We may need the good news in Clean Energy more urgently than we thought....
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-24-2010
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, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post: We may need the good news in Clean Energy more urgently than we thought
1. Progress is happening in almost every area of clean energy.
Every part of the transition to cars and other vehicles being powered mostly by electricity and less and less by oil is showing progress.
Some biofuels that do NOT need to take farmlands or cut down forests to produce are beginning to show progress.
We will have more nuclear power -- which I pray will be as safe as the nuclear power in France and Japan has been.
More wind power is coming online gradually.
Every part of solar generated electricity and hot water is making progress.
And, a start is being made on becoming a more energy efficient economy and in saving money that was being spent on energy unnecessarily.
We may even begin to see oil and coal companies have to be less polluting in use and begin to pay the true costs using their products actually incur.
So, clean energy will soon cost less than energy from fossil fuels in many parts of our economy.
2. It’s still 40 years late and going at one fifth the needed speed or less. But, finally, it IS beginning to pick up speed and momentum.
3. The scary news is that we may need this far more urgently than we thought.
Day before yesterday I saw an AP article titled :
“Leaking Siberian ice raises a tricky climate issue” By ARTHUR MAX, Associated with a dateline of: CHERSKY, Russia. I think I found it on NPR
Here are the key paragraphs:
“Gas locked inside Siberia's frozen soil and under its lakes has been seeping out since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. But in the past few decades, as the Earth has warmed, the icy ground has begun thawing more rapidly, accelerating the release of methane — a greenhouse gas 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide — at a perilous rate.
Some scientists believe the thawing of permafrost could become the epicenter of climate change. They say 1.5 trillion tons of carbon, locked inside icebound earth since the age of mammoths, is a climate time bomb waiting to explode if released into the atmosphere.
"Here, total carbon storage is like all the rain forests of our planet put together," says the scientist, Sergey Zimov — "here" being the endless sweep of snow and ice stretching toward Siberia's gray horizon, as seen from Zimov's research facility nearly 350 kilometers (220 miles) above the Arctic Circle.”
And:
“….global warming is amplified in the polar regions. What feels like a modest temperature rise is enough to induce Greenland glaciers to retreat, Arctic sea ice to thin and contract in summer, and permafrost to thaw faster, both on land and under the seabed.
Yet awareness of methane leaks from permafrost is so new that it was not even mentioned in the seminal 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which warned of rising sea levels inundating coastal cities, dramatic shifts in rainfall disrupting agriculture and drinking water, the spread of diseases and the extinction of species.
"In my view, methane is a serious sleeper out there that can pull us over the hump," said Robert Corell, an eminent U.S. climate change researcher and Arctic specialist. Corell, speaking by telephone from a conference in Miami, said he and other U.S. scientists are pushing Washington to deploy satellites to gather more information on methane leaks.”
And:
“Katey Walter Anthony, of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, has been measuring methane seeps in Arctic lakes in Alaska, Canada and Russia, starting here around Chersky 10 years ago.
She was stunned to see how much methane was leaking from holes in the sediment at the bottom of one of the first lakes she visited. "On some days it looked like the lake was boiling," she said. Returning each year, she noticed this and other lakes doubling in size as warm water ate into the frozen banks.”
“More than 50 billion tons could be unleashed from Siberian lakes alone, more than 10 times the amount now in the atmosphere, she said.”
“The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in its 2010 Arctic Report Card issued last month, said the average temperature of the permafrost has been rising for decades, but noted "a significant acceleration" in the last five years at many spots on the Arctic coast. “
4. If the rest of the arctic also emits methane as the permafrost is melted, the total could be 20 to 35 times the amount now in the atmosphere.
This could have rather severe repercussions.
In most places, the 2 inch to 16 inch increase in sea level many people now forecast by 2050 could wind up being five to eight times that. Since many of the most populated and the most economically productive cities are coastal, the several feet higher sea level this makes look possible, could be a rather severe problem.
