Posts tagged renewable energy

$shale not a fracking mess$

Shale Gas is Not a Fracking Mess

Jan 18th

$shale not a fracking mess$
Natural gas is a critical feedstock to many chemical production processes, and has many environmental benefits over coal as a fuel for electricity generation; over electricity and traditional heating fuels in the industrial, commercial and residential sectors; and over gasoline as a fuel for the transportation industry. Because natural gas has the lowest carbon content of all fossil fuels and not a mixture of other carbon containing compounds with other inorganic impurities, it is the cleanest “burning” fossil fuel, including lower emissions of sulfur, metal compounds, and carbon dioxide. But to produce natural gas from shale has some questionable environmental, safety and health risks. These environmental issues are the result of modern methods of subsurface extraction. Specifically, the unconventional methods involve horizontal drilling and “fracking” or more formally “hydraulic fracturing.”

Fracking is a current societal hot a button. Almost as pervasive as the subject of Climate Change! Both topics give rise to highly polarized groups with strong unwavering sentiments. These groups are mirrored by disbelievers basing opinions on perception and anecdotal information rather than facts.

Some may say the facts are generated by insidious conspirators, be it Big Oil, government officials, the commercial sector and the scientific community, who have a vested interest in hiding the truth. To some degree this may be a valid statement. But, as will be seen later in this discussion, there are some reputable, independent and impartial studies that can be used to understand the truth.

This discussion hopes to present an honest and unbiased viewpoint of fracking and horizontal drilling. If there is any bias, it’s towards a more realistic perspective of doing the right thing to achieve a cleaner and more prosperous world. This discussion is a continuation in part of “Natural Gas: The Cleaner Environment.”

Fracking is a process to unlock vast reserves of shale gas. In fracking, large volumes of water and sand, along with chemical additives, are injected under high pressure into a well bore to create small cracks (fissures) in hard shale formations that allow the gas to flow to the surface. Fracking goes back about 60 years.

According to Hydraulic Fracturing: History of an Enduring Technology, fracking is not a new technology. “It can be traced to the 1860s, when liquid (and later, solidified) nitroglycerin (NG) was used to stimulate shallow, hard rock wells in Pennsylvania, New York, Kentucky, and West Virginia. Although extremely hazardous, and often used illegally, NG was spectacularly successful for oil well “shooting.” The object of shooting a well was to break up, or rubblize, the oil-bearing formation to increase both initial flow and ultimate recovery of oil. This same fracturing principle was soon applied with equal effectiveness to water and gas wells.

“Then in 1947 Stanolind Oil conducted the first experimental fracturing in the Hugoton field located in southwestern Kansas. The treatment utilized napalm (gelled gasoline) and sand from the Arkansas River. Since 1949, when fracturing was formally introduced, close to 2.5 million fracture treatments have been performed worldwide.”

Fracking made extraction of natural gas from shale layers commercial viable. Natural gas is tightly bound in the dense shale layers, and therefore, hard to release. Fracking both creates fissures in the rock and keeps them open for a sustained outflow of the gas. When used in conjunction with horizontal drilling, more surface area of the gas containing shale layer is exposed to the fracking fluid. This dramatically increases the yield of natural gas and shifts the economics to a much more favorable position.

The controversy over fracking has to do with health and safety concerns and the impact on the environment. These are by far not trivial issues. So what’s about fracking that raises these concerns? Fracking is subsurface, high pressure, water intensive and contains chemical additives. All of this sets the stage for groundwater contamination.

What can be reliably said of fracking comes from MIT’s Energy Initiative study. The study was a multidisciplinary effort carried out by a team of Institute faculty, staff and graduate students with advice from a board of 18 leaders from industry, government and environmental groups.

The study found:

“….. only 42 documented incidents of such problems (water contamination), out of tens of thousands of wells drilled.”

“….. the environmental impacts of shale development are challenging but manageable,”

“….. the small number of cases where there has been contamination, the problem has stemmed from improper cementing of the well casings.”

“….. “The quality of that cementing is the area where the industry has to do a better job,”

Fracking wells are between 5,000-10,000 feet deep and uses between 3-5 million gallons of water per well. The fracking fluid is a proprietary slurry mixture consisting of no less than 98% water and sand. The remaining 2% or less includes 3-12 chemical additives most of which are commonly used with little or no health risks. Though several are classified as toxic or hazardous, only one – ethylene glycol (automotive antifreeze) can be harmful or fatal if swallowed.

