How businesses can profit from renewable energy....
Today's post: Wednesday, 7-29-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, because of the cost of renewable energy gradually dropping from new technologies and economies of scale and the cost for fossil fuels continuing eventually to go up for several reasons, those companies that get most of their energy from renewable sources will be more profitable and have a more stable and reliable energy supply than those that don’t.
Even better, there are a set of things that companies can do to begin to install and profit from renewable energy now.
Right now renewable energy and electricity still costs more than it does when you get it from fossil fuels.
But, because most companies have so many ways to save energy or become more energy efficient or both and because these actions tend to produce more savings each year after they are put into practice than they cost initially, companies can do those things AND add more renewable energy and still wind up with annual savings NOW.
Adobe in San Jose decided to simply do everything in its HQ building that current technology allowed to save energy. They did have to invest $1,000,000; & some of the energy saving methods were a bit less pleasant than what they had before. But the ANNUAL savings on their energy bill were also $1,000,000!
That’s a 100% per year return on their investment.
So, if a company does similar things, it can then also afford to add solar cells now out of those savings without having to increase their energy costs.
Then, when fossil fuels go up in price while their solar installation is already paid for and the sun is powering it, compared to their competitors who have not done these things who will have soaring energy bills, they will be far ahead.
Identify what your energy uses are now. Then look for ways to build in systems and new procedures that prevent energy from being used that is simply wasted now; find more energy efficient systems for all the useful ways that you use energy that you can and install them.
Watch for new technologies and new products to do this.
For example, most businesses tend to use fluorescent lights now instead of incandescent lights which already cuts energy use about 4 to one. But when they become available -- which is just barely beginning to happen, LED lights both use about a third of the electricity as fluorescent lights and have to be replaced far less often which also saves money.
A second major way to save money in facilities where air conditioning is used is to do more things to prevent the heat of the summer from getting into the building. It’s pretty straight forward. If only half as much heat gets in as used to get in, you will only need half as much air conditioning. In some cases painting the roof or south side of the building white or putting solar cells there which have a bit of insulation in their backing will do this. In some cases there will be a space under the roof as there is with houses with peaked roofs which can be vented instead of becoming a solar heater to keep heat out of the building. And well designed and placed window awnings can help keep summer heat out of the building as well.
Also, if you also get some of your cooling done early in the morning, a well insulated building will then still be cool in the afternoon. And that cooling will both be more efficient with the cooler outside temperatures of the early morning AND the electricity you use from the grid will cost less by using it at this nonpeak time.
Then if you also get your electricity from solar cells on the roof of your facility AND solar cells on a canopy over the company parking lot if it’s out in the open instead of under the building, all or much of the electricity you use during the times of peak demand in the afternoon when grid electricity costs the most will come from your own facility instead.
(That kind of canopy over the parking lot that’s covered with solar panels also has two other benefits to your employees. During rainy weather they and their important papers and electronic equipment will get rained on a lot less while getting into and our of their cars. And, in hot and sunny weather they will be more comfortable and have lower fuel bill for their cars which will then need less use of their air conditioners.)
In many businesses, they can get more solar panels on a canopy or set of canopies over their parking lot than they can on the roof of their facility. So, by doing both, they can provide a much larger percentage of their electricity themselves from their solar cells than they would have by just putting them on the roof.
For shopping centers and many larger businesses, such canopies can make a really BIG difference.
Lastly, there are now many programs at local colleges and universities that are training students to help businesses find and implement these kinds of changes including some that use MBA students. And, increasingly, there are businesses now that do this. Some simply charge a fee. Others will do it free or waive the fee if you get a bid for their particular energy saving service or buy it.
The bottom line is that most businesses can do more now than they realize or are doing.
And those that begin to do it now, will gain an edge as fossil fuels go up in price and/or become more unreliable in their availability.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Why legislate for clean energy?....
Today's post: Wednesday, 7-22-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
One way to do this is to pass nationwide legislation that helps cause these changes to happen. The congress of the United States is considering such legislation now.
“….the Center for American Progress has offered twelve reasons to support clean energy legislation. See http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2009/07/dozen_reasons.html/index.html .
The brief article provides data with supporting documentation, as well as a diverse list of ACES supporters.”
Here are the twelve reasons from the article. I’ll add my comments after the article.
“A Dozen Reasons for Clean Energy
By Daniel J. Weiss, Erica Goad | July 20, 2009
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) recently announced that she plans to introduce her version of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454, immediately following August recess. “The bill will be introduced when we get back,” Sen. Boxer told reporters. “We're going to use the extra time we have to make it the best it can be.”
And what will that bill look like when she introduces her version of the bill? Sen. Boxer was coy, telling E&E News only saying that “I think the majority of the allocations will be spelled out,” meaning that the bill would have a distribution plan for the pollution allowances for ratepayer rebates, trade sensitive industries, and other recipients.
The House of Representatives in late June passed its clean-energy jobs and global warming bill. It would require utilities to generate electricity from the wind, sun and other renewable sources, reduce energy demand via efficiency, and require all major emitters of greenhouse gases to buy an allowance for every ton of pollution they emit. It is essential that the Senate follows the lead of the House by swiftly enacting comprehensive clean energy legislation to create jobs, cut our nation’s dependence on foreign oil, and reduce pollution to protect our planet.
To help focus the Senate on the importance of Sen. Boxer’s forthcoming legislation, here are 12 key reasons why the Senate should act on the House passed American Clean Energy and Security Act.
