WIND ENERGY in the news

Posted on October 13, 2010 by Buck

Superhighway for wind power proposed for Mid-Atlantic Coast. Via the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Investors on Tuesday proposed to build an underwater electricity superhighway that would carry wind power generated off the Mid-Atlantic Coast to land.

The $5 billion transmission line, announced by backers including Google, would run about 15 to 20 miles offshore.

It would act like a spine, linking the offshore projects to land at four locations – North Jersey, South Jersey near Atlantic City, the coast of Delaware and the coast of Virginia south of Norfolk.

“This is a huge, bold project,” said Robert Mitchell, CEO of Trans-Elect, an independent transmission company operating nationwide, which is leading the project. “It’s going to result in thousands of megawatts of offshore wind being delivered to the East Coast” along with thousands of jobs.

“Instead of multiple connections, this will serve as a superhighway with on-ramps for wind farms,” said Rick Needham, director of green business operations at Google, a major investor.

It also would increase the reliability of wind, they said. By joining the projects together, the variability of wind at any one location is smoothed out, lulls in one place compensated for by gusts elsewhere.
Google backs ‘superhighway’ for wind power. Via the Washington Post:

Internet search engine giant Google announced Tuesday that it is investing in a mammoth project to build an underwater “superhighway for clean energy” that would be able to funnel power from offshore wind farms to 1.9 million homes without overtaxing the already congested mid-Atlantic power grid.

The project, dubbed the Atlantic Wind Connection, calls for spending as much as $5 billion to create a 350-mile network of underwater cables stretching from northern New Jersey to Virginia. It would eliminate the need for offshore wind developers to build transmission lines of their own, easing what can be a barrier for such projects.

Google is partnering with Good Energies, an environmentally focused international investment company based in New York, London and Switzerland, and Tokyo-based Marubeni to finance the project. The project is led by Trans-Elect, an electric transmission company in Chevy Chase.
Report Identifies Transmission Corridors to Deliver 8,600 MW of New Wind in the Upper Midwest. Via Renewable + Law:

[The Upper Midwest Transmission Development Initiative's] renewable transmission corridors are based on the Midwest ISO’s estimate that about 8,600 MW of new renewable capacity will be needed in the region by 2025 to serve the renewable energy standards and goals of these five states. The group identified twenty “wind zones” where it would be most efficient to develop wind power based on available wind resources, existing wind generation, existing interconnection queue requests, and local geography. The six transmission corridors were chosen as the best general areas for transmission lines to move wind energy from the wind zones to load centers in a cost-effective manner.
In 2009, 40% of new U.S. electricity generation came from wind. Via EERE News:

The U.S. Department of Energy has distributed the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) recently published IEA Wind Energy Annual Report 2009, which is now available for free download. The report presents the latest information on domestic and international wind generation capacity, national incentive programs, progress toward national objectives, benefits to national economies, research and development results, and issues affecting turbines, market growth, and costs of projects. The Executive Summary synthesizes the information presented from IEA’s member countries, cooperative research tasks, the European Commission, and the European Wind Energy Association. Read the Executive Summary.

Wind power is a fast-growing source of clean energy. In the United States 40% of new electricity generation came from wind last year, while in Europe, wind power installations accounted for 39% of new capacity. IEA Wind member countries added more than 20 gigawatts (GW) in 2009, for a total of more than 111 GW of wind generating capacity. Five countries added more than a gigawatt of net capacity: the United States (10 GW), Spain (2.5 GW), Germany (1.9 GW), Italy (1.1 GW), and the United Kingdom (1 GW). Additionally, wind power electrical generation capacity grew more than 32% worldwide in 2009. These and other statistics on wind energy development are highlighted in the report.

The IEA Wind member countries—located in Europe, North America, Asia, and the Pacific Region—contain 70% of worldwide wind generating capacity. These countries share information and research efforts to increase wind energy’s contribution to their electrical generation mix, and they reach out to other countries to join the IEA Wind cooperation.
Study: Offshore wind could generate all U.S. electricity (with graphics below). Via USA Today:

U.S. offshore winds, abundant off the coasts of 26 states, have the potential to generate four times as much power as the nation’s present electric capacity, a new Department of Energy report says.

