Tag Archives: alternative energy

National Security is More than Bombs

The focus of a previous Republican debate was national security. To a man (or woman) the only concern was for the security that comes from a bullet or battleship. Their strategies involved variations on sending our troops to die in Syria, greater involvement of the Arab nation’s troops, increased drone attacks and a strangely abundant call for carpet bombing.

Other kinds of security may come to mind on a national scale, food security is a biggie, and avoidance of floods and droughts, and disease vectors such as insect born infections, and epidemics, and heat waves and on and on from global warming and climate change. Bullets and battleships won’t help here, just the opposite. Instead of fighting we must work on agreeing so we can reach solutions.

Back to national security of the bombing kind. Last July the Department of Defense (DoD) released a report outlining possible threats to national security that could involve the military. “Global climate change will aggravate problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership and weak political institutions that threaten stability in a number of countries…”

When the British exited the Indian subcontinent they partitioned the area into India and East and West Pakistan, based strictly on religious grounds. Later east Pakistan became Bangladesh. It is a small but populous, low-lying country. A predominantly Muslim country adjacent to a predominantly Hindu India. What happens when rising sea levels push 150 or so million Muslims “upslope” into Hindu India? The capital of Bangladesh is not coastal but still is just 4 meters above sea level. Even without forcing migration across borders, population concentration can cause strife.

Hardly any place on earth is immune from threats that could turn into military conflict. The melting of Arctic sea ice will bring several major nations into proximity in the area. Some of the area has ill-defined borders which when covered with ice weren’t much of an issue. Now those issues along with the seas are heating up.

Access to fresh water will surely become a flash point in the future. The high latitudes and low latitudes are predicted to get wetter, but the mid latitudes drier. There are already over a billion people with limited access to potable water and this may only get worse with global warming.

The DoD report emphasizes that the threat is real and requires planning to be prepared for the future. “The ability of the United States and other countries to cope with the risks and implications of climate change requires monitoring, analysis and integration of those risks into existing overall risk management measures, as appropriate for each combatant command, they added.”

A recurring theme in science fiction novels and movies has been the coming together of otherwise warring nations to fight a common enemy – space aliens. Will global warming be the threat not from space but from within which will bind us together as a world community? An important step was taken recently in Paris with a much heralded agreement among all nations. The meeting of world leaders has resulted in an international resolve to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.

pv2

Alternative Energy Alternatives

So you want to be green, or at least greener, when it comes to your electricity use. There are a welter of options available. Here in Arkansas we are not blessed with sufficient wind resources to make homeowner wind very cost effective, so going green means solar photovoltaic systems (solar PV) are the best game going. But with this restriction there are still several different approaches to decarbonize your electricity.

In remote areas without grid connections, the only reasonable green electricity is with a solar PV system and batteries. The batteries are necessary not only to tide you over for when the sun doesn’t shine but also to stabilize the power to your home or cabin. Imagine on an otherwise sunny day a solar array is providing nicely for the home, but a cloud passes over. This would temporarily reduce the current, possibly to the point of damaging electronics, Hence batteries are essential. Just how many batteries needed is a function of how long will the sun not keep up with demand. On occasion in this area we can go for a week or two without much sun due to rain and clouds. The point is that this is the most expensive option due to the costs associated with the batteries.

Much more practical are so called “grid tied” solar arrays which essentially use the electrical grid as a battery. If you buy electricity from Entergy, SWEPCO, or AVEC for example, and you add solar panels to your home, the power company is your battery. When the sun shines your meter will slow down or actually run backwards sending power to the grid. At night or on rainy or cloudy days power is drawn back from the grid. Because Arkansas is a net metering state, when producing you are paid the same price as when you buy. Depending on how many panels you have you can replace some or all of your electrical needs. Currently costs are such that the payback period is about half the rated lifetime of the panels. You will recoup your initial investment in about a dozen years, and the panels will continue to produce for at least that many years to come.

