A couple of articles about solar power caught my eye this week. To be very clear from the outset, I am a huge proponent of solar power via all the myriad technologies out there today as well as those under development. I have a solar PV system on my house that generates more electricity than my family consumes on a monthly and yearly basis (by a decent margin). Keep these facts in mind as you read my comments on the pieces I found.
The first article dealt with solar installations just in the state of Colorado, which “jumped in 2011″. CO installed 91 megawatts (MW) in 2011. Nationwide, according to the author, solar installations more than doubled to 1,885 MW or ~1.9GW – a not insubstantial number in and of itself. California installed 542 MW, New Jersey 313 MW, Arizona 273 MW, and New Mexico 116 MW. Additionally, the weighted average cost of installed systems dropped 20% – also a piece of good news.
While reading up on something unrelated, I came across a graphic from a post at CleanTechnica which was touting U.S. solar installations. As you can see below, they point out that 17 nuclear power plants worth of solar peak power shipped in 2010.
I’m not sure what size power plants they use for comparison, but for now I’ll assume that it was the same size that I used for a class analysis last semester – 0.75GW. Note further the key adjective: “peak power”. That is the power that the solar systems can deliver on a clear day when the sun is as perpendicular to the arrays as is possible. That value lasts for only a short period out of any day with current technologies. This isn’t a criticism – my system had a peak power rating too but I know I can’t expect that power to be generated throughout the day and certainly none will be generated at night.
Okay, with those caveats out of the way, here is my take on all this information: those national numbers aren’t nearly enough to address our CO2 emissions. From the same analysis I referenced above, I calculated that the U.S. needs a minimum of 25 0.75GW nuclear power plants installed per year to meet our stated 2020 GHG reduction goal of 20% of 2005 emissions. That’s well more than the solar PV-equivalent that was installed in 2010. If we instead want to hit our stated 80% GHG reduction goal by 2050, we need a minimum of 111 0.75GW nuclear power plants (or their equivalent) installed per year through 2050. Those numbers include a very conservative increase of 0.32% energy demand per year through the same time frames.
The solar industry has made great strides in the U.S. – but I am convinced it is nowhere close to enough to address the magnitude of global warming that is likely to occur. These numbers are good news, but we need a whole lot more great news. Which means we need some serious policy work done to ensure that great news is reported someday soon.
Past wind farm deployments and advances in the wind energy sector have worked to open up new areas primed for future deployment. As tower heights rise from 50 meters to 80 meters above the ground, turbine can capture more wind captured at one time (higher wind speeds are usually present away from the ground) as well as during more parts of the day.
The result is that instead of 7.4-8.4 m/s wind speeds, new turbines can capture 8.5-10 m/s winds (see map below (gif source & pdf). This translates to a 1.2 cent reduction per kilowatt-hour of wind energy: 10.8 cents, down from 12.0 cents. My utility currently charges 4.6 cents per kilowatt-hour of energy. The utility’s energy mix as of 2010 was: 61.31% coal, 26.88% natural gas, 10.26% wind, ~1% rest). They are also filing for a 5.99% increase in electricity charges.
Unsurprisingly, the cost of wind continues to fall as deployment accelerates and R&D is performed. This happens while corporate welfare for dirty energy still dwarfs the subsidies for clean energy. It is remarkable that the renewable energy sector grew at the rate it has while it has faced a relatively hostile policy environment. Imagine what the clean energy industry (and our environment) would look like if we were serious about it 40 years ago.
I’ll have more of my thoughts on this kind of news going forward. Transitioning from 61.31% coal, 10.26% wind and 0.29% solar to a clean energy-dominant mix will prove incredibly difficult, for instance. Some good policies have been implemented to help that happen, but I wonder if the scope of the problem has been accurately assessed.
I wanted to know a little more about President Obama’s proposed 2011 budget as it related to energy items. I’m wondering what priorities his administration has, for instance. I can’t say that after taking a brief look around I’m totally pleased with what I found. There is too much of a budget boost to legacy energy systems and not enough emphasis, in my opinion, to the energy systems of the future. Those future systems are what I think the government should be funding. Without a doubt, the subsidies to the dirty energy industry need to be cut off completely. They’re mature to the point of being nearly monopolistic, which means they can stand or fall on their own merits now. With that in mind, here is some of what I’ve found.
