Tag: "renewables"

Volatility Myth of Energy

Brookings Institution’s article claiming that falling oil prices will not hurt renewable “clean” energy wrongfully tries to make a comparison. Oil prices do fluctuate a good amount, and are part of a really good openly traded market. Renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, are not openly traded in a market and are heavily subsidized. This makes these two renewable energy sources over-priced and not yet ready for consumers. All energy sources are benefiting from improved technologies and domestic reserves and production forecasting are both increasing each year, doubling by 2021.

Increased oil production domestically and around the globe means lower oil prices and are good for the American consumer. It is still too early for renewable “clean” energy to be a viable option for Americans. Once energy sources like solar and wind are no longer supported by government and openly traded, then we will be able to compare them to other energy sources.

SOTU NCPA: Energy Forecast or Lack of One

With the State of the Union Address tomorrow night, we can expect the president to talk about energy and environment ― much more about environment than energy. The president’s actions show how low of a priority our national security and energy independence is on his list of “top issues.” Besides speaking at international climate summits around the world and having a climate change researcher siting with the first lady tomorrow night, the president lists energy #7 out of his 7 top issues. With a listing after climate change, the energy and environment section is then split in half between energy and environment topics with the other half covering climate change.

Here are the very few energy topics listed:

  • Reducing Our Dependence on Foreign Oil ― the administration admits to current increased amounts of domestic oil production as the factor that is reducing our foreign oil dependence. Increasing that production is the solution, not decreasing carbon emissions and more renewable energy sources.
  • Safe and Responsible Domestic Oil and Gas Production ― the plan is to aggressively regulate oil and gas production, hydraulic fracturing, artic drilling and rail safety. Regulations will increase inefficiencies and costs.
  • Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies ― more regulations targeting new and existing coal-fired power plants. Already costing billions to implement, such regulations will greatly increase costs for plant operation, weaken the economy and burden taxpayers.
  • Advancing Clean Energy ― a series of renewable usage in homes goals, tax credits and subsides. All government interference in the energy market is artificial and ends up harming everyone.
  • Advancing Energy Efficiency ― the administration’s view of energy efficiency is cutting down carbon emissions and reducing the demand for U.S. oil. Energy efficiency should actually be how well developed our energy production, transportation and delivery are with the president’s help. Looks like the president has not been interested in true energy efficiency.
  • Developing Clean Fuels ― biofuels are extremely costly, unnecessary and weaken the automobile industry that has to keep up with the outrageous Renewable Fuel Standards.

Our energy independence is a geopolitical/national security issue that should be critical to our nation. We must do all we can to let our energy companies produce and export refined and unrefined energy resources. Only then will we be able to keep ourselves off of foreign oil dependence, keep gas prices low for the poor, increase our role in the global energy market and boost our economy.

Still Too Early for Solar Energy

Many are claiming that solar energy is both great for the environment and a good investment. The focus has been on solar panels that are mounted on top of homes. Several nations and some states in the U.S., have been utilizing this renewable energy resource. However, solar energy is too new of an energy source to invest in at this time.

How can we tell? If the government is still giving any kind of financial incentive, then that means that the market has not caught up and it is still overpriced. Currently, the U.S. federal government gives a 30 percent tax credit for installing a solar energy system at home. On top of that, cash is also given directly to new solar systems ― Utah gives out $2,000 in cash incentives.

The day that tax credits and direct money incentives disappear, is the day that renewable energies, such as solar power, are priced closer to a solid and efficient energy market. That is the day you should invest in solar energy for your home ― if it is at a good price.

 

Human Waste Provides Water and Energy to Poor

Recent efforts have advanced philanthropic efforts to help those that are needy around the globe. Third world nations with extremely poor populations with 1.2 to 2.4 billion people are an easy target for these groups. Over 95 countries have renewable energy support polices compared to 15 countries in 2005.

The climate conferences, such as the Lima Climate Negotiations, had a focus on providing energy resources and other resources to communities with existing infrastructure. However, the rural communities or “off-the-grid” populations are left out. More efforts are needed to give access to these communities so that they can also receive these resources.

Innovative projects, such as a next generation steam engine Omniproccessor, that converts human waste from 100,000 people into 86,000 liters of drinkable water and 250 kilowatts of electricity, are planning to reach these communities.

Climate conferences must be more human centered and less climate centered. Otherwise, too many “off-the-grid” communities around the globe will continue to suffer. Projects like the Omniproccessor have a chance to achieve what the governments continue to fail to do for the extreme poor around the globe, faster and more efficiently.

 

Volcanos as a Source of Renewable Energy

Harnessing the power of lava for energy sounds like a herculean task, but a group of researchers in Iceland think they are up to the challenge. Iceland ― which already fills a quarter of its electricity needs with geothermal energy ― is looking to expand its geothermal energy production with the Iceland Deep Drilling Project.

Geothermal energy, obtained by tapping into and converting underground reservoirs of heat into energy, is touted by the U.S. government for its availability, low emissions, and long-term sustainability.

Given the technological advancements coming up and Iceland’s success, why does geothermal energy only account for 0.41% of U.S. electricity production?