1. It would create 1.7 million new jobs
The legislation would create 1.7 million new jobs by unlocking billions of dollars in industry and public investment because of measures included in the House legislation and the economic stimulus legislation passed earlier this year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. According to a recent University of Massachusetts report sponsored by CAP, these job gains would be enough to reduce the unemployment rate in today’s economy by about one full percentage point. John Doerr, one of the nation’s leading venture capitalists, told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee: “These policies are straightforward; we've seen them work in states and in other countries. In Denmark, policies, including prices on carbon and building and appliance efficiency standards, have made a huge difference since 1970. It started their wind industry. Today, one-third of all terrestrial wind turbines in the world come from Denmark. And Denmark’s energy technology exports were more than $10 billion. That’s from a country with a smaller population than Missouri, Tennessee or Michigan. It has resulted in jobs; last year, the unemployment rate in Denmark last year was only 2 percent.”
2. It would reduce oil use
According to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy the House bill would save at least 240 million barrels annually of oil. Since our dependence on foreign oil threatens our national security, reducing oil use would not only be better for the environment but for the safety of the American people.
3. It would reduce electric bills
The Environmental Protection Agency determined recently that the American Clean Energy and Security Act would lead to a 7 percent decline in electric bills due to energy efficiency measures by 2020. The report noted that “increased energy efficiency and reduced energy demand simultaneously reduces primary energy needs by 7 percent in 2020, 10 percent in 2030, and 12 percent in 2050.” By 2020, the efficiency standards in the bill would save consumers $29 billion. The average family would save $84 per year in lower electricity bills. This means that consumers would be spending comparatively less on their utility bills simply because the houses they live in would be less wasteful.
4. It provides special protection for low-income households
The Congressional Budget Office projects that households with an average income of $18,000–in the lowest income quintile–would see an average net benefit of $40 annually by 2020. The clean-energy legislation would also sell some pollution allowances and use the money to provide additional assistance to low income households to help pay for their energy bills if necessary.
5. It would cost the average household a postage stamp per day
The cost of a nationwide carbon cap-and-trade program would ultimately amount to an average of $175 per household annually, or about the cost of a postage stamp per day. Along with this estimate, the CBO emphasized that the figure “includes the cost of restructuring the production and use of energy and of payments made to foreign entities under the program, but it does not include the economic benefits and other benefits of the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and the associated slowing of climate change.”
6. It would spur investments in clean energy
A number of large energy companies including Exelon Corp., Symantec Corp., PSEG Inc., and others support the American Clean Energy and Security Act “because certainty and clear rules of the road enable us to plan, build and innovate our businesses. It would drive investment into cost-saving, energy-saving technologies, and would create the next wave of jobs in the new energy economy."
Inducements to invest include a nationwide renewable energy standard that requires energy companies to generate 15 percent of their electricity from renewable resources by 2020, and requires utilities to reduce electricity demand by 5 percent via efficiency measures. The legislation also provides a total of $190 billion through 2025 for investments in clean energy, efficiency programs and deployment of top-notch energy technologies.
7. It would create new income streams for farmers
There is great potential to generate clean energy in rural areas. The Department of Energy estimates that if 5 percent of the nation’s energy comes from wind power by 2020, rural America could see $60 billion in capital investment. Farmers and rural landowners would derive $1.2 billion in new income, and see 80,000 new jobs created over the next two decades. Leasing land for a single utility-scale wind turbine could provide a farmer with about $3,000 a year in income.
According to Ohio State University’s Carbon Management and Sequestration Center, agricultural lands have the potential to store the equivalent of one-third of the carbon pollution produced in the United States. The Consortium for Agricultural Soils Mitigation of Greenhouse Gases of Colorado State notes that “increasing soil carbon through soil carbon sequestration improves agricultural soil quality, fertility, and productivity…while reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.”
The Energy Information Administration has estimated the value of agricultural offsets to be close to $24 billion annually. Farmers have the ability to reap benefits from leasing their land and from agricultural carbon offsets. For example, a new 107-megawatt wind farm in Minnesota yielded $500,000 per year in lease payments to farmers.
8. It would protect farmers from energy-related price increases
Agriculture is exempt from the greenhouse gas pollution reduction requirements in H.R. 2454. It also includes a provision to aid farmers should they face a reduction in purchasing power due to higher energy costs (see Title IV, Section 432 of the House bill). Under the bill, rural residents so affected would become eligible for monthly cash refunds.
9. It would protect energy intensive, trade-sensitive industries
The American Clean Energy and Security Act allocates 15 percent of its pollution allowances to industries that use significant amounts of energy and face international competition. This provision would protect them from competition from lower cost imports from countries that do not have greenhouse gas pollution reduction programs. This includes the cement, paper, chemical, aluminum, and steel industries. Estimated total value of the near-term allocation pool is around $100 billion by 2020, with the allowances for trade-sensitive industries consisting of $13 billion by 2020.
10. It would cut greenhouse gas pollution
The 17 percent reduction in carbon pollution required by 2020 would cut 2.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2020 compared to inaction. Removing that much carbon is comparable to taking 500 million cars off the road, which is twice the number of U.S. cars today, and half the cars expected in the world in 2020.
The bill would shrink deforestation as well, which is essential because tropical forests help to absorb greenhouse gas pollution and remove atmospheric carbon. A small percentage of emissions allowances are set aside for projects in other countries that would reduce deforestation. The EPA estimates that the allowances to reduce deforestation would reduce pollution by one billion tons annually by 2015—equivalent to taking over 200 million cars off the road.
11. It would create a safety net for displaced workers
In the unfortunate event that some workers lose their jobs in high polluting industries, the bill has a $150 million workforce retraining program (Title IV, Subtitle B in the House bill). A worker can also petition the Secretary of Labor for payment of 70 percent of lost wages for three years, as well as job training, and health care premium payments.
This program is similar to the one in the Clean Air Act of 1990. This program authorized $250 million annually to the Job Training Partnership Act to retrain coal miners who lost their jobs due to demand reductions for high sulfur coal, which was responsible for acid rain pollution. Actual job losses were 75 percent lower than predicted, with a grand total of 2,363 people applying for aid so program costs were much lower. This would likely occur under the greenhouse gas pollution reduction program, but it is important to provide this safety for those who may be affected.