There were a number of news stories in 2009 about different projects being considered in Europe to build a continent-wide grid capable of delivering renewable energy from a multitude of sources to any destination on the continent. The first renewable energy supergrid story of 2010 came out earlier this week and it demonstrates how far Europe has come in their serious quest to get off fossil fuels.
There is also interest in coordinating with North African countries to join the grid in order to stabilize the base load. Wind and tidal power plants could be build across northern Europe. Massive solar farms could be built across northern Africa. African countries could get desalination plants built, powered by the renewable energy supergrid, and Europe could get the energy they need 24/7 regardless of weather at a specific location.
Nine countries (Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, Ireland and the UK) plan to formally draw up plans to link up their respective clean energy projects. The cool techie part: thousands of miles of undersea cables will be laid on the seabed. Construction could start by the end of the year. There is also a strong aspect of energy storage involved: Norway’s hydroelectric power stations, which could act as a 30GW battery!!
In contrast to the U.S.’s desire to drill off-shore, Europe is taking a more pragmatic approach: 100GW of offshore wind projects are in the works. They would supply 10% of the EU’s energy demand, which isn’t a trivial amount.
Estimates of cost come in around €20bn-€30bn. That sum shouldn’t be taken lightly, but as I’ve argued before, the costs of inaction greatly outweigh the costs of action in the climate change realm.
The development of the North Sea supergrid would be the first step toward implementing a European-wide grid, and eventually a European-African grid. The Europeans aren’t looking at their 2020 GHG pollution reduction pledges as the final goal. They’re looking at what it’s going to take to get from 2020 to 2050. At this point, I don’t think enough Americans are serious enough about a potential 2020 goal, let alone anything beyond it.
There is now enough footwork done to establish as fact the availability and potential of renewable energy in America. There is more than enough of any single kind of renewable energy. When all the sources are combined, the potential is incredible – and that includes a continuation of increasing energy usage with time. Solar and geothermal are dominant energy sources west of the Rocky Mountains. Wind is dominant across the Midwest and Northeast. What we need, as Europe has realized, is a grid that connects all the separate projects together to provide homes and businesses with renewable energy 24/7, regardless of demand or weather. It’s an achievable goal – we just have to decide to get aggressive and make it happen.
I originally covered the request here and davewolfusa followed up with an outstanding call to action post. No matter how the fees were calculated, it was simply the idea that people with new solar power systems were going to be charged extra every month to be connected to the power grid that spurred so many to action.
Gov. Ritter is smartly trying to consider the real problem Xcel is facing as the New Energy Economy moves forward:
“We appreciate Xcel’s concerns about the cost of distributing power and maintaining the electric grid, and we will work with Xcel to study these issues moving forward,” Ritter said in a statement. [...] Ritter said the GEO [Governor's Energy Office]will analyze the costs and benefits of “distributed generation,” such as rooftop solar systems installed across a wide area, so that state regulators can use that information when deciding the costs and benefits of the rapidly growing sector.
Xcel’s spokesman also sounded pretty reasonable:
“We need to sit down to discuss the most appropriate way to deal with this issue, which we see as growing in the future, and address it for all parties involved,” [Xcel spokesman Tom] Henley said.
Xcel’s announcement said it was committed to talking with solar power advocates to address the issue of costs and payments in the future.
See, that wasn’t that hard. Let the public know what issue you’re facing and I’m sure most folks will come to the table with an open mind. But announcing what looks like a punitive fee to clean energy advocates without a venue to discuss it with those advocates was a bad idea. So perhaps the lesson associated with this episode is Xcel needs to work on its communication skills with its customer base. Let’s hope that’s improved in the future.
[Update]: johne at SquareState has an interesting take on this news.
Two items caught my eye today. The first, Xcel plans backup fee for solar, demonstrates how out-of-touch and greedy Xcel continues to be. Xcel wants to charge their customers who have solar panels to provide electricity when they demand more than what their solar systems provide. Those customers are already hooked up to the grid, of course, which immediately raises the question, “Why?!”. Here are the details:
Xcel is proposing a 2.6 cents per kilowatt hour fee to provide electricity from the grid. That fee would be tacked onto the electricity rate that Xcel charges every customer. So those with solar panels would be charged more per kilowatt hour than those without solar panels. That’s also on top of the $7 or $8 “service fee” that Xcel charges to cover meter reading and billing. The only spot of good news from this proposal is that existing solar customers would be grandfathered in – not subject to Xcel’s new fees.
