Iceland a volcanic wonderland with all renewable energy

(Photo of Strokkurd geyser erupting, as it does every few minutes at Geysir Hot Springs Area in southern Iceland. Photo by Sabrina Linton)

I just got back from a trip to Iceland with my grandchildren Bryan and Sabrina. The pristine island nation is hauntingly beautiful in a volcano-y, geothermally, green-mossy sort of way. There's very little pollution. If all the world were like Iceland we wouldn’t have to worry about climate change.

Blessed with plenty of natural hydro and geothermal energy, the country derives virtually all of its electric power from renewable sources. It fuels 90% of its heating and 25% of its electricity with the geothermal power simmering below its surface and has 7 geothermal power plants, 6 of them currently operational. Hydroelectric power fuels the balance.

Iceland is in a race with France, Israel and others to change over to electric vehicles supported by a nationwide EV charging network. Northern Lights Energy Co. hopes to make Iceland the first country in the world to have a national electric charging grid, which is very possible because of the scarcity of roads. Iceland could service the entire island with 20 well-placed charging stations.

Iceland is also using hydrogen for power. There was a charging station at the harbor and the whale-watching boat we went on was powered by hydrogen.

The fruits and vegetables are mostly organic and livestock aren’t fed antibiotics, our guide told us. Much of what Icelanders eat comes out of the sea, with fishing as its main industry. (No runaway oil wells muddying the waters here.) Low-cost geothermal energy has led to a healthy greenhouse industry, where salad greens, tomatoes, bananas and such are grown indoors. We ate bananas there, assuming had been shipped a long, long way. Maybe not!

This tiny country with just over 300,000 people does have a huge advantage when it comes to pollution from power use. The don’t need much of it.

Of course there are disadvantages to living on a volcanic island. Eyjafjallajökull (I think I can finally pronounce it), the volcano that erupted several months ago, was lying dormant again – at least for now – but caused quite a bit of damage with its ash, which covered farms in the area, requiring evacuation of livestock. The real threat, however, is Vatnajökull, which in the past has followed its smaller sibling and would blow up Europe’s largest ice cap, likely causing deadly floods.

Iceland is one of the fastest growing tourist destinations in the world. Proximity of the Gulf Stream keeps it milder in winter than New York or Toronto. Yet in summer, despite its 24 hours of daylight, high temps are usually in the high 50s or low 60s. We had one warmer day, when it was unusually sunny and in the low 70s, nice enough to have dinner at a sidewalk café in Reykjavik. Another day when we went close to the huge Vatna glacier and rode in a boat among icebergs on a glacial lagoon, we nearly froze. But it was nice to beat the heat back home for a week!

(Sources: GEA International Market Report May 2010, Globetrotter Travel Guide to Iceland, The Daily Green, BBC)

Asian growth may increase CO2 emissions 43% by 2035

(Photo of Chinese coal plant from Flickr and photographer ishmatt ).

Global CO2 emissions will grow 43% by 2035 if major nations keep the same energy policies, the U.S. Energy Information Administration predicted last week in it's International Energy Outlook 2010 report. Most of the increase will come from growth in Asia.

Oil prices will double to about $133 a barrel and energy use is predicted to increase almost 50%.

Greater use of renewable energy, especially in fast-growing places like China, could change the picture, the EIA report says. So could a swelling price of oil, to above $200 a barrel.

Cutting emissions from power plants could happen first because there technologies exist that are proven to be much less carbon-intensive. Transportation emissions, however, may be harder to slow, IEIA said.

Only wind and hydroelectric are economically competitive with fossil fuels, EIA said.

But the agency has underestimated wind and has a bias against solar and other developing alternatives, according to Joe Romm, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and head of climateprogress.org .

For more, see Scientific Amercian.

(Sources: ClimateWire, Scientific American)

What's the biggest renewable power source in the U.S.?

(Photo of turbines inside Hoover Dam from Flickr and photographer Mike Chen aka MetalMan)


It’s not wind or solar. It’s hydropower, which accounts for 7% of our electric power, and two-thirds of U.S. renewable energy today. The Obama Administration thinks hydro can play a bigger role in weaning us off fossil fuels, with their carbon footprint, and producing clean-tech jobs.

The Energy and Interior departments and the Army Corps of Engineers are eyeing ways to increase hydropower without harming the environment – most specifically migrating fish.

"I think that hydropower in the past was developed in a way that didn't protect local environments as it could have," said Energy Sec. Steven Chu. "We now know better how to design turbines that are kinder to fish."