The added warming it also may cause could increase disastrous weather events, cut the amount of food grown world-wide, and cause more tropical diseases in place that have not had them.
The article makes clear that despite the scary trends, it’s too early to tell for sure how bad this will actually get as we go forward.
a) If we do manage to stop putting out more CO2 or even cut back some on producing it and forces we do not yet completely understand slow this methane release, this may make things worse but not by that much.
b) If the economy improves and we fail to switch to clean energy fast enough and keep up some increase in CO2 release and this methane release is a bit less than it looks like now it will be, there might be a way to make this better. But the increased warming will cause problems.
By direct use or better by using it to generate electricity, if we capture this methane and replace using oil for transport, this might be economically helpful. If we also generate the electricity with Bloom Energy fuel cells instead of burning it and feed the CO2 release initially to algae to make biofuels, there might be a way to benefit the economy and make profits for energy companies in this methane release.
c) If this methane release begins to speed up as much as these report suggest it will, no one will disbelieve in global warming again! And, we will be in quite serious trouble.
So, the race is on!
Can we speed up clean energy and energy efficiency fast enough to improve our economy AND slow CO2 release soon enough to compensate for this effect?
We will see how it turns out.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Good & much better news for Renewable Energy....
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-17-2010
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, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post: Good & much better news for Renewable Energy
1. Two trends look to intersect soon. There is a consistent push now to make solar more efficient and cost effective. And, due to increased demand for natural gas to make electricity for many reasons and the increased cost of acquiring it from shale without grave environmental damage, natural gas will gradually increase in price.
One company of the many that will likely get into this side of solar that already has a developed technology is Cogenra Solar of Mountain View, CA. Of the solar energy striking solar collectors, most of the 80 to 85% of it NOT used to make electricity is heat and is wasted by most solar collectors. Cogenra arrays make electricity and use the heat to make hot water. And the company claims to produce five times the useful energy as other solar collectors by doing so.
This combination, CEO Gilad Almogy says, enables them to beat current utility prices at today’s rates!
They’ve also found a way to do this with off the shelf components and can already begin to deliver systems. Since this is the case, they charge for the electricity and hot water they deliver rather than for the systems they install.
2. The even better news is in two parts.
A. The Boston Consulting Group released a study, “What’s next for Alternative Energy, “ a week ago today that said that cellulosic ethanol, wind farms, and large scale solar power plants are very soon to be competitive with fossil fuels without the need for subsidies. They said that this point will be reached much sooner than many people yet realize it will.
Cellulosic ethanol will become cost competitive by next year to four years from now, 2014. And, by 2020, 10 years from now, they see electricity generated from natural gas close to 9 cents per kilowatt hour and rising with solar electricity from large solar plants or farms to be at about the same price and falling.
They also see electric cars being up to 10 % of all new car sales by 2020.
Hopefully they are right on the first set of things.
But I think they may be far too conservative about electric car sales, particularly since plug-in hybrids in normal use, are likely to be over 90% electric powered.
In addition to the very large numbers of auto makers gearing up to make such cars, the next news today, suggests this trend may well accelerate.
B. Two stories recently show that GE is already very actively acting as a catalyst to make this trend speed up.
1) Last Friday, they announced plans to buy 25,000 electric cars by 2015, just five years from now – starting with 12,000 from GM next year.
It seems that GE build natural gas-fired generators for utilities and a home charging station they call the WattStation. GE also makes advanced design electric motors and sees this combined group of products as bringing them $500 million in revenue in just the next three years.
2) Today, the San Francisco Chronicle business section has a story that GE and a group of venture capital firms will invest $55 million in several start ups with some kind of smart grid technologies. The companies chosen were judged on whether or not they would contribute to a smarter electric grid, reduce energy use in buildings, &/or recharge electric cars and plug-in hybrids. Further, this effort will total about $200 million with about half of it from GE and the other half from the venture firms.