If a person’s house is already hooked up to the grid and has been drawing power from dirty energy for any length of time, what justification could Xcel have to charge that person more per kilowatt hour if they install clean energy and reduce overall demand from our antiquated and overused energy transmission system? Moreover, solar panels can easily generate more power than an owner uses while collecting the energy. Customers are credited for that excess energy because it is used by the rest of Xcel’s grid. Thus, Xcel’s transmission and generation costs are actually lowered by these customers. So future customers will be penalized for that service? Do Xcel customer’s have the ability to go to the PUC and demand that the energy they sell to Xcel should match the highest rate they have to pay Xcel? If they don’t, then energy producers don’t have equitable access to the energy market, do they.
I can envision this doing one of two things. The first is it puts a crimp on the future growth of solar panels in Colorado. Why would people, especially in a severe recession, pay thousands of dollars to put in solar panels and then be charged more per kilowatt hour for the same electricity that their neighbor would be charged? It’s easy: solar panels are less desirable in such a market, ensuring that we remain stuck on dirty energy longer, thereby raising the cost of future climate change mitigation. The second is it drives people to go off the grid. If people can generate and store the energy they produce, what use would they have for an energy corporation whose primary purpose is to generate a profit? And before this second scenario is dismissed out of hand, realize that energy storage technologies will continue to advance. Add in upgrading a home’s energy efficiencies, ability to generate its own power and store excess energy, and the Xcel way of business doesn’t seem so stable or profitable.
The second item was an announcement from Gov. Ritter’s office:
Gov. Bill Ritter said today [July 23] he will oppose the federal government if it moves ahead with a proposal to ship thousands of tons of mercury to a waste storage site south of Grand Junction.
Well, that certainly is good news. Here’s the reasoning:
The risks to ground and surface water are too great. The risks to our air quality are too great. The risks of transporting elemental mercury over long distances and on routes that run adjacent to or cross major water sources, such as the Colorado River, are too great.
That sounds really great too. Um, Gov. Ritter, I have a question: if you’re willing to refuse mercury storage, why hasn’t the state done more to stop toxic chemicals from being forced underground in order to drill out gas and oil? I realize there are some differences in the two cases (government vs. corporations being one), but shouldn’t the quality of our ground and surface water be fought for, regardless of who could potentially foul it?
Thanks go out to Brahman Colorado, whom I met for the first time yesterday. Fracing was the topic of a very good discussion, and this mercury announcement put it into even further context for me.
Two articles from the ProgressNow Daily News Digest caught my eye this morning. The first is about additional clean energy development in Colorado. The other puts violent speech from a Con politician on display.
I’ll start with the clean energy story: potential development in the San Luis Valley that is being looked at by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar as part of an effort to build solar power infrastructure on public space in six Western states. Unlike Rep. John Salazar, who would rather condemn the planet to thousands of years of harsh climate than stand up to oil and gas corporations, Sec. Salazar’s Interior Dept. obviously understands the dangers involved. And while Sec. Salazar might have a level of political cover that Rep. Salazar doesn’t enjoy, one need only look at Rep. Markey’s principled vote and courageous stand against Colorado’s most extreme politicians to understand that that political cover isn’t necessary to act.
Some details:
Salazar said he has signed an order setting aside more than 1,000 square miles of public land for two years of study and environmental reviews to determine where solar power stations should be built.
Parcels include 10,000 acres that sit on the east side of U.S. 285 between Antonito and the state line and just under 6,000 acres west of Romeo. A fourth parcel covers 4,000 acres northeast of the intersection of U.S. 160 and Colorado 150.
Salazar vowed to have 13 ‘‘commercial-scale’’ solar projects under construction by the end of 2010 on lands that have what he called excellent solar energy potential and limited conflicts with wildlife, other natural resources and land users. He set a goal for the projects to produce a total of 100,000 megawatts of solar electricity.