"This is taking a look at existing facilities and low-impact hydro,” said Interior Sec. Ken Salazar. “This is an examination of what we can do with hydropower that does not necessitate the building of new dams."

The U.S. has 79,000 dams, but only 2,200 of them produce electricity.

The three departments will develop a strategy that would not only maximize efficiency at hydropower dams and put turbines in some dams that don’t produce power now, but also would look into new technologies, like putting turbines in major rivers and water pipelines.

And then there’s also the ocean. Wave action is just beginning to be seen as a powerful source of energy.

Clean tech jobs
There would be more than twice as many jobs in developing ocean power as in inland hydro, according to a recent report by Navigant Consulting.

Hydropower could provide a half-million to 1.4 million jobs, dependant upon the U.S. having an renewable energy standard of 10% to 25%, Navigant said.

Hydropower has the potential to produce 16,000 to 25,000 more megawatts of power, Chu has said. Navigant raises that to between 25,000 and 60,000 by 2025 if there’s an RES.

One good thing about hydro is its storage ability, something wind and solar are struggling with.

The federal government owns about half the existing hydropower dams, according to Linda Ciocci of the National Hydropower Assn. She said there need to be strong incentives to drive more private investment.

Most facilities are in the West, as well as in Tennessee and Pennsylvania. But Navigant said expansion can bring hydro jobs to all regions of the country.

Also involved is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has 9 pending applications for new nonfederal projects.

(Sources: ClimateWire Landletter, E&E Daily)

U.S. greenhouse gases likely to grow 4% by 2020 if steps aren't taken, new Climate Action Report to UN warns

(Photo of coal-fired power plant in Utah from Flickr and photographer arbyreed)

The U.S. is on a trajectory to increase greenhouse gas emissions 4% (over 2005) by 2020, in a business-as-usual scenario that includes government measures in place as of March 31, 2009.

President Obama assured the world at Copenhagen that we would reduce our emissions 17% (over 2005) by 2020.

Clearly additional steps need to be taken to close the gap.

The projection, in the 2010 U.S. Climate Action Report to the UN, does not include the recent automobile standards set by the EPA.

By 2020, the report forecasts the GDP will have grown 40%.

While CO2 is forecast to grow just 1.5%, other greenhouse gases will grow more rapidly. Hydrofluorocarbons will more than double, the report says. Ironically, they are now being used as a replacement for ozone-depleting substances.

The relatively slow growth of CO2 will come because of more renewable energy and efficiency, the report says.

Where we were in 2009
The U.S. is the third most populous country in the world, having grown by 59 million since 1990, to 308 million. It also has the highest GDP in the world, up 70% since 1990, the report said.

We are the world’s largest producer and consumer of energy. Fossil fuels accounted for about 80% of all energy consumption 2005-2008. Petroleum was the single largest energy source, at 37.7% in 2008, though it was down from 41% in 2005.

Natural gas was second at 24.4%, with coal third at 22.4%. Nuclear accounted for 8.1%, conventional hydropower 2% and all other renewables 3%, according to the report.

In transportation, the highway share of passenger miles (in 2006, the latest figures available), was 89% of the total. Airlines carried about 10% and mass transit and rail only 1%.

Government policies and actions that were figured into the projection included $90 billion in stimulus money from ARRA, federal agency actions to reduce their GHG, and actions taken by states and cities.

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)

How do enviro groups and clean tech stack up against oil and gas for lobbying money?

(Photo of oil rig from Flickr and photographer crashworks/Elan Ruskin.)

In Washington, D.C., it was raining lobbying dollars this summer. Both sides were trying to influence all-important climate legislation.

The oil and gas industry spent $38.4 million in Q3 (July-September), while environmental groups spent a fraction of that -- $6.1M and renewable energy just 6.6M. Exxon alone matched each of the latter and then some with it $7.2M.

Electric utilities spent almost as much as oil and gas -- $37.4M. And they're doing it with our rate money. Their argument is they don't want our rates to go up. So concerned about the consumer are they. Lesser amounts fueled lobbying from coal mining ($3.6M), natural gas ($3.1M) and forestry/forest products ($2.9.)

Industry groups were largely trying to get more allowances in a cap-and-trade system, but some were trying to block a climate bill entirely.

The summer quarter roughly matched the time between when the House bill was passed at the end of June and the Kerry-Boxer Senate bill was released in the fall.

Environmental groups went all out with spending to keep the momentum going for a bill they wanted to see passed by the Senate before the December international meeting in Copenhagen.

