When there is energy wasted, it is not just costing money it is also hurting the environment. With the fuel costs raising many people are looking into building a more energy efficient home this will decrease their energy bills. It is a great thing that new homes are now being built to be energy efficient. When you build an energy efficient home you will save money in the long run.

Some mortgage companies even will offer some incentives for people who are building to build an energy efficient home. Also another incentive is that there is a federal tax deductible for anyone who builds an energy efficient home. By building a new energy efficient home it will increase in value this is because there are many families who are in search for this type of home. It is very rewarding knowing that you are doing your part for the environment when you have built an energy efficient home.

It has been estimated that sixteen percent of greenhouse gasses produced in the United States every year come from energy that is used in homes. So it means that the less energy used that there is less greenhouse gas produced. By building an energy efficient home there will be no cold breezes blowing through your home making it cold and at time very uncomfortable.

New energy efficient homes also protect against cold, heat, drafts, and also moisture. Inside air quality is not only better but temperature is also consistent.

When building a new energy efficient home there are many other things to consider. Energy efficient windows and doors, solar heat, water saving faucets, appliances that are energy efficient. There are many ways to go green and building an energy efficient home should be one that you will keep in mind.

Source: wind power

China’s renewable energy strategy through 2050 envisions renewable energy making up one-third of its energy consumption by then, the China Daily said, as the upcoming Copenhagen conference on climate change highlights the world’s dependence on fossil fuels.

Coal-dependent China, the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter, last month said it would cut the amount of carbon dioxide produced for each yuan of national income by 40-45 percent by 2020, compared to 2005 levels.

Depending on economic growth projections, total emissions will still rise.

By 2020, renewable energy should account for 15 percent of national primary energy consumption, supplying the equivalent of 600 million metric tons of coal, the China Daily said this weekend.

It cited a renewable energy blueprint laid out by Han Wenke, director-general of the Energy Research Institute under top planning body, the National Development and Reform Commission.

By 2030, renewable energy’s share should rise to 20 percent of the national energy mix, displacing 1 billion metric tons of coal, Han said, and by 2050, it would supply one-third of China’s energy, displacing two billion metric tons of coal, the paper said.

China’s drive for renewable energy to mitigate the health and environmental costs of coal has brought its own challenges.

Wind power generating capacity has surged so fast that policy planners now warn of severe overcapacity in the sector, and dam after dam piled on Chinese rivers distorts water flow, endangers fish and poses a potential earthquake hazard.

China’s installed wind power capacity is now 12.17 million kilowatts, up from 350,000 kw in 2000, and large-scale solar energy facilities are planned, the paper said.

China is focusing on non-grain bioethanol and biodiesel, to avoid diverting grains from food and feed supply.

Paul Krugman has again asserted his right to be wrong about climate change today in The New York Times. Here is my response to Mr. Krugman which I have also posted on the Times site:

I wonder by what percentage Mr. Krugman has diminished his own carbon footprint in the last 5 years? In the last 10? In the last 30? Or, like most affluent people in the West, has his use of fossil-fuel derived energy increased with each passing decade as he has become more financially comfortable? Has he limited the number of plane trips he takes per year? Does he heat his home with solar-derived warm water? Does he own more than one home? Tom Friedman, for one, flies nearly as much as Al Gore and lives in an energy-draining mansion.

Energy hypocrisy is among the many reasons that Copenhagen rings hollow. Some others:

1. Calling time-out in the conventional-energy game before the Third World gets a chance to develop properly is a moral disaster. The only reason that we’re capable of even thinking about a better environment in the West is because of the economic comfort brought by plentiful and affordable energy. Our rivers and air are cleaner today than a century ago, but we had to go through some environmentally ugly-duckling phases on our way here. (Not that we should ever stop fighting particulate and chemical pollution; we shouldn’t.) China and India will NEVER accede to meaningful co2 caps, at least not before 90 to 95 percent of their populations have electric power, something that won’t be taking place in the immediate future.

Expensive playthings: Modern windmills typically require conventional power generation backup, kill millions of birds per year, and don't provide electricity during some of the most important periods of the year (harsh winter cold snaps, notorious for still winds).)

2. The countries that have run the farthest with wind power are in economic trouble over it already. This is particularly true of Spain, which attempted to force-feed its economy a technology that provides intermittent power at high cost, created high-paying but temporary jobs, and has created potentially long-lasting unemployment.

3. The buying and selling of carbon is a rich man’s game. If the Nobel-winning Krugman’s best economic thinking prompts him to get behind this absolutely insane investment bubble in the making, then people would do well to look beyond the presumed authority and think for themselves on this one.

4. So far, in the entire history of planet Earth, a spike in temperature has yet to be caused by a spike in co2. Al Gore forgot to mention in his movie that every temperature spike on his graph preceded the correlating carbon dioxide spike by 800 years. Is co2 a greenhouse gas? Yes. Has the planet been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age 200 years ago? Yes. Does this establish causation? No. Water vapor is a far more significant greenhouse gas than co2 and is involved in a variety of highly complex and, so far, impossible-to-predict feedbacks by which it can cool the ocean-atmosphere system.

5. Mr. Krugman’s easy dismissal of Climategate is a serious moral blind spot on his part. If oil-company e-mails among industry climate scientists (not that such people actually exist) suggested deleting e-mails that were part of a Freedom of Information Act process, do you think that Mr. Krugman would dismiss their significance? If an oil-industry scientist had written an e-mail to his peers saying that he had found a good “trick” to “hide” the increase in temperature, would Mr. Krugman similarly tell his readers that this was no big deal? If oil-industry scientists described ways to control the peer-review process and freeze out scientists warning of global warming, Mr. Krugman would be fine with that, right?

***Please note our disclosures and terms of use here. >>>>

Good Morning!  Here’s a few items of interest on our morning paddle through the news. 

 Endangerment decision on the way.  The WSJ reports that the EPA will shortly name CO2 as a public danger, paving the way for emission regulation and giving the prez something to talk about at climate talks in Copenhagen this week.

FPL to throw big money into the wind.  The WSJ reports that the electricity giant is aiming towards a $2b investment in wind energy next year given positive regulatory support.

The pending shortage in primary care physicians.  A Forbes opinion piece reviews how the decreasing number of docs must be addressed to achieve successful health care reform.

Michael Giberson

Kent Hawkins has a further post at Master Resource examining the effects of wind power on overall emissions produced in a power system.

In the post Hawkins examines the Michael Milligan et al, article, “Wind Power Myths Debunked,” appearing in the most recent IEEE Power and Energy Magazine (an article mentioned in comments I made here pointing out Hawkins’s earlier post). The “debunking” of Milligan et al seeks to portray many issues raised with respect to wind power as less important than wind power critics assert.

Hawkins’s response aims to debunk the debunking.  If you are inclined to rely on the Milligan et al article, you ought to consider the objections raised by Hawkins seriously.

* Good job numbers suggest the recession could be bottoming out. Of course, you can’t please everyone.

* BREAKING: Ben Bernanke is kind of a douche.

* Ted Kennedy may be gone, but John Kerry still won’t support the Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound.

* In a new piece in Vanity Fair, Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater/Xe, turns out to have been CIA. Via MeFi. What’s next for this real-life Bond villain?

For the time being, however, Prince contends that his plans are far more modest. “I’m going to teach high school,” he says, straight-faced. “History and economics. I may even coach wrestling. Hey, Indiana Jones taught school, too.”

* New Jersey to pave million-year-old dinosaur footprints to put up parking lot. Okay, actually condos.

* Can humans reproduce in zero gravity?

This finding casts into doubt the science fictional notion that human beings can survive in zero gravity or in the microgravity environment of large asteroids.

* Could a super-advanced civilization live inside the acretion disk, the super-dense area around the black hole at the center of a galaxy?

* The headline reads, “Prostitutes Offer Free Climate Summit Sex.”