These developments are quite significant for several reasons.
First, virtually all clean energy except biofuels and cellulosic alcohol is used to generate electricity – from solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, wind, geothermal, and even nuclear power. None of these releases CO2 while they generate electricity.
Second, Bloom Energy has a product that makes electricity from natural gas with fuel cells that is more efficient than burning it and that produces no air pollution.
Third, running an electric car using even electricity made in coal fired plants releases less CO2 than the same car would release while burning gasoline.
Fourth, none of these energy sources for the electricity for electric cars and plug-in hybrids requires oil!
For the strength of the economy of the United States and its national security, this is extremely important news.
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-17-2010
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, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post: Good & much better news for Renewable Energy
1. Two trends look to intersect soon. There is a consistent push now to make solar more efficient and cost effective. And, due to increased demand for natural gas to make electricity for many reasons and the increased cost of acquiring it from shale without grave environmental damage, natural gas will gradually increase in price.
One company of the many that will likely get into this side of solar that already has a developed technology is Cogenra Solar of Mountain View, CA. Of the solar energy striking solar collectors, most of the 80 to 85% of it NOT used to make electricity is heat and is wasted by most solar collectors. Cogenra arrays make electricity and use the heat to make hot water. And the company claims to produce five times the useful energy as other solar collectors by doing so.
This combination, CEO Gilad Almogy says, enables them to beat current utility prices at today’s rates!
They’ve also found a way to do this with off the shelf components and can already begin to deliver systems. Since this is the case, they charge for the electricity and hot water they deliver rather than for the systems they install.
2. The even better news is in two parts.
A. The Boston Consulting Group released a study, “What’s next for Alternative Energy, “ a week ago today that said that cellulosic ethanol, wind farms, and large scale solar power plants are very soon to be competitive with fossil fuels without the need for subsidies. They said that this point will be reached much sooner than many people yet realize it will.
Cellulosic ethanol will become cost competitive by next year to four years from now, 2014. And, by 2020, 10 years from now, they see electricity generated from natural gas close to 9 cents per kilowatt hour and rising with solar electricity from large solar plants or farms to be at about the same price and falling.
They also see electric cars being up to 10 % of all new car sales by 2020.
Hopefully they are right on the first set of things.
But I think they may be far too conservative about electric car sales, particularly since plug-in hybrids in normal use, are likely to be over 90% electric powered.
In addition to the very large numbers of auto makers gearing up to make such cars, the next news today, suggests this trend may well accelerate.
B. Two stories recently show that GE is already very actively acting as a catalyst to make this trend speed up.
1) Last Friday, they announced plans to buy 25,000 electric cars by 2015, just five years from now – starting with 12,000 from GM next year.
It seems that GE build natural gas-fired generators for utilities and a home charging station they call the WattStation. GE also makes advanced design electric motors and sees this combined group of products as bringing them $500 million in revenue in just the next three years.
2) Today, the San Francisco Chronicle business section has a story that GE and a group of venture capital firms will invest $55 million in several start ups with some kind of smart grid technologies. The companies chosen were judged on whether or not they would contribute to a smarter electric grid, reduce energy use in buildings, &/or recharge electric cars and plug-in hybrids. Further, this effort will total about $200 million with about half of it from GE and the other half from the venture firms.
These developments are quite significant for several reasons.
First, virtually all clean energy except biofuels and cellulosic alcohol is used to generate electricity – from solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, wind, geothermal, and even nuclear power. None of these releases CO2 while they generate electricity.
Second, Bloom Energy has a product that makes electricity from natural gas with fuel cells that is more efficient than burning it and that produces no air pollution.
Third, running an electric car using even electricity made in coal fired plants releases less CO2 than the same car would release while burning gasoline.
Fourth, none of these energy sources for the electricity for electric cars and plug-in hybrids requires oil!
For the strength of the economy of the United States and its national security, this is extremely important news.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Good & bad news for Renewable Energy....