The World Wildlife Fund spent $1 million, way up from $45,000 last summer. They ran ads targeted senators from the swing states of Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Maine, Montana and North Dakota.

Environmental Defense was second with $430,000, nearly double what it spent last year. Overall, enviro group lobbying money was up 33% from $4.6M last summer.

Their money, of course, came from concerned citizens like you. Keep the donations flowing.

(Source: Greenwire. E&E analysis based on data from the Center from Responsive Politics.)

Clean energy is on upswing in U.S., but we need much more to avert climate change

(Photo from Flickr and state of Washington DNR.)

Thanks to state mandates, stimulus money and a slumping economy, the use of dirty coal to produce electricity has dropped slightly in the past year to 46.1% and clean renewables gained traction to 11.1%.

The Energy Information Administration predicts wind will be the source of 5% of electricity in 2020 and all renewable energy will make up 14%.

Coal use fell since last year, while the nation used slightly more natural gas, a bit less oil, and more biomass. (High gasoline prices may have been a factor for oil.) Investment helped wind power grow, while nuclear plants had less downtime, according to a study from the Lawrence Livermore Lab. Hydroelectric grew the most, according to businessgreen.com.

States rights
While Congress struggles to get a meaningful renewable electricity standard (RES), many states – including in July coal state West Virginia – have passed mandates for use of some clean energy in generating electricity. Once again the states are leading in the fight against climate change while the feds lag behind. (This happened with cars, remember?)

Economic slowdown
Total electricity generation is down 5%, year over year, thanks in part to the slowing economy. Industrial production sagged 12.5% in that period, according to the Federal Reserve.

Stimulus funds
Clean energy is expected to benefit from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (stimulus) money. A revised forecast from EIA shows wind at more than twice the earlier-predicted level in 2012 because of stimulus – 201 billion kilowatt hours instead of 86B, compared with 53B in 2008. Geothermal will benefit as well, growing 16% more by 2013 than if there was no stimulus. Energy efficiency will also improve, with a weatherization program. But let’s not get too excited. The impact on CO2 emissions by 2013 will be slight – down just 1.3% from earlier predictions, because of the stimulus.

We still have a long, long way to go on clean energy. A stronger Senate climate bill would certainly help – one that phases out dirty coal plants while promoting more clean energy, which by-the-way could fill all our energy needs if the infrastructure was updated and the special interests could be silenced. I know: not going to happen.

But we can try. Everyone should contact his or her senators and ask them to work to phase out dirty coal and do more to promote clean energy.

(Sources: E&E Daily, climateprogress.org, Energy Information Administration, greenbusiness.com

Follow earthlingangst now on twitter.

U.S. joins International Renewable Energy Agency

(Photo of model Masdar City transit vehicle from Flickr and Zerochampion/Phil Clark.)

The U.S. signed on this week as one of 137 members of a new international agency. The group’s goal is to rapidly spread renewable energy and energy efficiency around the globe.

Let’s hope this group will be able to help forge agreement among developed and developing countries that will lead to curbing greenhouse gases. It seems especially important in light of India’s recent declaration it will not submit to a cap on emissions. The agency plans to coordinate with, instead of duplicating, other organizations and programs.

By joining before June 29, the U.S. was able to help determine the International Renewable Energy Agency’s interim headquarters, Abu Dhabi. The capital of the United Arab Emirates is near the planned $22 billion “zero emissions” Masdar City. UAE also has said it will cut GHG emissions overall 7% by 2020.

The new agency, IRENA, will become a repository of data and advise members on technology, regulatory frameworks, business models and financing.

The U.S. was signed up by Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, who said clean energy and energy efficiency are important goals of American foreign policy. Clinton was pressed to take this action by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a co-author of the American Climate Energy and Security Act, passed in the House last week.
(Source: E&E Daily, Greenwire)

Will financial crisis and bailout help or hurt in fight against global warming?

(Headline collage from Flickr and Mother Pie/Hattie Page)

Weekly Angst: The credit crisis and $800-plus billion U.S. government bailout plan will likely have an impact on spending on climate change, but will the positives outweigh the negatives? While conventional wisdom might say there’ll be little money left over to fight global warming, many see green technology as the engine that will drive future growth and revival – at home and around the world.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors last week predicted 4.2 million new green jobs by 2038, adding to the 751,000 already in existence in 2006.

And green technology in Silicon Valley is one of the few industries still growing in California, Gov. Arnold Schwartzenegger noted.