Specifically, fracking fluid contains:

The toxic or hazardous substances including their health from U.S. Material Safety Data Sheets are:

Glutaraldehyde – Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation (lung irritant, lung sensitizer).
Ammonium persulfate - Harmful if swallowed
N,n-dimethyl formamide – Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant, permeator), of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation.
Guar gum or hydroxyethyl cellulose – Severe eye irritant. Harmful if swallowed or inhaled, and in contact with the skin. Laboratory experiments have shown mutagenic effects.
Ethylene glycol – Harmful or fatal if swallowed, harmful if inhaled or absorbed through skin, may cause allergic skin reaction, may cause irritation to skin, eyes, and respiratory tract, affects central nervous system.

Another concern with shale gas is the impact of local air quality and release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Natural gas is a potent greenhouse gas with the ability to trap heat almost 21 times more effectively than carbon dioxide.

Potential emission sources include compressor engine exhausts and oil/condensate tanks, production equipment, well drilling and fracking engines, well completions, gas processing, transmission and the large number of supporting components such as pumps, flanges, valves, gauges, pipe connectors, compressors, and other pieces.

According to NatrualGas.org:

“….. although methane emissions account for only 1.1 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, they account for 8.5 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions based on global warming potential.”

“….. Sources of methane emissions in the U.S. include the waste management and operations industry, the agricultural industry, as well as leaks and emissions from the oil and gas industry itself.”

“….. in 2011, researchers at the Carnegie Mellon University released “Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of Marcellus shale gas”, a report comparing greenhouse gas emissions from the Marcellus Shale region with emissions from coal used for electricity generation. The authors found that wells in the Marcellus region emit 20 percent to 50 percent less greenhouse gases than coal used to produce electricity”.

“….. In 1993, the natural gas industry joined with EPA in launching the Natural Gas STAR Program to reduce methane emissions. The STAR program has chronicled dramatic reductions to methane emissions, since that time”

“…. the increased use of natural gas in the place of other, dirtier fossil fuels can serve to lessen the emission of greenhouse gases in the United States.”

This does not suggest society should turn a blind eye. Far from it! According to a report issued bySouthern Methodist University, cost effective control strategies are readily available that can substantially reduce emissions, and in some cases, reduce costs for oil and gas operators. These options include:

use of “green completions” to capture methane and VOC compounds during well completions,
phasing in electric motors as an alternative to internal-combustion engines to drive compressors,
the control of VOC emissions from condensate tanks with vapor recovery units, and
replacement of high-bleed pneumatic valves and fittings on the pipeline networks with no-bleed alternatives.

The knowhow exists to minimize the environmental, safety and health risks of shale gas extraction. Some remedies include:

intensifying on-site oversight,
closing loopholes that exempt fracking from key federal air and water environmental regulations,
toughening up the permitting process and ordnances,
ensuring production companies follow industry best practices,
implementing more air and water testing, requiring drillers to publically disclose the chemical additives used in the fracking fluid, which up to now was consider a trade secret,
developing new rules over the disposal of the fracking waste water, and
identifying cost-effective emissions control procedures.

In addition to the environmental and health benefits of natural gas over other fossil fuels, the final caveat to this discussion is the economic benefits from shale gas production.

Recently the IHS Global Insight reported:

“….. natural gas “shale gale” that began in the Barnett Shale is having “profound economic impacts” on the U.S. economy — creating jobs, reducing consumer costs for natural gas and electricity and escalating federal, state and local tax revenues,”

“….. shale gas development, after contributing $76.9 billion to the nation’s economic output in 2010, will add $118.2 billion in 2015 and $231.1 billion in 2035.”

“….. in 2010, the shale gas industry supported more than 600,000 jobs; that number will likely grow to nearly 870,000 by 2015 and 1.6 million-plus by 2035.”

“….. savings from lower natural gas prices, as well as associated lower prices for other consumer purchases, will add an average $926 in disposable income per household annually from 2012 to 2015 and more than $2,000 annually by 2035.”

“….. the shale gas industry and related jobs pay higher wages — an average $23.16 per hour — than those in manufacturing, transportation and education.”

