Next Generation Energy

This election will determine the future of wind

Category:

The technology is ready, but the (conservative) politicians aren't. When the Bush administration and uberconservative billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens agree that wind can be 20% of US electricity supply, you'd think conservative politicians would jump on board. You'd be wrong.

This year, Bush Department of Energy released the most detailed and credible report on wind in a decade, "20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy's Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply," which concluded:

• Annual installations need to increase by only a factor of three from current levels by 2018.


• Costs of integrating intermittent wind power into the grid are less than 0.5 cents per kWh.


• No material constraints currently exist..


• This would require 300,000 MW of wind, delivering electricity for about 6 to 8.5 cents per kilowatt hour, unsubsidized (i.e. no federal tax credit) and including the cost of transmission to access existing power lines within 500 miles.


• The 20% Wind Scenario could require an incremental investment of less than 0.06 cent (6 one-hundredths of 1 cent) per kilowatt-hour of total generation by 2030, or roughly 50 cents per month per household.

Pickens told me in a recent interview we could get to 20% wind by 2020 with aggressive government action:

"The government's going to have to provide corridors to transmit the wind energy to the east and west coast... Second you need to put a 10-year production tax credit."

The problem is that the conservative politician Pickens supports (to the tune of $100,000 last year) have spent most of the past year blocking even a one-year extension of the tax credit. In the past year, McCain missed eight straight votes on renewable tax credits; his spokesman made clear he would've voted against the tax credits had he bothered to show up. In response to a question from Grist on wind and solar, McCain, who supports huge subsidies for the mature nuclear industry, said (apparently with a straight face):

I'm not one who believes that we need to subsidize things. The wind industry is doing fine, the solar industry is doing fine. In the '70s, we gave too many subsidies and too much help, and we had substandard products sold to the American people, which then made them disenchanted with solar for a long time.

McCain said last year of wind and other renewables "The truly clean technologies don't work". After meeting with Pickens this year, McCain said that Pickens was wrong about wind's potential, that renewables simply can't meet much of the projected demand.

It is no exaggeration to say that conservatives -- led by their intellectuals -- hate government programs to promote renewables. In a recent column, George Will wrote:

Obama recently said he would "require that 10 percent of our energy comes from renewable sources by the end of my first term -- more than double what we have now." Note the verb "require" and the adjective "renewable."

Will called this "comic" and a "fairy-tale promise."

But back to requiring this or that quota of energy from renewable sources. What will that involve? For conservatives, seeing is believing; for liberals, believing is seeing. Obama seems to believe that if a particular outcome is desirable, one can see how to require it. But how does that work? Details to follow, sometime after noon, Jan. 20, 2009.

Actually, Obama has spelled out the details in his energy plan, but I wouldn't expect Will to bother using Google to find it. In any case, Will has nailed the difference between conservatives and progressives. Conservatives believe that if they haven't seen something happen yet, it can't possibly happen. Will is mocking Obama for wanting an additional 5 percent of total U.S. electricity to come from all forms of new renewable energy in five years. Yet Pickens is certain that 20 percent of all U.S. electricity could come from wind power alone in 10 years.

This conservative myopia dates back to President Reagan, who gutted Jimmy Carter's multibillion-dollar research and development budget for renewables, and ended the tax credits for wind and solar. The sad result is our country is now a bit player in what will probably be one of the biggest job-creating industries of the century, an industry we launched. We had 90 percent of global-installed wind capacity in the 1980s. Today we have one major wind manufacturer, General Electric, with about one-sixth of the market.

Clean energy shouldn't be a partisan issue. But it is. And that means those who who want this country to be a leader in clean energy -- those who want to avoid catastrophic global warming and avoid the worst of peak oil -- need to start becoming single issue voters.

Posted by Joe Romm at 8:19 AM • 3 Comments

The New Skyline For New York City?

Category: Wind

New York City. Center of the universe.

Just imagine: It's 2018 and you stare up at the Brooklyn Bridge's gently revolving turbines. The taxis whir by, roasted nuts scent the crisp afternoon air, and you watch the giant windmill atop the Empire State Building turn round...

The scene might not be all that far-fetched. Maybe. You see, just last week Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced he wants to harness the power of wind throughout the city to generate a lot more electricity. He's proposed placing them on bridges, skyscrapers, and building turbines in the Hudson and East Rivers.