Developing this resource would help the United States reduce air pollution, achieve 20% of its electricity (or about 54 gigawatts) from wind by 2030 and create more than 43,000 permanent, well-paid technical jobs, according to the 240-page study by DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Images via a report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory

RENEWABLE ENERGY: Study: Six east coast states could replace dirty fossil fuels with clean energy derived from offshore wind

Posted on September 30, 2010 by Buck

Image of the Thanet Offshore Wind Farm by Nuon on Flickr.

As the United States struggles to do the right thing in terms of energy policy, the United Kingdom has just switched on the world’s largest offshore wind farm, which consists of “100 turbines spreading over 35 square kilometers, or 13.5 square miles, with a capacity to power more than 200,000 homes.” Also, Danish energy policy is pushing Denmark to be fossil fuel-free by 2050. China is also surpassing the United States in offshore wind development: “Chinese energy companies are expected to submit bids Friday for four offshore wind power projects with a total installed capacity of 1,000 megawatts, representing a combined investment of $3.06 billion.”

As the world population continues to grow and expand, energy demand and energy prices will continue to rise, as nonrenewable energy sources such as oil and coal are depleted. Rising energy prices helped trigger the economic downturn in the United States, so the United States government must protect its economy by aggressively implementing prudent energy policies, which are working in other countries.

More on the east coast’s renewable energy potential via the‎ International Business Times:

Oceana, compared the costs of offshore wind energy with oil and gas. The study focused primarily on the east coast and concluded an investment into wind energy would create jobs, reduce pollution and in many cases create just as much energy as fossil fuels.

All told, Oceana concluded wind energy could produce 30 percent more electricity than economically recoverable offshore oil and gas on the east coast. The group said the investment it proposed would supply nearly half of the current electricity generation of East Coast states. Oceana used conservative estimates of potential ocean spaces for wind farms.

. . .

In six states: Massachusetts, North Carolina, Delaware, New Jersey, Virginia and South Carolina, Oceana said wind energy could completely replace fossil fuels. In the first three states, it would completely reduce the need for any fossil fuels. In the latter three, it at least would replace the energy demand. In some states, energy is exported to other states.

—
Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse my work or me and their image is protected under an attribution license.

RENEWABLES can reduce your energy bill

Posted on August 28, 2010 by Buck

Here’s one example. Via the Alameda Times-Star (emphasis added):

[Bruce] Cherry joined a small group of East Bay businesses that have taken advantage of the California Solar Initiative program, which provides rebates for installing photovoltaic systems.

“It is good for the environment,” said Cherry, who has one of the four businesses in town harnessing solar power. “It just made sense (to install) in the long run.”

Since the program began in 2007, 155 businesses in Alameda and Contra Costa counties have applied for state funds to help offset the cost of solar-panel systems.

The 542 solar panels on the top of Cherry’s two Dublin Boulevard buildings generate 50 kilowatts of power. He anticipates that year round it will produce enough to supply the tire store with 85 percent of its energy needs.

The system’s peak performing months are March through November because of the abundance of sunshine.

Since March, Cherry’s utility bill dropped from an average $1,500 a month to just $29 — the monthly connection fee he pays to PG&E to be connected to its power grid.

And Cherry, a San Ramon resident, could end up receiving a check from the utility company at the end of his first year in the program. The energy that Cherry doesn’t use goes to the grid, helping to power surrounding businesses. At the end of each year, the utility tallies up how much energy each solar customer produced and used — and pays them for the excess.

RENEWABLE ENERGY: ~45 percent of the electricity in Portugal’s grid comes from renewable energy

Posted on August 19, 2010 by Buck

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.

EXTERNALITIES: Coal isn’t cheaper: David Frum ignores the negative externalities associated with burning coal

Posted on May 16, 2010 by Buck

Image: The impacts of coal utilization. Illustration by Alan Morin via “Cradle to Grave: The Environmental Impacts from Coal.”

Recently, on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher (episode 183 that aired on May 7, 2010), David Frum claimed that “the cost of electricity from non-coal sources, is much, much greater than the cost of electricity from coal.” Bill Maher missed an important opportunity to correct Frum.