12. The American Clean Energy and Security Act is widely supported
Nuclear power companies, a civil rights organization, and a utility trade association have little in common. Yet the Nuclear Energy Institute, the NAACP, and the Edison Electric Institute all support prompt comprehensive action to create clean energy, reduce oil use, and cut carbon pollution."
X* X* X* X* X* X* X*
1. 1.7 million jobs is just the tip of the iceberg. If we really begin to both produce renewable energy in large amounts and tax fossil fuel use or limit it or charge it with its true costs, renewable energy will soon be less expensive than fossil fuel energy in most uses. Once that happens, 8.5 million jobs or more is more likely within 15 years.
2. If we really begin to both produce renewable energy in large amounts and tax fossil fuel use or limit it or charge it with its true costs, we will not only use less fossil fuels than we would have used, we’ll use less than we do now.
Then once renewable energy becomes less expensive than fossil fuel energy in most uses, we will use enough less to import less or even no oil at all and stop burning coal in a way that releases CO2 and other health harmful pollution.
3. 4. & 5.
In the short run, increases to utility bills may be more than this estimate. But programs for low income taxpayers will help. It will cost money to build new powerlines and smart grid components and both small scale and massive renewable energy installations.
But it won’t be excessive either.
But the much better news is that once a lot of this new infrastructure is built, utility bills will then be as much as half or a third of what they otherwise would have cost had we not switched to renewable energy. In addition, we will be spending much less fighting the consequences of global warming and have an economy strong enough to support paying the costs we do have.
The alternative, I think, is to face economic collapse that would ensue otherwise when we would have soaring energy costs, very high expenses to fight global warming, and a weak economy all at the same time.
Personally, I don’t think that scenario is a prudent choice. Slowing fossil fuel use a bit initially and building massive amounts of renewable energy will prevent that scenario.
Legislation that accelerates that set of actions is critically important because of this.
6. & 7. are true. Building this new infrastructure on a large scale will attract investments and give both entrepreneurs and many farmers a real shot at making more money than they do now. One building renewable energy pays well and new renewable energy costs less than fossil fuel based energy, that will really take off. At that point the needed changes will become self sustaining and speed up.
8. 9. & 11. show the current thinking is to minimize the negative impact of making these changes. It remains to be seen how effective this will be. But if good faith efforts are made from the outset, it will help.
10. Yes it will slow global warming and reduce the costs of it below what it otherwise would have been. That extra time may enable us to keep our ability to grow food and keep our coastal cities where we might have not been able to do so otherwise.
Taking a decent shot we’ll be able to do that is far better than giving up and for sure losing those two battles.
12. Anyone who sees the grave consequences of failing to do this supports it. And, of course people and companies who will benefit support it.
The interesting thing is that some large companies with unusually good management in place are beginning to support it.
Today's post: Wednesday, 7-22-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
One way to do this is to pass nationwide legislation that helps cause these changes to happen. The congress of the United States is considering such legislation now.
“….the Center for American Progress has offered twelve reasons to support clean energy legislation. See http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2009/07/dozen_reasons.html/index.html .
The brief article provides data with supporting documentation, as well as a diverse list of ACES supporters.”
Here are the twelve reasons from the article. I’ll add my comments after the article.
“A Dozen Reasons for Clean Energy
By Daniel J. Weiss, Erica Goad | July 20, 2009
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) recently announced that she plans to introduce her version of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454, immediately following August recess. “The bill will be introduced when we get back,” Sen. Boxer told reporters. “We're going to use the extra time we have to make it the best it can be.”
And what will that bill look like when she introduces her version of the bill? Sen. Boxer was coy, telling E&E News only saying that “I think the majority of the allocations will be spelled out,” meaning that the bill would have a distribution plan for the pollution allowances for ratepayer rebates, trade sensitive industries, and other recipients.
The House of Representatives in late June passed its clean-energy jobs and global warming bill. It would require utilities to generate electricity from the wind, sun and other renewable sources, reduce energy demand via efficiency, and require all major emitters of greenhouse gases to buy an allowance for every ton of pollution they emit. It is essential that the Senate follows the lead of the House by swiftly enacting comprehensive clean energy legislation to create jobs, cut our nation’s dependence on foreign oil, and reduce pollution to protect our planet.
To help focus the Senate on the importance of Sen. Boxer’s forthcoming legislation, here are 12 key reasons why the Senate should act on the House passed American Clean Energy and Security Act.
1. It would create 1.7 million new jobs
The legislation would create 1.7 million new jobs by unlocking billions of dollars in industry and public investment because of measures included in the House legislation and the economic stimulus legislation passed earlier this year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. According to a recent University of Massachusetts report sponsored by CAP, these job gains would be enough to reduce the unemployment rate in today’s economy by about one full percentage point. John Doerr, one of the nation’s leading venture capitalists, told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee: “These policies are straightforward; we've seen them work in states and in other countries. In Denmark, policies, including prices on carbon and building and appliance efficiency standards, have made a huge difference since 1970. It started their wind industry. Today, one-third of all terrestrial wind turbines in the world come from Denmark. And Denmark’s energy technology exports were more than $10 billion. That’s from a country with a smaller population than Missouri, Tennessee or Michigan. It has resulted in jobs; last year, the unemployment rate in Denmark last year was only 2 percent.”
2. It would reduce oil use
According to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy the House bill would save at least 240 million barrels annually of oil. Since our dependence on foreign oil threatens our national security, reducing oil use would not only be better for the environment but for the safety of the American people.
