The Great Gulf Oil Spill of 2010: If a wind turbine had exploded we wouldn't be facing this mess

(Photo of oil slick taken Saturday from Flickr and SkyTruth)

It’s ironic that approval for the Cape Wind Project came the same week at the Great Gulf Oil Spill of 2010.

It’s taken 9 years to get approval for the 130-turbine wind farm in Nantucket Sound, where the NIMBY (not-in-my-back-yard) factor kept blocking it. The turbines, which will be 5-14 miles away from land, will reportedly look smaller than a quarter in your hand.

And if one of those falls over or explodes, all we’ll get is what comic Stephen Colbert deemed “a catastrophic wind spill.”

With the BP oil rig that self-destroyed in the Gulf 12 days ago, we’re getting inestimable damage to coastal regions of three or four states, as well as a major portion of the fishing industry and other wildlife. This rig was about 40 miles from shore and the leak is a mile deep, making repair very, very difficult. An oil slick, now the size of Puerto Rico, is spreading toward Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama – the same ill-fated states that had to endure Hurricane Katrina – and probably to the panhandle of Florida.

If the spill continues, as seems inevitable, it could travel down the west coast of Florida to the Keys and then be carried by the Gulf Stream up the east coast, tarring beaches and wildlife and ruining fishing and tourism.

Political fallout
Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (and Independent candidate for Senator) said this weekend there should be no new offshore drilling.

Christ, who flew over the slick and called it “frightening,” told Meet the Press’s David Gregory he would be for climate change legislation if he was in the Senate.

Which begs the question, what impact will the spill have on passing a climate bill? The Kerry-noGraham-Lieberman bill includes expanded offshore drilling to placate Republicans, though some Democrats clearly didn’t like that part. Now they REALLY don’t like it.

As for the president, he ordered there be no new drilling leases unless there are new safety measures to avoid a repeat of the current calamity.

The legacy of Santa Barbara
Never underestimate the impact of a big oil spill on public opinion. The Santa Barbara spill of 1969 is credited with being the impetus for the environmental movement. Anti-drilling fever can spread as relentlessly as the oil slick itself.

California, though it still has 27 drilling platforms off its southern and central coast, has long had a moratorium on any new drilling there. A request to expand one drilling project, which already had opposition, will likely never get off the ground now.

You’ll note California was not included in President Obama’s loosening of offshore drilling restrictions. Nor is it in the climate bill.

And U.S. Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) told AP the Gulf spill “marks a turning point in our national discussion on new offshore oil drilling.”

People have a very long memory and strong feelings when their property is affected.

Oil versus wind
As we wait for something to stem the flow of the current disaster, which could take up to three months if all else fails and their only remedy is to drill a relief hole, let’s give a lot more thought to what would have happened if a wind turbine had exploded in the gulf. We’d hardly have noticed.

There are those who say energy independence depends on offshore drilling here. It’s either our oil or foreign oil. No it’s not. It’s either oil or clean sources like wind, solar and hydropower.

And, by the way, let’s think long and hard about a nuclear resurgnce. What if that had been a nuclear reactor?

(Sources include: NBC’s Meet the Press, Associated Press via Mother Nature Network, Christian Science Monitor, dailykos.com)

Rare earth minerals new reason to worry about China: It's hording supply needed for clean energy

Never heard of REM? You will. Rare earth minerals are 17 different metals, usually found together, that are needed to make clean energy products as diverse as electric car batteries, wind turbines and condensed fluorescent lightbulbs.

China has half the world’s reserves but is steadily slowing exports to meet it’s own increasing needs. We have been importing 90% of what we use from them. But by 2013 China may be using all its REM itself.

A Congressional subcommittee heard last week that we need to come up with a solution to that problem in the next two years or we won’t be able to compete.

The Department of Energy announced last Wednesday it will devise a strategy to diversify the supply line, finds substitutes and recycle the metals.

Only one U.S. company, Molycorp, is mining the metals right now. (BTW, China tried unsuccessfully to buy Molycorp’s parent company, Unocal.) Molycorp was denied a DOE loan guarantee to expand and asked Congress last week for help.

Reserves also exist in Canada, Australia, India and Russia. But these metals are expensive and difficult to mine.

(Sources: E&E Daily, E&ENewsPM)

China & US: Who'll rule on clean tech, green jobs?

(Photo of solar panel plant worker in China from Flickr and Bert van Dijk)

If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

That seems to be our strategy with China when it comes to the renewable energy race.

China is spending as much on clean energy as it is on its military. We’re, um, a little less generous. As the Senate dithers, bowing to the interests of Big Oil, Big Coal, and a backward-looking Chamber of Commerce, China is racing ahead toward dominance in the clean energy field.