First, Frum ignored the externalities associated with burning coal for electricity, and if merely considering the price paid for electricity, he also ignored the fact that renewable energy will become competitive with energy derived from coal and other fossil-fuel sources (but if considering externalities associated with burning coal—a dirty energy source—renewable energy is much much cheaper than coal). Furthermore, coal, like other fossil fuels, is subsidized (i.e., governments and society pick up the tab for the environmental and health consequences associated with burning coal). To illustrate the externalities associated with burning coal, I recently investigated whether coal can be clean:

When coal is burned, dozens of hazardous or toxic substances⁵² in addition to “trapped” carbon dioxide⁵³—a greenhouse gas pollutant—are released.⁵⁴ Consequently, some of these substances released through coal combustion, such as mercury, disseminate by means of deposition throughout the landscape and into aquatic environments.⁵⁵ The hazardous substances not released directly into the atmosphere are present in combustion wastes such as fly ash.⁵⁶ The coal combustion wastes released into the atmosphere are a public health hazard, and the corresponding healthcare costs are passed off to the consumer and government entities. In fact, states are seeking to abate combustion from some coal-fired power plants over economic, environmental, and public health concerns.⁵⁷ Although the negative health impacts of burning coal may be not be readily recognized, healthcare costs have been estimated to be in the billions.⁵⁸ For example, “the National Research Council has estimated the external costs associated with emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and PM from coal-fired power plants in the U.S. at $62 billion in 2005.”⁵⁹ Another study released in 2010 found that “filthy air in California cost federal, state and private health insurers $193 million in hospital costs.”⁶⁰ That same study determined that “Medicare and MediCal, California’s Medicaid program, paid for more than two-thirds of the costs, while private insurers paid the rest.”⁶¹ Granted, coal-fired power plants are not the sole contributor of air pollution, but they are a significant producer of air pollution.⁶² In fact, coal-fired power plants are significant contributors of carbon dioxide, mercury emissions, nitrogen oxide emissions, ozone pollution or smog, and particulate matter pollution.⁶³ Furthermore, an EPA study found that “coal plants were found to release 67 different air toxics, many of which are known or probable human carcinogens and neurotoxins that can harm brain development and irritate the respiratory system.”⁶⁴

Mercury, in particular, negatively impacts the health of ecosystems and the health of humans. The EPA has estimated “that about one third of U.S. [anthropogenic mercury] emissions are deposited within the contiguous U.S. and the remainder enters the global cycle.”⁶⁵ Mercury emissions are problematic, because there is a connection between blood mercury levels and intellectual performance, and the costs to society over “lifelong diminution in intelligence” has been estimated to be $8.7 billion per year.⁶⁶ As a result, mercury is recognized as posing a public health threat,⁶⁷ since mercury is a neurotoxin.⁶⁸ The most dangerous form of mercury is the organic form of mercury or methylmercury,⁶⁹ which is produced by microbial activity in aquatic environments.⁷⁰ Methylmercury is the most dangerous form of mercury, because it is easily absorbed by the human body.⁷¹ Furthermore, methylmercury is a bioaccumulative environmental toxicant,⁷² and as a result, undergoes biomagnification within food chains.⁷³ As a result, seafood consumption is directly related to methylmercury intake by humans.⁷⁴ In fact, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the EPA advise “women who may become pregnant, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and young children to avoid some types of fish and eat fish and shellfish that are lower in mercury.”⁷⁵ Despite warnings, according to the EPA, “it is estimated that more than 300,000 newborns each year may have increased risk of learning disabilities associated with in utero exposure to methylmercury.”⁷⁶

. . .

⁵²Alan H. Lockwood et al., Coal’s Assault on Human Health, (2009), available at http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/psr-coal-fullreport.pdf (Discussing that “coal combustion releases sulfur dioxide, particulate matter (Pm), nitrogen oxides, mercury, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health.”).

⁵³The problem is that the burning fossil fuels, such as coal, results in a release of carbon dioxide that has been trapped for millions of years. As a result, burning coal contributes an increase in concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide over time. This additional carbon dioxide is problematic due to carbon dioxide’s warming effect. For this reason, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. See The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect, http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm (last visited February 17, 2010).

⁵⁴See American Institute of Physics, The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect, http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm (last visited March 1, 2010).

⁵⁵See U.S. Envtl Prot. Agency, Environmental Effects of Mercury, http://www.epa.gov/hg/eco.htm (last visited February 27, 2010).

