Mostly good news for renewable energy....

Today’s post: Wednesday, 1-14-2009

The news on renewable energy lately is mostly good.:

1. Yesterday, AP online news reported that Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Chu was “warmly received” at his Senate confirmation hearing to be Energy Secretary.

And, he “confirmed as energy secretary he will aggressively pursue policies aimed at addressing climate change and achieving greater energy independence by developing clean energy sources.”

He “appeared before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee where he received immediate support from both Democrats and Republicans.”

“Chu, …. told senators that climate change is "a growing and pressing problem" and the nation's dependence on oil represents a threat to the U.S. economy and security.

Of the risks from global warming, Chu said: "It is now clear that if we continue on our current path, we run the risk of dramatic disruptive changes to our climate system in the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren." “

So, if the Senate’s initial response is any indication, Chu will be confirmed; and renewable energy and a variety of means to improve our energy efficiency throughout our economy, and a commitment to reducing CO2 emissions will get a huge boost when he takes office.

Specifically this article quotes Chu as saying.: “ "Improvements in energy efficiency is the one single factor that can most reduce our dependency on foreign oil,"”

My main concern when he was appointed is that he would get derailed by the traditional energy industries due to his seeming lack of political background. But, between his experience running the Lawrence Lab and his preparation for the job, he seems to have the ability to deal well with that.

He is apparently willing to allow some offshore drilling in less environmentally sensitive areas which will keep the representatives of the oil industry from voting against him now or derailing his programs later.

(He is following the lead of President-elect Obama in so doing.) And, despite it not being the very best choice for global warming, it will slightly improve our ability to be energy self-sufficient and pay less to import oil which many help our national security which he knows is also important.

And, since the Lawrence Lab he ran is and was involved in nuclear matters, he is aware that it will likely remain part of our energy mix.

“Chu said nuclear energy produces a fifth of the nation's electricity and 70 percent of the carbon-free electricity and "is going to be an important part of our energy mix." “

I still have safety concerns about nuclear power; but I like that he is aware that it DOES provide” carbon-free electricity.” And, he clearly made points with those senators who back it.

He realizes that we are now dependent on burning coal for electricity now and that so are China and India. Plus he was aware that senators from states where coal is a key part of their economies will be voting on his confirmation. So, as a near term solution, he strongly favors work on developing effective methods to burn coal but to retrofit some kind of devices that prevent CO2 from entering the atmosphere.

As an optimistic scientist, he has more faith than I that this is doable at all, let alone soon enough or inexpensively enough. But within 10 years, there may be breakthroughs that do the job. And, in the near term, he keeps the support of coal state senators and of India and China.

(As regular readers of this blog know, I favor turning coal into substitutes for natural gas and for gasoline and diesel fuel that we would burn anyway, which would help us wean our economy from its unsafe dependence only on natural gas and petroleum and improve our energy self-sufficiency. And, I favor replacing ALL coal burning plants for generating electricity with renewable sources or at worst nuclear power instead. So I hope those approaches also make progress.)

But I still find it very reassuring to see that Steven Chu is politically sound and looking for global warming solutions that will avoid short term harm to our economy. So my expectations of his performance have gone from liking his support for renewable energy and fighting global warming but fearing he would be ineffective to now believing he will be quite effective as well once confirmed and in office.

2. And, which will fit right in with new Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s emphasis on renewable and sustainable energy research and research to fight global warming, also in the past few days, Stanford University added a new $100 million donation to an earlier $75 million dollar donation by one of Yahoo’s founders to create a new research group on renewable and sustainable energy research, which in addition to doing new research will also plug in ALL related work done at Stanford AND begin to help train new young people into experts in this new field.

Since I live near Stanford and am affected by the economy of the Silicon Valley, I’m personally very please with this announcement. But it looks to be easily as important to the developing field of renewable and sustainable energy research and research on fighting global warming. In addition to the short term benefit we get from the research, in the longer run, & starting in just a few years, the new experts in the field developed at Stanford will also be hugely positive.

3. And yesterday, Massachusetts governor, Deval Patrick announced he has set a goal for Massachusetts to produce2,000 megawatts of wind electricity annually by 2020, which is enough to provide 10 percent of the state's current energy needs.

Massachusetts only produces seven megawatts of power annually now.
And, the entire United States now only produces a bit more than 21,000 megawatts a year now. Texas, thanks in part to T Boone Pickens, now produces 6,300 megawatts a year from wind, which is the most of any state.
So, for Massachusetts to put a new 1993 megawatts of wind power electricity generation in place is a significant increase by comparison.

And, governor Patrick has a start on his goal because there are already
300 turbines in various planning and permitting stages in Massachusetts, which will generate an estimated 420 megawatts of power.

4. Lastly, as a fan of cost-competitive solar photovoltaic power, I’ve liked the upbeat and accurate supporting scientific facts the CEO of Nanosolar periodically posts on Nanosolar’s blog. (They print thin film photovoltaic cells on something like a high speed continuous roll printing press to help speed manufacturing and bring costs down.)

