Tag Archives: sustainable energy

Trump Pulls Out

It is now clear now that the current administration has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement for specious reasons. Trump will take us off the world stage, away from 195 countries who do recognize the risks of ignoring global warming, ocean acidification, and climate change.

Global warming as a concept is not new. Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish chemist and Nobel laureate wrote in 1896 on the risks of continued burning of fossil fuels and the resultant accumulation of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)in the atmosphere. [On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground] The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere had been stable stable for hundreds of thousands of years – under 300 parts per million (PPM). In under 200 years we have raised the concentration to the current value of over 400 PPM, 150% of the value at the start of the industrial revolution.

Despite the relatively simple physical principals involved and despite the evidence from air and water temperatures, rising sea levels, and melting ice President Trump still thinks that global warming is a hoax. He seems fixated on the idea that developing sustainable energy supplies will drag our economy down. Is there evidence of such?

Very simply -No. Germany has installed more solar photovoltaic energy systems per capita than any other country, yet they are running a trade surplus with the United States. On a good day Denmark can produce 100 % of its energy from wind turbines and runs a considerable trade surplus with the United States. Ironically, much of their surplus involves selling wind turbine technology to us. We do have a small industry manufacturing wind turbine blades, but the company is Danish. China has leapt to the head of the pack for producing solar panels and we all know about their trade imbalance.

What do the captains of industry here think? Big fossil fuel producers such as Exxon-Mobil support the agreement. Even coal companies support the agreement. Walmart supports the agreement. Of course forward looking companies like Alphabet, the parent company of Google, Apple, Tesla support the agreement. Polls shows that the majority of Americans in every state, across the political spectrum support the agreement.

The agreement that we are walking away from is first and foremost voluntary. The agreement would in no way allow foreign influence of our laws or sovereignty. The agreement calls for international goals for reducing the rate of global warming by reducing the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.

The US goal was a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 27 % of 2005 emissions by 2025. This is doable with a combination of energy efficiency, sustainable technologies such as wind and solar and switching from carbon intensive coal to natural gas. These changes to our economy are already underway and by participating in the agreement we show the world that we care about collective actions for all humanity, even for all life on this planet.

By not joining the agreement we turn away from 195 countries and join with Syria, torn by a violent civil war, and Nicaragua, who thinks the agreement doesn’t go far enough.

PV Primer, 2017

The cost of photovoltaic systems (panels and inverter) has dropped to about 1 to 2 dollars per watt. At this price, including the 30 % federal tax credit, systems have payback times in less than 7 years, regardless of size. This assumes a cost of about 10 cents a kilowatt hour (kW-hr) for electricity.

Here are a number of nuts and bolts issues for those interested in solar power. First and foremost you must have a location with southern exposure. Even a small amount of shade can seriously reduce energy production. For most this means a roof top location, but it needn’t be if you have the space to put the array on the ground. The simplest mounting puts the panels flat on the roof. The pitch of the roof is not all that important as long as it faces south.

The amount of space needed for an array of course varies as to how much total power you want to produce. Different manufacturers make panels in different sizes (watts) but the total space needed is the same because all PV panels have the same efficiency, about 15 %. Five 100 watt panels will take up the same space as one 500 watt panel. One kW requires about 80 square feet of space.

A big decision is whether the array is isolated or connected to the electrical grid. Grid-tied systems here in Arkansas can take advantage of net metering. This means that the power produced by the panels can actually make a meter run backwards if they are producing more power than the home is consuming at any time. About the only disadvantage of a grid-tied system is that when the line goes down, so does the solar power production. This is necessary to protect power line workers.

The alternative to grid-tied is to go entirely off line by buffering production with batteries. This avoids the aforementioned problem, but greatly increases the cost and “hassle factor” of the system. This is only practical when connection to the grid is cost prohibitive, as in remote locations.

The total amount of energy produced by a system is obtained by the total wattage of a system. For example a 1 kilowatt system can produce a maximum of one kilowatt hour only when the sun angle is ideal. Averaged over a year, a simple rule of thumb is that you can get 4 hours of net production per day. Hence a 1 kW system can be expected to produce 4 kW-hrs per day, more some days, less others.

