Tag: "renewables"

Solar Energy #1 by 2050?

According to the latest reports by the International Energy Agency, the sun could be the largest source of energy in the world. It would be larger than fossil fuels, wind, hydroelectric and nuclear. Solar photovoltaic systems could generate up to 16% and solar thermal electricity up to 11% of the world’s electricity.

The rapid cost decrease of photovoltaic modules and systems in the last few years has opened new perspectives for using solar energy as a major source of electricity in the coming years and decades. However, both technologies are very capital intensive, almost all expenditures are made upfront. Lowering the cost of capital is thus of primary importance for achieving the vision in these roadmaps.

Solar photovoltaic energy expands globally, with China being by far the leading country, followed by the United States. Over half of total capacity is situated with the consumer — whether households, shopping malls or industries. Solar thermal electricity expands in sunny areas with clear skies.

Solar Photovoltaic Energy (PV):

  • Total global capacity overtook 150 gigawatts (GW) in early 2014.
  • While a few European countries initiated large-scale PV development, since 2013, China has led the global PV market, followed by Japan and the United States.
  • PV system prices have been divided by three in six years in most markets, while module prices have been divided by five.
  • PV’s share of global electricity could reach 16% by 2050.
  • 4,600 GW of installed PV capacity by 2050 would avoid the emission of up to 4 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually.
  • The costs of electricity from PV in different parts of the world will have an average cost reduction of 25% by 2020, 45% by 2030 and 65% by 2050, leading to a range of USD 40 to 160/MWh, assuming a cost of capital of 8%.
  • The total PV capacity installed each year needs to rise from 36 GW in 2013 to 124 GW per year on average, with a peak of 200 GW per year between 2025 and 2040.

Solar Thermal Energy (STE):

  • Global deployment of STE is about 4 GW compared with PV at 150 GW
  • STE’s share of global electricity to reach 11% by 2050.
  • 1,000 GW of installed CSP capacity by 2050 would avoid the emissions of up to 2.1 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually.
  • From a system perspective, STE offers significant advantages over PV, mostly because of its built-in thermal storage capabilities.
  • The value of STE will increase further as PV is deployed in large amounts, which reduces mid-day peaks and creates or increases evening and early morning peaks.

While the reports call for a good regulatory and market environment for the growth of this renewable energy source, regulation and other influences can have a reverse effect on the entire energy industry. If any of the renewable energy sources are going to become a major source of energy, government must allow the energy market to be free of government influence and regulations.

Oct 01, 2014 | 4 comments | by

Hydropower has Renewable Energy Flaws

Out of all the renewable energy options, hydro powered dams have been a very popular option. Many see it as one of the cleanest options which produces lots of energy. However, dams and reservoirs are currently — and have been for a long time — caused all kinds of harm to the environment and water eco systems.

Some of the damage the hydropower effort have had includes:

  • Contributing four percent of all human emissions.
  • Pollute water ways.
  • Blocks the natural developments of the rivers, waterways and the eco systems.

Efforts are under way to remove dams and other water structures that are already having a positive effect on the water eco systems in those regions. There is no need to let government make the push for renewable energy, when there are already plenty of resources available, even in the United States.

Sep 10, 2014 | Leave a Comment | by

Fracking Provides a Safe and Environmentally Friendly Energy Source

As recently as a decade ago, many scientists believed the U.S. was running out of oil. Peak oil was a major concern and many questioned whether the U.S. way of life was at risk. Hydraulic fracturing (fracking), developed more than 60 years ago, has eliminated fears of running out of oil. Although fracking was impractical and very expensive when first developed, it has become more feasible in the last few years due to technological advancements and rising oil prices over the last decade, leading to an 800% increase in shale gas production over the last decade. Fracking has led to an economic resurgence in many places across the country. And while oil and gas has to be removed correctly, using gas collected by fracking reduces greenhouse gases more than burning coal.

But that is not enough for some environmental groups who see fracking as a dangerous detour on a path to 100% renewables. The Green Party has complained that fracking squanders water. While fracking does use water, the amount of water used to drill all 3,000 Marcellus wells in Pennsylvania (and obviously not all are being drilled at the same time) equals the amount of water used by residents of Pittsburg in one year. Additionally, fracking is using the water once consumed by shuttered industries such as steel manufacturing which have been offshored or curtailed by the EPA. In fact of the 9.5 billion gallons of water used daily in Pennsylvania, natural gas consumes 1.9 million gallons or two thousandths of one percent.

