I just published a short post on the article: U.S. Air Force Report to Congress Bashes Navy’s Biofuels Program in which I mentioned that I find the people who presume to tell the U.S. Navy how it should be planning to defend our country 30 years hence to be “sadly comical.”
Having said this, I will be surprised if biofuels has a long-term future. Helping my son with his botany this semester has reminded me how little of the energy a plant absorbs from the sun can be made available for human benefit. I predict that PV, CSP, and wind, which are more direct and efficient ways to capture solar energy will win the day.
To the degree we need liquid fuels, I believe that synthetic fuels will emerge to make this happen. And coincidentally, I had an email exchange with Dr. Doty (the developer of WindFuels – syn fuels from off-peak wind) earlier today. I remain bullish on what he’s doing.
Interesting commentary from Robert Rapier on a new report written by a navy captain absolutely savaging the navy’s Green Fleet program in particular and biofuels in general.
My 14-hour work day consisted mainly of a drive to and from the San Francisco Bay Area for three key meetings, the content of which I’ll share briefly.
I attended several sessions at this year’s Green Grid conference, which focuses on reducing energy cost and eco-impact of large data centers. The most impressive presentation for my money was delivered by Google. To put the whole thing into perspective, here’s a company that indexes 30 trillion URLs, delivers the results of 3 billion search queries per day, and does all this and so much more with 100% carbon neutrality. What they’ve done in reducing energy consumption and sourcing renewable energy is truly inspiring.
For lunch, I met my colleague Rich Breitbarth, COO of Resource Recovery Corporation; the company specializes in a variety of cutting-edge renewable energy technologies including a unique approach to the thermal anaerobic gasification of biomass. I’ve introduced Rich/RRC to five parties over the couple of years we’ve known one another, and they’ve gained significant levels of traction with three of the five; I’m confident that at least one of these deals will materialize over the next few months. Exciting stuff. We ate here; how this place only gets 3.5 stars on Yelp is beyond me; I thought it was incredible. Perhaps the comments that warn: “Don’t go during prime lunch hours because the line is out the door” are telling; yes, the place actually is packed, but that’s a good sign.
On the way home I went to visit my much-respected friend Jeff Brothers at his new offices in Carmel. Jeff”s company Sol Orchard is a savvy solar energy developer of significant proportion, and I always learn a great deal from our talks. This quote from his website speaks to his down-to-Earth pragmatism and good sense:
Global capacity for solar panel production has increased dramatically in the last three years, bringing panel prices down by over 40%. The combined effects of increased tax incentives, decreased costs, and rising concern over global warming have created a “perfect storm” of opportunity to build and finance cost-effective solar power projects.
Three good meetings, but a fair chunk of driving. Happy to be home.
We hear a lot about grid parity, don’t we? That’s the point at which the cost of energy generated by solar, wind, and other renewables is the same as that generated from conventional sources. The author of this article on Sharp Electronics new 43.5%-efficient solar cell writes: “Sharp shattered the efficiency record with its concentrator triple-junction compound solar cell, which uses a lens-based system to focus sunlight directly onto the cells in order to generate electricity.” Then he adds, “This latest breakthrough puts solar power one step closer to grid parity.”
I’m not complaining, btw. The mere fact that the term is rapidly becoming a part of the world’s everyday lexicon is proof that more people are tuning into this important discussion.
And let’s not ignore the elephant in the room: In energy, cost is a very big deal. 2GreenEnergy Associate Dr. Peter Lilienthal, whose software is used to integrate renewables onto grids in more than 80 countries, once told me, “If you don’t care how much you pay for it, I’ll find you all the clean energy you could use in a thousand lifetimes.” The guy has a way with words.
Here’s an extremely bullish report on the future of the solar industry from Deutsche Bank, suggesting that the PV industry will be able to stand and grow solely on its own (without government support) by 2014. Such growth, in the face of continuing price declines in modules and balance-of-system will soon put solar at grid-parity, the point at which an incremental megawatt of solar comes at the same price as a megawatt from other forms of electricity generation in the region.
