Sandy Reminds Us of the Real Energy Decision

I admit to being a bit of a political junkie and I have closely followed the presidential election throughout the last year, constantly looking to see what the candidates had to say about the energy issues which are so important to me and to the people who follow the EnegyBible.com web site.  And frankly it has been a big disappointment from both presidential candidates!  That doesn't mean that there aren't stark choices between the two candidates.  Their positions are dramatically different when it comes to energy policy.  Its just that the energy issues they talked to were at best peripheral to the energy issues we should really be talking about. 

The candidates talked about gas prices, as if the U.S. didn't already have the cheapest gas in the world and as if any president could actually control gas prices.  Romney talked a lot about the failure of  Solyndra but conveniently failed to mention the other DOE renewable energy investments, 92% of which were hugely successful.  They both talked a lot about energy independence, as if America, which is 13th in the world in oil reserves, was ever going to outproduce Arab oil sheiks.

The one thing they didn't talk about, but should have, is how our fossil-fuel centric oil habits are rapidly destroying our planet!  This is, in fact, the biggest energy issue facing not only the United States but the entire world.  However, sometimes, despite the fact that politicians work steadfastly to avoid certain issues during an election, reality actually intrudes.  And the reality this year was hurricane Sandy!

Right now there are millions in the northeast who are still without power, a week after this terrible storm.  There are thousands who have lost their homes or suffered severe storm damage.  There are entire beach communities that find themselves not near the ocean but actually in the ocean, and the entire New York and New Jersey coastline has been permanently rearranged. And suddenly, finally, it has actually occurred to a few political leaders that maybe that global warming thing that all the scientists have been talking about for a decade may be something that they should pay attention to. 

Folks, global warming is real and the effects of it have already begun hitting America and hitting us hard.  From the worst drought in U.S. history to the most damaging hurricanes ever to hit our shores.  It's all real and no amount of conservative political correctness is going to change that!  Therefore, we have a choice, to continue to support those who support renewable energy, or to continue to indulge in the drill-baby-drill oil-centric policies that will  be our planet's undoing. 

We strongly endorse President Obama in this election and the energy platform of the Democratic party.  Our reasons are as follows:

1. Under President Obama the use of renewable energy in the United States has more than doubled, thanks greatly to his supportive policies
2. President Obama has consistently supported incentives for both solar and wind energy.
3. President Obama directed the DOE energy grants that, despite all the hype about Solyndra, were hugely successful in driving investment and development of renewable energy.
4. President Obama allowed the EPA to actually do their job and begin enforcing the Clean Air Act.  This has resulted in badly needed carbon dioxide emission regulations which will reduce pollution from coal-burning power plants.  Romney has opposed all EPA regulations.
5. The President has consistently opposed giving $4 billion dollars in unnecessary tax breaks to the big oil companies at a time when they are making obscene profits.
6. President Obama worked with global car manufacturers and got agreements on a new set of fuel standards will greatly improve auto fuel efficiencies. Romney opposed those fuel standards.
7. President Obama deferred the Keystone Pipeline which had the potential to damage huge areas of land and has opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

We strongly urge you to take a detailed look at the energy platforms of both candidates.  And above all, go out and vote!!

Solar Shines Despite Politics

We've just finished both the Republican and Democratic conventions where there was almost nothing said by either party regarding renewable energy or any other environmental issue for that matter.  The Republicans snuck in an occasional "Solyndra" reference as if just saying the word was enough of a condemnation to stick it to the Democrats.  Obama made a passing reference to renewable energy in his address though he pretty much took all of the value out of it by, in the same breath, referencing the mythical energy source called  "clean coal".

Overall, discussion of energy and environmental issues were kept in the background at both conventions and instead the focus was on economic or cultural issues such as abortion or women's rights.  Nonetheless, the great thing about reality is that sometimes things move ahead even when it is politically incorrect to do so.  For example, PG&E, the largest electric utility just announced that its newest solar energy plant, Agua Caliente, is now online and producing over 250 megawatts of energy.  This solar photovoltaic (PV) power plant located in Yuma County, Arizona  has created more than 400 jobs for the local economy.

PG&E has also announced that it has signed a contract with SunPower for the production of a new 100 megawatt solar power plant in Kings County California to be called the Henrietta Solar Project.  I find this particular energy project fascinating.  Normally the price utilities pay for electricity production contracts is kept secret.  But PG&E was required to file some reports with the Public Utilities Commission that showed that the contract price is below what they call the 2011 Market Price Referent (MPR) which California has designated for all electricity contracts.  That means that the 20 year locked in price for the electricity from this solar power plant is going to be below the MPR price of  10.4 cents per kilowatt hour.  This is an astoundingly low price and shows you how far the price for utility-scale solar energy has dropped.  This is less than what it would cost to get the electricity from a natural gas-fired plant. 

