2010 has seen a number of efforts by renewable energy developers to position renewable energy as a bigger power player. Renewable energy proponents fought for the defeat of Proposition 23 in California during the November election. And most recently, renewable energy advocates gained the extension of Section 1603 (Treasury Grant Program).
Shortly before midnight on Dec. 16, the U.S. House approved the passage of a tax bill that includes a one-year extension of the grant program. The program was created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Section 1603) to provide commercial solar installations with a cash grant in lieu of the 30 percent solar investment tax credit (ITC). The extension was heralded by groups like the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).
“It took a year of tireless effort from the entire solar industry and our champions in Congress to get an extension of the 1603 program,” said Rhone Resch, CEO of SEIA.
“The inclusion of renewable energy in the tax bill is a clear indication of strong bipartisan support for the wind industry,” said Denise Bode, CEO of AWEA.
Renewable energy projects that start construction before Dec. 31, 2011 will receive a 30 percent cash grant. Since many renewable energy developers were in a holding pattern until the decision to “extend or not to extend” was made, some projects that were scheduled to start by the end of this year are now being corralled.
Borrego Solar, a developer based in San Diego, Calif., has benefitted from the increasing industry interest in solar investments bolstered by the Treasury Grant Program. Mike Hall, CEO, said the one-year extension is a relatively small victory but will allow projects more time for “baking.”
“I don’t think there will be a lot of projects that will fall out. This guarantees that the solar industry will grow in 2011 and 2012.”
Maria Schnitzer, director of solar services for AWS Truepower, a wind and solar forecasting company, said recently the company has seen continued activity in preconstruction site assessment, although it is “not as strong as in years past for wind.” However, activity in solar forecasting is increasing, she said. As a result of the Treasury Grant Program extension, Schnitzer said she expects to see more business in long term forecasting for the preconstruction phases and operational assessments for projects that are already in the ground.
The extension of the Treasury Grant Program is a victory with a bittersweet ending for most developers, as longer term extensions are needed to provide greater stability to the market.
“We would like to see a permanent commitment to renewable energy policy in the U.S.,” Schnitzer said.
“While the one-year extension is great, we need to find a longer extension,” Hall said.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
POWER-GEN International keynote address: Regaining industry-wide momentum
Conference and exhibition attendees streamed into the Valencia Ballroom of the Orlando Convention Center the morning of Dec. 14 for the kickoff session of POWER-GEN International 2010. The keynote address, “Regaining Momentum,” included presentations and a Q&A session with Dr. Terry Michalske, director of the Savannah River National Laboratory, Dr. René Umlauft, CEO of the renewable energy division for Siemens AG, Susan Tomasky, president of AEP Transmission, and David Fiorelli, president and CEO for the business development group at Tenaska.
With developing countries expected to drive energy demand and global carbon emissions in the upcoming decades, Michalske said nuclear must play a strong role in reducing emissions by 2050. An increasing portion of nuclear growth will be in the development of small modular reactors (SMRs), he said.
“Small modular reactors could be game-changing technology to take us to the new energy future,” Michalske said, asserting the benefits of SMRs: high efficiency, the ability to be monitored remotely, and a long fuel lifetime (up to 30 years).
One of the most important challenges in nuclear is getting through the regulatory approval for a carbon legislation, Michalske said. “It will take a concerted effort between the industry and government in order to move this forward.”
However, in 2009, 3 percent of worldwide generation came from renewable energy. That number is expected to rise to 17 percent by 2030, Siemens AG’s Umlauft said, with much of the increase coming from India and China. Half of renewable growth will come from wind power, 31 percent from solar, 15 percent from biomass, and 4 percent from geothermal and other sources, he said.
Umlauft said manufacturing wind turbines at a national level will create jobs and drive costs down, leading to the proposed jump in wind generation. A 20 to 30 percent reduction of onshore wind costs is expected in the next few years as a result of manufacturing changes.
While storage is often viewed as the “holy grail” of renewable energy development, Umlauft said other tools should be developed first. These tools include the creation of longer transmission lines, prediction methods for wind and solar and Smart Grid innovations.
Speaking on the need for transmission to help power generation companies regain a foothold in the economy, Tomasky of AEP Transmission said in her opening statements, “We are beginning to see the market of transmission as a business for building transmission.”
Transmission needs to be an important issue because of dramatic shifts in the generation profile that have taken place, the necessity to integrate electrically isolated large scale renewables, and the emissions control regulations that will require the retrofitting or retirement of some coal-fired plants, she said.
“Our present system is … ill-equipped to integrate large-scale renewable resources,” Tomasky said. “Renewable resources are often located in areas of the country where there is little or no transmission infrastructure.”
She said that wind generation presents a “chicken and egg issue”: Generators are hesitant to put transmission in place, and transmission is not often pursued until the generation is committed.
“Getting wind into the system requires a much more robust transmission system.”
Tomasky also said that while incentives for renewables may be uncertain, incentives for new technologies are most likely to survive. “Anything we can do to demonstrate to FERC that we’re building a smarter grid is an opportunity for return.”
Fiorelli spoke on the need for developing cleaner coal. Though the long-term effects of shale gas on gas prices are still unknown, it appears that prices and volatility of natural gas will continue to fall, he said. When combined with regulations concerns like the transport rule and rules for mercury, hazardous air pollutants and CO2, producers should begin looking towards clean coal options before being met with the possibility of detrimental outcomes for coal plants.
Tenaska has recently developed two integrated gas combined cycle (IGCC) plants, the Taylorville Energy Center in Taylorville, Ill., and the Trailblazer Energy Center, a PC plant with Fluor carbon capture technology to be located in west Texas.
During the Q&A session, Tenaska’s Fiorelli said productivity in policy-making seems to slow with every new election. “We need people to establish policy, write rules and regulations, and then get out of the way,” Fiorelli said.
Under greenhouse gas regulations, Fiorelli said, first movers could receive bonus allowances to support project economics even under low or moderate carbon price scenarios, adding to the incentives to move toward clean coal.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Hines Energy Complex: combustion turbines, cooling ponds and gators, oh my!
Technical tour attendees visited Progress Energy’s 1912-MW Hines Energy Complex located seven miles outside of Bartow, Fla. on Dec. 13. The complex has four combined cycle units fueled by gas and oil. The first unit began commercial operation in 1999 and subsequent units began operation in 2003, 2005 and 2007.
The construction of the complex was a 15-year project beginning in 1992 that took place on a reclaimed phosphate mining area. Aside from the construction of the four units, the size of the cooling ponds was increased from 722 acres to 1196 acres, and cooling towers were built.
Marty Drango, plant manager, noted that output from all of the turbines is greater during the winter months (by less than 100 MW) because combustion turbines depend on air density. Density is greater during winter months, especially in the humid Florida climate.
The cooling ponds onsite have required a good deal of maintenance, and plant operators estimate that 475,000 pounds of tilapia have been removed from the ponds. Fish are not the only creatures that have made appearances at the Hines Energy Complex. Progress Energy Florida rebuilt 1,500 acres of wildlife habitat on the formerly mined property adjacent to the Hines Energy Complex. In the process of rebuilding the habitat, Hines staff members have seen the return of alligators, bobcats, deer, hogs, eagles, ospreys, spoonbills and turkeys, among other animals. Hines Energy Complex management estimates as many as 2,000 alligators dwell in the cooling ponds.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Treasury Grant Program extension in Senate’s hands
Proponents of renewable energy have staked high hopes on the extension of the Treasury Grant Program, which has provided cash grants for renewable energy projects in lieu of the Investment Tax Credit (ITC). The cash grant program is set to expire at the end of this year, which has caused many renewable energy developers to become tentative about project planning.
All bets are on now after the Senate proposed a one-year extension of the program under the text of the tax bill introduced on Dec. 9, according to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). A cloture vote on the tax bill is scheduled for Dec. 13 at 3 p.m.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., led a group of 17 senators and 81 House members in calling for the Treasury's cash grant program to be included in tax legislation. In letters requesting the extension, senators and members of the House urged their leaders to renew the grant program, calling it essential to wind, solar and other renewable energy industries. Some senators said they would have difficulty supporting tax legislation that failed to include the Treasury Grant Program’s extension.
According to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), through February of 2010 the program had already financed over 300 solar projects and created more than 10,000 new jobs. In addition to dealing with the short term problem of the tax credit market, it has also allowed many small- and medium-sized businesses to take advantage of the cash subsidy without having to use the full ITC.
A study by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found the wind energy projects that were made possible by the Treasury Grant Program were responsible for more than 55,000 jobs.
"Factories across the country will restart production lines, recall workers and avoid layoffs that would have followed the loss of this key incentive for wind energy, which with consistent policies like this one can generate 20 percent of America's electricity within 20 years," Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association, said in a statement on Dec. 9.
All bets are on now after the Senate proposed a one-year extension of the program under the text of the tax bill introduced on Dec. 9, according to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). A cloture vote on the tax bill is scheduled for Dec. 13 at 3 p.m.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., led a group of 17 senators and 81 House members in calling for the Treasury's cash grant program to be included in tax legislation. In letters requesting the extension, senators and members of the House urged their leaders to renew the grant program, calling it essential to wind, solar and other renewable energy industries. Some senators said they would have difficulty supporting tax legislation that failed to include the Treasury Grant Program’s extension.
According to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), through February of 2010 the program had already financed over 300 solar projects and created more than 10,000 new jobs. In addition to dealing with the short term problem of the tax credit market, it has also allowed many small- and medium-sized businesses to take advantage of the cash subsidy without having to use the full ITC.
A study by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found the wind energy projects that were made possible by the Treasury Grant Program were responsible for more than 55,000 jobs.
"Factories across the country will restart production lines, recall workers and avoid layoffs that would have followed the loss of this key incentive for wind energy, which with consistent policies like this one can generate 20 percent of America's electricity within 20 years," Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association, said in a statement on Dec. 9.