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-10-2010
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, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post: Good & bad news for Renewable Energy
1. Due to the defeat of Proposition 23 in California, we will now see a good faith effort to put AB32 into practice. To the extent that this succeeds in creating new jobs, causing more renewable energy generation to be built, and cutting CO2 emissions without slowing the rest of California’s economy, this will provide a model for other states and for the nation.
It may not happen soon. But at some point, oil prices will again run up enough to slow the economy. And, we will begin to see more harm from global warming here in the United States.
When either of those happen, let alone both as I think likely, the country will follow California’s lead.
2. Even people who voted for leaders who say they think global warming is not happening or not caused by burning fossil fuels like to save energy and have more new jobs locally.
Such people also are fond of saving money personally. And, most people like useful new technology and products that contain it.
Clean energy advocates need to throw strong support to such programs because even these new leaders and the people who voted for them will support them.
3. President Obama suggested recently the new congress might be able to agree on and pass improved renewable energy standards, increasing the domestic supply and use of natural gas, increasing domestic production of electric cars, and building more nuclear power plants.
I give this hopeful suggestion a mixed review.
1. Improved renewable energy standards would be welcome and are extremely desirable; but I think he may be too optimistic – maybe far too optimistic. But even some progress in this area, even if just a little bit at first, would help. So, adding that to something that will fly on its own that has stronger support might work.
He might well have better luck though with improving the energy efficiency standards for buildings and products that use energy –
and for programs that create jobs by helping businesses that help do this make money and hire new people and use existing technologies and new ones to make much more energy-efficient products.
He might get backing for creating jobs to retrofit to more efficient technologies and products and to insulate and heat proof buildings to help them use less energy.
People want more new jobs and help saving money. So these efforts might work.
2. Increasing the domestic supply and use of natural gas has a shot. It would help us use less imported oil which would get the backing of conservatives and Republicans who see that as increasing our national security and a way to send less money out of the country when our domestic economy could use some help. Even better, the oil companies led by Exxon and Chevron will be on board. They have seen this coming and have invested heavily in increasing their ability to supply natural gas and make money doing it.
This also has clean energy and environmental value. It would help wean us from using oil before its price spikes or it simply runs out. And, it would generate less air pollution than burning coal, particularly if it’s used to run more efficient and dramatically less polluting fuel cells such as those already made commercially by Bloom Energy.
3. Increasing domestic production of electric cars also has a shot. The car makers are already onboard and are setting up to make both plug-in hybrids and all electric cars. Since this is happening in the rest of the world too, notably in Japan and Germany, doing more of it here, will help create US jobs that would otherwise be lost.
And, even when the electricity used is from burning coal, less CO2 is generated than would be by powering cars of the same weight with oil.
But, even better, as we generate more electricity from sources other than coal and oil from photovoltaic and thermal solar and wind to fuel cells using natural gas, geothermal, and nuclear, such cars give us a real shot at breaking our addiction to oil before it’s too late.
And, having more of such cars built here saves or create jobs here -- which for SURE has universal support.
4. Even conservative Republicans will find that with the recent Gulf oil spill that more offshore drilling may not fly, do quite often support building more nuclear power.
So that might work also. It has worked well in France.
But it does have some safety issues due to terrorism here.
And unless we switch to breeder reactors from use the uranium and then try to figure out where to put the radioactive waste method -- that we have been using, we will run short of uranium, have to transport these wastes with the terror risk that poses, and have it be more of a short term solution only.
That said, more nuclear that creates electricity as needed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, plus far more electricity from renewable sources that vary from day to day and hour to hour would create a viable replacement for burning coal to make electricity.
5. He did not speak of it. But a program for coal producing states to help them switch to a cleaner way of making electricity from it instead of simply abandoning it would get very enthusiastic support from those states.
And, like increasing our use of natural gas, doing so would get support from conservatives who want to increase our independence from imported oil and to stop sending billions of dollars a week out of the United States.