We’re just not taking it nearly as seriously as they are. They’re ramping up their economy. Ours seems to be ramping down. We’re too tied to the old fossil fuels and don’t really believe that green jobs are the future.

We are spending about 12% of our stimulus money on renewable energy (which for us is amazing). They are spending 38% of theirs. Altogether they’re investing tens of billions of dollars in renewable energy and improving their grid. By 2013 green technology is projected to be 15% of their GDP.

China expects to expand its solar generation 20,000% (no, that’s not a mistake in zeros) by 2020. We project ours to increase just 33%.

Chinese solar manufactures are flooding the American market with cheap panels, driving some companies like GE and BP Solar, to close factories here and outsource. Applied Materials is opening a research facility over there. Of the 10 largest producers of solar panels, only one is American. Even Nellis Air Force Base is using Chinese panels.

We have been dominant in wind generation, with as many jobs in that as in coal mining. At one point, not long ago, we dominated turbine manufacturing. But now we have only one company in the world’s top five.

We’ll have to put a heck of a lot more into it, to catch and pass up China when it comes to the energy of the future.

Forming partnerships
At this point we’re settling for partnerships that can make use of China’s technology and capital. When we talk about sharing technology, it’s no longer us helping them. And they have plenty of money to invest.

On President Obama’s trip to China, a partnership between the two countries was announced – to boost renewable energy, share technology on modernizing the grid, develop codes and labels for energy efficient buildings and electronic consumer products, come up with standards on electric cars, and set up a joint clean energy research facility. We will also help China with shale gas technology.

By itself, this sounds like a vague announcement of cooperation that may not go anywhere. But several other recent announcements make it real.

*China’s A-Power Energy Generation Systems is partnering with U.S. Renewable Energy, a private equity firm, to set up a wind turbine factory in the U.S. for windfarms in North and South America. The technology will come from China, the turbine parts from the U.S. An estimated 1,000 American jobs will be created.

*A subsidiary of Chinese A-Power has joined with partners in Texas to build a 600-megawatt windfarm, funded mainly by Chinese banks, though they applied for U.S. stimulus funds. The request is controversial and may not go anywhere because the turbines are made in China, providing about 2,400 jobs there, but less than 400 here.

*Chinese solar panel maker SunTech is building a North American headquarters and factory in Arkansas, chosen over Texas because of a 10% tax incentive. Initially there will be 75 jobs, eventually as many as 250.

*Duke Energy has a deal with two Chinese companies for cash, equipment and technology for two projects: one solar power development in the U.S., the other better technology for carbon capture and storage at coal-fired electric plants.

I think we can expect more such deals. China, of course, is not only about clean energy. They’re still building at least one coal plant a week. But their rapidly growing need for energy and concerns about pollution are driving an interest in renewable energy we just can’t match. Or won’t match. So we may be ceding the energy future to them like we did the car business to Japan. And for the same reasons. Protecting dirty fossil fuels and resistance to change.

(Sources: Greenwire, CNN, Huffington Post, ClimateWire)

States see linked wind farms along East Coast

(Photo of offshore wind farm built in 2000 off Denmark from Flickr and United Nations photos.

I spent many days swimming and fishing on East Coast as I was growing up – summers in Rhode Island, occasional trips to Long Island or Fire Island, N.Y., and visits to grandparents in Florida. I still make frequent trips back to what feels like home. I love the Atlantic seaboard.

Fast-forward and envision a chain of interconnected offshore wind farms up and down the coast supplying much-needed power to the New England and Mid-Atlantic states. A source of electricity that doesn't release greenhouse gases.

I would much rather live with offshore wind turbines than offshore drilling platforms or belching coal plants. I saw the graceful, slow-turning turbines off Denmark a few years back – didn’t even know what they were, but they didn’t seem like an eyesore. And the vision is that these farms will be so far offshore you'll scarcely be able to see them, if at all.

Given the need for clean energy, I’ve been rooting for Cape Wind off Nantucket during it’s 8-year battle for approval, which is still going on. (Even Ted Kennedy said “not in my backyard.")

Wave of the future
So I was happy to see in September that some East Coast states, from Maine to Maryland, are joining together to develop a vibrant wind industry off their coastline. They have formed what they call the U.S. Offshore Wind Collaborative.

One goal is to get R&D funding to develop floating turbines that can function in rough seas and deep water far off the coast – beyond the horizon. That could take time.