Others claim natural gas is dirty. Actually natural gas is much cleaner to burn than oil or gasoline. It emits half as much carbon dioxide, less than one third the sulfur oxides and one percent as much sulfur oxide as coal. While the fracking process does release some excess methane, a good portion can be prevented by sealing condensers, pipelines and wellheads.

Fracking will not cause water wells to blow-up as in did in the movie Gasland. In the movie, the Colorado home’s well was actually drilled directly into a naturally occurring pocket of methane. The drilling occurred before any fracking in the area. Hollywood is not in the business of fact checking. As long as companies use stronger cement and processing casings to ensure an impermeable seal, the methane cannot move into anyone’s home.

Finally, some claim that fracking will lead to radioactive drinking water. While shale has a radioactive isotope, tests of treated water and brine in New York and Pennsylvania found no elevated radiation levels. The treatment of water used in fracking makes the presence of significant amounts of radiation impossible.

While fracking requires following strict protocols, the natural gas supplied has been a boon for the United States. Fracking is cleaner than oil and coal, increases energy supplies and enhances economic activity. Some of the purported claims of the anti-fracking crowd are scare tactics created by those who have an economic incentive to see fracking fail.

Jul 02, 2014 | 4 comments | by

A Government of Regulation-The EPA’s New Rules

On Thursday the EPA will question Janet McCabe, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation. The hearing will seek to sort out several questions regarding Obama’s recent proposal on power plants, specifically coal. The rules set out to curb emissions, but its indirect harm will not only shut down coal plants but cut thousands of jobs. The EPA itself has said that;

The rules could cost close to 80,000 jobs by 2030 at power plants and fossil fuel companies, but could create about 111,000 jobs in energy efficiency.

To make the assumption that jobs will be picked up through renewable energy is not only unfair but wrong. The ability to operate a coal plant versus say, a wind farm is very different. The workers who are in the coal plants will not be able to find new and comparable jobs to what they already have. These policies come at a time when natural gas prices and coal use are at an all-time low.

Production of Coal and Nat. Gas

It is also interesting to point out that the market is naturally selecting natural gas in favor of coal for production. In fact, as seen by the graph, as natural gas has risen in recent years coal has been dropping off. This has allowed the market to gradually adjust, as well as allow states to use what is best for them. While the proposal details letting the states determine what is fit for them, some states are better off continuing to use coal. There are states like North Dakota where 80 percent of their electricity comes from coal. This will surely guarantee an increase in the price of electricity for the state, as well as a large job loss.

Share of US Energy

None of this is even necessary as since 2006 the U.S. share of energy production has been steadily shifting. In 2006, a staggering 49 percent of energy in the U.S. came from coal. At the time it was the cheapest energy source available, at least until now. Advancements in natural gas production and renewable energies such as solar and wind have come a long way in 6 years. In just 6 years the energy production from coal dropped 12 percent. If that much can happen in 6 years, trends can predict that similar drops will happen.

However, The EPA and President Obama want to force the markets hand, and introduce large market fluctuations that will only make life harder on Americans. The questioning of the Assistant Administrator will no doubt be harsh and rough but it needs to be. This administration must learn that the best involvement is no involvement.

Jun 18, 2014 | Leave a Comment | by

EPA Attacks Coal

Part of President Obama’s plan to fight climate change includes closing down 140 existing coal fueled power plants. The plan calls for a shift from carbon emitting sources of energy to more efficient renewable source that will do less to affect the climate.

Impact of government action:

  • 140 coal plants closed
  • Those plants account for only 4 percent of all CO2 emitted last year by U.S. coal plants
  • Coal facilities will provide 30 percent of the nations’ electricity
  • Down from 52 percent in 2000
  • 35,000 to 38,000 coal industry jobs lost

According to USA TODAY:

The electric power industry’s plan to retire more than 10 percent of its coal-fired generators within a decade will do almost nothing to reduce emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide.

Jun 09, 2014 | 3 comments | by

Profiling Environmentalism (Part 3)

In “Profiling Environmentalism,” Tanner Davis wrote in this blog that we should all support environmentalists that he labeled the Bright Greens: optimistic folks who exhibit a strong faith that technological innovations and entrepreneurship will help create prosperity with an ever cleaner ecological footprint.

In “Profiling Environmentalism 2,” I followed that these “Brights” understand how economic development is necessary for creating ecological innovations in technology. However, any virtuous cycles between economic progress and ecological innovations requires: 1) that demand for environmental quality increases with prosperity, and 2) that institutions in society must reward entrepreneurial activity that makes environmental quality effective and affordable.