3. It would reduce electric bills
The Environmental Protection Agency determined recently that the American Clean Energy and Security Act would lead to a 7 percent decline in electric bills due to energy efficiency measures by 2020. The report noted that “increased energy efficiency and reduced energy demand simultaneously reduces primary energy needs by 7 percent in 2020, 10 percent in 2030, and 12 percent in 2050.” By 2020, the efficiency standards in the bill would save consumers $29 billion. The average family would save $84 per year in lower electricity bills. This means that consumers would be spending comparatively less on their utility bills simply because the houses they live in would be less wasteful.
4. It provides special protection for low-income households
The Congressional Budget Office projects that households with an average income of $18,000–in the lowest income quintile–would see an average net benefit of $40 annually by 2020. The clean-energy legislation would also sell some pollution allowances and use the money to provide additional assistance to low income households to help pay for their energy bills if necessary.
5. It would cost the average household a postage stamp per day
The cost of a nationwide carbon cap-and-trade program would ultimately amount to an average of $175 per household annually, or about the cost of a postage stamp per day. Along with this estimate, the CBO emphasized that the figure “includes the cost of restructuring the production and use of energy and of payments made to foreign entities under the program, but it does not include the economic benefits and other benefits of the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and the associated slowing of climate change.”
6. It would spur investments in clean energy
A number of large energy companies including Exelon Corp., Symantec Corp., PSEG Inc., and others support the American Clean Energy and Security Act “because certainty and clear rules of the road enable us to plan, build and innovate our businesses. It would drive investment into cost-saving, energy-saving technologies, and would create the next wave of jobs in the new energy economy."
Inducements to invest include a nationwide renewable energy standard that requires energy companies to generate 15 percent of their electricity from renewable resources by 2020, and requires utilities to reduce electricity demand by 5 percent via efficiency measures. The legislation also provides a total of $190 billion through 2025 for investments in clean energy, efficiency programs and deployment of top-notch energy technologies.
7. It would create new income streams for farmers
There is great potential to generate clean energy in rural areas. The Department of Energy estimates that if 5 percent of the nation’s energy comes from wind power by 2020, rural America could see $60 billion in capital investment. Farmers and rural landowners would derive $1.2 billion in new income, and see 80,000 new jobs created over the next two decades. Leasing land for a single utility-scale wind turbine could provide a farmer with about $3,000 a year in income.
According to Ohio State University’s Carbon Management and Sequestration Center, agricultural lands have the potential to store the equivalent of one-third of the carbon pollution produced in the United States. The Consortium for Agricultural Soils Mitigation of Greenhouse Gases of Colorado State notes that “increasing soil carbon through soil carbon sequestration improves agricultural soil quality, fertility, and productivity…while reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.”
The Energy Information Administration has estimated the value of agricultural offsets to be close to $24 billion annually. Farmers have the ability to reap benefits from leasing their land and from agricultural carbon offsets. For example, a new 107-megawatt wind farm in Minnesota yielded $500,000 per year in lease payments to farmers.
8. It would protect farmers from energy-related price increases
Agriculture is exempt from the greenhouse gas pollution reduction requirements in H.R. 2454. It also includes a provision to aid farmers should they face a reduction in purchasing power due to higher energy costs (see Title IV, Section 432 of the House bill). Under the bill, rural residents so affected would become eligible for monthly cash refunds.
9. It would protect energy intensive, trade-sensitive industries
The American Clean Energy and Security Act allocates 15 percent of its pollution allowances to industries that use significant amounts of energy and face international competition. This provision would protect them from competition from lower cost imports from countries that do not have greenhouse gas pollution reduction programs. This includes the cement, paper, chemical, aluminum, and steel industries. Estimated total value of the near-term allocation pool is around $100 billion by 2020, with the allowances for trade-sensitive industries consisting of $13 billion by 2020.
10. It would cut greenhouse gas pollution
The 17 percent reduction in carbon pollution required by 2020 would cut 2.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2020 compared to inaction. Removing that much carbon is comparable to taking 500 million cars off the road, which is twice the number of U.S. cars today, and half the cars expected in the world in 2020.
The bill would shrink deforestation as well, which is essential because tropical forests help to absorb greenhouse gas pollution and remove atmospheric carbon. A small percentage of emissions allowances are set aside for projects in other countries that would reduce deforestation. The EPA estimates that the allowances to reduce deforestation would reduce pollution by one billion tons annually by 2015—equivalent to taking over 200 million cars off the road.
11. It would create a safety net for displaced workers
In the unfortunate event that some workers lose their jobs in high polluting industries, the bill has a $150 million workforce retraining program (Title IV, Subtitle B in the House bill). A worker can also petition the Secretary of Labor for payment of 70 percent of lost wages for three years, as well as job training, and health care premium payments.
This program is similar to the one in the Clean Air Act of 1990. This program authorized $250 million annually to the Job Training Partnership Act to retrain coal miners who lost their jobs due to demand reductions for high sulfur coal, which was responsible for acid rain pollution. Actual job losses were 75 percent lower than predicted, with a grand total of 2,363 people applying for aid so program costs were much lower. This would likely occur under the greenhouse gas pollution reduction program, but it is important to provide this safety for those who may be affected.
12. The American Clean Energy and Security Act is widely supported
Nuclear power companies, a civil rights organization, and a utility trade association have little in common. Yet the Nuclear Energy Institute, the NAACP, and the Edison Electric Institute all support prompt comprehensive action to create clean energy, reduce oil use, and cut carbon pollution."
X* X* X* X* X* X* X*
1. 1.7 million jobs is just the tip of the iceberg. If we really begin to both produce renewable energy in large amounts and tax fossil fuel use or limit it or charge it with its true costs, renewable energy will soon be less expensive than fossil fuel energy in most uses. Once that happens, 8.5 million jobs or more is more likely within 15 years.
2. If we really begin to both produce renewable energy in large amounts and tax fossil fuel use or limit it or charge it with its true costs, we will not only use less fossil fuels than we would have used, we’ll use less than we do now.