Copenhagen Mayor Ritt Bjerregaard sent postcards to city hotels warning summit guests not to patronize Danish sex workers during the upcoming conference. Now, the prostitutes have struck back, offering free sex to anyone who produces one of the warnings.

* Sarah Palin goes birther.

The other thing that struck me about her interview was her contention that she didn’t go after Obama enough during the election, and namely, that avoiding the birther thing was a mistake. I suppose she could have gone completely off the deep end during the campaign, and certainly it seems she wanted to but was held back by McCain, but good god, who in their right mind thinks she wasn’t enough on the attack? She accused Obama, through implication, of being a terrorist. She did so in a way that maximized the anti-Muslim insinuation, even though neither Barack Obama nor Bill Ayers (who is the excuse for this rumor-mongering) is Muslim, making the whole thing not only racist but incoherent. She went out of her way to imply that anyone who was not white or lived in a city was not a Real American. She red-baited Obama. She did everything but tell jokes about his mom. Her entire campaign strategy was to attack Obama. I fail to see how she could have done more, honestly. There aren’t enough hours in the day.

* And science proves Rousseau was right: God created man in his own image and man, being a gentleman, returned the favor.

Digital HID (DHID) Lighting Test Results - High-bay / Low-bay Applications 

If you are interested in wind energy, check out the Windsource program offered by Xcel Energy.  It’s the largest voluntary renewable energy program in the state!  If you buy your electricity from Xcel, you can choose to buy electricity generated renewably from wind turbines.

For a small premium you can choose how much renewable energy you would like to use by purchasing 100 kWh blocks or choosing 100% Windsource.

This holiday season, give yourself the gift of renewable wind power to help out the environment and support green energy production.

::Xcel Energy

The current 15 Terawatts (TW) of energy that we consume on Earth includes around 12-13 TW derived from oil, gas and coal.  It will take a very robust mix of various renewables to replace 13 TW; in fact, to replace around half (6 TW) of fossil fuels by 2040, we would need to replace the 6 TW as well as provide an additional 16 TW of energy from other sources to keep pace with global energy demand.  So 22 TW is required in order to halve the amount of carbon emissions from today, in addition to the approximately 2.5 TW of renewables that currently exist.  So the magic number of total renewables would need to equal 24.5 TW.

If we look at all of the existing and potential renewable production, we can come up with an estimate of the amount of renewable energy product we could have by 2040.  Please keep in mind that current production is estimated, and hopefully conservatively, so that actual production should be at or slightly above these estimates:

1.    Hydroelectric: Assuming current capacity of 1 TW (it’s actually a little less), it could be possible to see 2 TW by 2040 with hydroelectric dams; that is an optimistic forecast, as many of the best dam locations in developed nations are in use.  However, there are other forms of hydroelectricity, including micro-hydro, tidal power and osmotic power, and while generally unknown today, they should see some growth over the next few decades.  For the purposes of increasing the total hydroelectric energy, however, these other technologies may not provide too much of an increase by 2040.  It would be best to assume that these additional methods only serve to increase the probability of total hydro production reaching 2 TW.

2.    Geothermal: power from within the Earth currently provides around 10 GW of electricity and 28 GW of heating, which equals 0.038 TW in total.  Geothermal has much potential in many areas of the world, including British Columbia, where it’s possible for geothermal electricity to be generated.  Even areas that may not have efficient electricity production can use geothermal for direct heating.  In theory, almost all space heating and cooling on Earth (around 1.5 TW) could be provided by geothermal and passive solar, but it is unlikely that every home on the planet will be equipped with a geothermal heat pump and optimized for solar heating by 2040.  It is more realistic to assume strong growth in geothermal to a level where we could see a total of 1 TW, including electricity.

3.    Biomass: Ignoring the fact that not all Biomass energy production is sustainable, the current production of approximately 250 GW could increase due mainly to biofuels derived from agricultural waste products or algae (as opposed to ethanol from corn and other food crops, which is more of a fad than a solution).  I can optimistically imagine an increase to 1.5 TW by 2040, as there is abundant potential in mature economies for biofuel production.

4.    Wind: We currently have over 120 GW of wind worldwide, and we are seeing major growth of wind capacity in various countries, including Canada.  However, wind has a very large divide between peak capacity (high winds) and actual capacity, as sometimes the wind isn’t providing enough force to create a measurable amount of energy.  The “uptime” of wind can be estimated at 40% by wind optimists and at 1% by its critics.  In my opinion, wind is an excellent companion to solar, but still requires an additional backup for the rare times when there is no wind or sun.  However, improvements in battery technology (including plug-in hybrid cars) could help to make the 40% capacity a more reliable figure; in addition, efficiency will probably be improved somewhat by innovation.   So our current 50 GW of actual capacity (0.05 TW) could possibly expand to as high as a full TW by 2040.

5.    Solar: Along with geothermal and wind, solar has far larger potential than is currently being employed.  It is estimated that 120,000 TW of solar energy is available for use, and while it’s impractical to capture all solar energy that visits the planet, a miniscule percentage could be harnessed to meet all of our current needs, as long as reliable methods of storing the energy can be employed (battery technologies).  Solar energy, including solar space heating and solar water heating, amounts to around 120 GW (0.12 TW).  The capital costs of solar are declining due to mass production and innovation, and I expect that solar installations will increase over the coming years, and will be given a boost by the coming commercial availability of plug-in hybrid automobiles.  Plug-in hybrids function not only as automobiles; they are also mobile batteries for storing excess energy.  It will be possible to charge a battery using renewables such as solar or wind when there is abundant energy being produced, and the battery could then be connected to a home electrical grid to provide power.  It is possible in my opinion that solar could increase to 5 TW of actual capacity (versus peak capacity), which is the figure that is most important when looking to replace baseload fossil fuel generation.

If we combine these totals, we see that my total projection for worldwide renewable energy production to equal 10.5 TW by 2040.  On its own, this would be a good start to replacing fossil fuel production at 2009 levels, but it cannot also accommodate the projected growth in worldwide energy usage.

Many environmentalists hope that better efficiency in energy generation and consumption will cut back the growth in energy usage, but I believe that it is not realistic to expect growth to be curtailed by more than several terawatts.  It’s not impossible that cap and trade programs or carbon/consumption taxes in G20 countries can allow efficiency gains to result in a decrease in energy usage (defying Jevons Paradox), but we cannot and should not expect less developed nations to stop any economic growth that outpaces gains in the efficiency of their current energy resources.  In truth, we can’t really expect that G20 nations would be able to slow economic growth to such levels even if there was consensus to do so.

Assuming that the global population will be at or around 9 billion by 2040, freezing power consumption to current levels would require every person on Earth to cut their energy usage by a quarter in order to accommodate the newcomers.  Of course, this is more likely than the idea of freezing the global population at 6.8 billion, but is still very difficult to imagine.  Realistically, I can imagine the 14 TW shortfall being reduced through conservation and purposeful consumption restrictions to 10 TW; a ten terawatt shortfall is about as optimistic as I can be.

If we can cover this shortfall of 10 TW, we’ll see the maximum carbon dioxide threshold reach between 450 and 500 ppm by 2040, at which point we will need to immediately begin removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere to minimize the damage as much as possible.  A threshold of 350 ppm is currently recommended by many activists and scientists as our ultimate goal.  Barring any unexpected and amazing technological breakthrough in energy production, I don’t think it’s possible to avoid reaching 450-500 ppm (note: carbon dioxide isn’t the only greenhouse gas, so 450 ppm CO2 can mean different things based on other gases as well as some cooling effects such as aerosols).