Meanwhile the states are motivated to cooperate rather than compete, and to come up with a network of windfarms connected on the ocean floor by a shared grid that goes to onshore substations near cities needing power.

Many reasons to do it
There are, of course, practical reasons for these states to work together:
• They import most of their power from the Midwest.
• The population is too dense to put windfarms on land.
• By working together they can reduce costs, cut through red tape and have an influential national voice.
• They can develop a strong offshore wind industry for the U.S., after ceding the onshore business to Europe years ago.
• They can, hopefully, speed things up so they can meet their self-imposed goals for renewable energy.
• The strongest, most reliable wind is offshore and the supply is endless.
(A curious difference about Europe’s offshore wind business versus ours. Their water is shallower so they’ve been able to adapt land towers for the sea, while we will need deeper water turbines if we want to place them some distance off the coast.)

Meeting last week
At the Clean Energy Summit in New Jersey last week, the states continued their talks. They will lobby together for an extension of the wind production tax credit beyond 2012. They will share public financing, technology and transmission lines. They'll work together to minimize environmental impact. (Yes there could be an impact on birds and marine life, but weigh it against the damage acidification from CO2 is causing oceans right now.) The states are even exploring the idea of making utilities buy a portion of their energy from offshore wind farms.

They said they will be able to save on costs and provide green jobs sooner than if each state proceeded on its own.

Many have already selected sites that meet state criteria. But the approval process involving the federal government is a complex one they hope to fast track, by agreeing among themselves.

Already underway
Several individual projects are already in the works:
• Cape Wind’s planned 130 turbines
• Delaware’s 450mw Bluewater Wind Co. project
• New Jersey’s work with several developers to produce 350mw
• Maine’s plan to test deep-water technology at 5 sites.
Rhode Island, Maryland and New York also are working on plans.

States have the right to put turbines up to 3 miles offshore, but the states want the federal government to begin issuing ocean floor leases for wind development beyond the 3-mile limit. Far better than issuing oil and gas leases.

(Sources: ClimateWire, usowc.org, NY Times.)

To follow us on Twitter everyday, click on the little bird on the right-hand side of the page.

Will China become a Green Dragon when it comes to clean energy to fight climate change?

(Photo of wind power in China from Flickr and photographer drs2biz/David Schroeter)


Weekly Angst: All eyes are on China this week. That’s because of the Olympics, but there’s a far more important reason to China-watch. As the world’s fastest-growing economy it has great power for good or evil – when it comes to global warming.

China has passed up the U.S. as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, releasing 24% of the world’s total, and it’s building an average of one coal-fired power plant a week. That’s scary.

At the same time, it’s leading the world in hydropower, is a major producer of photovoltaic solar panels, and will likely soon lead in making wind turbines.

Its autos are required to have 40% greater fuel economy than ours and it has mandated 15% renewable energy by 2020 – something our own Congress failed to pass.

A report released Aug. 1 by The Climate Group, an independent nonprofit, pulls together information about “China’s Clean Revolution”:
* It leads the world in total installed capacity of renewable energy.
* It is second to Japan in solar photovoltaic production.
* It is likely to be the largest exporter of wind turbines by 2009.
* It has 60% of the world market in solar water heaters.
* It’s the third largest ethanol producer.
* It leads the world in hydroelectric power and is 5th in wind power.
* It spent $12 billion on clean energy last year, second only to Germany, which spent $14 billion (they have similar-sized economies) and more than the United States. For shame.

In 2005, China enacted fuel-economy standards for autos and new-building efficiency design codes that would cut energy use in half. In 2006, in passed a Renewable Energy Law, mandating the purchase of wind, solar and biomass for power plants, and a tax of up to 20% on SUVs.

Seizing green economic advantage
“China’s beginning to unleash a low-carbon dragon,” said Steve Howard, CEO of The Climate Group, which advises government and businesses on how to combat climate change, and co-author of the report.

Clean-energy demand has given the Chinese economy an opportunity and they are forging ahead of us. Tens of thousands of companies are making everything from solar panels to electric bicycles to energy-efficient appliances to wind turbines. The 6 largest solar companies have a market value of $15 billion.

One city, Rizhao, has set out to become a carbon-neutral showcase and is half-way there, according to a recent story on ClimateWire. Highrise buildings will collect solar power during the 260 days of sunshine in the oceanside city, which plans to close down cement, paper and steel businesses that use coal. Rizhao shares this goal with a small number of other cities: Arendal, Norway; Vancouver, Canada; and Vaxjo, Sweden.

Coal still main energy source
All is not blue skies though. Fossil fuels provide most of the power, and if trends continue, 70% of China’s new electric power by 2030 will come from coal, the Climate Group report said. So by that year China will be adding an estimated 4 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, more than the European Union’s total now.