Then once renewable energy becomes less expensive than fossil fuel energy in most uses, we will use enough less to import less or even no oil at all and stop burning coal in a way that releases CO2 and other health harmful pollution.
3. 4. & 5.
In the short run, increases to utility bills may be more than this estimate. But programs for low income taxpayers will help. It will cost money to build new powerlines and smart grid components and both small scale and massive renewable energy installations.
But it won’t be excessive either.
But the much better news is that once a lot of this new infrastructure is built, utility bills will then be as much as half or a third of what they otherwise would have cost had we not switched to renewable energy. In addition, we will be spending much less fighting the consequences of global warming and have an economy strong enough to support paying the costs we do have.
The alternative, I think, is to face economic collapse that would ensue otherwise when we would have soaring energy costs, very high expenses to fight global warming, and a weak economy all at the same time.
Personally, I don’t think that scenario is a prudent choice. Slowing fossil fuel use a bit initially and building massive amounts of renewable energy will prevent that scenario.
Legislation that accelerates that set of actions is critically important because of this.
6. & 7. are true. Building this new infrastructure on a large scale will attract investments and give both entrepreneurs and many farmers a real shot at making more money than they do now. One building renewable energy pays well and new renewable energy costs less than fossil fuel based energy, that will really take off. At that point the needed changes will become self sustaining and speed up.
8. 9. & 11. show the current thinking is to minimize the negative impact of making these changes. It remains to be seen how effective this will be. But if good faith efforts are made from the outset, it will help.
10. Yes it will slow global warming and reduce the costs of it below what it otherwise would have been. That extra time may enable us to keep our ability to grow food and keep our coastal cities where we might have not been able to do so otherwise.
Taking a decent shot we’ll be able to do that is far better than giving up and for sure losing those two battles.
12. Anyone who sees the grave consequences of failing to do this supports it. And, of course people and companies who will benefit support it.
The interesting thing is that some large companies with unusually good management in place are beginning to support it.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Big companies getting into renewable energy....
Today's post: Wednesday, 7-15-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
Two ways to achieve this are:
1. … to use very large solar thermal plants in very sunny desert locations to generate electricity. Once set up, they generate close to zero carbon emissions while generating very large amounts of electricity. And, since they can store the heat efficiently for several hours, they can deliver some of their electricity at night!
2. … to bring large amounts of biofuels online to replace fossil fuels and do so in ways that do NOT conflict with food production or cause forests to be cut down to “grow” the biofuels. While such biofuels do release CO2 they also remove most of the CO2 first so they are close to carbon neutral. And, they can be blended with existing liquid fossil fuels &/or to replace such fuels as a way to make much of our current transportation economy more carbon neutral and lower CO2 levels.
Just this week I learned that some of the world’s largest companies are beginning to bet serious money on these two efforts exactly.
Of the two, the first may have the most potential for reducing CO2, particularly as we get more plug-in hybrids and all electric vehicles. But the need is so great and the transport part of our economy using liquid fuels is so huge, the second one is clearly much needed also.
1. I had heard of the idea of installing solar thermal plants across the deserts of Northern Africa and using undersea cables to deliver the electricity generated to Europe.
The recent news is that the two huge engineering firms, ABB and Siemens, Deutsche Bank, & 9 other companies have formed a consortium to do just that with a target of providing 15% of the electricity used in Europe by no later than 2050. And, their plans include seeing to it that the host countries also get large amounts of this electricity for their own use allowing them to get economic growth without fossil fuel use!
I’d prefer to have seen the announcement say 30% by 2035 since that might be doable. But the fact that such huge and well managed companies are doing the deal suggests strongly it will happen. That’s extremely good news indeed.
I particularly like that this project has the potential to benefit the economies of Morocco, Jordan, and Egypt which do not have huge oil deposits. It also will provide Saudi Arabia a lifeline when they run out of commercially extractable oil and improve its economy before then. And, it will increase the co-operation and dialogue between these countries and Europe.
(So, far that has not happened in the United States for sending solar thermal from our desert Southwest and Southern Rocky Mountain states to our population centers. Nor has such an idea been proposed to send solar thermal electricity from Mexico to the United States while giving Mexico carbon free electricity, economic growth and jobs. And, since that sector of the United States can almost provide 100% of current nationwide demand while the potential in Mexico is at least three times larger, that these two projects don’t yet have such development consortiums in place is extremely unfortunate.
Hopefully the North Africa – Europe project will cause some copycat efforts here.)
2. It was just announced yesterday that Exxon Mobil will invest $600 million in a partnership with Synthetic Genomics Inc, a biotech company from La Jolla, California to develop biofuel transportation fuels from algae.
If this preliminary work appears viable as a way to mass produce biofuels from algae Exxon Mobil will likely make additional, multibillion-dollar investments to put this into mass production.
Algae can be grown using land and water unsuitable for crop and food production. And the biofuels can be mixed with or replace the fossil fuels Exxon already provides. It also means Exxon will be able to use its current refineries, existing pipelines, and tanker trucks to get these biofuels to consumers.
$300 million will go to Exxon's internal costs and $300 million or more to Synthetic Genomics, if research & development milestones are met successfully.
The other good news is that there are other entries into competing biofuels from startups such as Solazyme in South San Francisco, California that is also working with algae as a feedstock.
Other large companies are also in the race.
Royal Dutch Shell is working with Iogen Corp in Canada to produce ethanol from wheat straw and with Choren Industries of Germany to develop a biofuel from wood residue. (Their other decision to stop backing solar and wind energy looks as if it may be a serious mistake.)
And, BP expects to work with Verenium Corp to build a $300 million cellulosic ethanol plant in Highlands County, Florida.
Neither these massive solar thermal installations nor cost effective biofuels that do not compete with food or forests on a very large scale will work at all soon.
But since large companies are backing them -- and the two projects have such large scale promise, they each are very good news and may well happen.