The damage done by the carbon emissions that have already occurred can only be reversed quickly through energy-intensive geoengineering.  Geoengineering involves various engineering technologies to mitigate or reverse climate change or remove emitted greenhouse gases, and is an important second step after alternatives to fossil fuels have been developed and deployed.  The ideal geoengineering methods are any that remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere; methods to reduce the amount of sunlight (and heat) reaching the Earth will not solve other greenhouse gas emissions problems, such as ocean acidification.  However, devices such as artificial carbon-removing trees and scrubbing towers may take too long to reverse temperatures on their own, so concepts such as cloud-seeding and even deflecting sunlight could help to accelerate a decrease in warming.

It’s very important to note that the energy- and capital-intensive nature of geoengineering makes the notion of using it without reducing fossil fuel usage unrealistic; the additional fossil fuels required to power geoengineering would in all likelihood add more emissions than the geoengineering would be able to remove or mitigate, making the whole strategy pointless.  While it’s expected that fusion power will be available in the second half of the 21st century (the running joke is that it’s fifty years away today, and that it will still be fifty years away fifty years from now), there are no absolute guarantees that this technology will ever be ready for commercial use, and continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions may result in catastrophic changes in climate before fusion-powered geoengineering can come online.

To make up the shortfall in energy production involved in halving fossil fuel usage by 2040, there are four options available (that I know of):

1.    Heavier investment in renewables: a worldwide campaign to equip all buildings on Earth with solar panels and geothermal heat pumps, and to place wind farms and next-generation hydro next to every city is possible, but it’s difficult to see how a strategy can be agreed upon when there isn’t even consensus on the sheer impossibility of conservation and our current renewable energy growth rates removing the need for fossil fuels anytime soon.  Until such time as we can expect to see our world leaders telling us that we could be 10 TW short of survival, I don’t expect an even larger growth in renewables than I’m predicting above.

2.    Continued use of fossil fuels using on-site sequestration of emissions: sequestration is a movement that is gaining momentum in the two largest coal-burning nations, the United States and China.  However, even if “clean coal” can replace the thousands of coal plants in these two countries, it does not solve other environmental issues with marginal oil extraction (including tar sands) and coal mining; in addition, sequestration will reduce the efficiency of existing fossil fuel power plants and has a negative effect on air quality; lastly, we will still eventually run out of fossil fuels.  China has already started to work at replacing its most inefficient coal plants with gas-fired plants and cleaner coal plants; the first coal plant in China to sequester its emissions is planned for operation in 2011.

3.    Space-based solar power: if launch costs to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) could be reduced to $2,500/kg (and that looks to be possible by 2025) and the increased cost of fossil fuel energy (due to consumption taxes and not just demand) can rise to a high enough level, it would be possible to assemble solar arrays in Low Earth Orbit.  The assembled satellites would either be left in LEO (smaller antennas) or thrust outwards to Geostationary Orbit (less redundancy required) to transmit power to terrestrial receiving stations using microwaves.  While there are no amazing new technologies required (aside from the advanced composites used in the next generation of launch vehicles, which are already being developed), the economics and risks of this venture make it a challenge to achieve within a 30-year timeframe.  Ten Terawatts of solar power would weigh approximately 10 million tons, which would require 150 yet-to-be-developed 150-tonnes-to-LEO heavy-lift launch vehicles launching approximately 475 times each (twice a month for twenty years).  In addition, there would either need to be additional propulsion to bring the solar array to geostationary orbit, or more satellites for 100% uptime in LEO, as well as the large receivers on Earth that may need to be as large as 5km in diameter.

4.    Nuclear Fission: Fusion may be commercially available by 2040 if we’re lucky, but fission is here today.  There are environmental costs to uranium mining, and there are definite concerns about safety and nuclear proliferation, but I don’t believe these outweigh the benefit of revisiting nuclear power.   The biggest threat to good ideas is fundamentalism on either side, and the “no nukes ever” argument could affect more than global energy production: nuclear power is an essential part of space exploration and exploitation.  Ironically, nuclear fission may be the key to accessing extra-terrestrial sources of fusion fuel and space-based solar power that will eventually make our current nuclear power plants obsolete.  In the short term, newer designs involving passive safety, along with the addition of light water reactor sustainability for existing plants could result in an increase in nuclear power both through construction and the life extension of existing plants.  Because it takes around ten years for a new nuclear power plant to go from planning to operation, it would take serious devotion and effort to expand the current global nuclear capacity of under a terawatt to three or four TW.  To reach 10TW with nuclear alone, we’d need around 10,000 new nuclear reactors, which is 500 per year over twenty years.

So which of these options is the best choice for humanity?  I believe the answer is all of them.  To find that missing 10 TW of energy, we will need more than just one strategy; if one of these options succeeds, it will get us closer to our goal, but won’t be enough to get us all of the way in a reasonable timeframe.  If two out of four, or perhaps three out of four succeed, we will finally see emissions drop to a manageable level; only then can we start looking at step two, reducing the greenhouse gases that have already been released.

I am all in favour of reduce, reuse, recycle, and the idea of planting trees and investing in cleaner fuels; a strong spirit of conservation can save us terawatts of energy.  But emotional environmentalism isn’t enough on its own to conquer our current energy crisis; we need to start looking at our energy crisis in absolute terms, including both the required energy and the costs of construction and operation.  This involves not being sucked into the arguments of the zero-growthers or people who obsess over a climate change conspiracy, which will result in more arguing and no progress.  No matter your view on just how much warming there is, or how much of it is due to human activity, we are still left on a planet with finite fossil fuels and a population that will continue to expand in numbers and in energy consumption.  A revolution in energy is required for the future progress for humanity, and we’re running out of time.

by Sarah Fazio

WHAT’S HAPPENING

• Consumers wondering how much power is blowing in the wind now have an iPhone app from Mariah Power, maker of the Windspire turbine.

• Users simply hold the phone skyward and the app measures wind speed and calculates how much CO2 could be offset if a small wind turbine were installed on that particular plot of land (AlternativeConsumer.org 10.23.09).

• Though the company says the app is accurate within 1.5 mph, they admit the app is more hype-full than helpful and that before they’d install a turbine, professionals would collect more (and more reliable) data on site (GreenInc.Blogs.NYTimes.com 10.22.09).

WHAT THIS MEANS TO BUSINESS

• Green monitoring — for home energy use, a car’s average miles per gallon, wind power potential — empowers consumers with the metrics to determine whether sustainable decisions are worth the investment.
• Even green’s gone mobile. When it comes to sustainability, they have an app for that.

RESOURCES

• Mariah Power

The Network for New Energy Choices recently published their 2009 edition of Freeing the Grid, a policy guide that grades states on their current net metering and interconnection practices. According to Zachary Shahan at CleanTechnica.com:

Net metering, basically, “is a simple billing arrangement that allows solar customers to get fair retail credit for the excess electricity their systems generate during daytime hours.” On the other hand, interconnection standards “are the technical requirements and legal procedures that allow a customer-sited generator to ‘plug-into’ the electricity grid.”

This third edition of Freeing the Grid finds that, although net metering and interconnection policies still vary widely, states have made significant strides in adopting the best practices that drive renewable energy market growth and job creation.

From the report:

In total, 27 states got an A or B grade on net metering in 2009, whereas only 13 got an A or B in 2007. Similarly, 15 got an A or B on interconnection in 2009, whereas only 1 state got a B (no A) in 2007.

This shows a significant improvement over the past two years in many states, but there is still plenty of room for improvement in many areas of the country. 14 states got an F (and 10 could not be graded) on interconnection in 2009, and 3 got an F (with 7 not being graded) on net metering.

Best Practices Case Study: Oregon. Using best practices proven in other states as a starting point, Oregon has implemented net metering and interconnection standards that put the state at the head of the class. Oregon’s inclusive net metering program goes beyond standard practices with its aggregation rule that allows customers, such as farmers, who may have more than one electric meter on their property, to use net metering credits at multiple sites, allowing more cost effective use of renewable energy. State regulators have set up simplified interconnection procedures and reduced unnecessary safety requirements for smaller systems. By combining strong net metering and interconnection procedures with an over-all comprehensive renewable energy strategy — which includes generous rebates and a strong RPS with a 20-MW solar carve-out — Oregon is set to expand renewable energy statewide.