“….. the boom in domestic gas production has held down natural gas prices and thus electric rates in Texas because gas is burned to generate much of the power.”

“….. as a transportation fuel, compressed natural gas is cleaner-burning and much cheaper than gasoline,”

As shown, condemnation of fracking makes little sense; control of fracking makes much sense. Societal issues are not black and white. Everything has risks. Our job is to manage these risks while exploiting the benefits of shale gas. Today, the U.S. and other countries of the world find itself in a precarious “energy” position. Renewable energy has yet to make a significant impact on our energy mix. Nuclear energy is more highly charged issue. Conventional hydroelectric is locked up in its own environmental constraints. Traditional fuels are continuing to increase in cost and adversely affect the environment and the health of the public. Other than natural gas, there are few viable choices for the near future.

Possibly not a fair comparison, but from 1899-2010 there were 3,513,897 motor vehicle fatalities in the U.S. In 2010 alone, there were 32,708 motor vehicle deaths. Based on these shocking statistics, it’s curious why the same people wanting to ban fracking are not calling for a total ban on driving?

Few are elated when they receive higher utility bills and pay more for gasoline at-the-pump. All want the most bang for their buck. All want assurance that electricity and heat is available upon the flick of the switch. If society was willing to pay any price for what they get while making significant sacrifices to their lifestyle and comfort, the equation might be in favor of clean and renewable fuels. But people for the most part are not willing to pay more for commodities like electricity and gasoline and change the way they live. That is a plain and simple fact.

In closing, it’s a desirable goal to rebalance our economy’s energy production and consumption from fossil fuels to cheap clean fuels. For this to happen, our government must enact a true clean energy policy and aggressively fund related programs. It’s clear that this is not in the cards. In the meantime, the U.S. has little choice but to leverage its abundant natural gas reserves as a transitional bridge until such time that our government “walks the talk.”

Shale gas is transformative and can play a major role towards achieving energy security, economic prosperity and a cleaner environment. This will buy time while renewable energy develops into an economically reliable source of energy. Until our law makers wake up to the realities of their fiddling while we continue to burn dirty fossil fuels, these environmental and health issues will continue to plague our society.

If there is a more realistic solution adoptable today without pain in the pocket book and lifestyle than pushing natural gas forward with adequate controls, please speak up.

References:

“Natural Gas: The Clean Alternative“
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Natural-Gas-The-Clean-Alternative.html
“Hydraulic Fracturing: History of an Enduring Technology“:http://frack.mixplex.com/content/hydraulic-fracturing-history-enduring-technology
MIT Energy Initiative: http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/natural-gas-2011.shtml and http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/natural-gas-full-report-0609.html
NaturalGas.org: http://www.naturalgas.org/environment/naturalgas.asp#greenhouse
Southern Methodist University, Emissions from Natural Gas Production in the Barnett Shale Area and Opportunities for Cost-Effective Improvements:http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/9235_Barnett_Shale_Report.pdf
HIS Global Insight, The Economic and Employment Contribution of Shale Gas in the U.S. http://www.anga.us/media/235626/shale-gas-economic-impact-dec-2011.pdf andhttp://www.star-telegram.com/2011/12/06/v-print/3576017/report-shale-gas-industry-has.html
List of Motor Vehicle Deaths by Year in the U.S.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author Dr. Barry Stevens, an accomplished business developer and entrepreneur in technology-driven enterprises. He is the founder of TBD America Inc., a global technology business development group. In this role, he is responsible for leading the development of emerging and mature technology driven enterprises in the shale gas, natural gas, renewable energy and sustainability industries. To learn more about TBD America, please visit: http://tbdamericainc.com/

Fast Expanding Solar Energy on the Mind of Many for 2012

Jan 16th

Posted by Ivy Cada in Solar

No comments

Amidst an increasingly tough consolidation phase resulting in a number of high-profile company closures, a trade petition that resulted in the U.S. Commerce Department initiating an anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigation on Chinese PV imports and the fact that the highly successful Section 1603 Department of Treasury Program did not get extended last year (though there is still hope that it will this year), lies the fact that America’s fastest growing industry, the solar energy industry, had a stellar year – despite all the hurdles popping up in its path.