Friday, November 19, 2010
A mission to fight emissions non-compliance
Dr. Sue Tierney, former Massachusetts state regulator and Department of Energy official, is set on waking up some in the power industry from a sluggish state. Tierney’s mission is to show the industry that compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations should not be delayed.
Tierney is also lead author of a reliability report, Ensuring a Clean, Modern Electric Generating Fleet while Maintaining Electric System Reliability, a gathering of information on the industry’s readiness for compliance.
According to two July 2010 studies by the Energy Information Administration, the combination of low energy prices and EPA air regulations could result in the retirements of between 25 to 40 GW of the nation’s 1,030 GW of electric generating capacity. Although some plants may be retired, Tierney’s report found that approximately half of the nation’s coal-fired generating capacity (150 GW) has already installed SO2 scrubbers, another 55 GW plan to install scrubbers and a significant number of coal units have already announced plans to retire. That necessitates one-fourth of the nation’s coal-fired generation to add pollution controls, switch to a cleaner fuel or retire.
Despite all of the changes needed to be made on units in the next few years as a result of the air, coal ash rules and water rules, Tierney is confident that the electric industry is prepared to meet the challenge. Her reliability report found that each North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) reliability region has excess capacity, totaling over 100 GW of excess capacity nationwide. In fact, between 2001 and 2003, the electric industry built over 160 GW of new generation – about four times what analysts project will retire over the next five years. Therefore, even if projected retirement scenarios prove accurate, the likelihood of capacity shortages is slim, Tierney said.
Tierney’s platform is that the electric industry is well-positioned to respond to emissions regulations, with commercially available NOx, SO2, mercury and acid gas control technologies. Many coal plants have already been fitted with scrubbers: Between 2008 to 2010, approximately 60 GW of coal capacity was installed with scrubbers, with the industry completing more than 50 scrubber retrofits each year, the report found. Tierney said those in the industry who are delaying do so out of an impression that tarrying will be to their financial benefit.
“The friends of delay could create the very problem they’re saying they don’t want to have happen by getting everyone on the delay bandwagon. Then people won’t start to make decisions and figuring out how they’re going to comply soon enough,” Tierney said.
Among the many rules that EPA is addressing, the transport rule for SOx and NOx and the hazardous air rules for mercury are under court order under existing law for power plants to implement necessary changes, Tierney said. “I think debating whether that is worthy of considered delay is a tactic which would have unfortunate consequences.”
However, the EPA has much more discretion over the water rules, which will determine what kind of cooling system changes if any need to be made at existing plants. Tierney said those rules may be worthy of considering delay.
Tierney said emissions regulations are just one set of the many rules that the industry has responded to over the last 30 years. “Simultaneously we’ve been able to afford keeping the lights on and providing relatively affordable electricity supply.”
While Tierney is confident that the emissions adjustments are doable, some in the industry argue that time and money spent on control technology implementation are time and money taken away from research and development. Tierney, however, said she has witnessed many experiences in which government requirements have stimulated problem solving and innovation in response to compliance requirements. In addition, “From an industry point of view, the folks who work on R&D are not the folks who work on the engineering of solutions.”
Tierney’s standpoint is that the electric sector is well-positioned to respond to EPA’s mission to “help millions of Americans breathe easier and live healthier” without threatening electric reliability. “With economic costs, there will also be economic benefits related to health as well as investment/construction stimulus.”
She said that industry studies that raise the spotlight on reliability issues do not typically incorporate assumptions about how the market will respond and therefore are not necessarily sound pictures of what will occur. Existing substantial excess capacity, the electric industry’s proven track record to timely construct new generation and to efficiently coordinate the scheduling of planned outages, together with transmission enhancements, smart grid investments, fuel conversions, relatively low gas prices and demand-side actions should mitigate reliability and cost concerns, Tierney said.
“As a final backstop, existing statutory, market and regulatory safeguards will facilitate the retirement of inefficient units, and an orderly transition to cleaner, more efficient generation.”
Click here to read the entire report (PDF) co-authored by Dr. Tierney.
Tierney is also lead author of a reliability report, Ensuring a Clean, Modern Electric Generating Fleet while Maintaining Electric System Reliability, a gathering of information on the industry’s readiness for compliance.
According to two July 2010 studies by the Energy Information Administration, the combination of low energy prices and EPA air regulations could result in the retirements of between 25 to 40 GW of the nation’s 1,030 GW of electric generating capacity. Although some plants may be retired, Tierney’s report found that approximately half of the nation’s coal-fired generating capacity (150 GW) has already installed SO2 scrubbers, another 55 GW plan to install scrubbers and a significant number of coal units have already announced plans to retire. That necessitates one-fourth of the nation’s coal-fired generation to add pollution controls, switch to a cleaner fuel or retire.
Despite all of the changes needed to be made on units in the next few years as a result of the air, coal ash rules and water rules, Tierney is confident that the electric industry is prepared to meet the challenge. Her reliability report found that each North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) reliability region has excess capacity, totaling over 100 GW of excess capacity nationwide. In fact, between 2001 and 2003, the electric industry built over 160 GW of new generation – about four times what analysts project will retire over the next five years. Therefore, even if projected retirement scenarios prove accurate, the likelihood of capacity shortages is slim, Tierney said.
Tierney’s platform is that the electric industry is well-positioned to respond to emissions regulations, with commercially available NOx, SO2, mercury and acid gas control technologies. Many coal plants have already been fitted with scrubbers: Between 2008 to 2010, approximately 60 GW of coal capacity was installed with scrubbers, with the industry completing more than 50 scrubber retrofits each year, the report found. Tierney said those in the industry who are delaying do so out of an impression that tarrying will be to their financial benefit.
“The friends of delay could create the very problem they’re saying they don’t want to have happen by getting everyone on the delay bandwagon. Then people won’t start to make decisions and figuring out how they’re going to comply soon enough,” Tierney said.
Among the many rules that EPA is addressing, the transport rule for SOx and NOx and the hazardous air rules for mercury are under court order under existing law for power plants to implement necessary changes, Tierney said. “I think debating whether that is worthy of considered delay is a tactic which would have unfortunate consequences.”
However, the EPA has much more discretion over the water rules, which will determine what kind of cooling system changes if any need to be made at existing plants. Tierney said those rules may be worthy of considering delay.
Tierney said emissions regulations are just one set of the many rules that the industry has responded to over the last 30 years. “Simultaneously we’ve been able to afford keeping the lights on and providing relatively affordable electricity supply.”
While Tierney is confident that the emissions adjustments are doable, some in the industry argue that time and money spent on control technology implementation are time and money taken away from research and development. Tierney, however, said she has witnessed many experiences in which government requirements have stimulated problem solving and innovation in response to compliance requirements. In addition, “From an industry point of view, the folks who work on R&D are not the folks who work on the engineering of solutions.”
Tierney’s standpoint is that the electric sector is well-positioned to respond to EPA’s mission to “help millions of Americans breathe easier and live healthier” without threatening electric reliability. “With economic costs, there will also be economic benefits related to health as well as investment/construction stimulus.”
She said that industry studies that raise the spotlight on reliability issues do not typically incorporate assumptions about how the market will respond and therefore are not necessarily sound pictures of what will occur. Existing substantial excess capacity, the electric industry’s proven track record to timely construct new generation and to efficiently coordinate the scheduling of planned outages, together with transmission enhancements, smart grid investments, fuel conversions, relatively low gas prices and demand-side actions should mitigate reliability and cost concerns, Tierney said.
“As a final backstop, existing statutory, market and regulatory safeguards will facilitate the retirement of inefficient units, and an orderly transition to cleaner, more efficient generation.”
Click here to read the entire report (PDF) co-authored by Dr. Tierney.
Monday, November 15, 2010
What Lame Ducks May Do for Power
Congress started lame-duck sessions this week, will take next week off for Thanksgiving and reconvene on Nov. 29. The final date of adjournment will be determined by how much Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi attempt to accomplish, and how willing Republicans are to pass legislation.
What is expected to happen during lame-duck that will leave its mark on energy? The renewable electricity standard (RES), which was originally included in the broad energy bill that passed out of the Energy Committee last summer, was once believed to become part of the Senate climate bill this year. But when those talks failed last summer, Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman and Kansas GOP Sen. Sam Brownback introduced the RES measure as a stand-alone bill. Since then, they have been working to obtain the 60 votes needed to move it to the floor. So far, 31 additional co-sponsors have signed on.
Even if Bingaman and Brownback find 60 supporters, politics of the lame-duck legislative session may keep the measure off the floor. “We do know energy does not top the to-do list,” Bingaman spokesman Bill Wicker told The New York Times.
Of course the renewable energy industry holds on to the hope that the Treasury Grant Program (1603) will be extended beyond Dec. 31, 2010 and that the extension will be established during lame duck. An Oct. 25 memo from White House climate adviser Carol Browner, National Economic Council Director Larry Summers and Vice President Joe Biden’s chief of staff Ron Klain suggests that stimulus money for the renewable energy loan guarantee program be moved into the 1603 program.
“A 2-year extension of the 1603 grant program through the sunset of the associated tax credits has a $2.5 billion tax score. The Administration could work with Congress during the lame duck on the tax extenders bill to reprogram the 1705 funds to pay for the 1603 extensions” or other “clean energy priorities,” the memo said.
But does taking away from the renewable energy loan guarantee program and moving it into 1603 funding equate to taking a cookie away from a child and giving him a Snickers bar instead? Is “musical chairs” funding the answer? Or will the renewable energy industry develop best when faced with consistency in terms of government funding and incentives?
What happens during lame duck in the next two weeks could change things for the power industry, but mostly in moderation.
What is expected to happen during lame-duck that will leave its mark on energy? The renewable electricity standard (RES), which was originally included in the broad energy bill that passed out of the Energy Committee last summer, was once believed to become part of the Senate climate bill this year. But when those talks failed last summer, Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman and Kansas GOP Sen. Sam Brownback introduced the RES measure as a stand-alone bill. Since then, they have been working to obtain the 60 votes needed to move it to the floor. So far, 31 additional co-sponsors have signed on.