⁵⁶See Tim Lucas, Toxic Coal Ash Threatens Health And Environment, Duke University, Aug. 18, 2009, http://news.duke.edu/2009/08/toxiccoal.html (Discussing how hazardous elements remain in fly ash and how toxic ash can leave storage ponds or spill sites by becoming “re-suspended in the air as dust [upon drying] and could have a severe health impact on local residents or workers who inhale them”).

⁵⁷See North Carolina ex rel. Cooper v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 515 F.3d 344 (4th Cir. 2008) (Due to impacts to human health and environmental quality, the State of North Carolina brought a public nuisance action against Tennessee Valley Authority seeking an injunction prohibiting it from operating its plants in a harmful manner.).

⁵⁸For the FY 2008, EPA estimates that its 10 largest civil enforcement actions against stationary source Clean Air Act violations of emissions of sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter resulted in annual health benefits valued at $35 billion. According to the EPA, some of these health benefits translated into thousands of avoided premature deaths, fewer emergency room visits, fewer cases of chronic and acute bronchitis, fewer nonfatal heart attacks, fewer cases of respiratory problems, and a reduction of days of people missing school or work. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA FY2008 Enforcement & Compliance Annual Results (2008), available at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/reports/endofyear/eoy2008/fy2008results.pdf.

⁵⁹Alan H. Lockwood et al., Coal’s Assault on Human Health 10, (2009), available at http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/psr-coal-fullreport.pdf.

⁶⁰Kristina Shevory, Health Costs of California Air Pollution, New York Times, March 12, 2010, http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/health-costs-of-california-air-pollution.

⁶¹Id.

⁶²See Physicians for Social Responsibility, Coal-Fired Power Plants: Understanding the Health Costs of a Dirty Energy Source, available at http://action.psr.org/site/DocServer/Coal_Power_Fact_Sheet.pdf?docID=2821.

⁶³Id.

⁶⁴Id.

⁶⁵U.S. Envtl Prot. Agency, Human Exposure to Mercury, http://www.epa.gov/hg/exposure.htm (last visited February 27, 2010).

⁶⁶Physicians for Social Responsibility, Coal’s Effects on the Nervous System 32, available at http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/coals-assault-chapter-5.pdf.

⁶⁷See U.S. Envtl Prot. Agency, Former Mercury Mine Above Cottage Grove Reservoir Proposed for Federal Cleanup List, http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/d76a7f9d4c5368448525763a007f0099!OpenDocument (last visited February 27, 2010).

⁶⁸U.S. Envtl Prot. Agency, Human Health and Mercury, http://www.epa.gov/hg/health.htm (last visited February 27, 2010).

⁶⁹See U.S. Envtl Prot. Agency, Health Effects and Mercury, http://www.epa.gov/hg/effects.htm (last visited February 27, 2010).

⁷⁰U.S. Envtl Prot. Agency, Environmental Effects, http://www.epa.gov/hg/eco.htm (last visited on March 22, 2010).

⁷¹Laura Griesbauer, Methylmercury Contamination in Fish and Shellfish, http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/mercury/review.pdf (last visited April 13, 2010).

⁷²Wikipedia, Methylmercury, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylmercury (last visited on March 22, 2010).

⁷³Frances Solomon, Impacts of Metals on Aquatic Ecosystems and Human Health (2008), available at http://www.infomine.com/publications/docs/Mining.com/Apr2008c.pdf.

⁷⁴See Raquel Rutledge, Mercury in sushi can hit risky levels, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Jan. 11, 2008, http://www.jsonline.com/news/29548599.html (“But while sushi is packed with protein and essential omega-3 fatty acids, some types are also tainted with methyl mercury, a dangerous neurotoxin that causes brain damage in babies and other problems for adults who ingest too much. . . . Tests showed the two pieces of tuna had potentially dangerous, and nearly illegal, levels of mercury. Most of the other samples, such as shrimp, salmon and mackerel, contained only trace amounts.”).

⁷⁵U.S. Food and Drug Admin., Seafood, http://www.fda.gov/food/foodsafety/product-specificinformation/seafood/ (last visited on March 22, 2010).

⁷⁶U.S. Envtl Prot. Agency, Human Exposure to Mercury, http://www.epa.gov/hg/exposure.htm (last visited on March 22, 2010).