Fact is, the movement in America towards solar is growing stronger every day: For the fourth consecutive year, an independent poll by Kelton Research found that approximately 9 out of 10 Americans (89 percent) think it is important for the United States to develop and use solar energy. What is even more spectacular is the fact that support for solar is greatly non-partisan: 80 percent of Republicans, 90 percent of Independents and 94 percent of Democrats are in rare agreement when it comes to the earth’s most powerful and most abundant energy resource and its development. At a time when politics are characterized by a lack of consensus within parties let alone across party lines, this constitutes a rather unprecedented unanimity.

What is even more encouraging is that Americans are also in agreement on the need for federal investment in solar energy and the need for the government to provide incentives for it. Well aware of the fact that traditional and non-renewable energy sources like oil, natural gas, and coal have received billions in government support – and continue to do so, despite the fact that these energy sources have long matured — the great majority of citizens (82% to be exact) feel it is only fair to award solar the same assistance, whether it be in the form of grants or tax credits. If consumers are receiving tax credits for purchasing energy efficient appliances, for example, it seems logical in the public mind to extend the same support when “doing the ultimate deed” and investing in the energy future of the country by installing a photovoltaic or solar thermal system. Translated into party affiliation again, 71% of Republicans concur with the notion of federal support for solar, 82% of the Independents, and 87% of Democrats.

This resounding success for solar stems from the fact that solar won hands down when those surveyed were asked which energy source they would support financially if they’d be in charge of energy policy. Solar is almost twice as popular as the next highest scoring energy source: 39% of Americans see the benefit of financial assistance for solar, followed by a mere 21% for natural gas. Coal and nuclear power are trailing far behind in the single digits (nine and three percent respectively). Especially young and working-age Americans who are hard pressed for jobs as only their grandparents have been before during the great depression, realize that solar’s potential for job creation and economic growth is far greater than that of any other energy resource.

In 2011, the solar industry grew faster than any other job sector in the United States, at a staggering 26% growth rate.

Currently more than 100,000 Americans are employed installing, manufacturing, or selling solar products and this number is expected to grow by another 24% over the course of the next year. The majority of green collar workers are employed by small to mid-size businesses installing solar technology—exactly the kind of businesses that make up the back bone of the American economy and that had to struggle the hardest to survive the recession, oftentimes by having to lay-off experienced and trusted employees. The fact that these businesses can hire again, and have even disclosed to hire 25% more workers in 2012, is a strong sign that economic recovery has a green driver. Also the manufacturing side has plenty of reason to be proud since in 2011 the U.S. was a $2 Billion net exporter of solar products, even only with China. Over the last two years, 27 new manufacturers have begun production in the United States; a multi-billion economic investment and a clear sign of market confidence.

The solar boom is of course aided by the fact that the price for even higher performance and quality engineered technology, be it high-efficiency modules or innovative, time-saving racking systems and many other features, has dropped 30% since early 2010. From $60 per watt in the mid 70s, a watt of produced silicon PV modules has dropped to about $1.50 today. The immense number of PV installations in Q3/2011- 449MW- alone confirms the sunny outlook for solar in the United States: never before has this much solar been installed in any quarter before. Not only a record quarter but also a phenomenal 140% growth over Q3/2010 and more than all installations of 2009 combined.

With prices continually decreasing and demand and efficiency exponentially rising, more and more American consumers are the main beneficiaries. Experts even predict that by 2016 solar PV will outperform the cost of coal as well (roughly 9 cents per kilowatt hour), making it a clean energy choice of superlatives: universally adaptable, cost competitive with traditional, non-renewable resources, as well as extremely fast to install. In 2011, almost 2 GW of solar were permitted and installed in the U.S.; in comparison nuclear power plants with an equal capacity take an average of 13 years to complete. As the global demand for energy continues to rise, the U.S. has one of the best opportunities in the world to position itself as a leader in solar energy. Not only does America possess some of the best solar irradiation on the planet and is therefore excellently suited to harvest the sun, but this country’s motivated workforce along with its talent pool in research and development are second to none.

Finally the sunny outlook for solar in the U.S. is bolstered by the fact that by 2014 the U.S. is expected to become the world’s largest solar market and the technology is likely to be the largest source of new electric capacity in America. As we welcome back the brave and commendable veterans of the Iraqi War, the solar industry’s enormous job growth potential represents a much needed opportunity to integrate the heroes of the American spirit back into our economy. I predict that the solar industry will enhance its workforce with many of these well-trained individuals who are adaptable to change and experienced in working with cutting-edge technology. It will be our testimony that we did not take their service for granted and are grateful for the sacrifices they have made for our country. Going forward American solar businesses will grow and take care of their own, while solar adaptation in the United States lets the rest of the world know that we, too, understand the need to diversify our energy portfolio and are ready to mark our true energy independence in the 21^st-century.