Even if Bingaman and Brownback find 60 supporters, politics of the lame-duck legislative session may keep the measure off the floor. “We do know energy does not top the to-do list,” Bingaman spokesman Bill Wicker told The New York Times.
Of course the renewable energy industry holds on to the hope that the Treasury Grant Program (1603) will be extended beyond Dec. 31, 2010 and that the extension will be established during lame duck. An Oct. 25 memo from White House climate adviser Carol Browner, National Economic Council Director Larry Summers and Vice President Joe Biden’s chief of staff Ron Klain suggests that stimulus money for the renewable energy loan guarantee program be moved into the 1603 program.
“A 2-year extension of the 1603 grant program through the sunset of the associated tax credits has a $2.5 billion tax score. The Administration could work with Congress during the lame duck on the tax extenders bill to reprogram the 1705 funds to pay for the 1603 extensions” or other “clean energy priorities,” the memo said.
But does taking away from the renewable energy loan guarantee program and moving it into 1603 funding equate to taking a cookie away from a child and giving him a Snickers bar instead? Is “musical chairs” funding the answer? Or will the renewable energy industry develop best when faced with consistency in terms of government funding and incentives?
What happens during lame duck in the next two weeks could change things for the power industry, but mostly in moderation.
Friday, November 5, 2010
The Big ?: The Future of Wind Energy
Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), said during a Nov. 5 webcast that the main issues for wind energy development in 2011 will be the extension of Section 1603, or the Treasury Grant Program (TGP) and the creation of a federal Renewable Electricity Standard (RES).
As a result of the TGP, 40,000 U.S. wind energy jobs were saved and 10,000 MW of new wind power came onto the grid in 2009, Bode said. However, wind energy progress could be imperiled through the potential Dec. 31, 2010 TGP start date expiration.
“The Treasury Grant Program has been successful at keeping American jobs from going overseas,” Bode said. “Policies like these are exactly what the industry needs in order to keep wind growing and to regain our position as a global leader.”
Bode said she is hopeful at the prospect of an extension after hearing of an internal White House memo circulated on Nov. 4, 2010 in which administration officials discussed the program’s extension.
While 2009 was a year of growth for wind energy, 2010 has told a different story. Installations for the first three quarters of 2010 are down 72 percent from last year. U.S. power plant developers added 395 megawatts of wind power in the third quarter, the slowest growth since 2007.
Elizabeth Salerno, director of industry data and analysis for AWEA, said 5,000 MW of total wind installations are expected by year end 2010. This number is dependent largely on whether the TGP start date is extended through the end of 2012. If it is, then many project start dates are expected to be pushed back to 2011 or 2012. If it is not extended, then developers will likely rush to start projects in the fourth quarter of 2010.
In 2010, Oregon added the most wind capacity of any state, and Delaware made it on the list of 37 states with wind generation. The top three wind producing states are Texas, Iowa and California.
Bode said AWEA looks forward to working with Congress and Senate to progress policies for renewables, citing Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Rep. Jerry Moran of Kansas, Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware and Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut as some of the key proponents for wind energy. Bode said a RES is a key to the growth of the wind energy industry, but it may be molded into a clean energy standard, combining renewables with fossil fuel generation.
“If you include those other resources and turn it into a clean energy standard, you have to make sure the renewables are highlighted and diversified,” Bode said.
To date in 2010, 40 percent of new generation has come from coal and only 13 percent from wind. In contrast, wind made up 39 percent of new generation in 2009, almost matching the growth of natural gas, and coal took 13 percent.
While policy will be the key player for U.S. wind growth in 2011, technology developers continue to move forward, with internal manufacturing efforts increasing. Bode said wind is the fastest growing manufacturing sector in the country, having increased domestic content from 25 to 50 percent in the last few years.
In addition, wind energy technologies are branching into offshore developments. In October, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar signed the first lease for commercial offshore wind energy, which would make Cape Wind on Nantucket Sound the first wind farm on the Outer Continental Shelf. Another handful of offshore wind projects are being considered off the coasts of Delaware, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maine, and even Ohio, in Lake Erie.
Bode said the signing of the first offshore lease was historic when taking into consideration how profitable offshore oil and gas leases have been for decades.
What will happen with wind energy in 2011? That question continues to loom over the renewable energy industry.
“The post-2010 world of wind energy is filled with question marks because we don’t know where the economy or policies are going to land,” Salerno said. “All of these factors really push around the growth in wind.”
As a result of the TGP, 40,000 U.S. wind energy jobs were saved and 10,000 MW of new wind power came onto the grid in 2009, Bode said. However, wind energy progress could be imperiled through the potential Dec. 31, 2010 TGP start date expiration.
“The Treasury Grant Program has been successful at keeping American jobs from going overseas,” Bode said. “Policies like these are exactly what the industry needs in order to keep wind growing and to regain our position as a global leader.”
Bode said she is hopeful at the prospect of an extension after hearing of an internal White House memo circulated on Nov. 4, 2010 in which administration officials discussed the program’s extension.
While 2009 was a year of growth for wind energy, 2010 has told a different story. Installations for the first three quarters of 2010 are down 72 percent from last year. U.S. power plant developers added 395 megawatts of wind power in the third quarter, the slowest growth since 2007.
Elizabeth Salerno, director of industry data and analysis for AWEA, said 5,000 MW of total wind installations are expected by year end 2010. This number is dependent largely on whether the TGP start date is extended through the end of 2012. If it is, then many project start dates are expected to be pushed back to 2011 or 2012. If it is not extended, then developers will likely rush to start projects in the fourth quarter of 2010.
In 2010, Oregon added the most wind capacity of any state, and Delaware made it on the list of 37 states with wind generation. The top three wind producing states are Texas, Iowa and California.
Bode said AWEA looks forward to working with Congress and Senate to progress policies for renewables, citing Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Rep. Jerry Moran of Kansas, Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware and Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut as some of the key proponents for wind energy. Bode said a RES is a key to the growth of the wind energy industry, but it may be molded into a clean energy standard, combining renewables with fossil fuel generation.
“If you include those other resources and turn it into a clean energy standard, you have to make sure the renewables are highlighted and diversified,” Bode said.
To date in 2010, 40 percent of new generation has come from coal and only 13 percent from wind. In contrast, wind made up 39 percent of new generation in 2009, almost matching the growth of natural gas, and coal took 13 percent.
While policy will be the key player for U.S. wind growth in 2011, technology developers continue to move forward, with internal manufacturing efforts increasing. Bode said wind is the fastest growing manufacturing sector in the country, having increased domestic content from 25 to 50 percent in the last few years.
In addition, wind energy technologies are branching into offshore developments. In October, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar signed the first lease for commercial offshore wind energy, which would make Cape Wind on Nantucket Sound the first wind farm on the Outer Continental Shelf. Another handful of offshore wind projects are being considered off the coasts of Delaware, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maine, and even Ohio, in Lake Erie.
Bode said the signing of the first offshore lease was historic when taking into consideration how profitable offshore oil and gas leases have been for decades.
What will happen with wind energy in 2011? That question continues to loom over the renewable energy industry.
“The post-2010 world of wind energy is filled with question marks because we don’t know where the economy or policies are going to land,” Salerno said. “All of these factors really push around the growth in wind.”
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Californians Mark the Ballot for Renewable Energy: The Defeat of Proposition 23
In what is being considered the largest public vote on clean energy policy in U.S. history, Proposition 23 was defeated yesterday by approximately 60 percent of California voters. Proponents of climate law AB 32, which would have been suspended if Proposition 23 had passed, are saying this sends a clear message to state and federal leaders that even during a major economic downtown in a state with one of the nation’s highest unemployment rates, voters want a clean energy future.
Wade Crowfoot, West Coast political director for the Environmental Defense Fund, said the defeat of Proposition 23 is an undeniable win for renewable energy. “Californians actually recognize that the clean energy economy is expanding around them. Voters didn’t buy scare tactics that somehow clean energy costs jobs.”
Opposition to Proposition 23 came from beyond the realm of typical clean energy supporters, garnering support from Republicans, including California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz, and Democrats, including President Barack Obama, California Senator Barbara Boxer and Attorney General Jerry Brown. Hundreds of businesses rallied to oppose the proposition, from Fortune 500 companies to small businesses, including the organization Small Business California. Other California organizations in opposition to Proposition 23 included the American Lung Association in California, California Professional Firefighters, AARP, California Nurses Association, the California Democratic Party, National Venture Capital Association, the California Solar Energy Industries Association and California Wind Energy Association.
“This proposition saw opposition from everyone from military leaders to religious leaders,” Crowfoot said.
While Proposition 23 was aimed at California’s unemployment rate, opponents of the proposition said it would have jeopardized the jobs of over 500,000 Californians employed in renewable energy, a rapidly growing job market. Since the implementation of AB 32, California has garnered over $9 billion of private investment capital, a market that a ‘yes’ on Proposition 23 would have been endangered, said rivals of the proposition.
“The defeat of Proposition 23 tells Congress that the largest state in the Union that represents the eighth largest economy in the world is a cornerstone of economic recovery, and that Californians view clean energy as part of the solution,” Crowfoot said.
Tom Rooney, president and CEO of SPG Solar, said California has become a “consistent, predictable market for solar,” and the passing of Proposition 23 could have derailed that stability. While Rooney was on a trip to China two months ago, he met a solar developer who was planning on building a $100 million solar facility in California after deciding that California was the most durable solar market in the U.S. and globally. Rooney said the passing of Proposition 23 would have caused global solar companies developing in the U.S. to second guess themselves about the market stability.
He said that solar is a huge bolster to economies worldwide, particularly Germany. However, countries like Spain that have dabbled in solar, only to later change renewable energy policies, “have waffled.”
The defeat of Proposition 23 shows that the average Californian is aware of the benefits spurred by renewable energy, Rooney said.
“Voters are figuring out that investing in renewable energy equals job creation, fiscal responsibility, energy independence and environmental benefits.”