All homes don’t have access to the southern sky on their property due to shading from trees or the terrain. That said you can still participate via community solar farms. The first community solar farm has begun near Little Rock. A developer is constructing a solar farm tied to Entergy’s grid. Any Entergy customer can basically buy a piece of the solar production. The buyer has their own meter which is aggregated with their home meter, just as if the solar panels were on their roof. Entergy deducts any power costs produced by the solar panels from the power costs at the home. The cost for this approach is somewhat higher as because of the costs for site development and land acquisition.

Yet one more option exists to green up your electricity. The green power costs for the aforementioned approaches all require some significant start up costs. Another alternative is to buy “green tickets” or participate in the purchase of Renewable Energy Credits. There are companies that will for a nominal charge on top of your actual electric bill, buy green energy. The additional charge is used to buy power from green sources and send that electricity to the grid, which offsets electricity from fossil fueled sources. Basically you are subsidizing clean energy. You don’t own any equipment but your dollars go to green the environment.

Don’t Buy Oil

The horrible terrorist attack in Paris has drawn a number of responses as to what to do. Both French and US forces have launched bombing raids against ISIS forces in Syria. Many are calling to again put “boots on the ground” – a euphemism for send sending more of our sons and daughters off to die. With irrational fear trumping compassion, many governors want to have nothing to do with refugees from Syria.

Nether war nor fearfulness will solve our problems. It is time for a different perspective. The chaos in the middle east cannot continue without money to pay the fighters and buy the weapons and ammunition. Much of the money to fund the terrorists comes from the sale of oil. A step was taken with the bombing raids recently when over a hundred oil tanker trucks were destroyed. These were tankers that ISIS used to sell oil on the black market. As long as they have access to the oil, ways will be found to sell it. Additionally cash from the Gulf States flows directly to ISIS. It is not the official positions of the governments of the Gulf States, but rather private donors, made rich through the sale of oil, who are contributing to ISIS.

If the terrorists will find a way to sell the oil they control, and the riches of the Gulf States donors will continue to flow to the terrorists, what is to be done? Starve the beast. Stop buying oil. Not just the black market oil or the oil produced by the Emirates, but all oil. If we don’t buy the black market oil, we go somewhere else to buy oil. But someone else will buy the oil. Same for the Gulf States oil. We buy instead from Venezuela or Nigeria. But then someone else buys the Gulf oil. The problem is that oil is a very fungible commodity. Within limits, oil is oil, no matter where it comes from.

The answer is to stop using and therefore stop buying, oil. If we completely withdraw from the market, we will effect a dramatic drop in the price of crude oil. It’s a simple matter of supply and demand. We in the United States constitute a scant 5 percent of the world population, we consume over 20 percent of the world’s resources including oil. The drop in prices means less revenue from the sale of the black market oil and lower revenues for the emirates, hence less money to fuel terror. Transitioning to an electric economy fueled with wind and solar has its costs, but so does waging war.

Transitioning away from the use of oil will happen eventually as oil on the planet runs out, why not start now and help to stabilize geopolitics in the process. Why not start now to reduce pressure on the climate that comes from burning the oil? Why not stop now to help clean the air to reduce health care costs. A final benefit would be that we could become world leaders in sustainable energy technology.

Clean Power Plan

The Environmental Protection Agency has finalized the Clean Power Plan. This plan has been evolving since multiple supreme court rulings avered that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant and should be regulated according to the Clean Air Act. Carbon Dioxide is the principle greenhouse gas driving global warming. It’s release to the environment must be slowed and ultimately stopped to prevent catastrophic climate change.

The plan seeks to lower the emissions of Carbon Dioxide by going after the low hanging fruit first: coal fired power plants. The national mandate is to reduce emissions from power plants by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, so implementation will be spread over 15 years. Interestingly, current levels of CO2 emissions are lower that 2005 already. This is due to a combination of the recession lowering demand for power and the increasing reliance on sustainable energy supplies such as wind and the conversion of older coal plants to natural gas. Natural gas plants have always been cleaner burning in a number of ways such as particulate emissions, but especially cleaner due to lower CO2 emissions.