I also noted that Bruce Yandle, et. al. reviewed the sizable literature relating a nation’s prosperity to its environmental quality. They state that while such a link has yet to be proven empirically, studies failed to control for how a nation’s political and economic institutions may affect the development of innovations that promote “green” productivity.

Could enviro-entrepreneurship and innovation be either encouraged or discouraged by a nation’s economic institutions? Would protecting private property rights, upholding the rule of law, and maintaining low levels of government intrusion by excessive regulations and taxation influence the pathway that a nation chooses to pursue its prosperity?

Fortunately, measures of these institutions are collected over 150 countries in the world, and then are aggregated into a country-specific metric called the Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) index. The EFW index, created by Jim Gwartney and Bob Lawson, is published annually by the Fraser Institute.

The freest countries in 2014 include Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, and Switzerland. While Canada is #8 and Australia is #10, the U.S. is only #17. The least economically free countries include Venezuela, Myanmar, Republic of Congo and Zimbabwe.

When a nation’s economy works to feed, clothe, shelter and educate its citizens, this economic activity will impact the environment through air and water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and depletion of its supplies of natural resources. We can track these measures for each country using the World Bank’s “World Development Indicators” dataset. But the question is: what economic institutions promote the “greenest” pursuit of prosperity and leave the smallest ecological footprint possible?

Figure 1 and Figure 2 represent data from all the nations for which EFW index values and the ecological variables were available. These countries are sorted into quartiles according to their EFW index value, from the least free to the freest countries. Clearly, the level of air and water pollution that is emitted per dollar of GDP produced is LOWER in those nations that pursue free enterprise prosperity with greater economic freedoms.

methane

organic

Likewise, Figure 3 shows that economically freer countries emit FEWER greenhouse gasses per dollar of GDP produced. Further, energy consumed by the vast majority of countries is produced by burning non-renewable resources like coal, natural gas and oil. This means those countries with a lower consumption rate per dollar GDP are practicing a more sustainable growth path towards prosperity. Figure 4 shows that the energy consumed to make a dollar of GDP is LOWER in nations with more economic freedom.

CO2 emitted

energy use

The smallest ecological impact per dollar of economic activity does not appear to arise from the planned economies of socialism or communism. Greater environmental quality and sustainable growth paths to prosperity appear to be more prevalent in countries where the invisible hand is free to “guide” individuals to produce and exchange their products and services in a decentralized market system — established and preserved with greater economic freedoms.

Let’s all be “Bright” about creating our future.

Jun 02, 2014 | Leave a Comment | by

Solar Roads: Driving to the Future

If Back to the Future is any indication of our real future, we won’t need roads. As cool as it would be to have flying cars, our world is stranded with realistic ideas. This is why a couple from Idaho has designed a solar roadway that does more than just support our infrastructure.

The idea of a road paved with solar panels has been kicked around for years, but no one has been able to efficiently create a proper alternative to current roads. These Hexagonal Solar panels are linked to create a network that;

  • Absorb sunlight to produce energy through means of the built in solar panels to provide electricity for homes and businesses.
  • Can replace power lines as the main means of transporting electricity throughout cities.
  • Withstand 250,000 pounds. Currently, the Federal weight limit for heavy vehicles is 80,000 pounds.
  • Utilizes LED technology to illuminate roadways and safety lines. Considering a study done in the United Kingdom, LED marker illumination can reduce nighttime accidents by 70%.
  • Has the ability to melt ice and snow using heat generated from stored electricity. On average there are 467 deaths due to icy conditions each year.
  • Also can change shapes, creating additional handicap spots if all remaining are taken.

Smart roadways are a natural technological step in the advancement of infrastructure, and can be considered a priority in advancing cities. The team that created the tiles is beginning with a parking lot as the initial public trial, and then will move on to bigger projects. The Federal Highway Administration has acknowledged the product and guided them in establishing the ability and store and move storm water through the tiles.

According to their Indiegogo, they are attempting to stay away from large investors as a way to keep jobs in America, which is similar to the strategy, piloted Elon Musk and Tesla. While this project is revolutionary, it is important to keep in mind the economic risks with a new technology. In order to advance, the environmental and economic risks must be weighed effectively and allowed to expand to the market naturally. This blogs’ current advice would be to;

  • Work with toll companies to create a private grid that can expand the technology, while allowing the company to sell off the power generated by the tiles.
  • Remain unsubsidized by the government, and instead work with American companies such as Google and Tesla to keep jobs in the United States.
  • Attempt to rework the tiles as roof shingles, in order to reduce the amount of upkeep involved in roads and allow consumers to purchase them independently. Roadways are generally government expenditures, and it would leave no access to independent homes aside from driveways and patios.