I am working on a post about 2009 Colorado legislation dealing with green energy and our New Energy Economy. To provide additional background on the post, I copied a list of bills from the past two years (provided by the state government). That past legislation constitutes a pretty large list:
HB-07 1037 (Levy/Fitz-Gerald), Energy Efficiency Rebates for Consumers
HB-07 1060 (Riesberg/Shaffer), Bioscience Research Grantsl
HB-07 1087 (A. Kerr/Romer), Wind for Schools Grant Program
HB-071145 (Merrifield/Gordon) Renewable Energy Dev. on State Lands
HB-07 1146 (Levy/Gordon), Energy Conservation Building Codes
HB-07 1150 (C. Gardner/Kester), Clean Energy Authority
HB-07 1169 (Solano/Shaffer), Net Metering
HB-07 1203 (Fischer/Romer), Energy Management Conservation Studies
HB-07 1228 (C. Gardner/Shaffer), Renewable Fuel Crops
HB-07 1279 (McKinley/Romer), Tax Credits, Renewable Energy Machines
HB-07 1281 (Schwartz/Pommer & Witwer), Renewable Portfolio Standard
HB-07 1309 (Weissmann/Tupa), School Energy Efficiency
HB-07 1379 (Weissmann/Tupa), County Enviro. Sustainability Program
SB-07 51 (Gordon/Witwer), High Performance State Buildings
SB-07 91 (Schwartz/Massey), Renewable Resource Generation Areas
SB-07 100 (Fitz-Gerald/McFadyen ), Energy Transmission Development
SB-07 126 (Keller/Pommer), Funding for the Collaboratory
SB-07 145 (Tupa/Gibbs), Local Incentives for Renewable Energy
SB-07 246 (Fitz-Gerald/Buescher), Clean Energy Fund
HB-08 1160 (Solano/Shaffer & Isgar), Net Metering & Rural Electric Utilities
HB-08 1164 (Solano/Schwartz), “New Solar Energy Technologies”
HB-08 1207 (Kefalas/Bacon), Procure Environmentally Preferable Products
HB-08 1270 (A. Kerr/Tupa), CICs Allow Energy Efficiency Measures
HB-08 1350 (Madden/Romer) Financing Renewable Energy
HB-08 1368 (Buescher/Brophy), Tax Prop. Used to Prod. Renewable Energy
HB-08 1387 (Buescher/Veiga), Low-Income Energy Assistance Funding
SB-08 078 (Renfroe/Sonnenberg)
SB-08 081 (Schwartz/Madden), Renewable Energy Authority
SB-08 117 (S. Mitchell/McNulty), Limit Local Bldg. Permit Fee Solar Panels
SB-08 147 (Gordon/Hodge & Levy), Increase Energy Efficiency State Buildings
SB-08 184 (Romer/Levy), Colorado Clean Energy Finance Program
SB-08 186 (Johnson/Levy), Colorado Carbon Fund Special License Plates
The money comes from the city’s half-cent sales tax, collected especially for economic development projects that bring new revenue into the Pueblo area.
A 1/2 cent sales tax, in just this one instance, will create 140 high paying jobs in Pueblo. That tax and those jobs are an investment in the community of Pueblo. Cons would rather see that tax go away, and with it, this expansion and those jobs.
Ascent Solar announced it is moving its headquarters and manufacturing from Littleton to Thornton last Tuesday. While the move will occur within Colorado, it will allow for expansion of thin-film solar photovoltaic panel manufacturing. That expansion will generate up to 300 more good paying jobs. Ascent will initially be able to produce panels that can generate 25 megawatts of energy per year. By 2011, they expect to be able to manufacture 100 megawatts of solar energy producing panels per year.
An ongoing story in Colorado’s New Energy Economy, under Gov. Ritter’s leadership and vision, is that of Vestas Wind Systems. Due to active outreach, Vestas decided to build a wind blade manufacturing plant near Winsor, CO. The location is near railroad infrastructure, allowing delivery of wind blades to other areas around the country where wind farms are being constructed. Due to further outreach by Gov. Ritter, Vestas decided to expand operations. Along the way, Hexcel Corp. decided to build a new plant near the Vestas facilities.
Danish Crown Prince Frederik said Wednesday that expanding a country’s renewable energy sources and recovering from a recession don’t have to be mutually exclusive. “Denmark is economically competitive not in spite of these efforts, but because of them,” he said at a Brighton plant groundbreaking for Danish wind-turbine maker Vestas Wind Systems.