This is of course good news for consumers and a validation for our yuppie Governor Jerry Brown.  However, I wonder how this news would have been received if our Governor had been someone like, say, Mitt Romney.  I can just imagine the conversation:

Bob:  (PG&E VP):  Governor, so nice of you to call.  What can I do for you?

Mitt:   Well, I heard that you are about to sign an agreement to put up some kind of dang solar power plant.  Please tell me that's not true!

Bob:  Why yes, that is true Governor.  I am so excited about it.  We got an incredible deal on the electric rate and it is locked in by contract for 20 years!   That means even 20 years from now our customers will be paying less than what we charge now!

Mitt:   Wait a minute Bob.  Didn't you get the memo?  Solar is bad! Solar is expensive!  My God man, haven't you heard of Solyndra. 

Bob:  Well, yes I have governor but I assure you that the company we contracted with, SunPower, has been very reliable.  They are one of the largest solar panel manufacturers and installers in the world. 

Mitt:   But Bob, you can't trust these solar companies, they might not be here tomorrow (whisper: "At least if I have any say in the matter.").

Bob:  But Governor, the solar panels are provided up front as part of the contract.  They are warrantied for 25 years and they will probably last more than 50 years.  There is no real risk for us.

Mitt:  Risk schmisk. We've been beating the administration up over Solyndra, what do we tell people if we start supporting solar now?

Bob:  Governor, why don't we tell them that we are just serving the public interest by getting electricity from a reliable supplier at low cost.  Isn't that what we are supposed to do?

Mitt:  No, this is no good.  People will think that I've flip-flopped again, not that I ever really have of course.

Bob: (suppresses chuckle)

Mitt:  Why don't we use a "clean coal" plant instead.  People like the sound of "clean coal".

Bob:  We looked at that Governor but we couldn't find any. Nobody has actually ever built a clean coal plant that is economical, and no coal company was willing to guarantee us a price like this for electricity for twenty years! 

Mitt:  Bob, you are just not getting the big picture here.  Solar is out, its politically incorrect.  It's just unAmerican.

Bob:  But Governor, why is it unAmerican.  The solar panels are manufactured right here in our state and building the solar plant will provide over 200 jobs for Kings County!

Mitt:  (hmmmm)  Jobs you say?  I like jobs. 

Bob:  Yes sir, good jobs.  And Governor, the plant is going to be placed on unusable land that has been over farmed.  The land wasn't producing much anyway and there are no endangered species to disturb so you shouldn't have any problems with the environmentalists. 

Mitt:  No environmentalists, I like that even better.  But could we hire just a few so I could fire them.  I like to fire people!

Bob:  You got it Governor!  Whatever you want!  I appreciate your leadership in this.

Mitt:  Yep, that's me Bob.  I'm a leader!


........ Well, it could happen

The Good, the Bad, and the Butt Ugly!

Distributed Solar in Germany

The last few weeks have been an interesting mix of both good and bad news when it comes to issues like energy and global warming. Being fundamentally an optimist at heart, I think I will start with the good news which begins in Germany. Germany has long been a leader in the use of solar energy despite the fact that they are not exactly a hotbed of solar saturation. As the cost of solar energy continues to plummet their investment in solar energy is starting to pay major dividends. Last week they hit a huge milestone when the measured output of their solar systems peaked at 22 gigawatts of electricity which was more than half of all the electricity used in the entire country that day.
Think about it. One of the most heavily industrialized countries in the world got half of all their daily electricity from solar energy. That means they paid half as many millions to some oil sheik who hates them, they cut their contribution to global warming by half, they reduced air pollution by half, they needed half as many oil tankers to feed their fuel addiction and they kept twice as many of their hard-earned marks at home instead of having to buy energy from a foreign country. It's genuinely a big deal!

In the United States, which gets 1% of its electricity from solar energy, the use of solar is still treated as an afterthought by most energy brokers. But it doesn't have to be that way! The U.S. has far more solar resources than Germany. We could easily be producing twice as much solar energy as Germany does.  Instead of beating up a growing industry because one company failed (Solyndra) while hundreds of companies succeeded, we could be providing the same kinds of incentives that helped Germany have such incredible success. We could renew the federal solar and wind incentives. We could be opening up federal lands for solar and wind farms instead of turning them over to oil and gas companies to destroy with their fracking and oil spills.