Keeping renewable energy in the hands of the private sector is an important task going forward if renewable and sustainable technologies are to continue advancing.

May 21, 2014 | 3 comments | by

An All-of-the-Above* Energy Policy

Policymakers frequently tout their support for an all-of-the-above approach to energy generation, yet somehow nuclear energy largely seems to disappear from that conversation in any meaningful way. And many environmentalists — who castigate coal, insisting that we need clean, renewable energy — flatly ignore nuclear power, despite its zero carbon dioxide emissions. Instead, they hold up wind and solar and biofuels — none of which are ready for primetime — as the solution to our nation’s energy problems. Yet, nuclear power is one clean energy source that actually has the ability to provide affordable, reliable energy on a large-scale basis.

Knowing just how much sense nuclear energy makes, it is frustrating to listen to conversations and debates over energy generation that either flatly ignore nuclear power or dismiss it as unsafe. (For some articles that debunk some of the myths and fears surrounding nuclear power, see here and here.) Cutting down on carbon emissions is apparently the premier goal of many unless doing so would mean using nuclear power – something actually effective and affordable.

But last week, Forbes ran an interesting piece by former EPA Administrator Carol Browner. Browner was Administrator of the EPA under President Clinton and served as director of President Obama’s Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy.

Her commentary immediately addressed that frustrating contradiction that exists among many who oppose nuclear energy:

“I used to be anti-nuclear.  But, several years ago I had to reevaluate my thinking because if you agree with the world’s leading climate scientists that global warming is real and must be addressed immediately then you cannot simply oppose clean, low-carbon energy sources.”

Browner notes that “[e]xisting nuclear power plants…emit virtually no carbon pollution and are among the cleanest sources of electricity available.”

If climate change activists are serious in their belief that man is responsible for global warming, then you would expect more of them to rally behind nuclear as an energy source. Unfortunately, an “all-of-the-above” approach sounds nice, but it’s often just a catchphrase that doesn’t necessarily represent a comprehensive energy policy.

(And of course, nuclear power isn’t the only casualty of the “all-of-the-above” refrain: President Obama claims an all-of-the-above approach to energy, yet apparently that does not include support for coal power or the Keystone XL pipeline…)

May 14, 2014 | 1 comment | by

Does a State Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Help Promote “Ethical” Energy Production?

Most state governments have instituted renewable portfolio standards (RPS), which require energy producers in the state to use ever higher levels of renewable fuels as sources of energy over time. These standards are usually expressed as a minimum percent of all energy produced in the state. Who knew that RPS might create an ethical challenge for state governments? I will explain.

Currently, 30 states use either mandatory or voluntary RPS to encourage energy producers to invest in technology for using cleaner, renewable fuel sources for generating electricity, rather than investing in new technologies for clean burning of coal and oil. Furthermore, environmentalists are increasingly touting energy generated from fossil fuels as wholly unethical, going so far as to formally ask the Pope to condemn investing in fossil fuel burning energy companies as being sinful. Oh my!

Which makes me wonder: If public policy is designed by a democratic process, does that ensure a more efficient and ethical outcome, relative to the decentralized activity of individuals interacting in a free enterprise system? For example, is the state more efficient when picking the “winners” from among competing energy sources and technologies? Are our elected officials any better than individual consumers and investors at ultimately promoting “ethical” energy production in society?

An article by Gerome Corsi and another by Wayne Root each question whether the recent federal stand-off at Bundy Ranch, a fourth generation family cattle operation in Clark County, Nevada, was really about protecting a newly discovered, sensitive tortoise habitat on this section of federal grazing land, as the federal government has claimed. Regardless of whether one agrees or not with the federal government’s decision to rescind this rancher’s grazing rights, both authors strongly suspect that the BLM’s decision was truly about a certain powerful U.S. Senator from Nevada fighting to gain control ever these federal lands in Nevada for a number of newly proposed solar power plants.

Why? There were strict RPS to satisfy, and Mr. Harry Reid was just making sure that they would be. Indeed, in another article, Corsi notes that 15% of all energy produced in the state of Nevada must be produced by renewable fuels. This number is required to rise to 25% by 2025. These minimums are among the highest across all fifty states for any RPS.