Coal can be use to make gas that can be used in fuel cells to make electricity and burning it also produces less air and water pollution than burning coal directly. Coal has already been used to make gasoline. The technology exists. And, last but far from least, when gas from coal is used to make electricity, the CO2 created can be fed to algae to make biofuels.
The next two years or more may be quite challenging. But good things are likely to happen more and more in California. And nationally, some productive things might yet come out of the next congress.
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-10-2010
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, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post: Good & bad news for Renewable Energy
1. Due to the defeat of Proposition 23 in California, we will now see a good faith effort to put AB32 into practice. To the extent that this succeeds in creating new jobs, causing more renewable energy generation to be built, and cutting CO2 emissions without slowing the rest of California’s economy, this will provide a model for other states and for the nation.
It may not happen soon. But at some point, oil prices will again run up enough to slow the economy. And, we will begin to see more harm from global warming here in the United States.
When either of those happen, let alone both as I think likely, the country will follow California’s lead.
2. Even people who voted for leaders who say they think global warming is not happening or not caused by burning fossil fuels like to save energy and have more new jobs locally.
Such people also are fond of saving money personally. And, most people like useful new technology and products that contain it.
Clean energy advocates need to throw strong support to such programs because even these new leaders and the people who voted for them will support them.
3. President Obama suggested recently the new congress might be able to agree on and pass improved renewable energy standards, increasing the domestic supply and use of natural gas, increasing domestic production of electric cars, and building more nuclear power plants.
I give this hopeful suggestion a mixed review.
1. Improved renewable energy standards would be welcome and are extremely desirable; but I think he may be too optimistic – maybe far too optimistic. But even some progress in this area, even if just a little bit at first, would help. So, adding that to something that will fly on its own that has stronger support might work.
He might well have better luck though with improving the energy efficiency standards for buildings and products that use energy –
and for programs that create jobs by helping businesses that help do this make money and hire new people and use existing technologies and new ones to make much more energy-efficient products.
He might get backing for creating jobs to retrofit to more efficient technologies and products and to insulate and heat proof buildings to help them use less energy.
People want more new jobs and help saving money. So these efforts might work.
2. Increasing the domestic supply and use of natural gas has a shot. It would help us use less imported oil which would get the backing of conservatives and Republicans who see that as increasing our national security and a way to send less money out of the country when our domestic economy could use some help. Even better, the oil companies led by Exxon and Chevron will be on board. They have seen this coming and have invested heavily in increasing their ability to supply natural gas and make money doing it.
This also has clean energy and environmental value. It would help wean us from using oil before its price spikes or it simply runs out. And, it would generate less air pollution than burning coal, particularly if it’s used to run more efficient and dramatically less polluting fuel cells such as those already made commercially by Bloom Energy.
3. Increasing domestic production of electric cars also has a shot. The car makers are already onboard and are setting up to make both plug-in hybrids and all electric cars. Since this is happening in the rest of the world too, notably in Japan and Germany, doing more of it here, will help create US jobs that would otherwise be lost.
And, even when the electricity used is from burning coal, less CO2 is generated than would be by powering cars of the same weight with oil.
But, even better, as we generate more electricity from sources other than coal and oil from photovoltaic and thermal solar and wind to fuel cells using natural gas, geothermal, and nuclear, such cars give us a real shot at breaking our addiction to oil before it’s too late.
And, having more of such cars built here saves or create jobs here -- which for SURE has universal support.
4. Even conservative Republicans will find that with the recent Gulf oil spill that more offshore drilling may not fly, do quite often support building more nuclear power.
So that might work also. It has worked well in France.
But it does have some safety issues due to terrorism here.
And unless we switch to breeder reactors from use the uranium and then try to figure out where to put the radioactive waste method -- that we have been using, we will run short of uranium, have to transport these wastes with the terror risk that poses, and have it be more of a short term solution only.