Having a significant solar infrastructure has given Germany options and advantages which other countries do not have.  When the Fukishima disaster brought to people's attention the incredible risks involved in nuclear energy the leaders of Germany were able to immediately put in place a plan to phase out all of its nuclear plants. In fact, the 22 gigawatts of solar capacity Germany now has is equal to about 20 nuclear reactors.  Japan, which had to close its nuclear plants following the political upheaval following Fukishima, is going to struggle much more than Germany with closing its plants.  They do not have the renewable energy infrastructure to fall back upon and our paying through the nose to suddenly import even greater amounts of coal, natural gas and fuel oil to handle short-term electricity demand.  This is something the U.S. should keep in mind as we begin looking at all of our aging nuclear plants. 

So much for the good. Now for a milestone of a different kind.  Measurements of greenhouse gasses in the arctic this spring have now been found to show carbon dioxide levels well above 400 parts per million.  This is up from 390 parts per million just a few years ago. Not only is the total accumulation of carbon dioxide increasing but the rate at which we are putting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing, not getting better.

How do we know this.  We know this by measuring ice samples.  Carbon dioxide levels in the arctic are trapped in ice and scientists have been carefully measuring them for many years.  Based on their research we now know that levels of carbon dioxide this high have not been seen for over 800,000 years.  The data clearly shows that global warming is not a short term cyclic phenomenon but a direct consequence of our polluting our atmsophere with carbon dioxide.

Fortunately, the people of North Carolina need not worry about pesky problems like global warming.  The North Carolina Republican-controlled legislature is taking care of that problem.  You see, the state's Coastal Management Commission was trying to (gasp) actually do some management and planning and was recommending adjustments in how the North Carolina coastline should be managed in the future based on sea rises caused by global warming. The current scientific data was telling them that they should be managing coastal properties based upon estimates of a 4 to 6 foot rise in sea levels by 2100 or possibly even higher. The data was absolutely clear that the rate at which sea levels are rising is accelerating due to global warming. 

However, the North Carolina legislature, rather than admit that global warming is real is now ciriculating a bill mandating that the agency must, in its reports, "not include scenarios of accelerated rates of sea-level rise."  In short, it is mandating that the facts be ignored, truly butt ugly behavior if ever I have seen it.  I have to admit that behaviors like this that make me wonder if mankind actually deserves to survive.  When we are so afraid of the truth that we would rather mandate ignorance than face it, then we are almost certainly on the path to our destruction.  Oh, well, maybe tomorrow will be a better news day.  Like I said, I am an optimist at heart!

California Renewable Energy Targets are Working

California has one of the most aggressive renewable energy targets of any state in the U.S. The type of standard California uses is called a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). What this means is that all investor owned utility companies, such as PG&E or SMUD, must get a certain percentage of their electricity from a renewable energy provider. That source could be a privately held 3rd party energy company such as a hydro-electric plant, solar farm or wind farm operator. It could also come from solar or wind farms that are owned directly by the utility.

In 2011 California passed Senate Bill 2 (SB-2) which raised the portfolio standard from 20% renewables to 33% by 2020. This move was seen as exceedingly ambitious by many renewable energy critics and was quickly discounted as just a political ploy. However, what these critics failed to grasp is that RPS standards actually work! This week PG&E, California's biggest investor-owned utility announced that it is making significant progress towards meeting this demanding target. PG&E stated that for 2011 it had generated more than 19.4% of its energy from completely renewable energy sources including wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and small hydro-electric sources. Furthermore, PG&E says that it is completely on track to hit the 33% RPS target by 2020.

Since 2002 PG&E has signed more than 110 contract for energy from renewable energy contractors. That's about 10,000 Megawatts of energy! Moreover, PG&E has been able to do this without having to increase the price it pays for energy. Many citizens do not realize that in 2012 modern renewable energy power plants such as wind farms and solar farms are completely cost competitive with polluting fossil-fuel sources such as coal and natural gas when a long-term contract is used. That's because the cost of renewable energy sources are already low and going down, and fossil-fuel and nuclear sources are steadily going up in cost. PG&E has done the math and has seen how much solar and wind sources have come down in cost. For them renewable energy is a win-win. They get the positive public image of supporting non-polluting renewable energy and they completely avoid the risk of price spikes because they have locked in the price with a long-term RE contract. Most fossil-fuel providers won't sign long-term contracts because they know fossil-fuel prices will inevitably increase in the future as supplies begin to dwindle or as speculation drives up the cost (as we are seeing right now with Iran).

The progress California is making towards its RPS goals is incredibly good news. Think about it! The country's largest, most energy hungry state will be getting one third or more of its energy from renewable energy in less than 8 years. This would be an enormous step forward for California and would clearly give it a huge economic advantage over competing states. In terms of GDP California is the fifth largest economy in the world. If California can do this, nearly any other country in the world could do this to. And that, my friend, is the whole point! Renewable energy is real, its big, and its working now, not just in some distant future.