Today's post: Wednesday, 7-15-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
Two ways to achieve this are:
1. … to use very large solar thermal plants in very sunny desert locations to generate electricity. Once set up, they generate close to zero carbon emissions while generating very large amounts of electricity. And, since they can store the heat efficiently for several hours, they can deliver some of their electricity at night!
2. … to bring large amounts of biofuels online to replace fossil fuels and do so in ways that do NOT conflict with food production or cause forests to be cut down to “grow” the biofuels. While such biofuels do release CO2 they also remove most of the CO2 first so they are close to carbon neutral. And, they can be blended with existing liquid fossil fuels &/or to replace such fuels as a way to make much of our current transportation economy more carbon neutral and lower CO2 levels.
Just this week I learned that some of the world’s largest companies are beginning to bet serious money on these two efforts exactly.
Of the two, the first may have the most potential for reducing CO2, particularly as we get more plug-in hybrids and all electric vehicles. But the need is so great and the transport part of our economy using liquid fuels is so huge, the second one is clearly much needed also.
1. I had heard of the idea of installing solar thermal plants across the deserts of Northern Africa and using undersea cables to deliver the electricity generated to Europe.
The recent news is that the two huge engineering firms, ABB and Siemens, Deutsche Bank, & 9 other companies have formed a consortium to do just that with a target of providing 15% of the electricity used in Europe by no later than 2050. And, their plans include seeing to it that the host countries also get large amounts of this electricity for their own use allowing them to get economic growth without fossil fuel use!
I’d prefer to have seen the announcement say 30% by 2035 since that might be doable. But the fact that such huge and well managed companies are doing the deal suggests strongly it will happen. That’s extremely good news indeed.
I particularly like that this project has the potential to benefit the economies of Morocco, Jordan, and Egypt which do not have huge oil deposits. It also will provide Saudi Arabia a lifeline when they run out of commercially extractable oil and improve its economy before then. And, it will increase the co-operation and dialogue between these countries and Europe.
(So, far that has not happened in the United States for sending solar thermal from our desert Southwest and Southern Rocky Mountain states to our population centers. Nor has such an idea been proposed to send solar thermal electricity from Mexico to the United States while giving Mexico carbon free electricity, economic growth and jobs. And, since that sector of the United States can almost provide 100% of current nationwide demand while the potential in Mexico is at least three times larger, that these two projects don’t yet have such development consortiums in place is extremely unfortunate.
Hopefully the North Africa – Europe project will cause some copycat efforts here.)
2. It was just announced yesterday that Exxon Mobil will invest $600 million in a partnership with Synthetic Genomics Inc, a biotech company from La Jolla, California to develop biofuel transportation fuels from algae.
If this preliminary work appears viable as a way to mass produce biofuels from algae Exxon Mobil will likely make additional, multibillion-dollar investments to put this into mass production.
Algae can be grown using land and water unsuitable for crop and food production. And the biofuels can be mixed with or replace the fossil fuels Exxon already provides. It also means Exxon will be able to use its current refineries, existing pipelines, and tanker trucks to get these biofuels to consumers.
$300 million will go to Exxon's internal costs and $300 million or more to Synthetic Genomics, if research & development milestones are met successfully.
The other good news is that there are other entries into competing biofuels from startups such as Solazyme in South San Francisco, California that is also working with algae as a feedstock.
Other large companies are also in the race.
Royal Dutch Shell is working with Iogen Corp in Canada to produce ethanol from wheat straw and with Choren Industries of Germany to develop a biofuel from wood residue. (Their other decision to stop backing solar and wind energy looks as if it may be a serious mistake.)
And, BP expects to work with Verenium Corp to build a $300 million cellulosic ethanol plant in Highlands County, Florida.
Neither these massive solar thermal installations nor cost effective biofuels that do not compete with food or forests on a very large scale will work at all soon.
But since large companies are backing them -- and the two projects have such large scale promise, they each are very good news and may well happen.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
New bill in California has great promise....
Today's post: Wednesday, 7-8-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
As I’ve posted many times and many other people have said, correctly I think, we need a massive increase in renewable energy, particularly electricity generated by renewable energy to come anywhere near to the increases we need so badly.
So reasonable incentives for every kind of solar or wind generated electricity are, I think, absolutely imperative.
The mechanism that has been proven to work in Germany to do this superbly well is called the Feed In Tariff which is often abbreviated, FIT. (Because of the massive amounts of renewable energy their FIT program unleashed, Germany now generates the least cCO2 release per capita in Europe among the larger countries of Europe.)
The basic Feed In Tariff concept is relatively simple. The government of the city or state or country where a utility is located requires the utilities in its area to offer long term contracts, for 20 years as an example, to buy power from renewable energy producers at a rate that will cover the cost of creating the renewable energy project and its equipment and make it at least modestly profitable to the renewable provider to do.
The utility then passes the added cost on to the rate payers.
In the early stages and the later stages this actually costs the rate payers so little it’s hardly noticeable it may surprise you to know.
In the early stages, if the renewable energy rate is 20% higher than what the utility pays for other electricity, adding a new 10% of their total energy generation from renewable energy raises rates by only 2% at the point all 10% of the renewable energy is online.
Then in the later stages as the nonrenewable energy sources begin to cost more due to supply demand imbalances and gradually having fossil fuel sources have to pay their true costs plus an increasing CO2 disincentive of some kind AND the new technology and economy of scale REDUCES the rate for renewable energy, Feed In Tariffs will actually lead to a LOWER utility bill than rate payers would have had otherwise.
In between, there might be a 5 or 10 % increase in utility bills per unit of delivered electricity from having an extensive FIT program like Germany’s. But because of increases in energy efficiency allowing most people to use less electricity and natural gas that are likely, most rate payers will actually not pay a larger monthly bill even then!