For customers who net meter, the grid acts like an energy bank; customers deposit energy into the grid when their system produces more than they consume, and withdraw energy when demand exceeds what their systems can supply. To be successful, a net metering policy must facilitate banking of credit for excess energy generated by the customer when renewable energy output is high, and may then apply the credit toward consumption when output is lower.

The City Fix reports on more bike lanes contemplated for DC streets.

In a case of better late than never, Virginia bans smoking at bars and restaurants starting today. And, Miles Grant, AKA The Green Miles, invites you to a smoke-free party to celebrate.

While influenza outbreaks nationwide remain high, Swine Flu cases continue to decline, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For all the stats on the H1N1 virus click here.

Streetsblog Capitol Hill posts on the possibilities of increasing the federal gas tax.

In DC, construction of office and other commercial buildings to set a record this year before coming to a resounding halt with no groundbeakings planed for 2010, notes the Washington Business Journal.

Maryland’s Constellation Energy adds wind power.

After hearing last week about how the human brain is ill-equipped to fight global warming (more on that later,) this New York Times story on how “babies are innately sociable and helpful to others” makes me feel a little better.

This Times piece on the struggles of indigenous people against poachers, loggers, illicit gold miners and other outsiders in a remote Venezuela rainforest is also worth a read.

The Dalai Lama has joined the growing number of spiritual leaders calling for global action to address climate change. He talks about his personal conservation efforts and says protecting the environment should be part of everyone’s lives now.

BALTIMORE–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Constellation Energy (NYSE:CEG – News) today announced it has signed an agreement with Clipper Windpower, Inc. to acquire the Criterion wind project in Garrett County, Md. The $140 million, 70-megawatt wind energy project would be developed, constructed, owned and operated by Constellation Energy. This new renewable energy resource would provide enough sustainable electricity to meet the annual equivalent usage of an estimated 23,000 households. It is one of several clean energy initiatives Constellation Energy has recently completed or proposed across Maryland.

For more, CLICK HERE.

In terms of applying prudent energy policy here in the United States, we can certainly do what Samsø is doing on a much larger scale. More from Popular Science:

Samso — about 30 miles long and 15 miles across — began its trek toward sustainability in 1997, and in just over a decade has erected 21 electricity-producing wind turbines and a heating system fueled by wood chip- and straw-burning furnaces bolstered by multiple small, unobtrusive solar panels. The 11 one-megawatt onshore turbines alone produce more than the island’s total electricity consumption (and enough power to offset 690,000 gallons of oil), while the 10 offshore turbines produce enough power to cover the island’s entire transportation energy budget. Excess power is invested into new energy projects.

—
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.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

From the Globe and Mail November 30. More of the mythology of wind power exposed. Take particular note of the cost of electricity to ratepayers in Denmark.

Oil still fuels the green state of Denmark

by Eric Reguly

(c) The Globe and Mail

Denmark oozes green.

Its capital, Copenhagen, won the moral right to host next month’s climate change summit in good part because Denmark seems to have found the winning balance between growth and carbon reduction. Wind power is coming on strong. Its citizens are willing to pay sky-high electricity prices to encourage conservation. Its hot-water-based district heating system is considered a marvel of energy efficiency.

Denmark’s green efforts have won praise from United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the World Bank.

But this small, wealthy Nordic country – population 5.4-million – may not be as green as advertised. The fine print in Denmark’s Energy Agency data paints a paler picture.

While Denmark has made considerable progress in moving toward clean energy, it is still tethered to the grubby old carbon world.

In reality, the Danish economy is more dependent on fossil fuels and the wealth they create than at any time in the country’s history. The fuels come from the North Sea, whose reserves gave Denmark its first oil production in 1972.

In 1990 Denmark’s oil production was 7-million cubic metres (one cubic metre equals 6.3 barrels). Production peaked at 22.6-million cubic metres in 2004. In 2007, the figure was a still-hefty 18.1-million. Natural gas production has doubled since 1990.

Most of the oil and gas is exported. “Denmark’s economic success story is dependent on other nations increasing their carbon-dioxide footprint,” said Aldyen Donnelly, president of Vancouver’s WDA Consulting, a greenhouse-gas emissions management consultancy.

Of course, Denmark also exports green technology, such as wind turbines made by Vestas, the world’s biggest wind-energy company. But clean-tech exports, combined with exports of electricity, are still well below the combined value of its exports fossil fuel and fossil-fuel technology, such as oil-drilling equipment. In 2008, for every dollar of exports in the clean-tech and electricity category, $6 worth of exports in the fossil-fuel category left Denmark. On the export front at least, Denmark is still very much an oil economy.

Another myth is that Demark’s electricity production is ultra-clean.

There is no doubt that the Danes are world leaders in the development of wind energy. Wind power generated 18.3 per cent of Denmark’s electricity last year, up from 11.6 per cent in 1990. (Solar power has a near zero share of the market.) “They broke every barrier in the wind market,” said Jonathan Coony, an energy technology specialist at the World Bank. “They were pioneers in that area. No one thought they could go beyond 5 per cent. But they went to 10, then 15 and kept on going.”

But coal, the dirtiest of the fossil fuels, is still the most popular electricity-generating fuel. Last year it supplied 48 per cent of Denmark’s electricity, a ratio that has varied little this decade. Since coal plants are used as backups for wind generators when the wind doesn’t blow, the plants are unlikely to be phased out.

Oil and natural gas, meanwhile, are still doing yeoman’s work in the Danish electricity market. In 2008 the two fuels accounted for 22 per cent of total electricity generation. Coal, oil and gas together account for a not-so green 70 per cent of total electricity generation.

Other than wind power, Denmark’s big environmental success story is district heating, hailed as a model of energy efficiency. District heating takes the surplus heat thrown off by coal and gas plants and uses it to create hot water that travels through pipes to heat homes. Today, some 2.5 million Danish homes are connected to the vast underground heating grid.

The Danish government says the system reduces fuel consumption by 30 per cent compared with the amount that would have been consumed in home furnaces. Ms. Donnelly says district heating can reduce the greenhouse-gas emissions from home heating by as much as half. But she notes the system was built well before the 1997 Kyoto climate change accord, and had nothing to do with Denmark’s green halo. Developed in the 1930s and greatly expanded in the 1980s, district heating was the national effort to reduce energy costs after the twin oil shocks of the 1970s.

District heating is a consumer bargain. What is not a bargain is Denmark’s electricity price. At the end of last year, according to Energy Regulatory Authority, the consumer price had reached the equivalent of 46 cents a kilowatt hour. That’s more than three times the typical Canadian and American price. Only 30 per cent of the charge represents the actual energy cost. The rest comes from taxes, transmission costs and other fees.

The prices have worked in the sense that they have kept a lid on electricity consumption in recent years. But they seem to have failed to create an alternative energy revolution; fossil fuels still dominate electricity production.

Still, international organizations like the World Bank and the UN praise Denmark’s green efforts and hold it out as an example to be followed as the world lurches towards a difficult carbon-reduction summit in Copenhagen. But Denmark, in spite of its best efforts, shows how hard it is to make significant progress on the carbon-reduction file. Said one energy executive: “It’s not all sunshine and rainbows in the Danish energy market.”

and the other one!

