follow.
We also need to invest in LED lights; dramatically increase insulation and heat proofing of existing buildings; and insist on them in new buildings; and do everything else we can to make our use of energy more efficient without cutting our economy. In this category of things, some of them can be done within the first 5 years or even by a year from now.
They usually have a lifetime cost low enough to actually save money. And they often save money so well the payback is less than five years or even ONE year in some cases.
Since EACH of these things is doable, if we simply insist on doing them all, I think we CAN increase our renewable energy and energy efficiency AND replace enough fossil fuels by doing so to cut CO2 emissions 80 % while providing for economic and population GROWTH too.
And, if we show in the United States that it can be done & WE start doing it, we then can both bring the rest of the world along by example and providing the technologies and products (where we don’t import them ourselves.)
Plus, once that is moving well, we can consider adding import fees from countries based on how much carbon dioxide was used in creating their products.
One man said he thinks only such import fees will engage the full effort of China in fighting global warming. Based on my own reading of the Chinese, I think he badly underestimates their ingenuity, efforts already underway, and their ability to capitalize on things they see others doing well.
That said, they produce enough of the world’s CO2 each year now, once we begin actually doing ourselves what we want them to do, he may be right at that time. If he is correct then, I think that’s the time to use his solution.
My own belief is that by then it will not be necessary. But I agree with him that if it is, it would be effective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)