Let’s use an average consumption of 1000 kW-hrs per month (close to the average in Arkansas) to determined a system sized to replace 100 % of electric needs. 1000 kW-hrs per month means 33 kw-hrs per day. Divide that by 4 to get a a little over 8 kW system. To allow for some inefficiencies say we use a 9 kW system. At 1.5 dollars a watt, the total cost would be 13,500 $. The 30% federal tax rebate brings the final cost down to 9,450 $. Sales taxes and installation will add to the cost, but these numbers can be used to approximate a cost if you are interested in going solar.

Wind Power Transmission Line

A federal decision on the Plains and Eastern Clean Line High Voltage Direct Current line is imminent. This proposed 700 plus mile long transmission line will extend from the panhandle of Oklahoma, through Pope County, and on to Memphis. If approved and built it will allow for the movement of large amounts of wind generated power from the midwest to parts east where it can be used to replace coal fired generating plants.

The route already approved by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) will pass through central Pope county. A substation just north of Atkins will allow Arkansans a piece of the power from the line. For perspective the line will cross Big Piney Creek near where it crosses Highway 164.

The line and others like it are necessary to reduce our need for coal which fouls the atmosphere in multiple ways. There is a superabundance of clean, relatively inexpensive energy waiting to be tapped in the midwest, the only need being transmission.

The Line is not without its detractors however, especially those in the path of the powerline right-of-way (ROW.) It will require a couple of hundred foot wide ROW with 150 foot towers spaced about 5 to the mile. The land within the ROW can be used safely for any purpose with the exception of forestry – crops, hay fields, and pastures are acceptable uses for the area. Landowners will be compensated for the ROW but they complain that compensation is insufficient.

It really boils down to “Not In My Backyard” (NIMBY.) This is not surprising, nobody wants their view of a skyline marred by powerlines. But powerlines are a fact of modern life. Anyone who is connected to the electrical grid benefits from numerous folks having yielded a ROW to get that power to their home or business.

One suggestion to remove the negative visual impact would be to bury the line underground. It has been done locally on a very small scale. In some newer subdivisions the distribution lines are buried but not for far, as it is quite expensive compared to overhead lines.

The relative cost of burying high voltage transmission lines is assumed to be prohibitive as it is just not done with the exception of lines that cross large bodies of water where it is the only possible alternative.

To bury a transmission line requires serious disruption, trenching then back filling, not just pastures and hay fields but sidewalks, roadways, and even rivers and wet lands. For forest land, a clear cut ROW would be necessary to be able to bring in the heavy equipment necessary to excavate and lay the line.

One of the benefits of buried lines is that they are less susceptible to weather related outages. The other side of the coin is when an outage occurs in an underground line it is harder to locate and harder to access, changing repair times from hours for overhead lines to weeks for underground lines.

Cost estimates are in the range of 2 to 10 times more expensive than overhead lines. Power companies across the land, whether private like Entergy or public like the Arkansas Electric Coops, have made the decision to stay with overhead lines, wherever possible.

State Support for Sustainable Energy

The data are in and the numbers are crunched. 2015 is officially the hottest year for the planet in recorded history. Last year raced past the previous hottest year, 2014. In fact the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 1998.

The science is clear, the heating is due in the main to burning fossil fuels. Governments around the world are developing strategies to decarbonize their economies. Here in the United States we have federal various tax credits which lower the cost for both individuals and businesses to be less reliant on fossil fuel combustion. Purchase tax credits are available for energy efficiency and sustainable energy production. Also, production tax credits for wind produced energy are available.

Variable levels of subsidization from the states for both purchase and production of sustainable energy is also available. These can come as purchase savings: income tax credits, income tax deductions, sales tax rebates, and cash rebates. Production of sustainable energy, for example solar photovoltaic systems or wind turbines are subsidized by feed-in tariffs or net metering. Levels of support also vary by sector such as homeowners, coops, or for profit businesses.

California is generally recognized as the nation’s leader in clean renewable energy because they have committed to a renewable portfolio of 50% by 2030. This means they expect 50% of energy production in the state to come from renewable energy. Their success thus far is driven by a combination of all the above, credits for efficiency, the purchase of equipment, and for energy produced.

An example of a production subsidy is a feed-in tariff. This is a rate structure for electricity where the producer of clean energy, say a homeowner with solar panels, signs a long term contract to produce energy to the grid at a premium price. In Michigan the average cost of electricity is about 11 cents a kilowatt hour (kWh). Producers with a feed-in tariff are paid 24 cents a kWh. Payback times at this rate could be less than five years!