Peter Harper’s Response to Rob Collister’s cri de coeur Regarding Wind Farms 2005 by Peter Harper Centre for Alternative Technology Machynlleth, Wales Dear Editor While I appreciate the sincerity and good intentions of Rob Collister’s cri de coeur regarding wind farms in May/June Resurgence, I would like to present another view. The debate, unfortunately, is far more complex and more anguished. The issue of Resurgence in which it appeared was dedicated to the question of climate change. Arguments on this issue do continue, but with every passing year the experts reach greater unanimity, and the furrows in their brows get visibly deeper. They are extremely concerned, and increasingly prepared to say so. What does this mean for us in the UK? Physically, it probably won’t be that bad during this century. There will be more floods, droughts and storms but we are a wealthy nation with large technical and political resources. We’ll cope. The really bad effects are likely to be in societies more vulnerable to climatic extremes and in most cases less able to defend themselves. There will be desertification in China, loss of snow-melt water-supplies in the Andes, Pacific islands overwhelmed by hurricanes. The paradigm case is semi-permanent flooding of lowland Bangladesh, probably killing millions, displacing tens of millions, and destroying thousands of square kilometres of unique habitat. Bangladesh represents a part of what appears to be an unfolding global tragedy, possibly outranking the effects of the 20th century wars. Let us refer to this widespread potential tragedy, in inverted commas, as “Bangladesh”. We all know that the causes of “Bangladesh” are basically carbon emissions; that as a world we are emitting too much carbon, mostly CO2 from energy use. Resurgence readers will doubtless know that the average UK citizen emits five times more CO2 than a globally sustainable ‘fair share’, and will agree that this situation is indeed, not fair. Most readers, being comfortably-off, will have a personal carbon-emission level of at least this amount, and probably much more. Most of us will accept a large measure of personal responsibility and will feel we ought to take steps at least to move things in the right direction, either by personal lifestyle choices or by support of certain energy policies. Paradoxes abound here. If all Resurgence readers reduced their emissions to zero it would not amount to much, because there are too few of us. The same is true of the whole UK: since it only emits 2% of global CO2 emissions, it makes little difference on its own. Nevertheless we all understand that each country should do its bit, and indeed each citizen. Furthermore the setting of examples, both by avant-garde individuals and households, and by progressive nation-states, is going to be extremely important in bringing about a rapid transformation of the world energy scene. Again, I would expect readers readily to agree about this. This is excellent, but few of us realise just how difficult it is going to be to ‘come off’ cheap fossil fuels. In practice it will probably be very hard for the great majority of British people to change their lifestyles radically, certainly in the crucial next 50 years. The initiatives will have to come from the government, with a certain amount of compliance, albeit reluctant, from the populace. Pretty well all energy analysts agree that the grand solution has to be a pincer movement between reducing the need for energy, and supplying that reduced need with an increasing proportion of non-carbon energy sources. Reducing energy demand in all sorts of ways is the cornerstone, but it gets harder and more expensive as you go on, and few analysts have come up with a convincing picture of how we could manage with much less than 50% of the current demand for energy. The exact figures do not matter; let us say we have done everything possible to improve energy efficiency and it has halved demand. We are ‘allowed’ to meet about 40% of the remaining demand with fossil fuels (that’s our sustainable and fair share) and we’d need most of that to run the transport system. That leaves 60% to find from non-carbon sources, 100-120 gigawatts-worth. This is a lot!! Now remember, we are not only trying to meet our moral obligations to “Bangladesh”, we are also trying to set an example: “This is what Britain is doing: you should do likewise”. Non-carbon energy sources available include nuclear electricity and a wide range of different technologies generally lumped together as ‘the renewables’ because they are based on natural flows of energy driven usually by the sun. Energy analysts nearly all plump for a ‘portfolio’ approach in which many different types of energy combine to give a reasonably economical and reliable supply. It’s obvious really: nuclear providing a solid base load of say 30%; the intermittent renewables (like sun, wind and wave) doing about 20%; the ‘firm’ renewables (like geothermal, tidal, biomass) doing 20%; and the fast-to-respond and ultra-reliable fossils filling the cracks and making up the remaining 30%. In combination with various other supplementary technologies such as carbon sequestration, hydrogen production and fuel cells, these could deliver a reliable and sustainable energy supply. But it’s going to take a long time and a lot of money. Even the improvements in efficiency and energy consumption will take time to implement. Do I hear “Bangladesh” nervously clearing its throat? Yes! Indeed, speed is important. We must get on. Unfortunately the only two fully mature non-carbon technologies available now, are nuclear and on-shore wind. Each has its own special environmental impacts and implacable foes. Where do we go now? Shall we give up? Personally, I cannot see any way to avoid the moral obligation to compare the environmental impacts of nuclear power and wind farms with “Bangladesh”, and to see where that leads us. Since the current polemic is about wind farms, let’s put them in the spotlight. What’s the worst thing they do? They destroy the pleasure we derive from historically-formed landscapes. This is not a negligible gripe. For some people the enjoyment of rural scenery is one of the pillars of civilised values, a treasure that has been built up over centuries. Hence the feeling of desecration, comparable (as Mr Collister’s letter noted) with the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamian. (In fact I am surprised that no-one has yet tried to blow up a wind-turbine. It would make a fantastic media coup.) Personally I entirely agree that wind farms are an insult to delicate scenery. (In this I accept I am a member of a minority, in that surveys show that most people favour wind power and favour it even more after a local wind farm has been installed). But my personal preferences are surely irrelevant. As I lie awake at night wondering what we are going to do, I cannot possibly think that my aesthetic preferences, however strong, have any weight when compared with “Bangladesh”. Perhaps some artful moral philosopher will help me out here, but for the time being I cannot look any “Bangladeshi” in the face and at the same time oppose the siting of wind-farms wherever the wind blows. That would be morally intolerable. It would be saying: “Stuff you, and your family, and your community, and your nation, and your landscape and your heritage, and your regional biodiversity; stuff them all: my refined feeling for scenery comes first.” Sorry, I can’t manage that one. But it is a bitter pill. How can we make ourselves feel better about windfarms? I have tried to comfort myself with the following rationalisations: 1) Since the UK produces far more than its fair share of current carbon emissions, and since its historical contribution to the problem has been even greater, isn’t there an element of poetic justice in its having to pay in coin that it holds particularly dear? Wind farms get you off a nasty moral hook. One might be aesthetically disgusted, but not morally disgusted. I find that a slight improvement. 2) For this very reason it sets a good example. It says to the world, “We take this problem seriously and we will take steps to internalise the environmental costs of our energy systems, in spite of great sacrifices”. The fact that wind-energy is so contentious and conspicuous actually reinforces our national stand and helps to turn the world around. Thereafter the UK takes the environmental impacts of its energy production upon itself and tries to resolve the conflicts within its own polity. 3) It does not have to be permanent. A windmill can be dismantled in a day, a wind farm in a month. The foundation pads and underground cabling might remain, but they are relatively inert. Their long term environmental impact is….well, I just compare it with “Bangladesh” and stop whingeing. 4) One can think of a medium term strategy in which the British landscape is ‘borrowed’ for 50 years to help prevent the appalling alternative of “Bangladesh”, while the more difficult, expensive and slower-developing technologies come up to speed. At which point the wind-farms come down (phew!) having been replaced by tidal barrages and tidal stream installations, wave-capture devices, biomass CHP-plants, geothermal heating and photovoltaic arrays on every building. This bears comparison with wartime values, where huge areas of the UK became airfields, tank-traps, potato-plots, firing ranges, training-grounds, ammo-dumps etc…and then we got it back later, admittedly with a few fingers missing, but nobody would dare say it wasn’t justified. That does it for me. To campaign against a wind-farm would be dicing with the lives, livelihood and environment of millions in “Bangladesh”. I can’t do it. As for Mr Collister, I suspect underneath he has the same ethical sensibilities as I do. Surely he would agree that we ought to pick up the environmental tab ourselves? Whom else would he prefer pay it? Surely we ought to take a moral lead in taking environmental burdens upon ourselves wherever we can. Ethically then, Mr Collister should try to encourage wind farms where he lives. Failing this, he should campaign for new settlements in Britain to be prepared for certainly thousands, probably millions, of environmental refugees. The Conwy Valley would be a nice place to start. Or perhaps he should initiate a debate among his neighbours about the need for a large nuclear complex on the North Wales coast. A good spot, plenty of cooling water and sound grid connections. Say a pair of 1.2GW PWR units would make a very useful contribution. What are you waiting for?. In practice, the chances of nuclear power making a comeback seem extremely remote. It’s renewables or nothing, and time presses. Wind is with us now, and it seems to me that morally, “Bangladesh” compels us to embrace it, at least for half a century.