The bailout
The add-on to the $700 billion bailout extended tax credits to help renewable energy, efficiency and sales of plug-in cars. While wind energy is a bit shaky, with only a 1-year extension and damage to some of its main investors – AIG, Lehman Brothers and Wachovia – the industry sees slower growth in 2010 but is still hopeful that utilities and other new investors will take a stake in the fast-growing new energy source.

Solar seems in a somewhat better position with an 8-year extension of production tax credits. The demand for solar panels reportedly still exceeds demand.

The American auto industry says it will remain on track to continue producing smaller, fuel-efficient cars and looks forward to competing for the $25B in low-interest loans from the federal government approved earlier this month.

Good signs
Other signs of hope that climate change will remain a high priority in Washington:
• The economic crisis raises the possibility of Democrats getting the 60-vote majority in the Senate they will need to pass a renewable energy standard (RES) and a cap-and-trade bill.
• House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says climate change remains a priority for her.
• There will be international pressure on the United States to negotiate a viable post-Kyoto treaty.
• And front-runner Barack Obama, should he become president, has touted a $150 billion renewable energy economic plan and produce 5 million jobs.

Problems
Some Republicans, however, may balk at passing a cap-and-trade bill in 2009, because they’ve always been concerned about its impact on the economy and that fear will be heightened. There are those who think such a bill might be held over till 2010, delaying action another year.

Others raise the alternative of a carbon tax, much easier to understand than another complex financial market. But worldwide carbon trading is thriving and expected to grow 80% to $116 billion by next year, thanks in large part to the Kyoto mandate for the European Union.

A major concern for a post-Kyoto agreement is that rich countries may be unwilling to come up with the money and technology for developing countries needed in order to get them to participate in curbing greenhouse gases.

UN Sec. Gen. Ban Ki-moon expressed concern last week that short-term financial emergency will eclipse the longer-term problem of global warming.

But finance ministers from around the world, at a World Bank and IMF meeting over the weekend, pledged to keep climate change on a front burner. Even bankrupt Iceland’s minister said, “We can’t afford to delay responding to climate change.”

And economists and UN leaders are creating a green New Deal. The Green Economic Initiative, spearheaded by the UN Environmental Programme, will be launched next week in London with its focus on renewable energy, other green technology and saving the world’s natural systems. Funded by the European Commission, Norway and Germany, the Initiative will – among other things – work to save forests, whose loss, they say, equals more than $2 trillion a year. The Initiative could produce hundreds of millions of jobs worldwide, according to Pavan Sukhder, chairman of Deutschbank's Global Market Center.

(Sources: Reuters, Greenwire, ClimateWire, PlanetArk, Daily Green, The Independent)

Northeast and Western states to test carbon trading in regional markets

News Update: Ten Northeast states have launched the nation’s first cap-and-trade system, raising $38.5 million for renewable energy and efficiency. It applies to electric utilities and about 90% of the allowances will be auctioned. The goal of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (pronounced “Reggie”) is to cut CO2 emissions 10% between 2014-18. There is a problem, though. The cap, set several years ago as the plan was being developed, may be too high to make much difference. GHG emissions in the region have leveled off in recent years instead of growing as expected. So the cap is higher than current usage. Some say the states may need to set a new, lower cap. Meanwhile, in the West, 7 states and 4 provinces across Canada unveiled a blueprint for a similar plan. The Western Climate Initiative aims to cut emissions 15% below 2005 levels by 2020. The Western plan would be economy-wide, including industry, transportation and homes. In a concession to industry, it plans to auction only 10% of allowances, giving the rest free to polluters and causing concerns some businesses could make windfall profits, as happened in the initial European plan. While both regional plans seem to be imperfect, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said the states are moving ahead where the federal government had failed to act. (Sources: ClimateWire, New York Times, AP)

Would new green economy and renewable energy really deliver more good jobs for U.S.?

(Photo of solar panel installers from Flickr and photographer utt73/John Utter)

Weekly Angst: You hear a lot about how clean energy will bring us more jobs. But will it really do more than just replace the jobs lost as fossil fuels are phased out?

Yes, says a new report, just out from the Center for American Progress and Political Economic Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

A $100 billion investment in clean energy and efficiency would result in 2 million new jobs in 2 years, whereas a similar investment in old (fossil fuel) energy will only create about 542,000 jobs, says the report. That’s a 3-to-1 difference.

Why is that? Well, green energy and efficiency are more labor intensive and less reliant on machinery and supplies, according to the report, “Green Recovery.”