"If you could get 2 or 3 percent from wind, and from solar -- and the potential's greater than that -- you really could make a difference."

Well, I've said it before, I'll write it again, New York City is the greatest and greenest city in the world. It's also my hometown. And it may be easier to transition to wind than you'd expect. Marquiss Wind Power, an innovator in developing and deploying wind turbine technology, has already offered to deliver and set up a roof-top wind turbine in the city. Further, offshore farms 15-25 miles out would hardly be visible and New Yorkers will get to decide where they want windmills.

So how does wind power work? Turbines turn a generator to produce electricity, which gets transmitted on a line and through a grid. It's currently more expensive than regular power by 2.5 cents per kilowatt hour, but if expansion continues, may save money down the road--especially as the price increases for other energy sources.

Sure, some questions do arise... the danger of the spinning blades, installation costs, and determining whether city buildings can handle the weight. But despite unknowns, one thing's for sure... When the mayor of NYC proposes incorporating windmills into the city's design, it's a sure sign that, as Dylan sang, 'The Times, They Are A'Changin'.

So readers, how would you feel about a new spin on the Big Apple skyline? And further, how long until you think we'll see multiple cities follow suit?

Posted by Sheril R. Kirshenbaum at 9:05 AM • 11 Comments

Could the answer really be blowing in the wind?

Category: Next Generation

Last Tuesday, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg announced at the National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas a plan to put windmills atop the city's bridges and skyscrapers, in an effort to generate up to 10% of its electricity by 2018. He also proposed building wind farms off New York's coast, where strong Atlantic winds could generate large amounts of power.

His announcement follows less than two months after oil mogul T. Boone Pickens unveiled his own scheme for wind energy, with the far more ambitious goal of generating 20% of the entire country's electricity needs in the same length of time. An extensive transportation network would carry power from farms in the windy stretches of western states to the rest of the nation, freeing up natural gas for use in cars and trucks and significantly reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

The fact that two of the largest-scale alternative energy projects currently in sight both involve wind power is not really very surprising. Unlike nuclear power plants, the biggest objection to living near a wind farm is that...they're loud. And ugly.

So, is wind the answer? Is it reliable enough to fulfill our energy needs? How much farther does the technology need to be developed? Are there any detracting factors likely to draw opposition? Let's hear about them.

Posted by Erin Johnson at 7:00 PM • 11 Comments

You ain't seen nothing yet

Category: Next Generation

This week we're considering the ability of the average consumer to think in the long term by asking "Will even a temporary reduction in prices take voters' minds off energy issues in the upcoming election?" The question assumes that energy prices are near to the top of voters' list of concerns, which I am not convinced they are or ever were, no matter how much drivers gripe at the pumps. Even if it's true, though, when was the last time your typical quasi-post-industrial citizen demonstrated an interest in looking past the here and now?

Pollster John Zogby says he thinks there are optimistic signs. His latest survey numbers suggest 'the swift rise in fuel prices earlier this year had fundamentally changed U.S. consumer behavior, and a pullback below $115 per barrel was not sufficient to alter that." That may be true, although I would argue the numbers he's drawing on are hardly dramatic enough to warrant such a conclusion.

Again, even if there has been some kind of fundamental shift in consumer behavior, the really important question is whether that will translate into political action. It's good that, as Zogby points out, "the lines are not forming to buy Hummers," but that sort of thing is only the tip of the transformational iceberg needed to forestall the the double-whammy that will come when peak oil really hits the marketplace and catastrophic climate change from rising fossil-fuel emissions triggers an ecological tipping point or two. Americans must be willing to make much more significant changes if they want to avoid going broke getting to work.

Read on »

Posted by James Hrynyshyn at 12:00 PM • 5 Comments

DOE places bets on nine private ventures. Do they scale?

Category: Cellulosic Ethanol

Recently the Department of Energy (DOE) announced funding support for two more biorefineries. This makes for a total of nine small-scale refineries recently selected for assistance to develop demonstration scale plants. In total, they have agreed to pay somewhere around $30 million or one third of the cost to construct each refinery. See the red stars on the map below for their locations. I think the real news here is the potential glimpse into the future as far as biomass feedstocks goes and the manner in which they will be processed.