2005

by Peter Harper
Centre for Alternative Technology
Machynlleth, Wales

Let’s get a few things straight at the beginning. Obviously the debate hinges on both the gravity and urgency of the climate change situation. If there is doubt about this, then there is doubt about the need for such drastic measures as wind-farms, nuclear energy and carbon taxes. So let us deal with this first of all. I have followed the climate debates closely since the late sixties and watched numerous cycles of alarm alternating with reassurance. There are always two sides to the debate and that remains the case. I would say to the pessimists, hang on, there is still room for doubt: pay respectful attention to the sceptics; be ready to recant. But equally I would say to the climate sceptics, look, you might prove right in the end, but please acknowledge that the trend of data and expert opinion over the last ten years appears to be going rather steadily against you. Non-experts, forced to rely on the balance of provisional data and interpretation available to them, are justified in framing and supporting policies indicated by that balance. They are not gullible fools. They are operating under conditions of uncertainty with high stakes, and they are doing the best they can.

To summarise my understanding of the most recent ‘balance of opinion’, it is not so much that anthropogenic GHGs in themselves will cause serious changes (although eventually they would) but that they could trigger the release of much larger natural stores of GHGs, from for example, the Amazon basin, tundra zones, and ocean bottoms. The ‘triggers’ for the initiation of a series of positive feedback processes might be quite modest levels of GHG, for example around 400ppm CO2, that will be reached quite soon in a BAU scenario, perhaps in as little as 20 years. I pray that this is completely mistaken and will be convincingly disproved soon. Even by the time this is published new data might have completely altered the terms of the debate. But in the meantime, I feel that rapid precautionary action is justified, and that I should put my personal efforts, such as they are, in that direction.

The Climate problem is a world problem, and no single country can solve it alone. Ideally it should be tackled by concerted international action, and the Kyoto Protocol is a possible beginning. But as of now it falls to individual countries to decide their own energy policies. Britain is responsible for less than 2% global CO2 emissions, so even if it reduced its own to zero it would not make a great deal of physical difference either to itself or the world. Pending binding international agreements, is there any point in doing anything at all? Logically, perhaps not, but given the gravity and apparent urgency of the situation, we cannot ignore the ‘demonstration’ aspect of the case: how is UK energy policy likely to influence policies outside its borders? In particular we should ask of any major energy development: how will this play in China, India, Brazil, or even?heaven help us?the USA?

This bizarre ’showbiz’ aspect of energy policy appears to be unavoidable, and is the cornerstone of my argument: I think that the UK should deliberately embark on a model sustainable energy policy that will inspire (and also inform and assist) others to do likewise. Such a policy would not operate on double standards. It would adopt some equitable universal principle for GHG reduction targets, such as Contraction and Convergence (C&C), then move to conform as rapidly and ‘generalisably’ as possible.

Now to some details. C&C suggests a UK level of CO2 emissions around 20% of their 2000 level. That means we have an ‘allowance’ of 20% fossil fuels (FF): a very valuable allowance because FF are so good at matching fluctuating demand. Of the rest, currently about 7% comes from nuclear, 3% from hydro and a smidgin from existing wind. That leaves a gap of 70%. What could it be?

In all energy debates, protagonists counter the things they don’t like with the response, “We don’t need that: we could invest in energy efficiency instead”. Yes indeed, efficiency (or Rational Use of Energy, RUE, as it is sometimes labelled) is a vital part of any sustainable strategy, and the most cost-effective. But people seem to treat it as an infinite source of savings that could be racked down indefinitely, as if ultimately the whole country could be run on a modestly-sized CHP plant somewhere near Stoke on Trent. This is not realistic. Admittedly there are respectable scenarios (such as that of Hohmeyer) that postulate 60-70% reductions of demand, but personally I think this is asking a bit much in the next 50 years. More credible are the four scenarios presented by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, of which the most radical considers a 47% cut. Let us assume for the sake of argument, that 50% is actually achievable within the timescale we are considering, but no further reductions are practical. On this assumption we have now cut our task in half, but there is no more scope for savings: the other fifty percent must be met by supply.

Assuming then that we have to supply the equivalent of 50% of existing UK demand, our FF ‘allowance’ is now up to 40% of the supply mix. If we maintained the existing capacity of nuclear electricity that would account for about 15% (remember we are talking primary energy here, not just electricity). But of course the existing nuclear installations are being phased out and realistically, given all the acknowledged problems, the high costs, and the reluctance of the private sector to invest in them, I cannot see any new nukes being started in the next 20 years, or indeed ever. If this view is borne out, it means we have to find around 50-60% of eventual demand from renewable energy (RE) sources, equivalent to 30-40% of current demand in terms of installed capacity, or about 100TWh of primary energy.

The little graph here summarises my assumptions. I have squeezed FF as fast as possible, eventually to the ’sustainable’ level in 2050, in line with typical Contraction and Convergence requirements. I have expanded the scope of everybody’s darling RUE more boldly than most authorities think plausible. I have allowed nuclear to run into the sand. That leaves a serious chunk of renewables, which we will have to deploy unless there is some astonishing breakthrough in say carbon sequestration or fusion power, or a major renaissance of nuclear fission. This, in outline, is the responsible and ethical ‘model’ that I would like to see the UK embark upon.

What are the renewables to be? We all know the list: wind, wave, tidal, biomass, geothermal, photovoltaics and a range of solar thermal technologies. Let me not have to waste everybody’s time giving chapter and verse: it is beyond any reasonable doubt that technically, between them these could reliably supply 30-40% of current demand, especially with a flexible, load-following FF component, distributed capacity such as millions of gas-fired micro-CHP units, and changes in demand management. The doubts arise not from their ability to deliver, but from their high financial costs and collateral impacts. The costs of some REs are clearly high ((PV especially so, at least an order of magnitude away from the reference CCGT technology) but for most are rather unknown because they are not ‘mature’ technologies. More research and development is needed, and of course it is part of the proposed UK ‘model programme’ to invest vigorously in such research and encourage it worldwide. The one exception is wind-power. It is mature and relatively cheap, especially in favourable locations. But of course it has a huge visual impact because the energy-density is so low, ergo the things have to be big, and you need lots of them to make worthwhile amounts of electricity.

To put some numbers on this, given rapid progress on RUE, by 2025 we will need to supply at the rate of about 200GW to the UK economy, of which about half would need to be renewables. Are ‘the others’ going to be ready to meet this by then? Possibly, but in the meantime it’s got to be wind. Can it be done? Of course: Germany, with a much poorer wind regime than the UK, has already 16GW of onshore wind capacity, installed since 1990. This means that the UK could easily install 30GW by 2025, and we probably wouldn’t be able to cope with much more than this on account of backup requirements. This is a lot of machines, something like 300 wind-farms of 50 very large turbines rated 2MW or more.

Is this damning? It depends on what kind of ‘environmentalist’ you are. There are at least four different kinds, neatly captured in Joe Ravetz’s cartoon. There is no perfect sustainable energy policy. Take maximum efficiency for granted, and still something has to give. The question is, what is it to be? I am happy to be corrected on this point, but if we have to choose between a) risking a climate-induced collapse of world culture plus a mass-extinction biodiversity event (which is what sober climatologists are saying about continued use of fossil fuels) , or b) risking threats to life and limb and civil liberties (as with an expanded nuclear programme) or c) changing the appearance of the countryside (as with on-shore wind and certain other RE technologies) …honestly I cannot see any honourable escape from choosing c). Of course the questions can easily be spun the other way, and indeed they often are, but this is the way I see it. Subjective aesthetics must bow before health damage, and health damage must bow before risks of runaway climate change.