The new jobs would be created in the following categories:

Retrofitting buildings: All publicly owned buildings, including schools and libraries, would be retrofitted for energy efficiency and Congress would encourage people and businesses to do likewise, using existing programs and tax credits. Any investment would be returned in 3-5 years through smaller utility bills. Jobs created would include electricians, heat and air conditioning installers, carpenters, roofers, insulation workers, truck drivers and building inspectors.

Mass transit and freight rail: While serious expansion of light rail service would take longer than two years, jobs could be created quickly by expanding service on existing bus and subway lines by subsidizing fares. Jobs would include civil engineers, track layers, electricians, welders, metal fabricators, engine assemblers, bus drivers and locomotive engineers.

Smart grid: Investment in energy grid efficiency and expansion would produce jobs over time, and pilot programs could be ramped up with more money in federal matching grants. Jobs would include computer software engineers, electrical engineers, machinists, construction laborers, operating engineers and line installers and repairers.

Renewable energy: If Congress extends investment and production tax credits for alternative energy like wind, solar and next-generation biofuels, those industries will boom here and produce thousands of jobs, including environmental engineers, steel workers, machinists, electrical equipment assemblers, truck drivers, production managers, electrical engineers, installers, chemical engineers, chemists, agricultural workers, purchasing managers and inspectors.

A stimulus to the economy
The report points out that this would be a type of stimulus package, to jump-start a flagging economy, but one that keeps on giving, by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and cutting energy bills.

The last economic stimulus package cost $168 billion and once people spent their checks it was over. This would cost less and produce lasting effects.

The plan is endorsed by the Sierra Club, United Steel Workers and Natural Resources Defense Council. It is similar to Barack Obama’s $150 billion 10-year plan for sustainable energy and green jobs.

Other countries, especially in Europe and Asia are pumping up their green economies and supplying most of the solar panels and wind turbines the world demands. So we have an added incentive to stoke up our green economy. If we don’t, the jobs and economic advantage will go overseas.

Join a call to action
Sept. 27 will be a National Day of Action, co-sponsored by many organizations, to call attention to the need for Green Jobs. Hundreds of events will be held across the nation to send a message to Congress to tackle the climate problem and build a green economy with job-intensive solutions like weatherizing homes, installing solar power and engineering a better mass transit system. To find an event near you, go to Green Jobs Now.
(Sources: ClimateWire, Green Recovery report)

'Gang of 10' Senate proposal gets Obama backing

(Photo of offshore drilling from Flickr and photographer absolutwade/Beau Wade)

Washington Report 1: The Senate “Gang of 10” drew support from Barack Obama Friday for a bipartisan compromise energy package that would relax restrictions on some offshore drilling, while repealing some tax breaks on the oil industry and funding renewable energy and conservation. Obama had previously opposed more offshore drilling but said he favored some of the other provisions in the bill and compromise was needed to get anything passed. The proposal, led by Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) was the result of many meetings to craft a bill that would satisfy voters upset over high gas prices and reduce dependence of foreign oil. It will likely come to the floor after the August break. It would:
• Reduce the no-drilling area in the eastern Gulf of Mexico to 50 miles off the Florida coast from 150 miles offshore (both Florida senators strongly objected).
• Allow drilling offshore from four Southeastern states -- Virginia, Georgia, North and South Carolina -- if the states agree, and share some revenue with the states.
• Repeal tax breaks worth $30 billion for oil companies, which made record profits this quarter (see below).
• Extend renewable energy tax credits, due to expire this year, until 2012, to encourage development of wind, solar and other renewable sources.
• Give incentives to coal-to-liquid plants that can capture and store carbon.
• Fund R&D on advanced batteries and help automakers retool.
• Develop and demonstrate next-generation biofuels.
• Give tax credits for highly efficient cars and those that use non-petroleum fuels. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) gave the proposal luke-warm praise as a starting point for some agreement on energy. The American Petroleum Institute opposed the repeal of some oil tax credits (calling it "tax increases), saying it would discourage domestic drilling. (Source: Greenwire)

Texas utilities to put up $2 billion to expand electric power grid to carry wind energy

(Photo of high-tension power lines from Flickr and Meridian Productions Inc.)