While Proposition 23 may have given some California renewable developers a scare, Rooney said that in the end, it benefitted renewable energy. “Proposition 23 got people talking about renewable energy, and if the grassroots’ population is talking about an issue, enormous power comes out of that.”
Wade Crowfoot, West Coast political director for the Environmental Defense Fund, said the defeat of Proposition 23 is an undeniable win for renewable energy. “Californians actually recognize that the clean energy economy is expanding around them. Voters didn’t buy scare tactics that somehow clean energy costs jobs.”
Opposition to Proposition 23 came from beyond the realm of typical clean energy supporters, garnering support from Republicans, including California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz, and Democrats, including President Barack Obama, California Senator Barbara Boxer and Attorney General Jerry Brown. Hundreds of businesses rallied to oppose the proposition, from Fortune 500 companies to small businesses, including the organization Small Business California. Other California organizations in opposition to Proposition 23 included the American Lung Association in California, California Professional Firefighters, AARP, California Nurses Association, the California Democratic Party, National Venture Capital Association, the California Solar Energy Industries Association and California Wind Energy Association.
“This proposition saw opposition from everyone from military leaders to religious leaders,” Crowfoot said.
While Proposition 23 was aimed at California’s unemployment rate, opponents of the proposition said it would have jeopardized the jobs of over 500,000 Californians employed in renewable energy, a rapidly growing job market. Since the implementation of AB 32, California has garnered over $9 billion of private investment capital, a market that a ‘yes’ on Proposition 23 would have been endangered, said rivals of the proposition.
“The defeat of Proposition 23 tells Congress that the largest state in the Union that represents the eighth largest economy in the world is a cornerstone of economic recovery, and that Californians view clean energy as part of the solution,” Crowfoot said.
Tom Rooney, president and CEO of SPG Solar, said California has become a “consistent, predictable market for solar,” and the passing of Proposition 23 could have derailed that stability. While Rooney was on a trip to China two months ago, he met a solar developer who was planning on building a $100 million solar facility in California after deciding that California was the most durable solar market in the U.S. and globally. Rooney said the passing of Proposition 23 would have caused global solar companies developing in the U.S. to second guess themselves about the market stability.
He said that solar is a huge bolster to economies worldwide, particularly Germany. However, countries like Spain that have dabbled in solar, only to later change renewable energy policies, “have waffled.”
The defeat of Proposition 23 shows that the average Californian is aware of the benefits spurred by renewable energy, Rooney said.
“Voters are figuring out that investing in renewable energy equals job creation, fiscal responsibility, energy independence and environmental benefits.”
While Proposition 23 may have given some California renewable developers a scare, Rooney said that in the end, it benefitted renewable energy. “Proposition 23 got people talking about renewable energy, and if the grassroots’ population is talking about an issue, enormous power comes out of that.”
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Polls, Projections and Policies
With elections and emissions deadlines just around the corner, looming policies are enough to leave one’s head spinning at the end of the day. Here is a breakdown of a few of the top power-related policy issues:
*Proposition 23 – will it or won’t it pass on Tuesday? The results will shape the future of renewable energy in California.
*Future chairmen of committees related to renewable energy and emissions control – If Republicans take the House, two important seats to watch will be the new chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and the new chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
*Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulations – The first ever GHG regulations from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are set to go into effect Jan. 2, 2011. Several states stand in strong opposition to the regulations, Texas being the ringleader.
Proposition 23
If Proposition 23 passes on Tuesday, the renewable energy future of California will be greatly altered, at least for the time being. Proposition 23 has been created to suspend A.B. 32, a law that requires cutting carbon and other greenhouse emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 by mandating power companies to cap their emissions and by slashing carbon in gasoline. Proposition 23 would keep the full law from going into effect in 2012 until California's unemployment falls to 5.5 percent or lower for at least four consecutive quarters. Since that has happened just three times over the last 40 years, the passing of the proposition could effectually kill A.B. 32.
On Oct. 27, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger rallied against Proposition 23 and its supporters on World News with Diane Sawyer, accusing Washington D.C. of backing oil companies and calling politicians “wimps” with “no guts.”
“Our soldiers, our men and women who go to Iraq and Afghanistan, and they’re risking their lives to defend this country and you’re not even willing to stand up against the oil companies,” Schwarzenegger said. “That’s disgusting. You promised the people to represent them. You didn’t promise the people to represent the oil companies.”
According to a poll conducted Oct. 10-17 by the Public Policy Institute of California, or PPIC, 48 percent say they will vote against the measure and 37 percent say they will vote for it.
Schwarzenegger said that if Proposition 23 is shot down, it will be “one of the first times big oil has been defeated.”
New Chairmen
If Republicans take the House, a line of relatively young legislators who may be more willing to cut a deal than their predecessors will be handling the future of energy policy. One of the potential incumbent chairmen is Dave Camp (R-MI), in line to lead the House Means and Ways Committee. As the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and other renewable associations push for tax incentives, the relationship with this committee will continue to prove imperative.
Camp is the current top Republican on the Ways and Means Committee. His Michigan District 4 is home to a number of wind and solar manufacturers, such as Dow Chemical, Dow Corning and United Solar Ovonic. Though a self-proclaimed supporter of alternative energy, Camp believes “it takes today’s energy to power tomorrow’s technology,” as he said in the April 14, 2010 Hearing on Energy Tax Incentives Driving the Green Job Economy.
“You cannot increase the cost of producing 85 percent of the energy being used today and expect consumers or employers to benefit from tax incentives that are going to less than 10 percent of the energy being used today,” Camp said.
For a full profile on Rep. Camp, check RenewableEnergyWorld.com on Nov. 3.
In the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Joe Barton (R-TX) is looking to reclaim his position as chairman. However, GOP leaders are looking to keep Barton out of that position, while still unclear on where to put him.
The potential replacement for Barton is Fred Upton (R-MI).
"I'm not running against Joe,” Upton told POLITICO. “I want to be the post-Joe guy. If he doesn't get a waiver, I'm in the hunt.”
“Should Republicans get the gavel, rigorous oversight of the EPA will be a top priority,” Upton said in a statement to POLITICO. “Federal agencies have overstepped their authority and have not been held accountable. No significant regulation should take effect until Congress has thoroughly reviewed and voted to approve or disapprove.”
However, if Camp does become the next Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, it is questionable if the Republican leadership will allow two Members from Michigan to lead two very powerful committees.
GHG Regulations
States are split over the EPA’s Jan. 2, 2011 implementation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions regulations from stationary sources under provisions of the Clean Air Act. Currently, 37 states have taken sides in a court battle for or against the EPA rules. Click here to read more about the regulations.
Since these regulations are EPA-implemented, not Congressionally-implemented, their authority is limited by the structure of the Clean Air Act, meaning regulations cannot be imposed economy-wide. Many of the states are opposed to the regulations, but EPA says they must comply by coming up with a state implementation plan (SIP), or allow EPA to take over temporarily. Texas is currently the only state without a plan to either issue a SIP to EPA or allow the EPA to create a plan for them.
Texas legislators have focused much attention on the “endangerment finding” in which the EPA concluded that greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health and welfare, saying that the agency should have rethought its endangerment finding after the discovery of errors in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as well as the controversy over leaked emails from climate researchers at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Just Who Is Saying "No" To Proposition 23?
Oct. 13, 2010 -
Supporters of renewable energy are emerging to champion the "no" campaign to California's Proposition 23 amidst worries of the future for the renewables industry in California. On Sept. 27, I wrote about the California renewables' tug-of-war. Will California continue to be the forerunner in the U.S. when it comes to the development of renewable energy, or will Proposition 23 pass, slowing down that ship?
On Nov. 2, Californians will vote on Proposition 23, which has been created to suspend A.B. 32, a law that requires cutting carbon and other greenhouse emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 by mandating power companies to cap their emissions and by slashing carbon in gasoline. Proposition 23 would keep the law from going into effect in 2012 until California's unemployment falls to 5.5 percent or lower for at least four consecutive quarters. Since that has happened just three times over the last 40 years, the passing of the proposition could effectually kill A.B. 32.
About 74 percent of the "Yes" campaign contributions for Proposition 23 have come from oil companies Tesoro and Valero, and Flint Hills Resources, the petrochemical company owned by Kansas billionaires Charles and David Koch, according to campaign records.
But just 20 days before the election, foes of the proposition have spent twice as much as the backers on campaigning efforts. However, Steven Maviglio, a spokesman for the main "No" campaign, told The New York Times that he expects the "Yes" campaign to "drop of nuclear bomb" of campaigning in the coming weeks.
Many of the main contributors to the "No" campaign are involved in renewable developments of some sort. Wendy Schmidt, a philanthropist and wife of Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, has donated $500,000. Google made renewable energy headlines with the Oct. 11 announcement that it will spend $5 billion on an underwater transmission network that will harvest electricity from wind farms off the Mid-Atlantic coast and power 1.9 million homes across Virginia, New York and New Jersey.
Members of San Francisco’s Fisher family, founders of the Gap clothing chain, have donated more than $ 1 million. Gap Inc. has its own social responsibility campaign, which includes an environmental segment that teaches people how to lessen their environmental footprint. The company also makes its annual energy consumption numbers public information through its web site.
Foes of Proposition 23 are abounding at the same time that nationwide expectancy of renewables growth, particularly solar, is all abuzz.
A solar jobs census conducted by The Solar Foundation with the help of Cornell University tallied 93,000 solar power industry jobs in the United States as of August, and projects industry job growth of 26 percent in 2011. According to the survey's results, roughly half of solar employers plan to add employees next year, compared with just 2 percent for private industry economy-wide.
Will California supporters of renewables and the public's belief and expectations in clean energy put an end to Proposition 23? Nov. 2 will tell.
Supporters of renewable energy are emerging to champion the "no" campaign to California's Proposition 23 amidst worries of the future for the renewables industry in California. On Sept. 27, I wrote about the California renewables' tug-of-war. Will California continue to be the forerunner in the U.S. when it comes to the development of renewable energy, or will Proposition 23 pass, slowing down that ship?