About 4 weeks ago, as I recently discovered, he posted this.:

"1kg CIGS = 5kg Uranium
December 16, 2008
By Martin Roscheisen, CEO

The notion of a kilogram of enriched Uranium conjures up an image of a powerful (amount) of energy. Enough to power an entire city for years when used in a nuclear power plant, or enough to flatten an entire county when used in a bomb - that's presumably what many people would say if one asked them about their thoughts.

In our new solar cell technology, we use an active material called CIGS, a Copper based semiconductor. How does this stack up against enriched Uranium?

Here's a noteworthy fact, pointed out to me by one of our engineers: It turns out that 1kg of CIGS, embedded in a solar cell, produces 5 times as much electricity as 1kg of enriched Uranium, embedded in a nuclear power plant.

Or said differently, 1kg of CIGS is equivalent to 5kg of enriched Uranium in terms of the energy the materials deliver in solar and nuclear respectively.
The Uranium is burned and then stored in a nuclear waste facility; the CIGS material produces power for at least the warranty period of the solar cell product after which it can then be recycled and reused an indefinite number of times."

To be fair, nuclear power also has a breeder reactor version that allows for a lot more of the energy in the Uranium to be used. But I like Martin Roscheisen and the way he thinks and thought this an upbeat way to end this post.

Suggested ideas for Obama’s coal policy......

Today’s post: Wednesday, 12-24-2008

The Obama administration will do a good deal more than previous ones on installing more renewable energy generation.

He’s already said he would do so and said so even more emphatically now that he is President-elect.

Both the Sierra Club and Al Gore’s group are lobbying to restrict or dramatically lessen the burning of coal for heating and electricity generation.

Burning coal for these reasons world wide is making global warming happen on steroids and producing world wide cuts in solar energy available for solar power and agriculture plus producing health harmful air pollution.

It’s extremely clear that such coal burning needs to be stopped as soon as it can be done safely. But it CANNOT be done safely or easily.

So, since the Sierra Club set up a way to email our support of their 4 policy ideas to the incoming Obama administration, I filled in their form and added my comments on my general support for those four points. And I added my ideas of how the process of winding down the direct burning of coal can safely be begun.

My ideas or something like them may help make achieving the goal of nor more direct burning of coal more economically and politically feasible.

And, I decided to make that my email my post here for today.:

“Please Adopt a Clean Energy Agenda

Dear President Obama, Weds, 12-24-2008

I voted for you because I thought you would and the other guy would not.

I like your other positions mostly but the different aspects of adding clean energy sources and taking energy efficiency steps while gradually turning off burning of fossil fuels was by FAR the MOST important issue.

1. Last week I posted some ideas I hope you can use at www.RenewableEnergyArrives.blogspot.com

"Fast progress on renewable energy jobs......
Today’s post: Wednesday, 12-17-2008"

Please have your staff consider those ideas.

2. I'm an email member of your email list; & my wife Abigail & I are of the Sierra Club's.

I mostly support their four points but will add my comments.:

There are four decisions you can make on Day One of your administration, independently of Congress, that will have an immediate impact on cutting global warming pollution and spurring a clean energy economy.

Please use your Presidential power to:

1. Direct the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to grant a waiver that will allow California and over a dozen other states to limit global warming pollution from cars.

I expect you already plan to do this one; & it IS a good idea.

2. End the rush to build dirty coal plants by directing EPA to require all new and existing power plants limit their global warming emissions.

Their air pollution and global warming contribution are so bad, it's unfortunate we cannot just evaporate them all now. But we currently get about half our electricity from them and more in some important states -- plus many jobs in them and in coal mining are involved which affects some State's politics.

Here's my ideas on this one:

a) start immediately to begin to require 100 percent retrofitting to eliminate air pollutants such as the chemicals that cause acid rain and high levels of small sized particulates.

That will increase the cost of running coal fired plants and the electricity they provide to be sure. But it will also make clean energy more competitive and may save more health care costs overall than it costs. Then, lobby China to do the same thing!

b) start immediately to build the new clean energy sources and transmission lines to replace the electricity now generated by coal.

c) task the coal industry to begin planning to build pollution free plants to make cleaner burning and easier to transport methane, diesel, and gasoline which will help replace imported gas and oil.

d) task the coal industry to begin planning to build
pollution free plants to make what are now petrochemicals.

That way the coal industry will survive after we stop burning coal directly which is and should be our goal.

e) If they actually demonstrate cost competitive ways to burn coal in a way that produces ZERO air pollution and 100 % sequestration of CO2, fine. But let them know the time is coming when no other kind of direct burning of coal can be allowed.

Since as renewable sources come down in price, the cost competitive part of this will likely become impossible, suggest they concentrate 100 % on b, c, & d above.

3. Direct your EPA to end irresponsible mountaintop removal coal mining by stopping coal companies from dumping rock and waste into valleys and streams.

This will increase the costs to the mining companies but not drive them out of business plus eliminate the pollution this practice causes. Definitely do this one!

4. Restore America's international leadership in the fight to end global warming by publicly committing the U.S. to cut its CO2 emissions by at least 35% by 2020.

You already said you would. Good job!!

Warmest & Best Regards,

David Eller“