Both authors wonder whether Mr. Reid’s pursuit of ever more renewable energy production trumps any ostensible concerns for habitat preservation. After all, if the tortoise habitat of this particular section of federal grazing land was far too sensitive to allow cattle to continue to grazing and stomping upon it (as they had been doing for 140 years), then why did the federal government suddenly send in loud helicopters and 200 armed officers speeding around in four wheel vehicles to crisscross and tear up the land — just to corral the rancher’s posse of supporters and his meandering cattle? Or maybe they just wanted the land cleared for new Chinese solar panels?

To add to my doubts about governmental ethics in this sad situation, both authors point out that not only does Mr. Reid have a strong political interests in developing these multiple projects to satisfy Nevada’s strict RPS, but his former senior advisor, Neil Kronze, was recently confirmed by the Senate as the new Director of the BLM… which manages the grazing leases on all federal lands.

Corsi further piles on more doubts when he reveals that a BLM document specifically points out how the Bundy Ranch cattle are grazing on lands that are ear-marked for the state’s regional energy mitigation strategy to develop solar energy. Corsi notes this report states that mitigation activities are “not durable with the presence of trespass cattle.” I guess that implies cattle herds and solar panels simply do not mix well. Further, Corsi thinks it is highly interesting that this report no longer appears on the BLM website, despite its being available on internet archive files.

So, I wonder: If the government lies about why it is refusing to renew a cattleman’s grazing rights to federal land, whose eviction was a direct response to artificially created scarcity of renewable energy resulting from strict Nevada RPS regulations, that are specially designed to favor one type of clean energy technology (and its jobs) in one industry over another, is this all ethical?

Perhaps we should consult the Pope…

Apr 28, 2014 | 1 comment | by

Global “Clean” Energy Expenditures are Down (and Respect for Economic Realities are Up) in 2013

It is refreshing to see that environmentalists and liberal governments are beginning to recognize the economic realities they face when manipulating energy markets to promote clean, renewable energy sources. For example, a recent Time Magazine article investigates why total public and private funding of “clean power” from the global renewable energy industry fell 14% in 2013. This amounts to a decline of 23% since the peak of such spending occurred in 2011. The data cited came from a study from the Frankfurt School-UNEP and Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

This study points out that Europe decreased its spending on clean, renewable energy sources by 44% while the U.S. decreased it is spending by 10%. These reductions were found to largely arise from three economic realities:

  • The declining costs of producing “clean” energy.
  • The significant reduction in public subsidies.
  • Increased competition from renewable but “unclean” biofuels power sources.

Economic Reality #1: Subsidizing an activity can drive down the unit cost of production by creating economies of scale. For example, the average cost for installing a voltaic solar cell in the U.S. declined 60% in the last few years. Indeed, despite the reductions in total spending in 2013, global clean energy capacity in 2013 (from renewable energy sources other than existing hydroelectric power sources) had remained the same as it was in 2012. However…

Economic Reality #2: Public sector funding sources are scarce. As Europe is slowly recovering from the recent global recession, the central governments of these countries are finding it very difficult to justify costly public investments in clean energy subsidies when other popular social programs compete for survival in an environment of shrinking public sector budgets. In fact, Spain and Bulgaria made their subsidy cuts retroactive, shuttering their clean energy industries, despite the falling unit costs of providing clean energy. Further…

Economic Reality #3: Every choice has an opportunity cost that cannot be avoided.  Clean power is defined as coming from renewable, sustainable fuel sources that create very low or no pollution or greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental scientists are beginning to realize that subsidized biofuel production:

  • Pushes up global food prices, because the fuel is grown with water sources and lands that could be used for growing food, which increases food prices and makes biofuels less “sustainable”.
  • Increases water pollution levels from pesticides and insecticides, making biofuels “unclean.” Indeed, an article in the magazine Scientific American notes that, “U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has for the first time acknowledged the risks of uncontrolled biofuels development.”

We seem to be living in a world where national governments are intent on accelerating our adoption of clean energy sources along a time line not supported by private energy markets. At least it is refreshing to see that both governments and environmentalists are slowly (if only involuntarily) admitting to economic reality: the true scarcity of valuable resources in our world creates real and unavoidable influences on the efficacy of government policies designed to accelerate clean energy industry development. We cannot simply wave the magic wand of “hope” to force the hand of the market in a manner that ignores such economic realities.

Apr 14, 2014 | Leave a Comment | by
« Previous Page — Next Page »