On Nov. 2, Californians will vote on Proposition 23, which has been created to suspend A.B. 32, a law that requires cutting carbon and other greenhouse emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 by mandating power companies to cap their emissions and by slashing carbon in gasoline. Proposition 23 would keep the law from going into effect in 2012 until California's unemployment falls to 5.5 percent or lower for at least four consecutive quarters. Since that has happened just three times over the last 40 years, the passing of the proposition could effectually kill A.B. 32.
About 74 percent of the "Yes" campaign contributions for Proposition 23 have come from oil companies Tesoro and Valero, and Flint Hills Resources, the petrochemical company owned by Kansas billionaires Charles and David Koch, according to campaign records.
But just 20 days before the election, foes of the proposition have spent twice as much as the backers on campaigning efforts. However, Steven Maviglio, a spokesman for the main "No" campaign, told The New York Times that he expects the "Yes" campaign to "drop of nuclear bomb" of campaigning in the coming weeks.
Many of the main contributors to the "No" campaign are involved in renewable developments of some sort. Wendy Schmidt, a philanthropist and wife of Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, has donated $500,000. Google made renewable energy headlines with the Oct. 11 announcement that it will spend $5 billion on an underwater transmission network that will harvest electricity from wind farms off the Mid-Atlantic coast and power 1.9 million homes across Virginia, New York and New Jersey.
Members of San Francisco’s Fisher family, founders of the Gap clothing chain, have donated more than $ 1 million. Gap Inc. has its own social responsibility campaign, which includes an environmental segment that teaches people how to lessen their environmental footprint. The company also makes its annual energy consumption numbers public information through its web site.
Foes of Proposition 23 are abounding at the same time that nationwide expectancy of renewables growth, particularly solar, is all abuzz.
A solar jobs census conducted by The Solar Foundation with the help of Cornell University tallied 93,000 solar power industry jobs in the United States as of August, and projects industry job growth of 26 percent in 2011. According to the survey's results, roughly half of solar employers plan to add employees next year, compared with just 2 percent for private industry economy-wide.
Will California supporters of renewables and the public's belief and expectations in clean energy put an end to Proposition 23? Nov. 2 will tell.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
10:10:10 And Why It's Scary
Oct. 5, 2010-
I recently read an article heralding each day in October to be a celebration, working up to the month's climax on Halloween. For carbon emissions slashers, it looks like the climax of October will hit early this year, with 10:10:10 consecrated as a day to reduce carbon emissions via a UK-based initiative.
10:10:10 is being dubbed "a global day of doing." The group is encouraging people to cut carbon emissions by 10 percent on 10:10:10. "From sumo wrestlers cycling to training in Japan to 10,000 schools planting trees in Croatia and Russia, from a carbon-cutting telethon on national TV in the Netherlands, to hundreds of people in the UK sitting down to low-carbon Sunday lunches, this is going to be a really inspirational day," says the web site. The site also offers a number of suggestions on how to have a carbon-free day.
While all of this is surely in good intentions, 10:10:10, a "young and creative team," according to the web site, released a video on their web site about cutting carbon "which was supposed to be humourous but in the event upset a lot of people." The premise of the video (no joke) is, "Cut Carbon Emissions, Or We Will Kill You. No Pressure." Out of good taste, I won't link to it, but if you really want to see the video, you can search for it on brandchannel.com.
The video has gained so much negative feedback that the 10:10:10 pulled it from their web site and issued an apology.
Global iniatives to go green and cut carbon emissions seem to be growing in popularity. Events like 10:10:10 have their place in raising awareness, but not much long-term effectiveness. Some people may ride their bikes instead of driving for one day and be successful at cutting emissions by 10 percent for that one day.
But anyone in the power industry knows that lasting change in cutting emissions comes through years of research and development and investments in clean air technology. Our October issue of Power Engineering magazine will feature an article on clean air technology methods, particularly flue gas desulfurization (FGD) units. Some of these units are capable of SO2 removal efficiencies up to 98 percent.
Now that's real emissions slashing.
I recently read an article heralding each day in October to be a celebration, working up to the month's climax on Halloween. For carbon emissions slashers, it looks like the climax of October will hit early this year, with 10:10:10 consecrated as a day to reduce carbon emissions via a UK-based initiative.
10:10:10 is being dubbed "a global day of doing." The group is encouraging people to cut carbon emissions by 10 percent on 10:10:10. "From sumo wrestlers cycling to training in Japan to 10,000 schools planting trees in Croatia and Russia, from a carbon-cutting telethon on national TV in the Netherlands, to hundreds of people in the UK sitting down to low-carbon Sunday lunches, this is going to be a really inspirational day," says the web site. The site also offers a number of suggestions on how to have a carbon-free day.
While all of this is surely in good intentions, 10:10:10, a "young and creative team," according to the web site, released a video on their web site about cutting carbon "which was supposed to be humourous but in the event upset a lot of people." The premise of the video (no joke) is, "Cut Carbon Emissions, Or We Will Kill You. No Pressure." Out of good taste, I won't link to it, but if you really want to see the video, you can search for it on brandchannel.com.
The video has gained so much negative feedback that the 10:10:10 pulled it from their web site and issued an apology.
Global iniatives to go green and cut carbon emissions seem to be growing in popularity. Events like 10:10:10 have their place in raising awareness, but not much long-term effectiveness. Some people may ride their bikes instead of driving for one day and be successful at cutting emissions by 10 percent for that one day.
But anyone in the power industry knows that lasting change in cutting emissions comes through years of research and development and investments in clean air technology. Our October issue of Power Engineering magazine will feature an article on clean air technology methods, particularly flue gas desulfurization (FGD) units. Some of these units are capable of SO2 removal efficiencies up to 98 percent.
Now that's real emissions slashing.
Monday, September 27, 2010
California Enters the Renewables Tug-Of-War
Sept. 27, 2010 -
On Sept. 23, the California Air Resources Board approved regulations requiring utilities to obtain a third of their power from alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal in 10 years. California now gets nearly 14 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, and the state is pushing utilities to reach a 20-percent-renewable energy standard by next year.
At a time when some legislators are pulling for the developments of renewable energy, a ballot initiative known as Proposition 23 is tugging in the opposite direction. In a state with a 12.4-percent unemployment rate, the debate over whether a renewable energy standard will create or kill jobs has been heated. The tug-of-war for renewables’ future in California – and possibly nationwide – is on full force.
A.B. 32, the 2006-implimented law in question, requires cutting carbon and other greenhouse emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 by mandating power companies to cap their emissions and by slashing carbon in gasoline. Some oil industry leaders said it would necessitate investing millions of dollars to comply, forcing companies to cut jobs and raise the price of gas at the pumps.
On Nov. 2, Californians will vote on Proposition 23, which has been created to suspend the law from going into effect in 2012 until state unemployment falls to 5.5 percent or lower for at least four consecutive quarters. Since that has happened just three times over the last 40 years, the passing of the proposition could effectually kill A.B. 32.
Largely behind the financial support of Proposition 23 are Charles and David Koch, the Kansas billionaires who own the oil company Flint Hills Resources. With their contribution, backers of the proposition have raised $8.2 million, with $7.9 million coming from energy companies outside of California.
The California power industry is stuck in the middle of the debate, with developers unsure whether to move forward full-force in establishing higher percentage renewable portfolios, or to pull back in uncertainty of A.B. 32’s future.
Some large developers continue to push forward. On Wednesday, the California Energy Commission approved plans from BrightSource Energy Inc. to build a 370 MW solar plant in the Mojave Desert.
Still other solar companies are in limbo until the threat of Proposition 23 has been lifted.
Mike Hall, CEO of San Diego-based Borrego Solar, said that power companies approach Borrego for solar consulting or installations because they have an initiative to reduce carbon emissions and develop renewable energy portfolios, and that Proposition 23 brings a degree of uncertainty to these efforts and the power sector at large.
“Everyone is expecting the market to be driven by the renewable portfolio standard and the value of carbon reduction. If we start to bring those things into question, it becomes very unclear where the industry in California goes next.”
Outside of California, Hall said the passing of Proposition 23 could cause reticence toward carbon legislation and renewable portfolio standards.
“I think it would motivate those businesses who have an interest in drilling down those regulations to try harder in other states,” said Hall. “Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Jersey and many other states are emerging as solar players as well, and that is largely due to progressive policy.”
Hall said that short-term, Proposition 23 would stall renewable energy growth in California, but long-term it could also have damaging effects on nationwide solar and renewable energy policies.
Skyline Solar is a 2007 start-up solar technology company based out of Mountain View, Calif. Tim Keating, vice president of marketing and field operations, said that while he does not see the passing Proposition 23 to be likely, it could cause California solar companies to focus on overseas exports to countries more welcoming of renewables if it did pass.
“We need a healthy home market,” Keating said. “Until Congress gets a renewable energy bill, we need the states to innovate.”
Keating said the potential passing of Proposition 23 would have more long-term effects, pulling California out of the leadership position in renewables it has established and weakening nationwide renewables legislation.
“Long term, it would back flight the momentum we’re gaining towards a real renewable energy policy.”
For now, California power companies watch carefully to determine their next step, enduring the game of tug-of-war until the outcome of the Nov. 2 Proposition 23 vote gives more clarity.
On Sept. 23, the California Air Resources Board approved regulations requiring utilities to obtain a third of their power from alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal in 10 years. California now gets nearly 14 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, and the state is pushing utilities to reach a 20-percent-renewable energy standard by next year.
At a time when some legislators are pulling for the developments of renewable energy, a ballot initiative known as Proposition 23 is tugging in the opposite direction. In a state with a 12.4-percent unemployment rate, the debate over whether a renewable energy standard will create or kill jobs has been heated. The tug-of-war for renewables’ future in California – and possibly nationwide – is on full force.