Of course, “grid-parity” is a mercurial concept. So much depends on the region of the world in question; we’re already at grid-parity in certain nations whose energy pricing is high and competitive resources are low.
In any case, this extremely upbeat report is at odds with the viewpoints of Esplanade Capital’s Shawn Kravetz, whom I interviewed for our recent 2GreenEnergy.com webinar on the solar industry, during which he expressed cautious optimism, as certain factors begin to revert from the precipitous decline the industry has experienced of late. Of course, Shawn is conservative in the extreme. To quote what he told me when I challenged him on a certain issue, “I get paid to be pessimistic.”
For people who wish to live greener and be less financially dependent on society, the American market at least gives people the advantage of many options. A person living in many areas can choose who provides their electricity. If there are several power plants around, then customers can decide who they want to spend their money on. Just as people listening to music can sponsor one artist over the other, electricity consumers can decide to patronize greener solutions.
Some Energy Sources Pollute More than Others
Human beings have found many creative ways to make electricity, ranging from dams to coal plants and nuclear plants. Each leave their footprint on the earth, although most people figure they cannot live without power. Electricity runs our modern appliances and also keeps us warm in cold weather. In comparison, our recent ancestors had to burn wood or coal in their homes to provide warmth. This released soot and fly ash into the city. Modern coal plants pump out large amounts of carbon dioxide, but the soot and fly ash are scrubbed out and even recycled as a building material. Many power plants burn petroleum, adding to our dependence on fossil fuel.
Why Nuclear Power is Not Perfect
For a long time, energy advocates promised that uranium and plutonium could eliminate the need to burn coal. Nuclear power plants need large quantities of water, but do not release any carbon dioxide. There is no fly ash, because the only thing coming out of the wide smoke stacks is water vapor. While nuclear plants eliminate the mass release of toxins into the environment, plutonium and uranium eventually get too hot to be used. They must go through an expensive cool down cycle that can last for years. If spent nuclear fuel is not cared for, it can release radioactive particles into the environment. Compared to coal, the cost of operating a nuclear plant is enormous.
Dams are a Mixed Case
Many regions use hydroelectric dams to provide electric power. A handful of dams such as the Hoover Dam provide two thousand megawatts of power each. Dams do not need any specific resources except for a continuous supply of water, and they have the side benefit of creating wetland habitat and controlling flood water for people. They require less maintenance and less money than most other ways to generate power, but they are not problem free. Dams can create a great deal of organic matter which releases carbon dioxide. Dams block rivers and silt accumulates over time. If the water of a dam drops down too low, then it cannot generate power.
Solar Power and Wind Turbines
Some cities are experimenting with alternative energy. They take advantage of solar energy and wind turbines, exploiting the natural windiness of their area. Places with high elevation or near the sea can expect a steady stream of wind. This is sufficient for towns, and wind turbines can supplement the electric need of metropolitan areas. Solar panels take a lot of energy to make, but new ideas such as mirror arrays are creating new potential.
Putting It Together For You
Whether an energy source is good or bad for the environment depends on the practices of the company. Some coal plants do a lot to keep their act clean while some electric dams disregard wildlife. In areas where multiple sources of power are available, it pays to do research and see what company practices are. If none of them work for the consumer, then it is always possible to take charge and generate at home. The law allows this, and many power companies will actually pay people who run a surplus.
Often times the high investment costs with going solar deter people from making the switch. Now, however, there are alternatives that do not require the initial lump sum payment. For example, solar system leasing and Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) are two ways to go solar with little money down, manageable payment plans, and options to purchase the system later on.
LEASING
A solar system lease allows customers to lease solar panels and to pay the solar energy company who installs them a reasonable price per month. The majority of solar leases range from 10 to 20 years and offer the option to renew the lease for a specified time or purchase the system at market value when the lease is up. An additional benefit of solar system leasing is that it increases the value of the home.
PPA
Another option available is the Power Purchase Agreement. A PPA is basically a long-term contract to purchase power from an energy company, usually at a reduced price. The PPA option offers the bonus of allowing homeowners to only pay for the energy the system produces. Also, some companies include regular maintenance and upkeep as part of their PPA services in addition to installation. A PPA, like solar system leases, typically lasts anywhere from 10 to 20 years. The specifics of PPA offerings can vary and the terms of each contract may differ, but generally-speaking a PPA will lay out the initial low entry cost, an electricity rate schedule, and a yearly escalation rate to adjust for fluctuations in energy costs over the period of the PPA.