All but two refineries rely on forest and agriculture residues. This deviates from the most logical paradigm of dedicated energy crops. Simply, there are not enough residues that can be collected in a sustainable manner to supply feedstocks for an appreciable amount of liquid transportation fuel. Presumably the intended residues were selected based on availability today. Farmers are not growing energy crops at the moment. There is no market for such a thing nor is there currently a developed industry to provide planting material. In order to get the lignocellulosic biofuel party started the proposed refineries have wisely chosen to process available materials such as sugarcane bagasse, corncobs, and wood mill residues.

Read on »

Posted by Sam Hazen at 5:00 PM • 6 Comments

Oil is peaking -- deal with it!

Category:

The fundamentals in the oil market are that we are in the beginning stages of peak oil. Supply can no longer keep up with demand, which keeps soaring even in the face of record. The U.S. Energy Information Administration has the surprising statistics:

Preliminary data indicates that global consumption rose by roughly 500,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) during the first half of 2008 compared with year-earlier levels, as a 1.3-million bbl/d rise in consumption outside of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) was partially countered by an 800,000 bbl/d drop in U.S. consumption compared with year-earlier levels.... Total world oil consumption is expected to grow by a little over 1 million bbl/d during the second half of 2008 and by almost 1 million bbl/d in 2009 compared with year-earlier levels.

That's right, even after "the largest half-year consumption decline in volume terms in the last 26 years," demand continues to grow. Why?

Over the next year and a half, lower OECD consumption is expected to be more than offset by continued non-OECD consumption growth, led by China, the Middle East, Latin America, and India.

Yes, speculation overextends every move in market price -- but why shouldn't people speculate that oil prices will be much higher in the future? That seems like a very solid bet. And yes, a rising dollar can temporarily help lower prices -- but we are headed for a $10 trillion cumulative trade deficit just in oil between now and 2020. So which way do you think the dollar is headed long-term?

Ultimately only much, much greater demand destruction can stop the inexorable rise of oil prices. And that obviously requires much higher prices than what we've seen in the first half of this year!

Global consumption is now about 85 million barrels a day. Until the last few years, the United States was the major contributor to rising oil demand. From 1995 to 2004, China's annual imports grew by 2.8 million barrels a day. Ours grew 3.9 million. Since then, growth has come mostly from China, India, the Middle East countries themselves, and other developing countries that subsidize their fuel.

The world just can't deal with oil demand rising one million barrels a day or more year after year. In January, Jeroen van der Veer, chief executive officer of Royal Dutch/Shell, e-mailed his staff that the world will peak in conventional oil and gas within the decade. He wrote: "Shell estimates that after 2015 supplies of easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand." It used to be unheard of for oil executives to talk about limits to oil production. Now it happens all the time.

John Hess, chairman of Hess Corp., a global oil and mineral exploration company, said recently, "An oil crisis is coming in the next 10 years. It's not a matter of demand. It's not a matter of supplies. It's both." In October, Christophe de Margerie, CEO of French oil company Total S.A., said that production of even 100 million barrels a day by 2030 will be "difficult." In November, James Mulva, CEO of ConocoPhillips, the third biggest U.S. oil company, told a Wall Street conference: "I don't think we are going to see the supply going over 100 million barrels a day ... Where is all that going to come from?"

In the short-term, I suppose it is possible that we can go back to $3 gasoline, although that would probably require a deep global recession, and prices would only stay low for the extent of the downturn.

But the far more important point is that it is now simply too late to adopt policies that can prevent much higher oil prices, as high as $300 a barrel in 10 years, if you believe oilman T. Boone Pickens. Why?

Replacing oil in the transportation sector requires strong government action two decades before a peak because of the time needed to replace vehicles and fuel infrastructure. That was the conclusion of a major study funded by the Department of Energy in 2005 -- yes, the Bush DOE -- on Peaking of World Oil Production. The report notes:

The world has never faced a problem like this. Without massive mitigation more than a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and will not be temporary. Previous energy transitions (wood to coal and coal to oil) were gradual and evolutionary; oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary.

If we start an aggressive move soon to end our addiction to oil, to shift to highly fuel-efficient vehicles and plug-in hybrids as discussed here, we can perhaps spare our children from the worst impacts of peak oil (and, of course, global warming). But that require a far more progressive President than we have had for the last eight years.

Posted by Joe Romm at 9:50 AM • 11 Comments

The Speculation Bubble

Category: Price

Commodities account for the goods that feed us, heat our homes, get our cars cruising, and provide the basic materials we need everyday... and the commodities market recently nearly doubled in price in about a year. So what's up?