A.B. 32, the 2006-implimented law in question, requires cutting carbon and other greenhouse emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 by mandating power companies to cap their emissions and by slashing carbon in gasoline. Some oil industry leaders said it would necessitate investing millions of dollars to comply, forcing companies to cut jobs and raise the price of gas at the pumps.
On Nov. 2, Californians will vote on Proposition 23, which has been created to suspend the law from going into effect in 2012 until state unemployment falls to 5.5 percent or lower for at least four consecutive quarters. Since that has happened just three times over the last 40 years, the passing of the proposition could effectually kill A.B. 32.
Largely behind the financial support of Proposition 23 are Charles and David Koch, the Kansas billionaires who own the oil company Flint Hills Resources. With their contribution, backers of the proposition have raised $8.2 million, with $7.9 million coming from energy companies outside of California.
The California power industry is stuck in the middle of the debate, with developers unsure whether to move forward full-force in establishing higher percentage renewable portfolios, or to pull back in uncertainty of A.B. 32’s future.
Some large developers continue to push forward. On Wednesday, the California Energy Commission approved plans from BrightSource Energy Inc. to build a 370 MW solar plant in the Mojave Desert.
Still other solar companies are in limbo until the threat of Proposition 23 has been lifted.
Mike Hall, CEO of San Diego-based Borrego Solar, said that power companies approach Borrego for solar consulting or installations because they have an initiative to reduce carbon emissions and develop renewable energy portfolios, and that Proposition 23 brings a degree of uncertainty to these efforts and the power sector at large.
“Everyone is expecting the market to be driven by the renewable portfolio standard and the value of carbon reduction. If we start to bring those things into question, it becomes very unclear where the industry in California goes next.”
Outside of California, Hall said the passing of Proposition 23 could cause reticence toward carbon legislation and renewable portfolio standards.
“I think it would motivate those businesses who have an interest in drilling down those regulations to try harder in other states,” said Hall. “Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Jersey and many other states are emerging as solar players as well, and that is largely due to progressive policy.”
Hall said that short-term, Proposition 23 would stall renewable energy growth in California, but long-term it could also have damaging effects on nationwide solar and renewable energy policies.
Skyline Solar is a 2007 start-up solar technology company based out of Mountain View, Calif. Tim Keating, vice president of marketing and field operations, said that while he does not see the passing Proposition 23 to be likely, it could cause California solar companies to focus on overseas exports to countries more welcoming of renewables if it did pass.
“We need a healthy home market,” Keating said. “Until Congress gets a renewable energy bill, we need the states to innovate.”
Keating said the potential passing of Proposition 23 would have more long-term effects, pulling California out of the leadership position in renewables it has established and weakening nationwide renewables legislation.
“Long term, it would back flight the momentum we’re gaining towards a real renewable energy policy.”
For now, California power companies watch carefully to determine their next step, enduring the game of tug-of-war until the outcome of the Nov. 2 Proposition 23 vote gives more clarity.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Coal, Facebook Has Requested You As A Friend
Sept. 17, 2010-
In January, the social media networking giant Facebook announced its plans to build an estimated 5 MW data center in Prineville, Ore. Its crime (according to Greenpeace): Power for the center will be provided by PacifiCorp, which is largely coal-based. As of Sept. 1, Greenpeace had roused 500,000 Facebook users to urge the social media giant to abandon plans, using a children’s storybook-style video to make their point.
Greenpeace says the utility PacifiCorp, which powers the data center, uses 83 percent coal in its energy mix. PacifiCorp spokesman Tom Gauntt said this number is actually 58 percent. Also fueling the Greenpeace flame is the knowledge that energy consumption in data centers can be 30 percent higher than commercial buildings.
So in a world where coal is still “base-load generation king,” is a data center with less coal reliance reasonable?
In order to avoid a potential social networking flop, an alternative for Facebook could be to follow the example of a data center like the Green Data Center at Syracuse University, which became fully operational in April. Through the use of natural gas-fueled turbines, the Green Data Center uses 50 percent less energy and produces fewer greenhouse gases than traditional data centers.
The 12 Hybrid UPS MicroTurbines from Capstone Turbine integrate C65 microturbines with a dual-conversion UPS to provide power for mission-critical loads. In addition to producing electricity for the data center, the turbines supply heat and cooling power to the data center and a nearby building.
Facebook’s proposed data center does boast some energy efficient technologies, however. The evaporative cooling system evaporates water to cool incoming air, proving more energy efficient than traditional chiller systems. While other data facilities often require the equivalent of large central air-conditioners to keep processors from overheating, the Prineville data center one will use the metal equivalent of ceiling fans. The Prineville data center will also utilize Proprietary Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) technology, a new, patent-pending UPS system that is proposed to reduce electricity usage by as much as 12 percent.
Still the question remains: While some may “unfriend” Facebook, will Facebook “unfriend”coal? The developments of the Prineville data center would say otherwise.
One more question: Will the power industry “unfriend” this news? Some in the power industry may have the tendency to ignore the media hype regarding Facebook and coal power. But wouldn’t now be the perfect opportunity for the industry to educate the public regarding the need for balanced and mixed power generation? And given the amount of scrutiny the Prineville data center has received, this case may be a landmark in transforming the way the power industry operates its data centers.
In January, the social media networking giant Facebook announced its plans to build an estimated 5 MW data center in Prineville, Ore. Its crime (according to Greenpeace): Power for the center will be provided by PacifiCorp, which is largely coal-based. As of Sept. 1, Greenpeace had roused 500,000 Facebook users to urge the social media giant to abandon plans, using a children’s storybook-style video to make their point.
Greenpeace says the utility PacifiCorp, which powers the data center, uses 83 percent coal in its energy mix. PacifiCorp spokesman Tom Gauntt said this number is actually 58 percent. Also fueling the Greenpeace flame is the knowledge that energy consumption in data centers can be 30 percent higher than commercial buildings.
So in a world where coal is still “base-load generation king,” is a data center with less coal reliance reasonable?
In order to avoid a potential social networking flop, an alternative for Facebook could be to follow the example of a data center like the Green Data Center at Syracuse University, which became fully operational in April. Through the use of natural gas-fueled turbines, the Green Data Center uses 50 percent less energy and produces fewer greenhouse gases than traditional data centers.
The 12 Hybrid UPS MicroTurbines from Capstone Turbine integrate C65 microturbines with a dual-conversion UPS to provide power for mission-critical loads. In addition to producing electricity for the data center, the turbines supply heat and cooling power to the data center and a nearby building.
Facebook’s proposed data center does boast some energy efficient technologies, however. The evaporative cooling system evaporates water to cool incoming air, proving more energy efficient than traditional chiller systems. While other data facilities often require the equivalent of large central air-conditioners to keep processors from overheating, the Prineville data center one will use the metal equivalent of ceiling fans. The Prineville data center will also utilize Proprietary Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) technology, a new, patent-pending UPS system that is proposed to reduce electricity usage by as much as 12 percent.
Still the question remains: While some may “unfriend” Facebook, will Facebook “unfriend”coal? The developments of the Prineville data center would say otherwise.
One more question: Will the power industry “unfriend” this news? Some in the power industry may have the tendency to ignore the media hype regarding Facebook and coal power. But wouldn’t now be the perfect opportunity for the industry to educate the public regarding the need for balanced and mixed power generation? And given the amount of scrutiny the Prineville data center has received, this case may be a landmark in transforming the way the power industry operates its data centers.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Clean Air Transport Rule: What’s a State To Do?
Sept. 10, 2010-
During a webcast on Sept. 10, EPA directors spoke on the topic of “Urgent CAIR: EPA's New Clean Air Transport Rule.” Sam Napolitano, director of EPA’s clean air markets division, said the transport rule, which is slated to take effect in 2012, will replace the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). The transport rule, signed on July 6, 2010, includes CAIR requirements, but also achieves emissions reductions concerning the transport of air pollution across state boundaries that are beyond those included in CAIR.
The EPA is proposing one approach and taking comments on two alternatives. All three approaches would cover and set a pollution limit for 31 states and the District of Columbia that have unacceptable SO2 and/or NOx levels according to the EPA. (Click here to see a map of the states affected). The first approach – which is EPA’s preferred approach – allows intrastate trading and limited interstate trading among power plants but requires each state to meet its own emissions control obligations. The second approach allows for trading among power plants within a state. And in the third approach, EPA specifies the allowable emission limit for each power plant and allows some averaging of emission rates.
EPA estimates compliance costs for the industry will be 2.8 billion in 2014. Most of these costs are projected to be spent on scrubbers (Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD)) and Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) units, and the operation and implementation of all such controls.
To meet the proposed rule, EPA anticipates power plants will operate previously installed control equipment more frequently, use lower sulfur coal, or install pollution control equipment such as low NOX burners, SCR or FGD.
Some individuals in the power industry have raised concerns that the proposed switch to low sulfur coal could be EPA’s disguised advance toward increased natural gas dependence.
During the webinar, Napolitano addressed EPA’s intentions regarding the switch. “Mainly it is coal-fuel switching, not gas. It is only a 1 percent change in coal production.” Napoloitano said EPA’s goal is to have all power plants operating as cleanly as possible in the long run, adding that EPA estimates that in terms of size, 1.2 GW of power plants will be shut down as a result of the transport rule.
To assure rapid compliance with the new emissions control standards, EPA is proposing federal implementation plans (FIPs), for each of the states covered by this rule. A state may choose to develop its own plan to reach the required reductions, replacing its federal plan, and may select which types of sources to control. The Clean Air Act requires states to submit plans to cut down on interstate pollution transport before they submit plans to meet ambient air quality standards. By determining the amount of emissions that upwind states must eliminate in advance of the time that state pollution transport plans are due, EPA plans to enact timely reductions in pollution transport. When downwind states design their plans to meet the air quality standards, they will know how much upwind state control is required. This plan is intended to enable the Clean Air Act to work as planned, helping downwind states to attain standards sooner.