Let me hasten to add that personally I HATE WINDMILLS. Perhaps they are not too bad in flat landscapes, but in hilly areas where most of them are in the UK, to me they are an abomination. But this is completely irrelevant. As people used to say curtly in the 1940s, “Don’t you know there’s a war on?”. Aestheticised values are completely inappropriate in this context. For a start they are all in the mind, entirely subjective. The British landscape is artificial and totally industrialised, but we’ve got used to it. Evidently my mind for one has not yet caught up with the latest twist in the story. Further, I’m in a minority: every opinion poll on the subject shows majorities in favour of wind-power, with even greater majorities in an area after a wind-farm has been installed. The argument seems fairly simple now: We can do it, so we should, because?remember?we’ve got to start setting an example, and no other technologies are available yet.

Wind is the most honest energy source because its environmental costs are so utterly in your face. You want the energy? Here’s the impact. You don’t like it? Then use less. Much, much, much less. And don’t try to weasel out by switching to technologies whose impacts fall on other people.

I can offer two spoons of sugar for this bitter pill. The first is that offshore wind technology is developing so quickly that it might eventually be able to fill the entire requirement for a transitional energy source, so minimising onshore developments. The second is that very point: wind is, or can be, transitional. Although I have argued that we should develop it now because “there’s a war on”, and different values are appropriate during times of dire emergency, After ‘the war’ finer values can return. Once the less offensive technologies of wave, tidal, PV, biomass and geothermal are fully installed, we can take the wretched windmills down. Think of it as an overdraft, borrowing the British countryside for a generation to help goad the rest of the world into saving itself. It could be an even finer finest hour.

Well, that was emollient, bridge-building argument. Now let me be more rebarbative. Who is against wind farms? Apparently around 20% of the population. I am sure they all think of themselves as honourable people defending our heritage. But when you look closer mostly what you find is NIMBYist self-interest. This is the 20% that has retired to imagined rural tranquillity, has property-values to defend, delights in refined aesthetic sensibility, writes newspaper articles, perhaps owns newspapers, and basically sets the agenda all round. It is also the 20% that has the biggest cars, flies the furthest, has the biggest centrally-heated houses and another one in France, and insists on mange-touts flown into Waitrose every morning. You hypocritical bastards! You are causing a completely disproportionate share of the problem and refusing to pay your dues. Ethically you should be campaigning hard for windmills (and everything else) to offset your heedless crimes against the biosphere. That’s something you could actually do to help. At the very least you should refrain from trying to stop those who are doing it. But to campaign against wind-farms under the present circumstances strikes me as little short of criminal. It’s mostly other people, other generations, other species who are in he firing line from the consequences of your activities. On their behalf, we all have responsibilities to do whatever we can, and if we won’t do even the minimum that is open to us, we will deserve the contempt of our descendants.

From the daily Internet publication American Thinker, August 4, 2009,  this article on the mythology of “green jobs” and renewable energy as a source of long-term economic stability. Why is Ontario following the demise of Europe? And why does rural Ontario have to pay the price for this experiment in economy and, as it turns out in the case of industrial wind turbines, human health?

Green jobs: fast tracking economic suicide

By Michael Economides and Peter Glover

….. and now Steve Newton of Delaware Libertarian is bowing out….

Forgive me for getting some out of order, but his name now goes up on the wall next to those of Dana Garrett, Mike Matthews, Jason Scott, Shirley Vandever, Dave Burris.

All gone, leaving only these few greats are still left: Nancy, Tommywonk, Kilroy, LiberalGeek, Pandora, David Anderson, & Hube.

The era over which these giants roamed was between the elections of 06 and 08. Some started earlier, but these few individuals were the only source of information during that time stamp.

Today, the News Journal has lost its paternalistic viewpoint touting the union of construction labor and developers formerly known as the Delaware Way, and is actually reporting news ahead of bloggers for a change. Likewise today, WDEL has both on its morning show with Al Mascitti and afternoon show with Rick Jensen, steered discussion away from the likes of (who?) Sean Hannity… and Al Loudell has kept us abreast of local politics in ways unheard of before bloggers began typing in their briefs…

So in a way, since these bloggers were successful back then, today they are not as vital as they once were… Many saw their blogs as the only way to get the truth past the News Journal censors, those higher ups who would not publish any truth that showed an elected official in bad light….

Those studying this phenomena will see that there was much agreement between bloggers on both sides of the aisle… It was very rare for this group to be divisive over the prime issues of this state’s business.. All of them were for Atkins removal. All of them were for beginning offshore wind in Delaware, … All of them were for the slowdown of work force housing… all of them were for the betterment of Delaware’s educational opportunities…

Of course we quibbled on who would become the next president, but that is to be expected… No family lives without arguing at least once…

There were rises and falls among each giant’s influence… But at the core of each individual was the feeling that each had a unique insight into the current problem staring us down, and wrote about it with an urgency that turned out usually to be correct… And usually, if agreement was not forthcoming by the first comment, by the end of the comment thread, some form of agreement among the blogger’s roundtable, was visible…

As politicians came to realize the News Journal wasn’t changing, they began contributing to these giant’s pages, giving substance in ways unheard of among those writing for the Community Board of the News Journal… Reading the blogs gave us a real time insight into the workings of our state government in Dover……

But it was the wind controversy that elevated the giants to their current stature… Only the blogs could get the message out that Delmarva was incredibly concerned about losing control of their monopoly, and that wind power for Delaware would by offering competition, lower our energy prices. And they did, so well, that the entire legislature at the end of their 2007 session, voted unanimously to approve of the landmark agreement between Bluewater Wind and Delmarva Power….

Some of us think that they, shaking in their boots, didn’t dare vote otherwise… For bloggers have long memories as well as does the public….

But these giants among men, did more than just push wind. They publicized the eminent domain controversy. They scoured local politics. They broke the work force housing pact apart. They clamored against Atkins, forcing him to resign. They dogged the SEU. They picked apart candidates so much that those who had flaws, couldn’t win. Dana Garrett could be heard almost weekly on WVUD.. Tommy Noyes, for a while was a weekly guest on Al Loudell’s award winning newscast. They OOGAcised the fight for open government, forcing one flustered legislator to call out for a prayer dedicated to just for the bloggers, asking for their salvation of their souls… Apparently those prayers were answered; for by their souls we have open government today….

But amongst the best, the very concept of government was debated back and forth, no doubt as it once was during the beginning of this nation during its infancy… Torture, domestic spying, gun ownership, thieving Vice Presidents, all had their day in court upon these pages….

And today, there are new names who in the years ahead might be considered to be the giants of this contemporary time zone..

Deldem, RSmitty, El “S”, Donviti, Cassandra, all came into prominence after the defining moment of passing the wind act…. As well as Sussex Green, Red Water Lily, Mourning Constitution,… all of which became big as the 2008 election season came upon us….

And from the ranks of commentators came a Sussex County Councilwomen, a candidate for a House seat, as well as a last minute candidate who took on Mr. Pam Scott, and began nailing his shoes to the floor…. Miro had a contender for once; that commentator speaks up often…

Steve Newton will be missed.

With his passing is the last of the great thinkers… Today, we have bullets fed to us… But Steve took on all other blogs, all other commentators and wrote posts about them… Steve looked at everything with fresh eyes…. Giants can do that, since they see things from way up…….

I won’t go in to praising Steve… for I’m here to call attention to the passing of a era. Perhaps those times when benevolent giants roamed our state, will be considered by us dying men and women, to be the glory times we hark back to, the second we close our eyes for their last time…..