News Update 3: A group of electric utilities in Texas will invest $2 billion in 1,000 miles of much-needed high voltage power lines, according to regulatory filings. The consortium will put up about 40% of what regulators recently authorized to carry new wind power in the state. The utilities are owned by large investors like Goldman Sachs Capital and Berkshire Hathaway. Expansion of the antiquated power grid is essential to making use of renewable energy in this country. (Source: Reuters)

Hawaii’s gov signs slew of renewable energy bills

(Photo of Hawaiian beach from Flickr and and photographer Michael Bina)

News Update 1: Blue Hawaii is now Green Hawaii. Gov. Linda Lingle (R) has signed a number of bills aimed at increasing renewable energy and reducing dependence on foreign oil. The state has a goal of 20% renewables by 2020 and 70% by 2030. The new laws:
• Mandate that all new homes have solar water heaters.
• Plan for $1.5 million in revenue bonds to be invested in 3 alternative energy facilities, 1 solar, 1 tidal and 1 hydrogen.
• Give rebates for photovoltaic systems.
• Make it easier for solar energy facilities and biofuels producers to lease land.
Support is bi-partisan. Some of the bills were introduced by the governor, the rest by legislators on both sides of the aisle. Hawaii has a lot to lose (literally) if the seas rise due to melting of Greenland and Antarctica. (Source: ClimateWire)

India’s climate plan includes renewable energy, efficiency, but no emissions target

(Photo of solar energy in rural India from Flickr and and the barefoot photographers of Tilinia)

News Update 3: India, whose economy is growing 8-9% a year, has unveiled its National Action Plan to deal with global warming. It will focus on renewable energy, efficiency and research on green technology. More specifically, the plan covers solar energy, water conservation and energy efficiency, as well as sustainable agriculture, the Himalayan ecosystem and habitat. But it does not set a target for curbing greenhouse gas emissions. India says it has a right to lift its people out of poverty, as industrial nations did while they poured GHG into the atmosphere -- and that it has low per-capita carbon emissions, at 1.2 tons, compared with the United States’ 20.6 tons (2004 data). India’s power is 60% generated by coal, with plans for new plants in the next 5 years that will generate 70,000 more megawatts. Emissions have been growing about 2-3% a year, though the country is responsible for only 4% of the world’s GHG. (Source: Thomson Reuters)

Antiquated electricity grid won't be able to carry renewable energy to customers

(Photo of transmission lines from Flickr and photographers Vicki and Chuck Rogers)

Weekly Angst: A wind farm can be built in about a year. But it takes 5-10 years to construct the high-voltage power lines that will transmit the electricity to where it is needed.

And the lack of current capacity (excuse the pun) in transmission lines is blocking growth of renewable energy here, especially wind.

Many renewable projects simply won’t happen if policymakers don’t expand the power grid to accommodate them, alternative energy executives warned last week at the Renewable Energy Finance Forum in New York.

What happens with transmission “will define whether 2% or 20% of U.S. electricity is renewable,” said Dan Reicher, the executive in charge of Google’s green push.

Transmission lines aren’t a sexy subject, but I’m sure you’ll agree there’s not much point in building a wind farm or solar plant if it can’t get connected to a grid. And that is the risk here. Substantially more construction of towers and power lines is needed to for the U.S, to reach a goal of 15% renewable energy, a target passed by the House but not the Senate.

In Minnesota, for example, if just one-third of the applications for wind farms are granted, the 7,500 megawatts of power they would create for the Twin Cities would exceed the 2,000MW capacity of the grid.

Why it takes so long
One problem is that the ideal places for large wind farms (Midwest plains) and solar installations (Mojave Desert) are far from the cities where the electricity is needed.

And it costs $1.5 million per mile to put up high-voltage transmission lines. While that expense ultimately is passed on to the consumer, utilities are reluctant to build the lines before a wind farm or solar plant is built – and vice versa. So a chicken-and-egg struggle is going on here.

Also the permitting process can take forever. One issue is where to put the lines. Nobody wants them.

In California, there’s a battle over San Diego Gas & Electric’s plan to build a 150-mile transmission line from a desert solar plant to San Diego through a state park. Environmentalists argue it would ruin the park, while the utility says it can’t meet California’s renewable requirement without it.

A lag in investment
Investment in the electricity grid was neglected from 1975-2000, as funding dropped from $5 billion a year to just $2 billion by the turn of the century. Since then increased demand has sparked investment of about $60 billion, but the system is antiquated, causing such problems as the 2003 blackout in the Northeast and rolling brownouts in California. Lack of capacity remains a serious drawback that may well prevent states with mandated renewable electricity standards (RES)from reaching their goals.