The state budgets for SO2, annual NOX, and ozone season NOX are directly linked to the measurement of each state’s significant contribution and interference with maintenance. EPA’s remedy includes provisions to ensure that all necessary reductions occur in each individual state. EPA poses to allow within-state trading and limited interstate trading to assure that, in each state, the emissions that contribute the most to downwind air quality problems will be eliminated.
CAIR will remain in place until this rule is finalized. The final air transport rule is expected in late spring 2011. More information on the proposed rules and details on how to comment on the proposal are available at http://www.epa.gov/airtransport.
During a webcast on Sept. 10, EPA directors spoke on the topic of “Urgent CAIR: EPA's New Clean Air Transport Rule.” Sam Napolitano, director of EPA’s clean air markets division, said the transport rule, which is slated to take effect in 2012, will replace the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). The transport rule, signed on July 6, 2010, includes CAIR requirements, but also achieves emissions reductions concerning the transport of air pollution across state boundaries that are beyond those included in CAIR.
The EPA is proposing one approach and taking comments on two alternatives. All three approaches would cover and set a pollution limit for 31 states and the District of Columbia that have unacceptable SO2 and/or NOx levels according to the EPA. (Click here to see a map of the states affected). The first approach – which is EPA’s preferred approach – allows intrastate trading and limited interstate trading among power plants but requires each state to meet its own emissions control obligations. The second approach allows for trading among power plants within a state. And in the third approach, EPA specifies the allowable emission limit for each power plant and allows some averaging of emission rates.
EPA estimates compliance costs for the industry will be 2.8 billion in 2014. Most of these costs are projected to be spent on scrubbers (Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD)) and Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) units, and the operation and implementation of all such controls.
To meet the proposed rule, EPA anticipates power plants will operate previously installed control equipment more frequently, use lower sulfur coal, or install pollution control equipment such as low NOX burners, SCR or FGD.
Some individuals in the power industry have raised concerns that the proposed switch to low sulfur coal could be EPA’s disguised advance toward increased natural gas dependence.
During the webinar, Napolitano addressed EPA’s intentions regarding the switch. “Mainly it is coal-fuel switching, not gas. It is only a 1 percent change in coal production.” Napoloitano said EPA’s goal is to have all power plants operating as cleanly as possible in the long run, adding that EPA estimates that in terms of size, 1.2 GW of power plants will be shut down as a result of the transport rule.
To assure rapid compliance with the new emissions control standards, EPA is proposing federal implementation plans (FIPs), for each of the states covered by this rule. A state may choose to develop its own plan to reach the required reductions, replacing its federal plan, and may select which types of sources to control. The Clean Air Act requires states to submit plans to cut down on interstate pollution transport before they submit plans to meet ambient air quality standards. By determining the amount of emissions that upwind states must eliminate in advance of the time that state pollution transport plans are due, EPA plans to enact timely reductions in pollution transport. When downwind states design their plans to meet the air quality standards, they will know how much upwind state control is required. This plan is intended to enable the Clean Air Act to work as planned, helping downwind states to attain standards sooner.
The state budgets for SO2, annual NOX, and ozone season NOX are directly linked to the measurement of each state’s significant contribution and interference with maintenance. EPA’s remedy includes provisions to ensure that all necessary reductions occur in each individual state. EPA poses to allow within-state trading and limited interstate trading to assure that, in each state, the emissions that contribute the most to downwind air quality problems will be eliminated.
CAIR will remain in place until this rule is finalized. The final air transport rule is expected in late spring 2011. More information on the proposed rules and details on how to comment on the proposal are available at http://www.epa.gov/airtransport.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Your Power, Your Company: Going Global
August 25, 2010 -
Is your company looking to expand beyond the U.S. and into international export opportunities? Does PV in Spain interest you? Or perhaps coal-fired power in Russia? The answers to your international expansion questions may be found in Orlando this December.
Each year, Pennwell hosts Power-Gen International, bringing in companies across all sectors of the industry. In its 20th year, Power-Gen (Dec. 14-16 in Orlando) is poised to include 1,200 exhibitors and more than 18,000 attendees. An aspect often overlooked at this massive exhibition is the opportunity to connect with international delegations that provide valuable export opportunities for U.S. companies.
At Power-Gen 2009, delegations from 28 countries were in attendance, with buyers totaling 399 members. The U.S. Commercial Service, an arm of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration, is responsible for the application process to usher in delegations. Blanche Ziv, director of the U.S. Commercial Service’s International Buyer Program (IBP), said these meetings can eventually lead to construction of power plants overseas.
“It’s a great networking place for all of these meetings,” Ziv said. “The U.S. company doesn’t have to leave their own backyard to meet all of these international buyers.”
The annual application process for all U.S. trade shows to host delegations opens once a year. The open 60-day application period for participation in the 2012 calendar year is expected to open sometime in early September 2010.
IBP considers several criteria to determine whether or not to select a trade show to participate in the program: international interest as determined by IBP’s overseas posts in products and services, export potential of products and services exhibited at the show, logistics of the show to make sure it is occurring in a place that is conducive to international visitors, and the type of incentives the shows offer to U.S. Commercial Service overseas posts.
Once the trade shows have been chosen, delegations are selected, and a directory of delegations is created. IBP conducts a B-to-B matchmaking process in which the show receives a list of the delegations’ services and collects a list of the U.S. businesses that are interested in exporting.
In addition to export opportunities that can arise during these shows for U.S. companies, a door to provide power to countries under the burden of natural disasters is also ajar. Chief Editor for Power Engineering, David Wagman, talks about some of those opportunities in his blog entry Opportunity and Obligation.
Want more information on how to become part of a delegation, or how to connect with delegations?
Click here for a list of 2011 Accepted Shows for IBP Delegations.
Click here for information on how to get involved.
Is your company looking to expand beyond the U.S. and into international export opportunities? Does PV in Spain interest you? Or perhaps coal-fired power in Russia? The answers to your international expansion questions may be found in Orlando this December.
Each year, Pennwell hosts Power-Gen International, bringing in companies across all sectors of the industry. In its 20th year, Power-Gen (Dec. 14-16 in Orlando) is poised to include 1,200 exhibitors and more than 18,000 attendees. An aspect often overlooked at this massive exhibition is the opportunity to connect with international delegations that provide valuable export opportunities for U.S. companies.
At Power-Gen 2009, delegations from 28 countries were in attendance, with buyers totaling 399 members. The U.S. Commercial Service, an arm of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration, is responsible for the application process to usher in delegations. Blanche Ziv, director of the U.S. Commercial Service’s International Buyer Program (IBP), said these meetings can eventually lead to construction of power plants overseas.
“It’s a great networking place for all of these meetings,” Ziv said. “The U.S. company doesn’t have to leave their own backyard to meet all of these international buyers.”
The annual application process for all U.S. trade shows to host delegations opens once a year. The open 60-day application period for participation in the 2012 calendar year is expected to open sometime in early September 2010.
IBP considers several criteria to determine whether or not to select a trade show to participate in the program: international interest as determined by IBP’s overseas posts in products and services, export potential of products and services exhibited at the show, logistics of the show to make sure it is occurring in a place that is conducive to international visitors, and the type of incentives the shows offer to U.S. Commercial Service overseas posts.
Once the trade shows have been chosen, delegations are selected, and a directory of delegations is created. IBP conducts a B-to-B matchmaking process in which the show receives a list of the delegations’ services and collects a list of the U.S. businesses that are interested in exporting.
In addition to export opportunities that can arise during these shows for U.S. companies, a door to provide power to countries under the burden of natural disasters is also ajar. Chief Editor for Power Engineering, David Wagman, talks about some of those opportunities in his blog entry Opportunity and Obligation.
Want more information on how to become part of a delegation, or how to connect with delegations?
Click here for a list of 2011 Accepted Shows for IBP Delegations.
Click here for information on how to get involved.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Everything's Bigger in Texas...Even Power Usage
August 17, 2010-
Yesterday, Texas hit a new power usage record for the third time this month. High temperatures led to 64,805 MW of power usage between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. "That breaks last week's record of 63,830 MW (Aug. 10) by 975 MW, and last year's record by 1,405 MW, according to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas." - from Chron.com
Thanks to Boone Pickens and the rest of the wind energy producers in Texas, wind energy accounted for about 1 percent of that power usage, with a 680 MW output average during the peak hour. ERCOT has 9,317 MW of installed wind capacity, the highest of any state.
ERCOT assuredly breathed a sigh of relief after no major outages were reported during the peak hour, especially since electric power outages and interruptions cost the U.S. economy about $80 billion annually. But with records continuing to be set, one has to wonder what's going on with Smart Grid developments in Texas.
Smart Grid is essentially a combination of technology and resources to provide balanced generation with demand. During my first week in the power industry, Bill Strohecker, vice president of power sales for ABB, told me the purpose of Smart Grid is to "eliminate inefficiencies in generation, transmission and distribution."
In most cases, power is currently a one-way path. But what if, by charging your electric car, you could actually feed into the grid? Or perhaps you were one of the Texans contributing to the new power usage record yesterday. Let's say it was 3:30 p.m. in Midland, you were at work, and you realized that your thermostat was set to 71 degrees at home and didn't really need it that low. In a Smart Grid situation, you could log in and change your power preferences from your work computer.
Smart Grid opportunities like the aforentioned are popping up around Texas, and the entire nation. A product called the TXU Energy iThermostat is currently installed in 20,000 locations. Last week, TXU Energy announced that it is targeting the installation of 100,000 smart systems in homes and business by the end of 2012, which will include the installation of the iThermostat and the TXU Energy PowerMonitor.
Baltimore Gas and Electric was given the "yes" just yesterday to move forward on its Smart Grid program. These plans are great, but will customers be willing to pay the price?
In March, GE released the results of a smart grid survey of a cross section of 1,000 U.S. consumers. Nearly four of every five Americans (78 percent) familiar with the term Smart Grid said that they believe it would help reduce the number of power outages and restore power more quickly when outages do occur.