Written by Sylvia Minton, Public Policy Chair of the Georgia Solar Energy Association. A long time journalist and communications specialist, the Sr. VP of Corporate Affairs for MAGE SOLAR, a complete solar PV systems & components provider,Syliva is a member of the board of directors of the MAGE SOLAR ACADEMY in Dublin, GA, USA. MAGE SOLAR ACADEMY, located at the corporate campus of MAGE SOLAR USA in Dublin, GA, is a premier educational arena for professionals of all levels and occupations in the expanding PV-market.

Renewable Energy – A Critical Piece of the Puzzle

Jan 12th

Posted by Ivy Cada in Renewable Energy

No comments

Recently I was attempting to help my 6-year old assemble a puzzle. I suggested that he start with pieces that have smooth edges and work from the outside, in. As usual, he ignored me and promptly began force-fitting pieces into places where they were not going to fit without the help of a sharp instrument.

Our society takes a similar approach when it tackles complicated problems like the energy puzzle facing the nation. We start with our minds made up as to what the completed picture should look like and we coax and argue the pieces of the puzzle into place–usually with the same outcome as my son, who after repeated failed attempts to get a meaningful picture gives up in frustration with a partially solved puzzle.

What we need is a Comprehensive Energy Policy. That effort starts with a thorough review of the issues related to production, transportation and use of all available energy resources, identifying, and where possible, quantifying the problems attendant to each. It proceeds with a fact-based discussion of all possible solutions, examining their effects and likely outcomes–finding the edges that fit together. It culminates in a coherent picture, one in which all parts fit together without the disadvantage of having parts lopped off or worse discarded because they don’t fit with our pre-conceived notion of what the end state should look like. This is exactly what our political, policy and business leaders need to do to craft a coherent energy policy for this nation.

Much of the recent debate regarding a national energy policy has focused on what we call it, not what it does for us. Is it a National, Renewable or Clean Energy Policy? Much of the discussion is focused upon which market segments should be winners and which will be losers. There’s a need to understand that we are not currently in a position to be picking winners or losers. We do not yet fully understand what the final picture can and should look like.

The current energy mix has evolved over a very long period of time and admittedly not always rationally. However, significant economic value exists in the energy production and delivery infrastructure built over the last two centuries that, as a practical matter is not going to be stranded or discarded without significant legal, economic and societal damage. From an engineering and operational standpoint we couldn’t replace it all overnight anyway. Arguing stridently to do so, regardless of motivation, will not help us solve this puzzle it will simply delay the solution or worse cause us to give up in frustration as we have several times since the oil embargo in 1973.

Would we build the energy infrastructure we currently have if we started with a clean sheet of paper? Perhaps not, but that is not relevant to the debate. We are starting with the puzzle already partially assembled. Our job is to finish assembling that puzzle in a way that solves current problems and attempts to anticipate and avoid future problems. This task requires us to take a fundamentally different approach focused on long term viability, security and sustainability of the energy mix that is the very foundation of our standard of living.

A viable Comprehensive Energy Policy need not be prescriptive, should not pick winners or losers or prefer one form of energy to another. It should however rest firmly on a base of scientific facts and an understanding of the economic and societal costs and benefits. It can and should be informed by debate and input from every sector. In short, it should be the process by which we architect energy production and transport vision that takes us through this next century.

If we will create this process, regardless of what we call it, I am confident that we can solve the complicated energy puzzle that confronts the world, not just our economy. I am also confident that when the pieces of that puzzle get assembled we will find that renewable energy and energy efficiency turn out to be the critical pieces we are looking for!