Here in Arkansas we are about in the middle of the pack, renewable energy support-wise. There is essentially no state purchase support, but net metering provides some assistance for the production of clean, carbon free energy. Net metered systems in Arkansas use bidirectional meters. When the sun shines and production is in excess of consumption the meter runs backwards, at the same rate as it runs forwards when consuming energy. There no additional access charge or fee for net metered systems. What this means is that the home producer is paid retail cost for the power sent to the grid.

Less valuable but still of some help are net metered systems where the producer is only paid the power company’s avoided cost, the wholesale rate. This doesn’t reward the expense of providing clean power to the grid as the avoided cost is the cost of the oldest, cheapest, and usually coal fired power production. Nevada recently downgraded their net metered systems to pay only the wholesale price for production, rather than the retail price.

Only two states, Tennessee and South Dakota, have no production support for distributed clean energy.

Nuclear is Not the Answer


James Hansen is the climate scientist who first loudly and persistently proclaimed a risk to society of global warming and the consequent climate change and acidification of the oceans. Recently he and a few others suggested that a vigorous expansion of nuclear power is the only option for producing enough power to completely replace fossil fuels for energy production.

To achieve this goal would require the construction worldwide of over one hundred reactors a year, every year till 2050. As the United States uses something like twenty percent of the world’s energy, our share of the nuclear construction would be about 20 to 25 reactors every year. Conservatively that would be close to 700 nuclear reactors. Based on population that would mean about 7 new reactors in Arkansas alone.

This is a construction rate far, far beyond the heyday of reactor construction in the 1970s. It is just not going to happen for several reasons. Hansen has blamed environmental concerns for blocking the expansion of the nuclear power industry and there may be some truth to this. Past catastrophic nuclear reactor failures loom over the industry. And the seemingly intractable, politically at least, problem of permanent storage of high level nuclear wastes. The best we have come up with so far is on site storage in concrete containers – essentially the radioactive spent fuel rods are placed in casks standing around in parking lots adjacent to the reactors.

Environmental concerns are not the real issue, it is that nuclear power can’t compete economically. The extremely long planning and construction time make essentially impossible to stay on budget. The Union of Concerned Scientists report that the cost for the planning, construction, and licensing has gone from an estimated 2 billion dollars in 2002 to an astounding 9 billion in 2009.

Meanwhile the carbon free competition – efficiency, wind, and solar PV have see an opposite cost curve. For comparison, the cost of a 2 megawatt wind turbine is about 3 million dollars. For an equivalent amount of power produced by a nuclear reactor, the cost is a little over a billion dollars. For large scale commercial solar photovoltaic arrays the cost is about 2.5 billion dollars. Most importantly the cost curves for sustainable energy are downward whereas for nuclear they are upward.

The fuel costs for nuclear power are now relatively modest, but in a scenario with 700 nuclear reactors requiring Uranium, the cost will be substantially greater. Most likely fuel reprocessing will be necessary to produce new fuel but also to deal with the waste stream from all these reactors. Reprocessing fuel will add to costs and increase the risk of additional handling of radioactive material. Both accidents at reprocessing plants as occurred to at Kerr-McGee facility in Oklahoma, or the possibility of diversion to terrorists as weapons.

The future may see some expansion of nuclear reactors, as they serve an important function for baseload power, but something will have to be done to control costs. Savings via deregulation is a non starter. In fact increased regulation may save money. Standardized designs and construction methods may be able to contain costs somewhat. Additional subsidization of the nuclear industry via taxpayer backed insurance is a must. When it comes to the nuclear industry; capitalism, meet socialism.

Solar Based Solar Energy

A major drawback of most if not all sustainable sources of energy is the matter of intermittency. Power can’t be generated by wind turbines if the wind doesn’t blow, and solar panels don’t generate power when the sun doesn’t shine.

There are three ways to deal with this. One is to simply expect to use power when it is available. This is impractical for homes or hospitals or industries where power is necessary 24/7, but it is conceivable that certain industries could run their industrial processes when power is available. Sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, but reliably so. A major problem with this strategy is that expensive equipment can’t be used for sizable amounts of time, making the industry less efficient and therefore less competitive.

The obvious solution is energy storage for leveling the availability of power, and there are a number of different strategies. Pairing energy sources to level access to power may be possible in some cases. In some areas the wind blows more at night. This could be combined with daytime solar PV. Actually this is already occurring to some degree via our electrical grid that utilizes both wind and solar inputs.