A CLOSER LOOK
When deciding whether solar system leasing or a PPA is right for you, you may want to consider a few additional factors. First, solar system leasing requires customers to pay a monthly fee rather than pay for the amount of power generated on-site like a PPA does. It is also important to note that a PPA allows an energy company to set an electricity rate that is flat but can increase as the years pass, whereas an energy company can set the lease payments for solar system leasing and also charge for any extra power that is required from their company. Although there are subtle differences, both options provide excellent ways to go solar with a low entry cost. To determine which route is best suited for you, contact a solar installer in your area today!
As my friend and transportation visionary Dan Sturges likes to say, “Car ownership costs the average family about $40 per day — a figure that most of us grossly under-estimate. I only wish there were a ‘car guy’ who came around every day, seven days a week, to each of these families, knocked on the door, and said, ‘Car Guy. $40 please.’ Most of us would soon start to ask about alternatives: car sharing, mass transit, ride sharing, small commuter cars, etc.”
In my estimation, this is exactly where transportation is going: a complete paradigm shift in the direction of a cleaner planet and a more affordable way of life.
I’m spending a bit of time this afternoon helping my daughter with an essay on Pride and Prejudice as a work of social satire. So many of the social conventions that Austen chops up so brilliantly in this masterpiece have changed or gone away entirely, and so much satirical literature written in the last 200 years, that it’s easy to forget how radical Austen’s novel was in its time.
Having said this, so much of this garbage about the social ladder remains in place, and we see this around us every day in pursuit of the things we want for our society — for example, a level playing field for sustainable energy solutions. Here, the will of the people is crystal clear: a huge majority of people – even Republicans – are concerned that our energy policy (or lack thereof) is ruining the planet. But the world is not run by the will of the people; it’s governed by a few extremely powerful elite who honestly couldn’t care less about the will of the people.
If you think that’s a rash exaggeration, try an experiment. Ask a few dozen people if they think that it’s a sound idea to provide the oil companies with the dozen-or-so different types of subsidies – from large sums of cash, to tax breaks, to preferential treatment of government land, to a transportation infrastructure, to a fabulously expensive military that protects access to crude around the globe. You’ll see very quickly that virtually no one supports this blatant corruption. But then realize that we’re still a million miles away from an end to these practices, and that all the satirical novels in the world won’t change that in the least.
When I was in Boston last week, I had dinner with Bridge Energy Group’s Director of Regulatory Strategy and Compliance David O’Brien. We were joined by an old friend of mine from high school, so we didn’t talk too much “shop,” but David said something I found interesting about his core area of expertise, i.e., the regulation of electric power utilities. “Remember, Craig,” he began, “We created the power utilities the way they are. Yes, they’re risk-adverse, but that’s a product of the structure we demanded: just give us reliable, low-cost power. We’re giving you as much money as you need to perform that service, and not a dime more.”
Good point. Like so many other things in life, when we look at things fairly and objectively and try to take full responsibility, we see that most of the things that are antagonistic to our aims are ultimately the result of our own manufacture. This is true at a personal level, but also on an international scale. Look at the current situation in Afghanistan (with the Taliban) and Iran (apparently aspiring to a nuclear weapon). If we hadn’t messed with their governments in the first place, it’s likely that neither of these situations would exist. More broadly, our military leaders tell us that our presence in the entire region is fanning the flames of terrorist sentiment.
Be this as it may, David is 100% correct about the power utilities, i.e., that we tend to blame them for everything that goes wrong, even though they’re doing precisely what we commanded. Even in the case of outages from storms, we somehow assume that the utility isn’t doing its job. Perhaps we need to stop blaming, and come to a better understanding of exactly what we’d like these folks to do on our behalf.
David and I have agreed to speak on the phone sometime soon, which will provide me an opportunity to really dive into this area.