Some in Congress are calling for “national renewable energy zones” to reduce bottlenecks in delivering power. Bills offered by Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would have the government identify zones with the capability to produce significant amounts of renewable energy but insufficient transmission capacity. Inslee’s bill would spread the cost of construction and requires the president to identify specific high-voltage lines for renewal within a year of establishing a national zone.

The 2005 Energy Policy Act allows the federal government to designate “national interest electric transmission corridors” where it could extend needed lines despite state and local objections. But there is resistance from states and environmentalists.

Some states and regions are searching for their own solutions. Texas, the state with the most wind power, has such zones, originally through the Western Governors Association, now in a project with the Department of Energy, which will help it bring wind to Dallas, Houston and San Antonio. Colorado, Minnesota and New Mexico are taking similar steps.

Grid should be high priority
NASA climate scientist James Hansen said last week that the next president needs to make it a priority to create a nationwide low-loss electrical grid so the country can replace fossil fuels with renewable energy. The technology exists to bury direct-current high-voltage lines, he said.

Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says it’s important for the next president to work with governors to get rid of arcane and conflicting state rules and open up the grid so clean energy can compete fairly with fossil fuels.

The energy sector “needs an initiative like the 1996 Telecommunications Act,” which required open access to phone lines, Kennedy said. As with telephones, he said, eliminating constraints will encourage investment, and utilities and entrepreneurs will revitalize the grid. Like Hansen, he argues for direct current, saying too much energy is lost in alternating current.

The transmission grid also needs to use “smart” technology to send electricity where and when it is needed, experts say.

Demand for electricity is expected to grow 40% by 2030, according to North American Electric Reliability Council. To meet that demand with renewable sources we must take action immediately to provide an adequate grid.

(Sources: PlanetArk, Greenwire, ClimateWire, E&E Daily, USA Today, The Guardian, Vanity Fair)

China struggles with growth and greenhouse gases: the good, the bad and the Hummer

(Photo of power plant in China from Flickr and photographer Sinosplice/John Pasden)

Weekly Angst: Last week we learned China significantly passed up the U.S. in CO2 emissions – by 14%. With 80% reliance on coal for power and a fast-growing economy, China is likely to continue pouring the most greenhouse gases into the atmosphere unless drastic steps are taken. So it was of interest that the U.S. and China signed a climate agreement last week – and that the government raised its fixed gasoline prices.

The good ...
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (known as an environmentalist when he ran Goldman Sachs) and Vice Premier Wang Qishan signed a “10-year Energy and Environmental Cooperation Framework” in Washington. They said businesses, government and research universities would work together on “making necessary technological advances to preserve the health of our planet.” They didn’t give targets to cap emissions but said they’ll jointly develop cleaner technologies, policies and incentives. They also will discuss steps to diversify power sources and develop alternatives to fossil fuels for transportation, as well as safeguard clean water and wildlife. A few other hopeful signs:

* GreenGen, a subsidiary of the state-owned China Huaneng Group, is building an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) demonstration power plant that will be more efficient and eventually capture 80% of its CO2. Since coal is relatively cheap and plentiful, China is likely to use huge amounts for the foreseeable future, so carbon capture and sequestration is pretty much essential to cutting down on CO2 emissions.

* China has a goal of 15% renewable energy by 2020 and 25% by 2025. Today, it gets about 8.5% from sources such as wind, solar and hydropower.

* Energy conservation became a national priority last April, which means managers in state-owned plants ignore it at their peril.

* The Chinese government is working with the Natural Resources Defense Council and Asian Development Bank to improve conservation in a country where poor execution has lead to enormous energy waste.

The bad …

Last year China added an average of 2 new coal-fired power plants a week. Hundreds more are slated for the future, even with a renewable portfolio.

GreenGen’s investment in the IGCC project, which could be the first of many, is looking for international support in the new technique of capture and sequestration. In particular, it was looking to the U.S. for its now-cancelled FutureGen demonstration project, which is now more likely to be a series of small carbon-capture projects. Whether that will dampen the Chinese enthusiasm for CCS remains to be seen.

In international discussions, China continues to reject mandatory caps on emissions. Its current 5 Year Plan set a target of a 10% cut in energy use per unit of GDP (or “intensity”) by 2010. GDP has been rising about 10% a year, so that means energy use will continue to grow – and so will emissions.


… and the Hummer
While Americans are scaling back on auto size, because of the rising cost of gas, and General Motors is thinking of selling or changing its Hummer, wealthy Chinese are falling in love with it. In Beijing alone, 15 car dealers are selling Hummers and a couple of local auto companies are making similar military-style vehicles, which are increasingly popular with urban-dwellers who see them as status symbols, according to the Financial Times.