The holy grail of sustainable but intermittent energy is inexpensive grid scale battery storage. This is a major forefront of sustainable energy research today. Some Japanese researchers are taking another tack however. What if you could find a place to put solar panels where the sun always shines, with no shadows or clouds, just sunlight 24/7. No problem, just head out into space about 20,000 miles. Solar panels are already hard at work powering hundreds, even thousands of satellites and of course the international space station.

The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has a 25 year plan to develop gigawatt scale solar panels in space and then beam that energy back to earth. For perspective the average nuclear power plant produces a little less than a gigawatt. The two reactors at Arkansas Nuclear one combined output is about 1.8 Gigawatts.

This will be a BIG project. To produce that kind of power requires an array of solar panels that weigh on the order of 10,000 tonnes and covers an area of a couple square miles, but this is the easy part. Getting that power back to earth is the really tricky part of the plan. The idea is to beam the power back from space via microwaves. Satellites in geosynchronous orbit would point a sending device towards an earthbound antenna which would absorb the microwave power, then convert it to electrical energy that could be sent to grid along with all the other energy sources.

We use microwave ovens to heat up cold cup of coffee, but in this application the power is sent only a few inches, not tens of thousands of miles. Microwaves are sent long distances in the form of radar, but the relative power level is extremely low. To beam relevant amounts of power tens of thousands of miles is the real challenge.

So far testing has only involved sending kilowatts of energy over a fraction of that distance. Stay tuned.

RIP David Bowie 1947-2016

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.

Private Sector must be the Answer

In Al Gore’s award winning movie “An Inconvenient Truth” he used the old saw to depict a real problem with global warming. If you put a frog in hot water it will immediately jump out. Put a frog in cold water but very slowly warm it up and the frog will stay until it is too late and be boiled alive.

That is a nice analogy for the dilemma we face with with global warming. The process is slow. Another analogy would be to call it glacially slow, but glaciers are moving, and melting, at a fairly rapid pace these days. Humans and a number of animals evolved to react to rapidly occurring threats – the snap of a twig in the brush, the glint of light from an eye, and we are ready to fight or flee.

Global warming is a decades to centuries change that threatens us now, and many just don’t see the threat, a threat not to us individually, but to our future. Some are so insensitive to the risk that even if they believe it to be true, won’t react because it doesn’t matter to them personally. If the majority of us hold this opinion, we are doomed as a species.

Some governments are beginning to react with policies that favor carbon free energy strategies, but the steps are often small and can be more costly than simple business as usual burning of fossil fuels. Hey, it’s on face value cheaper and we know how it works.

On a more hopeful note is the fact that technology got us into this problem, but technology and the private sector, hold the potential to get us out. Obviously we need to stop burning fossil fuels, especially coal and oil. Natural Gas, essentially methane, is does not produce as much pollution as the others, but ultimately its use must be curtailed also.

There two ways to replace the fossil fuels, use less through efficiency and replace energy production with non-carbon sources such as wind, solar and geothermal. Of the three, wind is the most developed. We currently get about 4 % of our electric energy production from wind, entirely land based. The potential for off shore wind, especially on the east coast affords considerable potential but currently is more expensive to exploit than wind resources in the midwest. Currently the cost of wind generated power is as cheap as that from a modern coal fired plant. And the costs continue to decline, the opposite of the cost for producing power from coal.

Solar Photovoltaic systems (solar panels) are sprouting up everywhere, especially since the price has dropped by half in just the last few years. Not only are homeowners adding panels to their roofs but utility scale systems are being installed. Entergy recently announced that they intend to build a 500 acre solar farm near Stuttgart. For perspective, a square mile covers 640 acres.

Until the intermittent energy sources of wind and solar penetrate to about 30% of total production, no additional back up power is needed. Essentially there is enough existing reserve power to keep the lights on after dark when the wind isn’t blowing. Beyond that, battery backup will be needed. Development and deployment of utility scale battery production will surely follow the demand.

Upcoming Paris Talks

Next month, world leaders from over 190 countries, and scientists that represent governments and Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) will meet again, this time in Paris, to try to address the issue of global warming. This is a mind-bogglingly difficult task. Fully 80% of the global economy runs on the energy produced from burning fossil fuels which releases Carbon Dioxide. The CO2 in the atmosphere acts like a blanket trapping heat which results in warming the planet.