Realistically the country has been moving away from coal already. The cost of coal fired plants has been on the rise because of the increasing recognition of the harmful health effects of burning coal. This has resulted in stricter control of emissions other that Carbon Dioxide. These include particulates which when inhaled interfere with breathing, and toxic metals that pollute the environment and have health consequences of their own. An additional factor driving down the use of coal is the availability of increasing amounts of cheap Natural Gas brought on by the fracking boom.

The situation here in Arkansas is made more difficult because we are behind the curve when it comes to transitioning away from coal. Although the national mandate is a 32 percent reduction averaged over the states in aggregate , ours is 37 percent. The relevant measure is “pounds of CO2 produced per amount of electricity generated (lbs CO2/MMWhe .) California for example only needs to reduce its carbon emissions by 14 percent because they have already moved aggressively to sustainable energy supplies. The states have much latitude in how to lower carbon emissions. Increasing efficiency in energy production from coal plants, carbon trading, and producing more energy from renewable energy are all on the table.

In addition to reducing the risk of global warming, the health benefits of cleaner air abound. Reduced particulate emissions will reduce the incidence of asthma and other cardiopulmonary ailments. Other improvements include lowered emissions of toxic heavy metals such as Cadmium, Mercury, and Lead. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that tens of billions of dollars will be saved in 2030 by improvements in human health and environmental services.

The coal industry is of course squealing like a stuck pig and will sue, along with states heavily dependent on coal use like Arkansas. Their argument is regulation will drive up the cost of electricity. History has shown time and again that industry claims of the cost of regulation are invariably exaggerated. The EPA claims that actual costs of electricity will go down.

And finally there are jobs. Although a few jobs in mining, transporting and utilizing coal will be lost many many more will be created in the new industries associated with renewable energy.

World Wide Wind

We will at some point cease to produce electrical energy by burning fossil fuels, either (sooner) because we realize the harmful effects of using the atmosphere as a toilet, or (later) because we simply use them all up. These fuels can be replaced with sustainable sources, principally wind and solar. Where are we now and where are we going?

In the United States we currently get 13 per cent of our electrical power from renewables. The majority of that from hydropower, followed by wind biomass and solar power as a distant fourth. There seems to be limited potential for growth in hydropower or biomass but the sky the limit for wind and solar, assuming that the issue of intermittency can be overcome.

Although we have no national policy for the country, president Obama has mandated that the federal government get 20% of its electrical energy from renewables by 2020. Various states have renewable portfolios that range from trivial to ambitious: The old south, a couple of coal states in the Appalachians, a few midwest to rocky mountain states have none. Hawaii has the most ambitious, with a target of 40% by 2030.

Internationally, it’s a mixed bag. Mountainous Costa Rica, with a population of about 5 million, gets from 90 to 100% of its electrical energy from renewables, mainly hydro and geothermal. Similarly Norway with twice the population of Costa Rica produces very close to 100% of their electric power from hydropower plants.

Because of availability of cheap electric power they have developed energy intensive industries such as the production high grade Silicon for solar cells. Interestingly a focus of World War II was on Norway. Germany invaded Norway to gain access to energy intensive production of heavy water for their experimental nuclear reactor program.

The real potential for expansion of renewable power is in the wind, especially in countries with lots of coastline. At one point last week, Denmark was producing 140 % of its electrical energy, exporting the excess to Sweden and Germany. Their current average wind produced electricity is approaching 40%, and they are still building out.

Germany is an interesting study. They have a vigorous low carbon energy transition plan (Energiewende.) Their target is an astounding 80% renewable by 2050! They are currently installing wind and solar PV faster than anybody on the planet. Currently they are around 27% with very little hydropower, twice the US average.

The biggest player of course is China. They are the current world leader in carbon emissions, having surpassed the US a few years ago. China’s air pollution problems are legendary. Smog from from eastern China can be tracked across the pacific to our west coast. They recognize they have a problem and are aggressively addressing it by moving away from fossil fuels and toward efficiency and renewables. In 2014 they installed three quarters of the new solar capacity on the planet.

