Images, here and here, showing wind turbines in Portugal are via edgenumbers on Flickr.

Aggressive national policies in Europe are rapidly replacing nonrenewable energy sources with renewable resources as the source of electricity for their electricity grids. The new energy sources translate into national security gains and into meeting environmental and sustainable goals. Via The New York Times (emphasis added):

Today, Lisbon’s trendy bars, Porto’s factories and the Algarve’s glamorous resorts are powered substantially by clean energy. Nearly 45 percent of the electricity in Portugal’s grid will come from renewable sources this year, up from 17 percent just five years ago.

Land-based wind power — this year deemed “potentially competitive” with fossil fuels by the International Energy Agency in Paris — has expanded sevenfold in that time. And Portugal expects in 2011 to become the first country to inaugurate a national network of charging stations for electric cars.

.       .       .

Still, aggressive national policies to accelerate renewable energy use are succeeding in Portugal and some other countries, according to a recent report by IHS Emerging Energy Research of Cambridge, Mass., a leading energy consulting firm. By 2025, the report projected, Ireland, Denmark and Britain will also get 40 percent or more of their electricity from renewable sources; if power from large-scale hydroelectric dams, an older type of renewable energy, is included, countries like Canada and Brazil join the list.
The United States, which last year generated less than 5 percent of its power from newer forms of renewable energy, will lag behind at 16 percent (or just over 20 percent, including hydroelectric power), according to IHS.

To force Portugal’s energy transition, Mr. Sócrates’s government restructured and privatized former state energy utilities to create a grid better suited to renewable power sources. To lure private companies into Portugal’s new market, the government gave them contracts locking in a stable price for 15 years — a subsidy that varied by technology and was initially high but decreased with each new contract round.
Compared with the United States, European countries have powerful incentives to pursue renewable energy. Many, like Portugal, have little fossil fuel of their own, and the European Union’s emissions trading system discourages fossil fuel use by requiring industry to essentially pay for excessive carbon dioxide emissions.

Portugal was well poised to be a guinea pig because it has large untapped resources of wind and river power, the two most cost-effective renewable sources. Government officials say the energy transformation required no increase in taxes or public debt, precisely because the new sources of electricity, which require no fuel and produce no emissions, replaced electricity previously produced by buying and burning imported natural gas, coal and oil. By 2014 the renewable energy program will allow Portugal to fully close at least two conventional power plants and reduce the operation of others.

The potential higher cost of renewable energy was discussed in the previous article. However, undoubtedly, improved technology and grid modernization will bring down the cost of renewable energy. Also, personally, I’m willing to pay higher energy costs if higher costs reflect the elimination of fossil-fuel subsidies, efforts to modernize the grid, and efforts to introduce more renewable energy into the energy mix.  I view this investment as a prudent investment or an investment into a more secure or sustainable future.

Tougher regulations that aim to clean up our environment,  taxes on nonrenewable energy sources, and policies that reduce or eliminate fossil-fuel subsidies are examples of policies that can make renewables more competitive with cheaper fossil fuels. It’s important to note that the price at the pump or your electricity bill doesn’t reflect the actual price paid for energy derived from fossil-fuel sources, since negative externalities aren’t immediately considered. Via MLive.com:

In an earlier entry, I discussed how increased reliance on renewable energy can have the effect of reducing reliance on coal-fired energy production that in turn reduces the amount of mercury released from coal-fired power plants. But, tougher regulations concerning mercury may have the effect of creating a disincentive to use coal as a fuel source for power plants, thus creating a greater demand for alternative energy. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working on just these types of regulations.

.       .       .

EPA has already begun to collect the data in order to support its anticipated Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) for utilities. The most likely technology used to reduce mercury emissions is flue gas desulfurization, known commonly as “scrubbers.” EPA has estimated that the cost for scrubbers range from $116 million for large EGU boilers to $7.1 million for small scrubbers on industrial boilers. In all, controlling mercury emissions will not come cheaply.

No later than November 16, 2011, large electric utilities that use coal-fired boilers to generate steam for electricity will need to make hard choices about how to do business. Adding to this tougher operating climate for electric utilities is EPA’s new “Transport Rule”, which regulates sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from some states’ electric utilities. While the anticipated CAMR is not designed to directly affect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, if utilities reduce their reliance on coal to generate electricity, choosing instead to use natural gas (which emits less than half the GHG emissions of coal-fired plants) or increase their reliance on alternative energy, GHG emissions will be reduced.

What’s more, fossil fuels are subsidized ten time more than renewables. Via guardian.co.uk:

Despite repeated pledges to phase out fossil fuel subsidies and criticism from some quarters that government support for renewable energy technologies is too generous, global subsidies provided to renewable energy and biofuels are dwarfed by those enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry.

That is the conclusion of a major report released late last week by analyst Bloomberg New Energy Finance, which analyses subsidies and incentive schemes offered globally to developers of renewable energy and biofuel technologies and projects.

The report concludes that in 2009 governments provided subsidies worth between $43bn (£27bn) and $46bn to renewable energy and biofuel industries, including support provided through feed-in tariffs, renewable energy credits, tax credits, cash grants and other direct subsidies.

In contrast, estimates from the International Energy Agency (IEA) released in June showed that $557bn was spent by governments during 2008 to subsidise the fossil fuel industry.

More via Autoblog Green:

Earlier today, we covered the words of some auto industry insiders at the recent Automotive Research’s Management Briefing Seminar in Traverse City, MI, who said the didn’t like that the Obama Administration was “picking winners” by funneling funds on plug-in vehicles. Well, okay, they’re entitled to their opinion. But, if the industry doesn’t want governments to push one particular energy type over another, maybe auto industry execs should seriously reconsider their support of fossil-fueled engines.

The reason? The Guardian recently reported that Bloomberg New Energy Finance has issued a report that found government subsidies for fossil fuels around the world just plain blow out renewable energy subsidies ten-to-one. Yes, for every dollar the auto execs don’t want spent on plug-in vehicles, there are more than ten bucks given to keep the gas and oil companies in the crude black. The report found that governments spent somewere between $43 and $46 billion on renewable energy and biofuel industries in 2009. By comparison, governments gave $557 billion to the fossil fuel industry in 2008.

–
The author or licensor of these images does not endorse my work or me and their images are protected under an attribution license.