The great success states like California and Colorado have had in using aggressive RPS standards leads to the obvious question of why not have a national RPS, not just a state-by-state standard. National level RPS standards have worked wonderfully for countries in Europe so why not in the United States. This week Senator Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat from New Mexico introduced the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012, a bill that would try to set nationwide standards for large retail utilities. Unfortunately, the bill does not limit sources to truly renewable energy sources, but includes coal with carbon capture and nuclear power.

We think the idea of having a national RPS is a good one but it needs to be limited to truly renewable sources, not just less polluting sources. Nonetheless, it is a start and it will be interesting to see how it fares in Congress. At least it will get the discussion started and hopefully in a few years our entire country can begin chasing and achieving a national RPS target. Let's go for it!!

Fukushima USA

When I'm not busy being an environmental activist and an unrepentant liberal,I actually attempt to have a life, which I must admit is a whole lot easier to do since I retired out here on the central coast.  Last weekend I was out at one of my favorite wineries, Sculpterra, listening to music from my friend Steve Key, a local music promoter, performer and songwriter who performed a new song which was so completely perfect for what I wanted to write about that I requested and got his permission to include his lyrics in this post.

The song is called Fukushima USA and you can hear him perform it on his Web site by clicking on this link. In the song Steve is referring to the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California which is located not only right on top of a geological fault line, but just 20 miles from the city of San Luis Obisop, here in the wine country.  Here's a bit of the lyrics:

Local wines by the bottle or taste
Pools filled up with nuclear waste
Nowhere to send it, so it’s here to stay In Fukushima USA
The sunshine and the skies so clear
How could anything bad happen here?
That’s what the Japanese used to say Now it’s Fukushima USA

They had reactors built by GE
All the latest technology
A nineteen foot high seawall
Wasn’t much protection at all

But don’t think about that distant land
Things are safer here than in Japan
Relax and sip a little chardonnay
In Fukushima USA

At a time when the rest of the more or less sane world is running away from nuclear power like it was, well radioactive, the United States appears headed in the opposite direction. Last week the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) voted 4-1 to allow Atlanta-based Southern Company to build two new nuclear power reactors at its existing Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia. This represents the first approval of a new nuclear power plant in the U.S. in over 30 years.

The one silver lining in the vote was that it was the Chairman of the NRC,Gregory Jaczko , who cast the dissenting vote.  Jaczko said "I cannot support issuing this license as if Fukushima never happened. I believe it requires some type of binding commitment that the Fukushima enhancements that are currently projected and currently planned to be made would be made before the operation of the facility." Sounds like common sense to me, too bad the rest of the commission didn't show any.

The timing of this announcement also strikes me as completely out of step.  The Obama administation has just gone through a year of getting beat up about providing loan guarantees to Solyndra, a solar energy company.  And so just when they are being scrutinized about the economics of their energy policy they approve the first nuclear plant in 30 years.  Good gracious, nuclear plants are practically the poster children for cost overruns! They are guaranteed to cost the public exorbitant amounts of money even if there isn't a nuclear accident.  (And by the way nuclear accidents are not exactly cheap. Experts estimate the Fukushima accident will end up costing Japan over $257 billion dollars!).

If you want to see proof of this you need to look no further than this handy little table provided by the independent Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It shows a chart of the cost overruns at nuclear plants to date. The data is not pretty!

Cost Overruns for Nuclear Plants

Year Begun	Number of Plants	Projected Costs(thousands per MW)	Actual Costs (thousands per MW)	Cost Overrun %
1966 to 1967	11	612	1,279	109%
1968 to 1969	26	741	2,180	194%
1970 to 1971	12	829	2,889	248%
1972 to 1973	7	1,220	3,882	218%
1974 to 1975	14	1,263	4,817	281%
1976 to 1977	5	1,630	4,377	169%
Overall Average	13	938	2,959	207%

There is a reason we stopped building nuclear plants and it wasn't the one most people think. It wasn't 3 Mile Island, or nuclear waste disposal, or nuclear accidents, it was the fact that nuclear energy plants proved to be ridiculously expensive. So here we are in the middle of the worst recession since the great depression, at a time when wind and solar energy have never been cheaper, and our government wants to support the development of more nuclear plants?

We have often been very supportive at EB of the progressive energy policies of the Obama administration, but on this one they just got it wrong, very wrong! Nuclear energy is too expensive and we still have no solution on how to handle nuclear waste! Moreover, there should be a complete moratorium on nuclear plants until we fully understand the implications from Fukushima. Now is not the time to build Fukushima USA!