The answer is simple: costs. The start-up costs for geothermal energy are extremely high.  To get a geothermal energy plant off the ground in the U.S. costs a minimum of $2500 per installed kilowatt. In comparison, construction costs for a coal-fired power plant range between $1,000 and $1,500 per installed kilowatt, and construction costs for a gas-fired power plant range from $400 – $800 per kilowatt.

The high start-up costs are not just limited to the U.S. The exploratory borehole for the Iceland Deep Drilling Project cost a minimum of $22 million. The Geothermal Energy Association estimates that the average cost of a 20-megawatt geothermal power plant stands around $30 million.

Until renewable energy sources ― and geothermal energy in particular ― can be cost efficient without large government subsidies, they will remain a drop in the bucket for U.S. energy production.

The Next Saudi Arabia? Lessons from Coober Pedy

In 1977, near the end of a decade of energy headaches, President Jimmy Carter addressed the nation in a speech that would bring the Department of Energy into fruition, give national attention to the need for the development of renewable resources, draw widespread criticism not only from OPEC-supporters but from scorned Americans and perhaps most importantly, state something we now know could be untrue.

World oil production can probably keep going up for another six or eight years. But sometime in the 1980s it can’t go up much more. Demand will overtake production. We have no choice about that.

― President Jimmy Carter

Fast-forward to June 2012. Leonardo Maugeri, a Senior Associate at Harvard’s Belfer School for Science and International Affairs, the Chairman for Ironbark Investments and a world-renowned oil expert published “Oil: The Next Revolution,” a major study that was funded by British Petroleum and utilized datasets and observations gathered by multitudes of oil exploration and extraction companies. Maugeri unflinchingly shattered through public belief regarding impending declining oil production, claiming “oil capacity is growing worldwide at such an unprecedented level that it might outpace consumption.”

But how true were these assertions, and what was his rationale?

Maugeri’s predictions came on the heels of breakthroughs in oil extraction technologies and methods such as fracking and horizontal drilling, but these innovations alone were not enough to explain the increase in supply.

In the analysis, Maugeri states that not only do these technologies allow us to further exploit existing reserves that were deemed inaccessible, but they will also be integral in extracting not millions or billions but potentially trillions of barrels of oil in undiscovered oil reserves “with no [supply] peak in sight.”

Fast-forward again to January 2013. A major oil discovery is found underneath Coober Pedy, Australia. How major? Brisbane Company Linc Energy estimated possible reserves to equal roughly 233 billion barrels of oil, roughly 30 billion barrels short of Saudi Arabia’s massive stock. For many reasons, however, we should be conservative in assessing the actual value of such a find. John Young who is a senior resources analyst at Wilson HTM, a prominent investment and wealth management company, asserts that we must gauge the actual quality of the oil find and determine what portion of the reserve is physically unrecoverable or economically unfeasible to attain as this may affect the yield and value of the find.

Coober Oil Reserves

 

Though gargantuan by itself, the value of such a find is not just economic, but also symbolic of the enormous potential for untapped resources that lie undiscovered across the world.

Eerily, Maugeri predicted the discovery of new and huge oil reserves across the world and the rise of American tight-oil which we know as shale oil. Maugeri rationalized that the Brazilian Santos Basin Lula and Campos Basin, which both show extreme promise, as well as the new feasibility of shale trapped in Canada and the U.S. will shift production power to the Western Hemisphere while matching or even outpacing growing demand from developing countries such as China. Additionally, such a find could bring about a stable and long-term decrease in the price of oil. Finds like this suggest we have more time on our clock to deal with the many economic repercussions of energy supply than we originally thought.

Santiago Bello is a research associate with the National Center for Policy Analysis

DOE Dedicates $12.5 Billion to Nuclear Energy

The Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office will make $12.5 billion in loan guarantees available for Advanced Nuclear Energy Projects, according to a press release posted this morning.

“With $40 billion of loan guarantee authority available to advance our all-of-the-above energy strategy, the Department’s Loan Programs Office has an opportunity to replicate its past successes, supporting innovative clean energy technologies that bring the U.S. closer to a low-carbon future,” said Secretary Ernest Moniz. “This solicitation will help the U.S. build the next generation of safe and secure nuclear energy projects by providing the critical financing needed for innovations that have not been widely deployed at commercial scale in this country.”

$40 DOE Distribution

In the release, the Department identifies four key areas of interest for nuclear technology projects: advanced nuclear reactors, small modular reactors, uprates and upgrades at existing facilities, and front-end nuclear projects.

The move comes as part of the Obama Administration’s “all of the above” energy portfolio to meet America’s growing energy needs and “future low-carbon goals,” according to Peter W. Davidson, Executive Director of the Loan Programs Office.

This announcement rounds out the Loan Program Office’s available $40 billion. In addition to the $12.5 billion made available to Advanced Nuclear Energy Projects, the LPO has issued:

  • An $8 billion Advanced Fossil Energy Projects Solicitation.
  • A $4 billion Renewable Energy and Efficient Energy Projects Solicitation.
  • A $16 billion Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program.