Written by Stephen E. Morgan, CEO of American Clean Energy. Steve E. Morgan, brings a wealth of industry and engineering experience as a senior executive of First Energy Corporation for many years, culminating in his position as CEO and Chairman of Jersey Central Power & Light. He has the proven energy infrastructure knowledge required to lead the company and has demonstrated managerial success and results at the highest levels of the electric power industry

Windpower’s PTC: Secondary to State Mandates

Dec 27th

Posted by Lisa Linowes in Renewable Energy

No comments

In recent weeks, wind developer Terra-Gen terminated plans to build its Horseshoe Wind Farm in Illinois, NextERA suspended the permitting process for a 150-megawatt project in South Dakota and Iberdrola announced its Desert Wind Energy Project in North Carolina was delayed and might be scrapped altogether. In each case, company officials blamed current market conditions and the inability to secure a long-term power contract with area utilities.

PTC in review

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) insists the industry is at risk of a slow-down if Congress does not act quickly to extend the production tax credit (PTC), the federal incentive most often credited for market growth in the wind sector. The PTC expires at the end of 2012.

But if the PTC were to expire, the damage would be less than what AWEA claims.

The industry has clearly grown addicted to the production tax credit but our findings suggest that attributing market activity to the PTC is overly simplistic and fails to consider other crucial factors driving development in the U.S.

The PTC was established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to stimulate the use of renewable power generation. The credit is adjusted annually for inflation and today stands at 2.2¢/kWh. When it was adopted, the House Ways and Means Committee insisted on an expiration date (June 30, 1999) in order to assess the effectiveness of the credit in meeting its goal.

State mandates key

In each of the five years following the PTC’s enactment, wind capacity declined. It wasn’t until 1998 and 1999 before the trend drifted upward.

The U.S. was awash in generation and oil prices were low and stable. The demand for renewable energy largely didn’t exist except in states with programs that encouraged the use of renewables. It’s no accident that the bulk of new wind projects built in 1998-99 occurred in four states with renewable programs — California, Iowa, Minnesota and Texas.

When the Asian Financial crisis hit in 1997, oil prices collapsed taking with them any incentive to build new renewable energy generators. The PTC expired in 1999, the same year oil prices bottomed out, and new wind installations went bust the following year.

AWEA has complained for ten years that expiration of the PTC in 1999 caused development to slow, yet given available data, it’s impossible to isolate what factors contributed to the decline. Clearly other macroeconomic issues played a crucial role.

After 2004, the PTC may have contributed to wind energy’s growth, but so did state policies mandating renewables. Wind energy benefited from rising natural gas prices as well (over $5 per million BTU) making wind power contracts an attractive way to displace higher-cost gas generation.

By the middle of 2008 the U.S. economy stumbled and energy prices dropped off quickly. With incomes falling, tax-based policy incentives lost much of their effectiveness. Section 1603 cash grants created under the stimulus were designed to fill the void by granting project owners payouts equal to 30 percent of a project’s qualifying cost. Consequently, wind capacity ballooned to nearly 45,000 megawatts with over 30,000 megawatts brought online in the last four years.

The PTC and wind’s future

Section 1603 is expected to expire this year and the wind industry has again turned its attention to extending the PTC. Ditlev Engel, chief executive officer of Vestas Wind Systems A/S complained that U.S. turbine sales may “fall off a cliff” unless lawmakers extend tax credits beyond 2012.

Sales may decline, Mr. Engel, but not because of the PTC.

The 2008 recession slowed economic growth causing demand for electricity to drop. Many states, including California, are now signaling their renewable mandates are being met which will weaken demand for wind energy. Recent discoveries of abundant shale gas reserves are expected to keep gas prices low and stable upto 2020. Since natural gas is among the important elements in determining the competitiveness of wind energy, low gas prices will generally reduce wind’s attractiveness as a ‘fuel saver’. These are the market conditions Terra-Gen, NextERA, Iberdrola and others are facing. In fact, the Energy Information Administration is now forecasting flat growth in the wind sector for the next ten years regardless of what happens with the PTC.

The PTC: overpriced and unneeded

The production tax credit largely benefits corporate investors and wind project owners. For investors like General Electric, the credit is an open-ended subsidy offered for each kilowatt-hour of electricity produced. Because the PTC directly reduces the amount of federal income taxes paid, it should be thought of as providing 2.2¢/kWh of after-tax income (in 2011 dollars).

This represents a pre-tax value of approximately 3.7¢/kWh (assumes a 40% marginal tax rate). When measured relative to the price of wholesale power, the PTC is exceptionally generous.