That said, more nuclear that creates electricity as needed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, plus far more electricity from renewable sources that vary from day to day and hour to hour would create a viable replacement for burning coal to make electricity.
5. He did not speak of it. But a program for coal producing states to help them switch to a cleaner way of making electricity from it instead of simply abandoning it would get very enthusiastic support from those states.
And, like increasing our use of natural gas, doing so would get support from conservatives who want to increase our independence from imported oil and to stop sending billions of dollars a week out of the United States.
Coal can be use to make gas that can be used in fuel cells to make electricity and burning it also produces less air and water pollution than burning coal directly. Coal has already been used to make gasoline. The technology exists. And, last but far from least, when gas from coal is used to make electricity, the CO2 created can be fed to algae to make biofuels.
The next two years or more may be quite challenging. But good things are likely to happen more and more in California. And nationally, some productive things might yet come out of the next congress.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Four wins for Renewable Energy....
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-3-2010
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, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post: Four wins for Renewable Energy
1. Voters including me and perhaps you voted against Proposition 23. It LOST. That means that California will begin to work on a large scale to build more renewable energy, become more energy efficient, and begin gradually to cut the release of CO2.
The effort to do this will begin to add even more new jobs than it has in the last 3 years and do this every year. And, most of these jobs will be in California. The new sources of energy and the increased energy efficiency of California’s economy will also strengthen the California economy.
2. In California, the candidate for Governor who had actually taken action to protect renewable energy and supported No on 23 and the clean energy and jobs that AB32 will now create defeated the woman who was so clueless about this she would have suspended AB32 as being bad for the economy. He was qualified by this to be Governor despite his faults and she was NOT despite her good points. The candidate that will actually be most likely to bring new jobs and a strong economy to California won.
California’s economy and its ability to lead the transition to the new clean energy economy are now MUCH better off!
3. In the Senate races, two of the most valuable supporters of clean energy in the United States congress have been Senator Barbara Boxer from California and Harry Reid of Nevada. They both won reelection against candidates who also were unqualified to be in the US Senate because they were clueless about clean energy.
In either case to have lost a knowledgeable supporter and had an unqualified person to replace them who opposed clean energy would have had grave and negative consequences.
So, to have won both these races is a very important victory for clean energy.
And, since each of their states, California and Nevada, have such large potential for both photovoltaic and thermal solar power, it was extremely important that each of them win and they did.
4. Despite having less solar energy than California, Germany has been consistently building about 15 times as much solar every year as California.
If California built as much solar in relation to its available solar energy as Germany has been doing it would begin to build about TWENTY-FIVE times as much solar!
Since that’s exactly what we need now, it makes superb sense to use the proven incentive system that Germany has been using and that California has not.
This system is called the Feed-in Tariff or FIT. Companies, builders, and developers – even homeowners --who are willing to contract to supply solar electricity are offered a fixed contract and at just enough of a higher rate than other sources to guarantee the person or group building the solar capacity a reliable profit.
That in turn makes their project financeable even in today’s tough credit environment.
But if California cannot offer rates high enough to guarantee the person or group building the solar capacity a reliable profit, even a modest one, virtually no new solar will be built for many years or at all.
As of late last month, it was ruled that California now CAN offer rates high enough to do the job!
Since that literally may increase the amount of solar built here and producing clean electricity by as much as twenty-five times in just a few years, that IS a very significant piece of good news for clean energy!
I get news from CEN, the clean energy network and from the FIT Coalition by email. In the last one I got from CEN a few days ago, it had this news.
They also had a link to a story about it in the GreenTech Solar news. (They had the link; but I was unable to do a cut and paste to show it here. But you should be able to find the GreenTech Solar website and this article in it online.)
Their story was by Herman K. Trabish. And October 28, 2010 was its publication date.
“FERC Decision Boosts Renewables
Federal regulator’s ruling makes the price paid to renewable energy producers more competitive.
.