The answer is simple and clear, but the solution is anything but. The answer is to stop burning carbon as an energy source. How that is achieved is the crux of the problem. Some say that if we can put a man on the moon, we ought to be able to solve the climate problem. To be honest that was an easy goal to achieve. First and foremost we did it essentially alone. The global warming challenge requires the cooperation of every country on the planet, something which has never happened before.

Our putting a man on the moon also didn’t require any special source of energy or concern for the wastes produced therefrom. To solve the global warming crisis will require a combination of drastic reductions in burning fossil fuels, massive improvements in energy efficiency to reduce demand and an expansion of sustainable non-carbon energy sources over an extremely short time scale, unprecedented in the history of mankind.

Some steps have been initiated in a few countries, most notably Western Europe, where several countries have moved aggressively to deploy wind and solar. On a good day Denmark can get 100 % of its electrical energy needs from wind. Germany is not particularly well situated for solar power yet in 2014 they produced over 6% of the electrical energy from solar PV panels. Even China is reacting. Their current 5-year plan has a goal of over 11% of energy needs from renewable sources. That’s some of the good news, the bad news is that it is not nearly enough.

If the countries could agree to reduce carbon emissions by 20% from the current scenario, over the next 50 years, it will only push back the time it takes to double the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by 10 years – from 2065 to 2075. Some countries such as those in western Europe have both the technological acumen and the political will to achieve that kind of a goal. Others like the US have the technology but as yet have not expressed the political will to take on the task. And finally much of the rest of the world has neither.

So where does that leave us? Eventually the planet with run out of energetically available fossil fuels, but it doesn’t look like curtailing their use will happen any time soon. Adapting to “a new world order” of the climate variety seems inevitable. If there is one thing we humans do well is adapt. As a species we are very young, but have come out of Africa and covered the globe, occupying every conceivable niche. From the frozen tundra to desiccated wastes of deserts. From lowland swamps to the tops of mountain ranges.

We will pull our cities back from the submerging coasts, and adapt our crops to the hotter regimen. But what about the rest of the biosphere? I suspect we will be adapting to a more biologically barren world.

Energy Subsidies

A significant argument against sustainable energy supplies such as wind and solar is that they are not cost competitive with fossil fuels without significant subsidies in the form of tax breaks. It is true that there are various subsidies that favor clean energy. Wind energy producers get a production tax credit and purchasers of solar energy production equipment get a purchase tax credit. There are even purchase credits for buying hybrid vehicles because of their greater energy efficiency.

The argument of course is that sustainable energy sources are the future and giving them a leg up with the competition moves us more in the direction of where we know the future is. Of equal importance is that these clean energy sources don’t contribute to the release of pollutants that impact our health and the stability of the planet’s climate.

If a level playing field is desired however, consideration must be made of the subsidies afforded the fossil fuel industries. And they are significant. Tax deductions abound.

Tax deductions to the oil and gas industry are given to lower the cost of intangible drilling costs. These deductions are for the costs associated with the development of the drilling site. The costs cannot be recovered if the well produces no oil or gas. The purpose was to lower the risk to investors and constitutes a considerable subsidy to wildcatters. Basically the tax payers take the risk but the oil and gas companies take the profits.

The depletion allowance is an especially sweet deal. It is a tax deduction based on the idea that exploiting a finite resource is costly because it goes away. The more successful one is at production, the less one has left to produce. This subsidizes the oil, gas, and coal industries by hastening the exploitation of limited resources. Tax payers assist the industry in profiting from exploiting a resource. Keep in mind that there is no depletion associated with extraction of energy from wind and solar resources.

Tax deductions for accelerated write-off of the expenses are afforded to the oil and gas industries, with respect to the costs of exploration for these resources. Tax payer money is used to assist these industries to find the resources from which they profit.

The arguments in favor of this corporate socialism is that if we lower the costs of exploration for and production of the energy sources, then we all benefit from lower costs; that is, the purchase prices for the fuels. This is more of the old trickle down economics.

The subsidies cited above are for tangible, direct costs. There are other costs born by taxpayers known as externalities. These include but are not limited to health care costs to individuals, insurers, and federal and state programs to help ameliorate these health costs. There also are indirect costs born by taxpayers for environmental degradation. Abandoned coal mines and spoils, polluted drill sites, and structural damage due to hydraulic fracturing all create costs born by tax payers. Finally there are near incalculable costs due to global climate change.

If we are to remove subsidies from clean, sustainable energy sources we need to do the same for those non-renewable, dirty industries. Then and only then will we truly level the playing field.