Wind Turbines and Bird Kills

The Environmental Protection Agency will complete work on a rule soon which requires a collective 30 % reduction in carbon emissions from power plants over the next couple of decades. Essentially coal fired power plants will need to be shut down across the country. The best guess besides greater efficiency is that the power lost will be replaced to a large degree by utility scale wind turbines.

No problem, as there is a huge potential for energy generation. Just the wind in the plains has the potential of providing several times as much electrical energy as is consumed nationwide. Add off- shore wind and the factor is some 10 times what is used!

There are downsides however. The wind is intermittent, so additional sources of power need to be available when the wind doesn’t blow, but up to a penetration of about 30 % of the market it is doable without additional committed reserves.

But what about the birds, bird kills that is? Estimates are all over the map from a few tens of thousands to over a million a year. A recent review of over a hundred studies suggests that about 500,000 birds are killed by wind turbines annually. Currently wind turbines produce 4.4 % of the electrical energy consumed in the US. If we expect to ramp up energy production from wind turbines to 30 % of the market, then we should expect about 3.4 million bird kills a year. That is a lot of birds. How many bird deaths is too many? What activities should be limited based on how many deaths? Should we not expand the use of wind for electric generation?

Interestingly, bird deaths from wind turbines are a pittance compared to other anthropogenic factors. You can’t have too many communication towers right? We want lots of cell phone access and clear digital TV programming. These towers currently kill over 6 million birds a year. Give up your cell phone and you will save 12 times as many birds as wind turbines kill.

One solution would be to abandon electricity. No electricity means we don’t need the wind turbines. This would save 30 million bird deaths a year, due to electrocution from and collision with transmission and distribution lines. Um, maybe we ought to keep the lights on as the wind turbines aren’t really the problem.

We could save oodles on fuel if we didn’t drive cars. This would have the added benefit reducing global warming by lower carbon emissions. It would also save 200 million birds a year due to collisions.

Like the view out the window of your home or office? Board them up and save 600 million birds a year. By now you should see that those wind turbines are relatively benign compared to so many other man made structures. But all these put together pale in comparison to one single factor – cats. Between house pets and feral animals they kill an estimated 2.5 billion birds a year. That’s billion with a B. Our house pets and their escaped brethren kill 5,000 times as many birds as do our wind turbines, and I don’t think anybody is talking about eliminating the pets.

Sustainability and Jobs

Our new attorney general, Leslie Rutledge, was off to Washington recently to testify against the EPA clean power plan. As part of the plan Arkansas will be required to reduce our carbon emissions by 44 % over the coming decades. This will be achieved by burning less coal, thus cleaning the air and reducing climate forcing. From her press release:

“Arkansas is uniquely positioned on this topic because of our rich natural heritage. In the Natural State, we place a high value on clean air and clean water as we protect our state for future generations, and as Attorney General, I will not sit idly by while this administration pushes policy objectives that will ultimately hurt job growth and Arkansas’s ability to compete across the country and the globe.”

Installing solar panels

Installing solar panels

It is odd that she opposes a plan which will do exactly what she favors; that is, clean the air and water and protect our state for future generations. One can only assume from her statement that she thinks that we will have fewer jobs and be less competitive by burning less coal. But is that the case?

If one assumes that much of the energy not produced by by burning coal is replaced by sustainable energy sources such as wind and solar, what is the tradeoff on jobs? Or how about jobs created by avoiding the need for energy in the first place? How many jobs are there in becoming more efficient?

wind turbine blade

wind turbine blade

There are currently about 174,000 jobs in the coal industry including mining, transportation and power plant work. Compare that to about 172,000 jobs in the solar industry – fabrication, sales, installation and maintenance. An important comparison is the jobs per power produced. The solar power in the United States represents only 0.7 % of installed capacity where as coal power is at about 40 %. If we divide jobs by installed capacity, solar wins hands down – about 10 times as many jobs in solar compared to coal when capacity factor is considered.