Did you read that, Colorado Cons? Denmark is economically competitive because they’ve invested in renewable energy sources. It really shouldn’t be that shocking, but these kinds of events and statements need increased publicity to deliver their positive message.
The Post article has some important numbers:
The prince, his wife, Crown Princess Mary, and Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter attended the ceremony for two parts plants by Vestas, which already has a blade-making plant in Windsor, about 50 miles north of Denver. More than 200 people work there and 650 are expected at full employment.
The company also is planning a 400-employee factory in Pueblo to build towers that support the turbines, which it has said would be the world’s largest such factory.
The two plants will employ about 1,350 people at full operation, expected next year. Ole Borup Jakobsen, president of Vestas Blades, said the plants’ annual production eventually will reach 2,000 blades and 1,400 nacelles, which are housings for the turbine’s generator, transformer and gearbox.
State officials said Vestas is spending about $290 million to build the two plants. The company will also locate an employee training and development division and a technology and production engineering office in Brighton.
I’ll add all this up: 650 + 400 + 1350 = 2,400 good paying Colorado jobs. Those Colorado jobs will help generate renewable energy, which will reduce greenhouse gas pollution, which does cost us money – it just hasn’t been properly accounted for in the past. $290 million spent in a state that is in a recession. That’s not chump change. That’s real money that will help provide a needed boost. This article doesn’t go into how many more jobs will be created at the training or engineering offices. It also doesn’t (because it can’t) provide information on other renewable energy companies moving operations to Colorado, employing more people and benefiting the state, just like Hexcel has done. How many other companies will follow suit? I look forward to finding out.
I will point out that the Cons are nowhere to be seen nor heard. Gov. Ritter and many others are hard at work creating real jobs in Colorado at a time when we need them most. These jobs will lay the foundation for the green-powered energy revolution that will come about. Beholden to their failed ideology, the Cons are failing to be “bipartisan” or “moderate” in this case (among others). I’ll remember that as the 2010 Governor race heats up. We’re sure to hear the Cons complain about how partisan and extreme Democrats have been. The corporate media will of course fail to point out the projection and hypocrisy of those comments, but I won’t. Where is uber-Con Dick Wadhams? Where is the “moderate” Scott McInnis? Why are the Cons missing in this story and why isn’t the corporate media pointing it out?
One more reason to stop burning fossil fuels has come out after recent observations of low-level ozone levels were found throughout the inter-mountain (and over-drilled) Western U.S. Wintertime ozone pollution is quickly becoming as much a problem as summertime ozone pollution. What amazes me is not what amazes the industry, of course. Somehow, the last decades’ worth of fossil fuel drilling operations explosion hasn’t factored into anybody’s mind now that the problem has been detected.
The article says that high levels of ozone haven’t been detected yet in Colorado, while Wyoming, New Mexico and Utah have been positively identified as problematic. I think that’s simply a matter of Colorado being undersampled or sampled incorrectly. There isn’t anything intrinsically wrong about that, but given the levels of ozone found in neighboring states, I would hope that organizations in Colorado become more aggressive about testing fossil fuel drilling operations next winter. Some already are:
The federal Environmental Protection Agency is drafting a new ozone- sampling plan that “may require more monitors and in some areas year- round testing,” said agency spokeswoman Cathy Milbourn.
I’ll take this opportunity to point out that this is what the EPA was designed to do. The Bush “administration’s” mis-use of the EPA frustrated a lot of important efforts, ozone detection among them.
Then there’s this:
Still, the oil and gas industry is already moving to cut emissions, and in the Pinedale area, more than $100 million has been invested to cut emissions, according to a NOAA estimate.
Interesting. Normally the industry fights and whines about the “enormous” costs associated with mitigating their pollution. That isn’t evident in this article.
Despite that, this is one more reason to not drill oil and gas in the first place. What pollution does solar (photovoltaic or thermal) produce when absorbing the sun’s energy? What pollution do turbines produce when absorbing the wind’s energy? None. Now, there is likely to be some pollution generated when the solar and wind infrastructure components are originally constructed. The same can be said for fossil fuel infrastructure, though. Overall, solar and wind are far less polluting energy sources than are fossil fuels. Greenhouse gas and ozone pollution can and should be completely removed from our energy production. After all, there is more than enough (see here and here – 4th link from the top) renewable energy available for our society’s needs.