They say, it was a bubble actually. Of global magnitude.

You see, the high prices of fuel have led to inflated costs in other sectors, and in recent months, the boom got particularly ugly as the UN reported an additional 50 million people around the world suffer health problems because they can't afford food. (This seems like a low estimate as over a billion people live on less than a dollar a day).

But what's this got to do with energy? Oil... and oil markets.

The trouble is financial speculators. The world's growing middle class is buying more food and oil and investing in large institutional commodity markets. In other words, traders are betting on rising prices.

After the collapse of technology stocks in the sunset of the Clinton Administration and the recent burst of the housing bubble, investors were looking for another market to turn out some quick greenbacks. Increased demand in Asia coupled with lower commodity supplies and what looked like a bad year for grain (now projected to be a bumper crop), drove an increased frenzy of investment in 2008.

In five years, the total value of institutional investors' holdings in commodity index funds rose from $13 billion to $260 billion and the price of the commodities tracked in them rose nearly 200 percent. And keep in mind, investors compete with people who need these commodities for the operation of their businesses, yet over 71 percent of the commodity futures contracts are owned by speculators, up from 37 percent in 2000.

So don't look to ANWR and offshore drilling as the solution to high oil prices. Look to the traders who do not pass price fall benefits to the consumer. The trend has not gone unnoticed in the US and the Senate is now considering legislation aimed at cutting the cost of petrol and heating oil by ending excessive speculation in oil futures driving up prices.

According to the NYTimes, we experienced a near 20 percent decrease in all commodities prices over the last month, representative of slowing global growth and reduced demand for oil in the short term. Key word here: Short. Remember, inadequate production to meet growing consumption demand raises oil prices, which climaxed higher than ever this year.

So yes, the assault on your wallet appears to be weakening, but don't get too comfortable. Developing Asian economies will necessitate future supplies, which are anticipated to become increasingly hard to come by. The big take home message for today is:

The spike in commodity prices, no matter what the cause is giving us a taste of the future.

This should be the kick in the pants we need to act to develop alternative energy technologies now. We can't sit around and wait over the next couple years for prices to climb back up again. And be assured. They will.

Posted by Sheril R. Kirshenbaum at 11:14 AM • 14 Comments

With oil prices down, will energy concerns drop, too?

Category: Next Generation

When the price of oil plummeted last month from $145.18 a barrel to $134.60 in only two days, consumers wondered whether they were looking at a respite from the surging market that has pushed prices up 35% in the last year alone. Some analysts hinted that the market may have reached a tipping point, while others warned that it was too early to identify the specific factors leading to the downswing; it could turn around again in a second.

One rumor circulating among economists concerned overspeculation on oil futures; shortly before the drop, a private Oklahoma-based oil-marketing company sold its futures account to a large global investment bank, and there is some belief that the removal of the company—which was known to hold extensive bets in the oil market—removed upward pressure on prices.

The decrease certainly comes as a welcome relief for drivers, but it may not bode as well for the environment. Another factor thought to contribute to the drop is lessened demand from Americans who have changed their driving habits in the face of high costs. If gas prices return to affordable levels, this demand will undoubtedly rise again, both contributing more greenhouse gas emissions and easing the clamor for alternative energy sources.

As many of our bloggers have pointed out, cost will be the number one factor that determines how soon we can make the transition from coal and oil to renewable energy. If overspeculation and other intangible forces are responsible for keeping oil prices high—and not peak oil—what will it mean for the near future of alternative energy? Will even a temporary reduction in prices take voters' minds off energy issues in the upcoming election? Or have we finally been shocked into a more lasting awareness?

Posted by Erin Johnson at 9:51 PM • 9 Comments

Solar PV: a moving target for the critics

Category: Next Generation

I spent the better part of a year back at the turn of this century living on a houseboat, and therefore off the grid, in Canada's Northwest Territories. I was spending half my work week as a freelancer in my home office, and my three housemates weren't interested in reading by kerosene lamplight, so we couldn't do without electricity. Fortunately, the houseboat was equipped with a 400-watt photovoltaic array, which was more than enough to power our lights, stereo, television, and my laptop.

Read on »

Posted by James Hrynyshyn at 12:01 PM • 8 Comments