The comparison for wind and jobs is similar. There are about 100,000 jobs in wind, and with about 6 % of the capacity, wind produces 5 times as many jobs as coal. Both wind and solar are expanding rapidly, where as coal jobs are declining.
It is difficult to calculate the number of jobs in efficiency which replaces energy production. That said, efficiency is estimated to produce about 4 times as many jobs to avoid burning coal as coal jobs.

It seems fairly clear that renewable energy and efficiency produce 4 to 10 times as many jobs as coal. If our attorney general is concerned about jobs she should have gone to the house hearing to endorse the clean power plan, rather than oppose it.

One final factor should be mentioned. There are no fuel costs for renewables and efficiency, but Arkansans pay in excess of 650 million dollars a year to import coal from Wyoming. Renewables such as solar and wind would keep those millions of dollars here. That’s money which will remain in the Arkansas economy and make us more, not less competitive.

earth

A Positive Potpourri

So much news about global warming and climate change is negative. The planet’s hotter, the weather weirder, and the future dimmer. Whereas over half of Americans believe in global warming, less than half care. But there is some hope for the future out there.

Little is coming out of congress but the state of California is leading the way to a sustainable future. The land of “fruits and nuts,” the land where the leader is referred to as “Governor Moonbeam,” will be breaking ground for a new high speed rail to run from San Jose to Los Angeles. The nation’s largest infrastructure project will cost billions but take scads of cars off the highways and planes from the sky. It will produce jobs that can’t be sent overseas, and most importantly reduce the carbon footprint for the people of California.

And speaking of a carbon footprint, Governor Jerry Brown has set an ambitious goal of 50 % of the energy to come from clean sustainable sources such as wind, solar and geothermal by 2030. Nowhere else in the country is there such an ambitious standard.

The Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences show that the cost of onshore wind and solar PV are cheaper than coal for generating electricity, when the cost of climate forcing is factored into the use of fossil fuels, either gas or coal. The cost of solar panels alone has dropped by 50% between 2008 and 2009. Although Solar PV generated electricity only accounts of a scant 0.7 % of installed capacity, it recently has become the the most rapidly installed new generation in the country.

The oil and gas boom due to technological advances like shale fracking have accounted for a 10% reduction in oil imports (equivalent). That’s good but automotive efficiency due to gas mileage standards coupled with increase utilization of mass transit has resulted in nearly twice the savings, some 18% reduction. Reductions due to efficiency are far too often overlooked when considering reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.

An important aspect of sustainable energy is the fact that it creates jobs, more than any of the fossil fuel industries. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that there are about 80,000 jobs in the coal mining industry, but over a 142,00 jobs in solar industries.

Several HVDC transmissions are moving through regulatory approval, including the Plains and Clean Line which will pass through Pope county. When approved and constructed, they will allow the utilization of much otherwise stranded electric generating capacity from abundant midwestern wind.

Also here in Arkansas, a 12 megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic installation will be built on a one hundred acre site in an industrial park in East Camden. Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation (AECC) will sell power to their members across Arkansas. AECC has also agreed to purchase an additional 150 MW for a total of 201 MW of wind power from producers in Oklahoma. An 80 MW wind turbine farm has been proposed for a site near Springdale. It will use a novel shrouded turbine design which is claimed to completely eliminate bird and bat mortality.

Global Warming 2014 Edition

This year has seen several international, national, and local issues relating to global warming.

Organizationally, the IPCC or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change might be considered the lead agency on issues of global warming. The IPCC is a group of thousands of climate scientists from around the world. The fifth pentennial assessment report states: “to avoid dangerous interference with the climate system, we need to move away from business as usual. Simply to hold the temperature rise to 2 degrees [Celsius] will require reductions of green house gases from 40 to 70 per cent compared with 2010 by mid-century, and to near-zero by the end of this century.”

Whereas the IPCC is the scientific wing of the UN, the UNFCCC or the United Nations Framework on Climate Change is more of a political policy wing. In their meeting in Lima Peru this year they concluded that it is increasingly difficult to prevent the temperature of the planet’s atmosphere from rising by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. According to a large body of scientific research, that is the tipping point at which the world will be locked into a near-term future of drought, food and water shortages, melting ice sheets, shrinking glaciers, rising sea levels and widespread flooding—events that could harm the world’s population and economy.