For when you look back as what we’ve done, the word “giants” is not really a bad moniker….

Why does installing solar power increase the value of your home? When you know you’re going to be selling your home in the not so distant future, you tend to start sizing it up, figuring out exactly what needs to be done to bring it up to par? There are a great many things that you can do to improve your home. Even if you’re not planning on staying in your home for much longer, if you create a better space, you’ll be sure to get more money for the property. Using solar energy will help tremendously. Here are four good reason why.

Solar power does not affect the environment, contrary to other power systems. So by not adversely affecting the environment it improves it, because all other alternatives have certain types of impact (green or not). After solar, wind power is probably the one with the least impact. Because we want to be environmentally conscious these days, it only makes good sense to do anything you can to support a healthy planet. Doing your part is important. Making your home more Eco friendly will only enhance your property and establish it as a HOT sell. You can reduce your carbon footprint and help the next homeowner of your property reduce theirs as well when you install a solar power system for your home.

Tax Credits and Incentives

If you install solar panels or devices on your home or property, you’ll get back the investment when you go to sell. Especially in some states where homeowners get extra incentives from state government and federal government agencies for being environmentally smart. For example; “in 2008 President Bush signed into law a bill consisting of $700 billion Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (H.R. 1424), which also extended and enhanced critical tax credits and financing relating to renewable energy and energy efficiency. While the extensions and enhancements are good news for all major renewable energy sources, arguably the biggest winner in the tax bill is solar energy, which gained an 8-year extension (through 2016) of the 30% tax credit for residential and commercial solar installations, as well as the elimination of the $2,000 tax credit cap for residential solar electric installations.” We all need to take advantage of this, not just those wanting to sell a home.

Many well-meaning people, including me, favor alternative-energy sources like wind. But there are places to put such wind farms and places not to put them. This article looks at what is taking place in Wyoming.

BY JEN JUDSON, GREG KWASNIK AND ANTOINETTE PIZZI

BOSTON — In the darkening recession, Gov. Deval Patrick and the Legislature have dialed back funding for education, social services and local aid. But energy efficiency and renewable energy development – promised as a salvation for economic growth – have been spared.

“We are in very difficult times, as you know, but we cannot afford to slow down or think small, especially in the clean energy field,” Patrick told a conference of 400 energy entrepreneurs and investors in Boston earlier this month.

Over the last decade, Massachusetts has instituted dozens of tax incentives, loans and grant programs to encourage development of renewable energy. But in this withering financial climate, with Massachusetts facing a potential $600 million budget deficit, is the state’s investment still on track to reap a bright, green economy?

The Patrick administration has set a goal of making Massachusetts No. 1 in the nation in producing and consuming renewable energy. The Legislature is on board with the plan, yet there have been pitfalls with the ambitious program.

In 2008, the Legislature showed its commitment to renewable energy with a package of bills that promised jobs and a stronger state economy. The legislation carried a total price tag of $118 million in loans and grants over five years. Supporters said the bills would create an estimated 14,000 to 17,000 jobs.

But timing was not kind to the programs. Nick d’Arbeloff, president of the New England Clean Energy Council, said the estimates of jobs and revenues were made shortly before the credit market collapsed, leading to a drop in private investment in renewable energy.

“In 2008 the whole sector started to just explode in terms of investment and in 2009 there was a pullback,” d’Arbeloff said.

Money promised to some of the programs had to be trimmed. D’Arbeloff said that the Green Jobs Act, originally allocated $68 million, ended up receiving around $20 million.

“No secret here, the economy forced the Legislature to scale back on every allocation possible,” he said.

Now, looking to incentives to prod private investors back into action, the state has announced plans to foster three main categories of renewable energy: wind, solar and efficiency.

The promise

- Wind power: The state plans to make wind power a top priority by building wind generators on state property. The goal is to save the state budget nearly $342 million in energy costs annually, according to the state energy office.

Under the plan, small-scale wind turbines on state land would produce enough electricity to power the equivalent of 6,900 homes. Large-scale projects of 7.5 megawatts or greater would produce enough to power 194,615 homes. Whatever self-generated power the state does not use will be sold to the electrical grid.

- Solar power: The state launched its popular Commonwealth Solar Rebate program in January 2008. By last month, the program had awarded an average of nearly $43,000 in cash rebates to 1,018 commercial, residential and public solar construction projects. The $68 million program has since stopped taking applications because the state has already met its goal of creating 27 megawatts of solar energy by 2012.

- Energy efficiency: The state anticipates $6.5 billion in savings for electric and natural gas customers over the next three years through public utility energy efficiency programs. The programs would also create or save 4,000 jobs while increasing the gross state product by $2.4 billion, the energy office reported this month.

If successful, the state’s energy efficiency programs would lead the nation in energy efficiency. In 2009, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy ranked Massachusetts second, behind California, for energy efficiency.

The reality

But there have been some short circuits in the state’s renewable energy plan.

Evergreen Solar, a photovoltaic company based in Marlborough, had been the state’s poster child for renewable energy. In 2008, the company received a $58.6 million state grant to build a solar panel manufacturing plant in Devens, creating 700 full-time and 300 temporary jobs, three times more than the 350 the company had originally announced.

But after the company posted a loss in 2009 it announced plans to begin manufacturing panels in China. The company has not announced if there will be any layoffs at its Devens plant, but it is unlikely the state will see any new jobs at the facility.

State Energy Secretary Ian Bowles maintains the state made a wise choice by supporting the company and contends the energy program remains a “real success story,” with a 15-fold increase in solar installations after four years.

“That creates a lot of jobs and diversifies our energy away from fossil fuels,” he said.

Neither the energy office nor the Clean Energy Council could give estimates for overall green job creation in the near future, but both expressed confidence that job growth will be seen in 2010.

Since the state started its Solar Rebate program, solar manufacturing jobs in the state have doubled, from 1,086 in 2007 to 2,075 in 2008, according to Lisa Capone, an energy office spokeswoman. The energy office expects the industry to add 960 employees this year.

But the Solar Rebate program, which ran through its $68 million of funding in less than a year, was “a victim of its own success,” said d’Arbeloff. “Ultimately to extend that to a long term of time would be too expensive to the state.”

Instead, the state will institute a solar credit market, guaranteeing solar power producers a set energy rate. D’Arbeloff said the program, which will begin in January, is a more logical, free-market mechanism than the Solar Rebate program.

The state still has a way to go in wind power. There are just three wind installations on state properties, including the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, Logan Airport and UMass-Lowell. The total electricity generated by these facilities amounts to 682 kilowatts, .07 percent of the 989 megawatts the state hopes to generate in the future.

Wind power is far from becoming an everyday reality, despite the state’s tax incentives. It would take 15 years for a small business owner who constructs a wind turbine to realize the $40,000 investment for a 10 kilowatt installation, according to the American Wind Energy Association.

With a rebate, savings could come sooner. The state’s rebate for a 10 kilowatt wind turbine runs about $7,800, according to a calculator on the state’s Commonwealth Wind Incentive Web site.

Even with incentives, questions remain about available funding for renewable energy projects in the current economic climate.

Meg McIsaac, senior commercial lending officer for TD Bank USA, which specializes in renewable energy lending, said investors and lenders are looking to support proven technologies like wind and solar before taking a risk on deepwater wind power, tidal power and other new energy sources.

“We tend to be backwards-looking thinkers, so if we can get our arms around something that has been up and running and there is a track record, we can understand that all day long,” McIsaac said.

Despite these uncertainties the Patrick administration has urged investors to remain forward-thinking. Patrick even uses the recession to argue that more investment is needed to ensure that Massachusetts does not lose clean energy jobs to other states.

“We can invent our own clean energy future and have the whole world as our customer,” Patrick said. “That is where I want Massachusetts to be.”

(link to original article)