The $12.5 billion dedication does not guarantee that all $12.5 billion will be spent. Interested parties much apply for the loans, and the Office can allot up to the designated amount.

Such a large investment in nuclear energy may seems surprising to those still wary of the potential dangers of nuclear energy. However, Obama has long been in support of expanding America’s nuclear energy production as part of his “all of the above” strategy.

The surprising part of the announcement is not that the Obama Administration is soliciting new uses of nuclear energy; rather, the surprising part of the announcement is how much the Department and the Administration are willing to put towards nuclear energy. The $12.5 billion falls just short of the Advanced Technology Vehicle’s $16 billion and far above the $4 billion devoted to Renewable and Efficient Energy Projects.

Other nations around the world have embraced nuclear technology. Do you think it’s a good option for the United States?

China-U.S. “Climate” Accord

A big deal is being made over the United States’ and China’s “landmark agreement” to curb carbon emissions. The climate aspects of the agreement are important for the global community — particularly in light of United Nations General Assembly President Sam Kahamba Kutesa’s announcement that he would convene a high-level event on combating climate change in June. While this joint agreement is seen as an important step for climate change enthusiasts, this new accord between China and the U.S. has much more far-reaching energy, trade and security implications.

Energy. As part of its attempts to cut emissions, China plans on expanding its “clean” energy sources, such as solar power and windmills, to produce 20 percent of China’s total energy production by 2030. President Obama, in return, intends to reduce carbon emissions by up to 28 percent by 2025. Considering China and the United States are the top two carbon polluters, any “meaningful worldwide pact” on the issue would founder without their support, according to The New York Times.

Trade. Cuts to tariffs were a big discussion during the “unexpectedly productive” meeting. Obama agreed to cut tariffs for technology products, including video-game consoles, computer software and medical equipment. Overall, Obama and the Chinese agreed to eliminate more than 200 categories of tariffs, which the Obama administration estimates could create up to 60,000 jobs and generate $1 trillion is sales per year. However, the promotion of two competing free-trade blocs for the Asian region — the U.S.-backed Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Chinese-led Free Trade Area of Asia Pacific, which was recently approved for study — underscores the continued competition between China and the United States.

Security. Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping made headway in two important security topics during the negotiations. First, Obama and Xi agreed to a military accord to avert clashes between American and Chinese forces in the waters off of the Chinese coast. Additionally, Obama and Xi agreed to resume the U.S.-China working group on cybersecurity issues, which broke down after the U.S. brought hacking charges against several Chinese military officials.

Many of these issues won’t be easy to tackle for the Obama administration. However, Obama still hopes to take the U.S.-China relationship to a “new level.”

To a point, the announcement of the U.S.-China accord is exciting. Yet rather than focusing solely on the often-controversial capping of carbon emissions, perhaps we should focus on the other, arguably bigger announcements to come out of the accord — like reduced tariffs, possibly job creation, and shoring up national security efforts.

Solar Energy Company Requests a Bailout to Pay Federal Loan

Typical of Obama administration supported renewable energy projects, yet another one is failing. Back in 2010, President Obama said that Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System would put 1,000 people to work and power up to 140,000 homes. However since last February, Ivanpah has been only producing one-fourth the amount of energy that was predicted. The excuse for this is that there have been fewer sunny days than were predicted.

Some basic facts about Ivanpah Solar System:

  • Owned by NRG Energy, Google and BrightSource Energy.
  • Used a $1.6 billion federal loan to help build the solar plant.
  • Now is requesting a $539 million federal grant to help pay off part of the federal loan.
  • Federal grant would help pay to pay off federal loan of a failing business.

The Obama administration pushed numerous renewable energy projects with high risk and at the cost of the American taxpayers.

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)  SpectraWatt ($500,000)   Solyndra ($535 million)   Beacon Power ($43 million)   Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)   SunPower ($1.2 billion)   First Solar ($1.46 billion)   Babcock and Brown ($178 million)   EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)   Amonix ($5.9 million)   Fisker Automotive ($529 million)   Abound Solar ($400 million)   A123 Systems ($279 million)   Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)    Johnson Controls ($299 million)   Schneider Electric ($86 million)   Brightsource ($1.6 billion)   ECOtality ($126.2 million)   Raser Technologies ($33 million)   Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)   Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)   Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)   Range Fuels ($80 million)   Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)   Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)   Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)   GreenVolts ($500,000)   Vestas ($50 million)   LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)   Nordic Windpower ($16 million)   Navistar ($39 million)   Satcon ($3 million)   Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)   Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

Reckless investments such as these should be reserved for individual/private investors. Taxpayers cannot afford to throw any more money away.

Renewable Energy Protest Deflates

Demonstrators in Madison, Wisconsin protested outside the Public Service Commission for more renewable energy in the state last week.

Demonstrators gathered outside the Public Service Commission to protest against a requested rate structure change by the local utility company, Madison Gas and Electric (MG&E). During the protest, they decried the use of “dirty coal” and called for more renewable energy. To make their point, they had a blow-up coal power plant that was running on a fan powered by wind and solar charged batteries. Before the protest was over, however, the batteries died and their solar panel could not produce enough energy to keep the power plant standing upright.

– from the MacIver Institute