After months of negotiations, President Obama and President Xi Jinping in November affirmed the importance of strengthening bilateral cooperation on climate change and will work together to adopt a protocol on climate change. They are committed to reaching an ambitious 2015 agreement that reflects the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in light of different national circumstances.

In June President Obama, through the Environmental Protection Agency, has promulgated rules for power plants to reduce carbon emissions by 30 per cent by 2030. This is the first time that the EPA has taken steps to regulate Carbon Dioxide as a pollutant, an action begun in 2007 by President Bush, but delayed by court battles meant to block the regulations.

Construction of the Keystone XL pipeline remains stalled. This pipeline, if completed, will move oil produced by strip mining the Athabasca tar sands in Alberta Canada. The line will terminate after traversing almost 1200 miles at refineries on the Gulf coast. It’s approval is questionable as this will exacerbate global warming by providing an international market for more carbon emissions.

The draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Plains and Clean Line has been released. Basically the EIS determined that there are no adverse environmental or socioeconomic effects of the transmission line. The power line will move 3,500 MegaWatts of wind generated electricity from the panhandle of Oklahoma, across Arkansas to Memphis.

Entergy has recently purchased a gas turbine fired electrical power plant near El Dorado. With a capacity of 1980 MegaWatts, this may signal the intention to close the older less efficient coal fired White bluff plant.

Energy Costs and Financing

It is difficult to compare the costs for energy from various sources, but it is an important issue. In Arkansas we are blessed with (or cursed by, depending on your point of view) relatively low electrical energy costs. We pay about eight to nine cents per kilowatt- hour (kWh) which is about three cents below the national average of twelve cents. In some locations and at some times of the day the costs can go over 25 cents per kWh. These costs do not include externalities such as damage to health and the environment, risks associated with global warming, political instability and direct subsidies to insure risky technologies.

It has been estimated that the inclusion of these costs could raise a monthly electric bill by two to five times. An average Arkansan’s electric bill would be closer to five hundred dollars rather than slightly over one hundred dollars per month.

Clean renewable energy from for example photo voltaic systems (PV, solar electric panels) can be prohibitively expensive when you compare the costs without consideration of the external costs of traditional electricity production. It would seem only fair then to subsidize PV systems and that is happening to a limited degree.

5.4 kW solar array

5.4 kW solar array

The federal government provides a thirty percent tax credit for residential and small commercial systems which makes these systems more competitive with traditional energy sources with their hidden subsidies. Recently the state of Arkansas through the Arkansas energy office has begun an additional subsidy based on energy produced by renewable energy systems. For program details see: http://arkansasenergy.org/.

The current program from the state provides for on-bill financing for qualified energy efficiency improvements that consumers can install on their premises: energy efficiency measures, distributed generation (e.g., solar photovoltaic, combined heat and power), and demand response (DR) technologies.

shade trees same energy

shade trees same energy

Consumers typically have extensive experience making utility bill payments, it is already a routine part of their lives. It is also conceptually attractive to make an investment where the energy savings that result are reflected in the same bill as the payments on the loan that funded the investment. This method of financing is particularly attractive for projects which have long pay back times. If the original owner sells the property, the financing remains with the improved property.

Low-E glass saves energy

Low-E glass saves energy

Because we have relatively low electric costs here in Arkansas, the payback for subsidized systems can be on the order of a couple of decades for large projects such as PV systems. In locations with much higher electric rates, say 25 cents per kWh, the payback would be much sooner.

The question then becomes, do you want to continue wars, and general global political instability because of our reliance on oil imports? Do you want to continue to support scraping the tops off of mountains to get at “cheap coal”. Do you want to continue to contribute to the degradation of the environment from oil spills? Do you want to contribute to the degradation of health through air pollution? To the deaths of miners and drillers? Global warming and ocean acidification?

You can walk away from all that now, but sustainable clean energy supplies are a future you can make happen now.