So, for very modest possible increases in utility bills and NO taxes or other funds needed, Feed In Tariffs make possible immediate increases in installed renewable energy.
But it gets even better than that. Because the 20 year (or similar duration) contracts for providing renewable energy generated electricity with a major utility are so financially strong, for a bank, financing a renewable energy project with a FIT contract is as safe as investing in T-bills and pays better.
And, that results in easily available financing instead of hardly available financing AND at lower rates due to this decrease in risk. That both lowers the cost to provide the renewable energy and sharply increases the number of new projects to provide it!
Meanwhile, Germany continues to lead the world in percentage of its energy from renewable energy due to the Feed In Tariff there while it has been almost totally unused in the United States.
But, since many innovations adopted in California are emulated by other states, it would very likely lead to near country wide use of Feed In Tariffs if California adopted one.
And, due to California’s large amount of sunny desert area and its very sunny summers, the economic gain from a Feed In Tariff would be huge.
The wonderful news is that if the new bill, AB 1106 (Fuentes) which would require the California Public Utilities Commission to develop standardized rates to cover costs and provide a reasonable profit for clean-energy generators such as wind turbines, solar-thermal plants, and rooftop solar panels – manages to pass with the amendments to upgrade it that the Sierra Club supports, California will have a state wide Feed In Tariff.
Then when the otherwise favorable factors in California plus this Feed In Tariff create massive increase in renewable energy, many of the other states will also adopt Feed In Tariffs and much the same will happen in other states – beginning with the other states that have abundant sun or wind or geothermal potential.
That will begin to make the changes we need in the United States and then from the sales of the improving technology and products used and more countries begin adopting FITs, we will begin to generate the renewable power we need to avert economic and environmental disaster.
Today's post: Wednesday, 7-8-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
As I’ve posted many times and many other people have said, correctly I think, we need a massive increase in renewable energy, particularly electricity generated by renewable energy to come anywhere near to the increases we need so badly.
So reasonable incentives for every kind of solar or wind generated electricity are, I think, absolutely imperative.
The mechanism that has been proven to work in Germany to do this superbly well is called the Feed In Tariff which is often abbreviated, FIT. (Because of the massive amounts of renewable energy their FIT program unleashed, Germany now generates the least cCO2 release per capita in Europe among the larger countries of Europe.)
The basic Feed In Tariff concept is relatively simple. The government of the city or state or country where a utility is located requires the utilities in its area to offer long term contracts, for 20 years as an example, to buy power from renewable energy producers at a rate that will cover the cost of creating the renewable energy project and its equipment and make it at least modestly profitable to the renewable provider to do.
The utility then passes the added cost on to the rate payers.
In the early stages and the later stages this actually costs the rate payers so little it’s hardly noticeable it may surprise you to know.
In the early stages, if the renewable energy rate is 20% higher than what the utility pays for other electricity, adding a new 10% of their total energy generation from renewable energy raises rates by only 2% at the point all 10% of the renewable energy is online.
Then in the later stages as the nonrenewable energy sources begin to cost more due to supply demand imbalances and gradually having fossil fuel sources have to pay their true costs plus an increasing CO2 disincentive of some kind AND the new technology and economy of scale REDUCES the rate for renewable energy, Feed In Tariffs will actually lead to a LOWER utility bill than rate payers would have had otherwise.
In between, there might be a 5 or 10 % increase in utility bills per unit of delivered electricity from having an extensive FIT program like Germany’s. But because of increases in energy efficiency allowing most people to use less electricity and natural gas that are likely, most rate payers will actually not pay a larger monthly bill even then!
So, for very modest possible increases in utility bills and NO taxes or other funds needed, Feed In Tariffs make possible immediate increases in installed renewable energy.
But it gets even better than that. Because the 20 year (or similar duration) contracts for providing renewable energy generated electricity with a major utility are so financially strong, for a bank, financing a renewable energy project with a FIT contract is as safe as investing in T-bills and pays better.
And, that results in easily available financing instead of hardly available financing AND at lower rates due to this decrease in risk. That both lowers the cost to provide the renewable energy and sharply increases the number of new projects to provide it!
Meanwhile, Germany continues to lead the world in percentage of its energy from renewable energy due to the Feed In Tariff there while it has been almost totally unused in the United States.
But, since many innovations adopted in California are emulated by other states, it would very likely lead to near country wide use of Feed In Tariffs if California adopted one.
And, due to California’s large amount of sunny desert area and its very sunny summers, the economic gain from a Feed In Tariff would be huge.
The wonderful news is that if the new bill, AB 1106 (Fuentes) which would require the California Public Utilities Commission to develop standardized rates to cover costs and provide a reasonable profit for clean-energy generators such as wind turbines, solar-thermal plants, and rooftop solar panels – manages to pass with the amendments to upgrade it that the Sierra Club supports, California will have a state wide Feed In Tariff.
Then when the otherwise favorable factors in California plus this Feed In Tariff create massive increase in renewable energy, many of the other states will also adopt Feed In Tariffs and much the same will happen in other states – beginning with the other states that have abundant sun or wind or geothermal potential.
That will begin to make the changes we need in the United States and then from the sales of the improving technology and products used and more countries begin adopting FITs, we will begin to generate the renewable power we need to avert economic and environmental disaster.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
New payment system needed for utilities....
Today's post: Wednesday, 7-1-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
As I’ve posted many times and many other people have said, correctly I think, we need a massive increase in renewable energy, particularly electricity generated by renewable energy to come anywhere near to the increases we need so badly.
So reasonable incentives for every kind of solar or wind generated electricity are, I think, absolutely imperative.
One of those incentives is for anyone who is both on the grid of their local utility and has solar electric generation, particularly from photovoltaic panels, or who has wind energy powered electric generation to be able to sell ALL of any excess they generate above their own use to their local utility either on a feed-in tariff that pays better than the rate the utility needs to pay for electricity generated in other ways – OR – to at least pay the same price.