Demand for SUVs is increasing too, up 40% in the first 4 months of this year, as well as for luxury imports.

Although China is the second largest importers of oil (after the U.S.), and demand for oil there is increasing about 8% a year, gasoline and diesel are subsidized so until this week they were costing about 40% of what we pay at the pump.

Late this week Beijing raised the price of gas about 17% to $3.06 per gallon, according to Greenwire. (Bloomberg says the official price is under $3 and the New York Times says its $3.83, so something’s being lost in translation. I’m going with the Greenwire number, which cites China's National Development and Reform Commission as its source.) U.S. Treasury Secretary Paulson had recommended raising the price to curb demand. Under the old price, Chinese refineries were losing money because they had to pay more for crude than they could get for the gas. Diesel prices were raised as well.

Interestingly, the average fuel-economy mandated for cars in China is considerably better than ours, about 35 mpg, which is what we’re aiming for by 2020.

To read more and see a chart of vehicle sales in China, go to The Financial Times.

(Sources: E&E PM, Greenwire, The Financial Times, Bloomberg.)

Windfall profits tax on oil, tax incentives for renewable energy both fail in Senate this week

(Photo of oil rig in Catalina Channel from Flickr and photographer arbyreed)


Washington Report 1: The repeal of $17 billion in tax breaks for major oil companies and “price gouging” penalties for unseemly oil profits garnered only 51 of the 60 votes needed to get to a vote Tuesday in the Senate. Also going down to defeat was yet another bill to extend tax credits due to expire this year on renewable energy and efficiency. On the first bill, GOP Sens. Collins and Snowe from Maine, Coleman from Minn., Smith from Ore., Grassley from Iowa and Warner from Va. voted with the Democrats. Mary Landrieu from La. was the lone Dem against. On the second bill, Republicans Snowe, Smith and Bob Corker of Tenn. voted with the majority, but that made only 50 votes. Key Democrats Obama, Clinton, Kennedy and Byrd were absent, as was Republican John McCain. Both bills faced a veto from the White House. However, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said he intends to revive the renewable tax credit bill, which passed the House last fall in a different form. Both parties seem to favor extending the credits, needed to maintain growth in renewable energy, but there’s a dispute about how and whether to pay for it with other taxes. (Sources: Greenwire, E&E News,
AP/Washington Post)

Nuclear wins, renewables lose in DOE's R&D budget

(Photo of nuclear power plant on Lake Erie from Flickr and photographer mandj98/James Phelps)

News Update 2: Nuclear energy is the big winner in the Department of Energy’s fiscal 2009 budget for research and development, and renewable energy and efficiency are the losers. Funds for research, development and deployment in the nuclear sector are up 46%, while RD&D money for renewable energy and efficiency is down 50%, said a report released last week by the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. Also cut, by 15%, was much-needed improvement to the electricity transmission and distribution system. The weatherization program was eliminated. The budget doesn’t reflect the technologies needed for a low-carbon energy supply, said the report, which urged a drastic increase in spending for new technologies, efficiency and energy storage. The budget “is a far cry from the Manhattan Project for clean energy technology some have proposed,” the report said. The breakdown in the new budget:
*Nuclear fusion 15%
*Nuclear fission 21%
*Fossil fuels 23%
*Renewable energy 17%
*Efficiency 16%
*Hydroelectric 5%
*Electricity transmission 3%
(Sources: E&E News PM, Kennedy School of Government Belfer Center Report)

Renewable energy use here down 1% last year due to dought, carbon dioxide emissions grew

(Photo of hydroelectric waterfall from Flickr and photographer grendelkhan.)

News Update 1: Consumption of renewable energy in the U.S, slipped slightly in 2007 because lack of rain cut hydroelectric power 14%. Drought is predicted to be a continuing problem because of climate change. Other forms of renewable energy were up, according to a report from the Energy Information Administration. Wind rose 21% and biomass 7% (mostly because of ethanol). Overall renewables were down 1%, following several years of growth. Sources of energy in 2007 were:
• renewables 7%
• petroleum 40%
• natural gas 23%
• coal 22%
• nuclear 8%
Meanwhile, carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. grew 1.6%, according to the EIA, with all the growth attributed to residential and commercial buildings. Since 1990 C02 growth in the U.S. was nearly 20%. Nations that signed the Kyoto treaty (not us) were committed to cutting C02 5% from 1990 levels.
(Source: E&E News PM, Greenwire)