The federal transmission system regulator ruled October 21 that California can require its utilities to pay a price for renewable energy that will support its Feed-In Tariff (FIT) plan. The ruling resets the existing price standard and is expected to drive the deployment of renewable energy.”
The news for clean energy from yesterday’s election on a national basis was far less promising.
But these four things were quite good. And, since their combination strongly suggests clean energy in California will begin to do really well soon, once people see a stronger economy and more new jobs in California soon, the national picture should improve also.
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-3-2010
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, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post: Four wins for Renewable Energy
1. Voters including me and perhaps you voted against Proposition 23. It LOST. That means that California will begin to work on a large scale to build more renewable energy, become more energy efficient, and begin gradually to cut the release of CO2.
The effort to do this will begin to add even more new jobs than it has in the last 3 years and do this every year. And, most of these jobs will be in California. The new sources of energy and the increased energy efficiency of California’s economy will also strengthen the California economy.
2. In California, the candidate for Governor who had actually taken action to protect renewable energy and supported No on 23 and the clean energy and jobs that AB32 will now create defeated the woman who was so clueless about this she would have suspended AB32 as being bad for the economy. He was qualified by this to be Governor despite his faults and she was NOT despite her good points. The candidate that will actually be most likely to bring new jobs and a strong economy to California won.
California’s economy and its ability to lead the transition to the new clean energy economy are now MUCH better off!
3. In the Senate races, two of the most valuable supporters of clean energy in the United States congress have been Senator Barbara Boxer from California and Harry Reid of Nevada. They both won reelection against candidates who also were unqualified to be in the US Senate because they were clueless about clean energy.
In either case to have lost a knowledgeable supporter and had an unqualified person to replace them who opposed clean energy would have had grave and negative consequences.
So, to have won both these races is a very important victory for clean energy.
And, since each of their states, California and Nevada, have such large potential for both photovoltaic and thermal solar power, it was extremely important that each of them win and they did.
4. Despite having less solar energy than California, Germany has been consistently building about 15 times as much solar every year as California.
If California built as much solar in relation to its available solar energy as Germany has been doing it would begin to build about TWENTY-FIVE times as much solar!
Since that’s exactly what we need now, it makes superb sense to use the proven incentive system that Germany has been using and that California has not.
This system is called the Feed-in Tariff or FIT. Companies, builders, and developers – even homeowners --who are willing to contract to supply solar electricity are offered a fixed contract and at just enough of a higher rate than other sources to guarantee the person or group building the solar capacity a reliable profit.
That in turn makes their project financeable even in today’s tough credit environment.
But if California cannot offer rates high enough to guarantee the person or group building the solar capacity a reliable profit, even a modest one, virtually no new solar will be built for many years or at all.
As of late last month, it was ruled that California now CAN offer rates high enough to do the job!
Since that literally may increase the amount of solar built here and producing clean electricity by as much as twenty-five times in just a few years, that IS a very significant piece of good news for clean energy!
I get news from CEN, the clean energy network and from the FIT Coalition by email. In the last one I got from CEN a few days ago, it had this news.
They also had a link to a story about it in the GreenTech Solar news. (They had the link; but I was unable to do a cut and paste to show it here. But you should be able to find the GreenTech Solar website and this article in it online.)
Their story was by Herman K. Trabish. And October 28, 2010 was its publication date.
“FERC Decision Boosts Renewables
Federal regulator’s ruling makes the price paid to renewable energy producers more competitive.
.
The federal transmission system regulator ruled October 21 that California can require its utilities to pay a price for renewable energy that will support its Feed-In Tariff (FIT) plan. The ruling resets the existing price standard and is expected to drive the deployment of renewable energy.”
The news for clean energy from yesterday’s election on a national basis was far less promising.
But these four things were quite good. And, since their combination strongly suggests clean energy in California will begin to do really well soon, once people see a stronger economy and more new jobs in California soon, the national picture should improve also.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)