Further, this is particularly important in the American Southwest for California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and the western part of Texas. And of those, it’s most important in California due to its unusually sunny summers with no rain.
Why? Because the peak loads in this area are for airconditioning use during exactly those days that are sunniest. So the times when more solar built to make money from selling electricity back to the utilities and the weather is sunny, these solar sources will allow the utilities to avoid needing to build new power plants for this peak demand. It also will allow the utilities to more often avoid rolling blackouts and the like. The solar electricity they’ll get will mostly prevent that since it will peak at those exact same times.
So, I have been quite displeased to know that the utilities in California will only allow you to cut your electric bill to zero if you feed them back as much electricity when you can as you take from them at other times. If you feed back more than you use, you get nothing for it. Oops!!
Then at first I was both astonished and angry to learn that both PG&E and Southern California Edison are lobbying AGAINST even allowing everyone who installs solar to get the deal they have been offering. They want to limit the number of people who can use it or even stop doing it.
Given the value of that solar electricity that I’ve just described to the utilities and how badly we need more incentives we to build more solar electric generation and wind, this is extremely unfortunate. We need them to do the exact opposite.
HOWEVER, they have a legitimate concern that I completely agree with that is driving their resistance.
In fact, it’s one of the reasons I had my family stay with PG&E when for a time I could have paid a “greener” electricity provider.
Utilities have considerable infrastructure costs to build and maintain their grid. If they suddenly begin to make no money generating electricity they will have no money to pay these costs – or too little. Since we need them to build more of the grid to connect larger renewable energy sources to their users and to install more of the “smart grid technology” to best manage and be efficient in delivering the electricity over the grid, this concern is not only valid, it’s correct and very important to address it.
In conclusion, I think they have a completely valid concern but a horribly dangerous and terribly wrong method of addressing it.
Clearly we need for our utilities to charge us two fees instead of one.
We need them to charge a certain minimum to be connected to the grid plus a charge for providing the grid that is adjusted for the size of the demands a given customer puts on it. Then we need a separate charge for the net electricity they generate and provide to customers.
By setting this up well, they would then be enabled to BOTH pay to build and maintain the grid AND pay for electricity customers give them from renewable energy sources.
THAT is what they should be lobbying for instead.
Why aren’t they doing so?
Just in case they haven’t thought of it or have been told it can’t be done, I thought I’d suggest it in this post.
Not only is it likely doable and definitely the right thing to do, they can get a lot of support from the people who know how badly we need more renewable sources in really large numbers. And, mercifully, today that includes the Federal Government and the President.
Today's post: Wednesday, 7-1-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
As I’ve posted many times and many other people have said, correctly I think, we need a massive increase in renewable energy, particularly electricity generated by renewable energy to come anywhere near to the increases we need so badly.
So reasonable incentives for every kind of solar or wind generated electricity are, I think, absolutely imperative.
One of those incentives is for anyone who is both on the grid of their local utility and has solar electric generation, particularly from photovoltaic panels, or who has wind energy powered electric generation to be able to sell ALL of any excess they generate above their own use to their local utility either on a feed-in tariff that pays better than the rate the utility needs to pay for electricity generated in other ways – OR – to at least pay the same price.
Further, this is particularly important in the American Southwest for California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and the western part of Texas. And of those, it’s most important in California due to its unusually sunny summers with no rain.
Why? Because the peak loads in this area are for airconditioning use during exactly those days that are sunniest. So the times when more solar built to make money from selling electricity back to the utilities and the weather is sunny, these solar sources will allow the utilities to avoid needing to build new power plants for this peak demand. It also will allow the utilities to more often avoid rolling blackouts and the like. The solar electricity they’ll get will mostly prevent that since it will peak at those exact same times.
So, I have been quite displeased to know that the utilities in California will only allow you to cut your electric bill to zero if you feed them back as much electricity when you can as you take from them at other times. If you feed back more than you use, you get nothing for it. Oops!!
Then at first I was both astonished and angry to learn that both PG&E and Southern California Edison are lobbying AGAINST even allowing everyone who installs solar to get the deal they have been offering. They want to limit the number of people who can use it or even stop doing it.
Given the value of that solar electricity that I’ve just described to the utilities and how badly we need more incentives we to build more solar electric generation and wind, this is extremely unfortunate. We need them to do the exact opposite.
HOWEVER, they have a legitimate concern that I completely agree with that is driving their resistance.
In fact, it’s one of the reasons I had my family stay with PG&E when for a time I could have paid a “greener” electricity provider.
Utilities have considerable infrastructure costs to build and maintain their grid. If they suddenly begin to make no money generating electricity they will have no money to pay these costs – or too little. Since we need them to build more of the grid to connect larger renewable energy sources to their users and to install more of the “smart grid technology” to best manage and be efficient in delivering the electricity over the grid, this concern is not only valid, it’s correct and very important to address it.
In conclusion, I think they have a completely valid concern but a horribly dangerous and terribly wrong method of addressing it.
Clearly we need for our utilities to charge us two fees instead of one.
We need them to charge a certain minimum to be connected to the grid plus a charge for providing the grid that is adjusted for the size of the demands a given customer puts on it. Then we need a separate charge for the net electricity they generate and provide to customers.
By setting this up well, they would then be enabled to BOTH pay to build and maintain the grid AND pay for electricity customers give them from renewable energy sources.
THAT is what they should be lobbying for instead.
Why aren’t they doing so?
Just in case they haven’t thought of it or have been told it can’t be done, I thought I’d suggest it in this post.
Not only is it likely doable and definitely the right thing to do, they can get a lot of support from the people who know how badly we need more renewable sources in really large numbers. And, mercifully, today that includes the Federal Government and the President.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)