In New England, for example, where wholesale electricity prices are currently around 5.5¢/kWh, the subsidy equals nearly 75% percent of the power price. In areas where coal-fired power predominates, the subsidy on a pre-tax basis is approximately equal to the wholesale price of electricity. Bear this in mind the next time AWEA claims cost parity with non-renewable resources.

For consumers, the production tax credit disproportionately benefits ratepayers in states with renewable energy mandates by distributing the high cost of wind to taxpayers at large. And since the subsidy is uniform across the country it’s highly inefficient, supporting poorly sited projects as well as projects that would have been built regardless of the credit.

The production tax credit turns twenty years old next year. We recommend Congress act on the wishes of the House Ways and Means Committee and assess the effectiveness of the subsidy. AWEA’s myopic, superficial justification for extending the PTC is not supported by the facts.

Written by Lisa Linowes and Bill Short. Mr. Short is an independent consultant with a practice that specializes in renewable energy in the New England states. Ms. Linowes is the Executive Director of the Industrial Wind Action Group, focused on the impacts and costs of deploying large-scale wind generation.

______________________________

1. House Bill (H.R. 3307) has been filed that extends the PTC for another four years.

2. The PTC expired three times in the period between 1999 and 2003 and each time it was extended retroactively. At the same time, oil and gas prices were less stable before rising steadily after 2004.

3. The Department of Energy reported in 2003 that of the fifteen States with renewable programs on the books, 86 percent of new renewable energy capacity was a result of mandates, and the majority (93 percent) of the new capacity consisted of wind power installations.

4. Includes the period from 2008 to 2011. Despite meteoric growth, wind still represents under 3% of U.S. generation.

Insight Into Green Mountain’s Social Media Strategy

Dec 26th

Posted by Ben Lack in Generation

No comments

Sarah Smith, the Senior Environmental Analyst for Green Mountain Energy Company, discusses Green Mountain’s social media strategy and the role that it plays in the company’s relationship with their customers.

More >

Richest Governments Won’t Act on Climate Change until 2020

Dec 21st

Posted by Priyanka Samant in Government

No comments

The United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, and members of the European Union have all revealed that there will be no treaty signed at the international climate change talks coming up in Durban, South Africa. The most developed nations of the world say they cannot even guarantee an agreement over how to combat climate change by 2016. Furthermore, if any new legally binding agreement over reducing emissions is agreed upon, the earliest date it will come into effect will be sometime in 2020.

At the last climate talks held in Copenhagen in 2009, many governments agreed that a new global climate agreement would be signed by 2012. The world’s leading economies also assured developing countries that emissions from burning fossil fuels would be limited, but this had not been the case. The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently stated that last year, despite the world economy suffering the worst recession for over 80 years, the burning of fossil fuels grew by over 5%.

The end of the Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol has helped to ensure that countries around the world reduce emissions, and it was previously hoped that a second similar treaty would be agreed upon and signed to coincide with the date that the Kyoto Protocol expires. Little progress was made at the Copenhagen talks in 2009, and no new legally binding accord was achieved.

Now time is running out, because the commitment period for that treaty will finish at the end of 2012. If no new agreement will come into effect until 2020, there will be an eight-year gap with no binding commitment between countries to reduce emissions.

Ahead of the next international meeting on climate change it is now already apparent that there will be no binding treaty signed. Developing nations, often responsible for much smaller amounts of emissions than industrialized countries, have been angered by the news that there will be an eight-year delay in getting another legally binding agreement to tackle climate change. This will surely raise tensions at the upcoming talks in Durban.

Hacked emails released again

To further compound the situation, a batch of stolen e-mails written by scientists at the University of East Anglia in Britain and the US Climatic Research Unit have been released by a hacker. Some of the emails have already been confirmed as authentic, and show correspondence between researchers looking at climate change. It is believed that the person or people responsible are trying to undermine the efforts being made to tackle climate change by raising doubts about key arguments in the climate change debate.

In 2009, shortly before the UN climate conference in Copenhagen, a similar batch of hacked emails was released, which fuelled quarrels between climate change advocates and climate-skeptics. The incident was dubbed ‘Climategate,’ and it is feared that the new emails recently released could cause a similar reaction at the 2011 Durban talks. It is essential that productive talks be held so that a new treaty can be discussed and worked on, but the new emails could destabilize the conference.