But China realizes it can’t sustain the kind of dirty industrial development the West had and must look for a better, cleaner way. Motivation comes from the enormous air-pollution problem and shortage of natural resources in a country trying to lift its population (one-fifth of the world) out of poverty.

China depends heavily on imports, and the high cost of fuel has made renewable energy far more attractive, The Climate Group’s China director, Changhua Wu, told the BBC.

“In China we are concerned about the speed of growth of emissions. It’s really scary,” Wu said. The government wants to stabilize emissions by 2020, mainly through efficiency, renewable energy and electric cars, she said, but more policy incentives are needed.

As a growing world power, and leading emitter of greenhouse gases, China will be one of the most important countries in seeking an international solution to climate change. But China has taken the position that the developing world, which was responsible for the overwhelming majority of greenhouse gases until recently, must show its sincerity and ability to cut its own GHG before expecting new economies to do likewise.

“If they are not able to do it with the technology available to them, then is it reasonable to expect China and India to do it?” asked Wu.
(Sources: The Climate Group, BBC News, ClimateWire, Reuters)

… as oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens plans largest wind farm ever

(Photo of Texas wind farm from Flickr and and photographer fieldsbh)

News Update 4: Texas mogul T. Boone Pickens is expecting a windfall. As you no doubt have seen, he plans to construct the world’s largest wind farm, in the Texas Panhandle, and make a(nother) fortune while cutting U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Pickens’ much publicized Pickens Plan is to put up 2,700 wind turbines over the next 4 years and generate enough electricity to power more than 1 million homes. The 80-year-old Pickens has convinced neighboring ranchers to put the turbines on their land for $10,000-$20,000 each. He, himself, isn’t going to have any – saying they’re ugly – but he’s worth $3 billion and doesn’t need the money. The Texas conservative hopes to pressure Congress to do more about clean energy. Oil peaked in Texas in 1973, so now he’s on to something new. He says it’s ridiculous for the U.S. to import 70% of its oil at a cost of $700 billion a year. His plan is to use wind and solar for power, and then shift natural gas to replace gasoline for fuel. No doubt he’ll make some money at that end too. While environmentalists love his big push for wind, most don’t like the natural gas bit, since it’s only about 30% lower in carbon than gasoline. (Sources: The Guardian, Huffington Post, pickensplan.com)

IEA says global ‘energy revolution’ needed to cut greenhouse gases in half by 2050

(Photo of wind turbines in Italy from Flickr and photographer gorillaradio/Sebastiano Pitruzzello)

News Update 1: A worldwide “revolution” in the way we use energy is needed in the next 40 years, the International Energy Agency said last week. The cost will be $45 trillion, the agency said. But failure to act will result in an energy shortage and a slowdown in the global economy. Massive changes will be needed on a worldwide basis, including:
• Retrofitting 35 coal-fired plants and 20 natural gas plants each year to capture and store carbon dioxide.
• Building 32 nuclear plants a year.
• Installing 17,500 new wind turbines a year.
• Increasing solar energy and second-generation biofuels that won’t compete with food.
One of the most challenging changes will be to drastically reduce fossil fuel use for transport, at a time when auto and plane use is skyrocketing in developing nations. Oil demand needs to be cut to 27% of 2005 levels, said the agency, which advises 27 nations on energy policy. The task at hand is gargantuan, but without it oil demand will likely grow 70% and GHG emissions will increase 130% by mid-century, IEA said. The impact would be calamitous, with more severe droughts, famines, floods and rising seas that engulf coastal cities. IEA urged the G-8 to endorse the goal to reduce GHG in half by 2050 at its meeting in July. (Sources: Greenwire, New York Times)

Wind farm developers eyeing Lake Michigan

(Photo of wind farm way offshore in Britain. You can hardly see it from shore. Photo from Flickr and photographer dpicker/David P)

News Update 2: Three wind developers are considering building hundreds of wind turbines in Lake Michigan. One would like to put up 390 turbines 18 miles off Milwaukee, where the water is relatively shallow. The U.S. has no offshore or water-based wind turbines to date, though they have been proposed for Nantucket Sound and Lake Erie. In Europe, Denmark and the U.K. have offshore turbines. I saw the ones off Denmark while cruising the Baltic Sea a few years back and thought they looked quite graceful. Talks are at the preliminary stage in Wisconsin, where state agencies have been studying the feasibility of turbines in both Lake Michigan and Lake Superior. (Sources: Greenwire and jsonline.com.)