Insufficient commitment to reduce emissions

Other recent news also gives a bleak outlook for the reduction of fossil fuel emissions over the coming years. In the UK there are fears that the exploitation of shale gas found under Lancashire will stop the government from meeting targets to cut emissions. Additionally, a further reliance on fossil fuels for energy could see less investment in sources of renewable energy, which would further detract researchers in the field.

There are also concerns that emerging nations like China and India may be reluctant to agree to any legally binding reductions in carbon emissions because of fear of damage to their fledging economies. Developing nations often perceive the climate change problem as being a problem caused by developed, industrialized countries. In that respect, the opinion sometimes held is that developed countries should be the ones to reduce their emissions, while developing nations can continue to burn fossil fuels to increase their prosperity. Unfortunately this creates distrust at a time when there should be no delay in reaching an agreement about how to tackle the problem.

Talks about climate change have been going on for years, but now the vocabulary used is starting to change. Instead of climate change, more charities and NGOs have started labeling the situation as ‘climate crisis’. If world leaders continue to avoid tackling the problem head on, this term could soon change too, and it may well be an impending climate catastrophe that is discussed in 2020.

Written by Izzy Woods. Izzy Woods is a conscientious freelancer with published work all over the Internet. She tries to live an eco-friendly life herself, from her electric car to her organic latex mattress.

Renewable Energy Markets 2011: How To Stay Clean

Dec 21st

Posted by Ben Lack in Renewable Energy

No comments

Jennifer Martin, the Executive Director of the Center for Resource Solutions, talks about the role the Renewable Energy Markets Conference has in the discussion of better incorporating renewable energy into the generation mix.

More >

Innovators ‘home’ in on energy

Dec 9th

Posted by Lisa Wood in Assessments

No comments

Fortunately for the rest of us, some people missed the message, the one that says we’re in an economic slide so slippery there is no climbing back up.

I had a chance to speak to several of these optimists recently. No, they are not members of the Pollyanna Club; they are green energy entrepreneurs, those who are innovating and growing companies as the rest of the world downsizes. (See Energy Entrepreneurs Flock to Renewables Bonanza in Renewable Energy World magazine.)

These are folks that can’t stop creating no matter how mucky our outlook. In fact, problems seem to incite their inventiveness.
Their inventions are diverse; as are they, but their activities are converging into some trends.

Silicon Valley and the energy industry are teaming up more and more. “You can’t throw a softball around here without hitting another solar company,” said Dan Shugar, Solaria’s chief operating officer, from Silicon Valley.

Energy is producing its own crop of rising Mark Zuckerbergs and Steve Jobs, who I suspect will be the next generation of business legends.

Perhaps most significant, a lot of today’s innovation focuses on bringing consumers and businesses greater efficiency and control over energy in their homes and businesses, whether through cell phone apps that let you adjust your thermostat while miles away, financing mechanism that make solar affordable to the rest of us, or windows that generate electricity on two sides, using a form of artificial photosynthesis that takes advantage of both the sun outside and the electric lights indoors.

These are just a few of the new energy innovations that focus on what’s right here in my home or even in the palm of my hand. Getty Images, which studies how energy companies speak to consumers through pictures, calls this new trend “Homing in on Green.”
“While pictures of wind turbines and oil rigs remain popular, Getty Images has seen a marked 40 percent increase in images that showcase efforts to ‘go green’ on a smaller scale – for example, images of people swapping old light bulbs for energy efficient counterparts, neighborhoods with solar paneled roofs, families drying laundry outside, rather than relying on technology,” said Getty Images in announcing the third edition of its research report, The Curve.

Are these images actually getting through to people? Do consumers have any sense of the magnitude of change occurring in energy and how it will affect their day-to-day lives? It seems not. Most people are not even aware of federal and state financial incentives they can receive if they integrate new energy technologies into their lives, according to a survey sponsored manufacturer Emerson. Among the 1,007 US adults who participated in the September 2011 poll, 61% were unaware of the financial assistance available.
So, while big things are happening in energy; consumers by-in-large don’t know it yet. But the changes are coming, this time right to our doorsteps – and even if we’re not at home, we’ll be able to let them in, using probably just our cell phones.

Written by Elisa Wood; who is a long-time energy business writer and is co-author of the report, “Energy Efficient Lighting Explained: A guide for business people who aren’t lighting techies.” To read more of her articles on energy visit www.RealEnergyWriters.com