Yesterday, Texas hit a new power usage record for the third time this month. High temperatures led to 64,805 MW of power usage between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. "That breaks last week's record of 63,830 MW (Aug. 10) by 975 MW, and last year's record by 1,405 MW, according to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas." - from Chron.com
Thanks to Boone Pickens and the rest of the wind energy producers in Texas, wind energy accounted for about 1 percent of that power usage, with a 680 MW output average during the peak hour. ERCOT has 9,317 MW of installed wind capacity, the highest of any state.
ERCOT assuredly breathed a sigh of relief after no major outages were reported during the peak hour, especially since electric power outages and interruptions cost the U.S. economy about $80 billion annually. But with records continuing to be set, one has to wonder what's going on with Smart Grid developments in Texas.
Smart Grid is essentially a combination of technology and resources to provide balanced generation with demand. During my first week in the power industry, Bill Strohecker, vice president of power sales for ABB, told me the purpose of Smart Grid is to "eliminate inefficiencies in generation, transmission and distribution."
In most cases, power is currently a one-way path. But what if, by charging your electric car, you could actually feed into the grid? Or perhaps you were one of the Texans contributing to the new power usage record yesterday. Let's say it was 3:30 p.m. in Midland, you were at work, and you realized that your thermostat was set to 71 degrees at home and didn't really need it that low. In a Smart Grid situation, you could log in and change your power preferences from your work computer.
Smart Grid opportunities like the aforentioned are popping up around Texas, and the entire nation. A product called the TXU Energy iThermostat is currently installed in 20,000 locations. Last week, TXU Energy announced that it is targeting the installation of 100,000 smart systems in homes and business by the end of 2012, which will include the installation of the iThermostat and the TXU Energy PowerMonitor.
Baltimore Gas and Electric was given the "yes" just yesterday to move forward on its Smart Grid program. These plans are great, but will customers be willing to pay the price?
In March, GE released the results of a smart grid survey of a cross section of 1,000 U.S. consumers. Nearly four of every five Americans (78 percent) familiar with the term Smart Grid said that they believe it would help reduce the number of power outages and restore power more quickly when outages do occur.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Molten Salt Reserves (Holy Grail?) Lure Solar Producers
August 10, 2010-
While writing the market update story for the Sept/Oct issue of Renewable Energy World North America, I kept hearing things like:
"Whoever can figure out ways to store the sunlight is going to win. Storage is the game-changer technology." -Buck Martinez, senior director of solar development, Florida Power & Light
Because solar is so flighty (sadly, the sun always goes down at night, unless you're in the Arctic Circle at the right time of year), energy can only be produced during peak hours -- when the sun is shining its glorious beams.
But leave it to a rocket scientist to change that. Terry Murphy studied rocket propulsion at Purdue University, then landed a job at Rocketdyne. During his time there, he studied the Space Station's onboard power system that tracks the sun, manages consumption and stores energy. Now, he is translating his knowledge of the sun by developing a solar power tower technology for SolarReserve, a startup company formed by US Renewables Group, the renewable energy private equity firm. This technology promises to prolong the use of solar energy into the evening hours.
"Murphy says a solar power tower built in the American southwest could dispatch about 500 MWh annually. A 200 MW facility could have a cap ex roughly between $3,000 to $4,000 a kW, installed. That equates to an overall project investment of $600 to $700 million." -Renewable Energy World
It's no wonder this solar thermal development has been coined “the holy grail of renewable energy” by The New York Times. Molten salt reserves store solar power by focusing thousands of mirrors on millions of gallons of liquefied salt. SolarReserve’s technology uses ground-mounted heliostats, heat-concentrating towers, high operating temperatures and storage mechanisms to reflect sunlight. Heliostats reflect sunlight to receivers atop 553-foot towers. There the sunlight transfers heat to molten salt, warming the sodium and potassium mixture to 1,050 degrees Fahrenheit. It is then transferred to a storage tank where it loses no more than 1 degree a day.
“We have the ability to shift power generation. It doesn’t stop when the sun goes down,” Tom Georgis, vice president of development, told me in a phone interview.
So far, SolarReserve has been in a testing stage, but developments are underway for the solar market to determine if this technology will prove to be the holy grail.
SolarReserve's largest projects are:
1) The development of a 150-MW solar farm in the Sonoran Desert east of Palm Springs. The Rice Solar Energy Project will store seven hours’ worth of the sun’s energy and is anticipated to go online in October 2013.
2) A 100-MW solar energy project near the town of Tonopah, Nev., which will break ground at the end of 2010. In January, SolarReserve served a contract with Nevada largest utility, NV Energy, for this project, which marks the first time a U.S. utility has contracted for solar power tower technology utilizing molten salt storage. Potentially, this could be the first commercial installation that will be able to avoid intermittency problems like cloud cover, as well as the ability to provide power after the sun goes down.
Will SolarReserve be able to break through the barriers of nightfall, cloud cover, and such? For the next couple of years, the solar industry will be waiting in expectation to see the results of these two projects. Until then, the holy grail of solar continues to stay just out of reach.
While writing the market update story for the Sept/Oct issue of Renewable Energy World North America, I kept hearing things like:
"Whoever can figure out ways to store the sunlight is going to win. Storage is the game-changer technology." -Buck Martinez, senior director of solar development, Florida Power & Light
Because solar is so flighty (sadly, the sun always goes down at night, unless you're in the Arctic Circle at the right time of year), energy can only be produced during peak hours -- when the sun is shining its glorious beams.
But leave it to a rocket scientist to change that. Terry Murphy studied rocket propulsion at Purdue University, then landed a job at Rocketdyne. During his time there, he studied the Space Station's onboard power system that tracks the sun, manages consumption and stores energy. Now, he is translating his knowledge of the sun by developing a solar power tower technology for SolarReserve, a startup company formed by US Renewables Group, the renewable energy private equity firm. This technology promises to prolong the use of solar energy into the evening hours.
"Murphy says a solar power tower built in the American southwest could dispatch about 500 MWh annually. A 200 MW facility could have a cap ex roughly between $3,000 to $4,000 a kW, installed. That equates to an overall project investment of $600 to $700 million." -Renewable Energy World
It's no wonder this solar thermal development has been coined “the holy grail of renewable energy” by The New York Times. Molten salt reserves store solar power by focusing thousands of mirrors on millions of gallons of liquefied salt. SolarReserve’s technology uses ground-mounted heliostats, heat-concentrating towers, high operating temperatures and storage mechanisms to reflect sunlight. Heliostats reflect sunlight to receivers atop 553-foot towers. There the sunlight transfers heat to molten salt, warming the sodium and potassium mixture to 1,050 degrees Fahrenheit. It is then transferred to a storage tank where it loses no more than 1 degree a day.
“We have the ability to shift power generation. It doesn’t stop when the sun goes down,” Tom Georgis, vice president of development, told me in a phone interview.
So far, SolarReserve has been in a testing stage, but developments are underway for the solar market to determine if this technology will prove to be the holy grail.
SolarReserve's largest projects are:
1) The development of a 150-MW solar farm in the Sonoran Desert east of Palm Springs. The Rice Solar Energy Project will store seven hours’ worth of the sun’s energy and is anticipated to go online in October 2013.
2) A 100-MW solar energy project near the town of Tonopah, Nev., which will break ground at the end of 2010. In January, SolarReserve served a contract with Nevada largest utility, NV Energy, for this project, which marks the first time a U.S. utility has contracted for solar power tower technology utilizing molten salt storage. Potentially, this could be the first commercial installation that will be able to avoid intermittency problems like cloud cover, as well as the ability to provide power after the sun goes down.
Will SolarReserve be able to break through the barriers of nightfall, cloud cover, and such? For the next couple of years, the solar industry will be waiting in expectation to see the results of these two projects. Until then, the holy grail of solar continues to stay just out of reach.
Friday, August 6, 2010
DOE Loan Guarantee May Go To Teachers
August 6, 2010-
This week, the Senate gave final approval to a $26 billion package that will save states from having to lay off thousands of teachers and fund Medicaid. It's expected that the House will give the package its approval next week.
This package hits the renewables market hard, as part of the approved funds will be drawn from a $6 billion Department of Energy fund. This same fund was scavaged last year when the Senate cut $2 billion from it to give to the Cash for Clunkers program. Now, $1.5 billion more will be cut in order to help fund the $26 billion package for teacher salaries and Medicaid. This leaves the DOE fund at $2.5 billion.
I spoke today with Dan Adamson, vice president of government affairs for the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). He said solar will most likely be more affected than other renewables by this overturn.
"Solar has more applications for loan guarantees than any technology, so it’s likely to really hit solar in a negative way," Adamson said.
In a letter Adamson sent to senators urging to vote against the cut, he said that taking from the fund would "jeopardize $15 to $20 billion of private investment in pollution-free energy generation and domestic manufacturing."
On a positive note for the solar industry, Adamson said the Treasury Grant Program, which is due to expire at the end of this year, has a good chance of being extended. The Treasury Grant Program is a cash grant that may be taken in lieu of the federal business energy investment tax credit (ITC), providing a 30 percent incentive to property that is part of a qualified facility, fuel cell property, solar property, or small wind property.
"That’s been our top issue in our lobbying from an installer to a developer to a manufacturer because of the support it provides, and it has bi-partisan support. If Congress passes some kind of an energy tax bill, we’ll be able to get the energy grant bill extended."
This week, the Senate gave final approval to a $26 billion package that will save states from having to lay off thousands of teachers and fund Medicaid. It's expected that the House will give the package its approval next week.
This package hits the renewables market hard, as part of the approved funds will be drawn from a $6 billion Department of Energy fund. This same fund was scavaged last year when the Senate cut $2 billion from it to give to the Cash for Clunkers program. Now, $1.5 billion more will be cut in order to help fund the $26 billion package for teacher salaries and Medicaid. This leaves the DOE fund at $2.5 billion.
I spoke today with Dan Adamson, vice president of government affairs for the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). He said solar will most likely be more affected than other renewables by this overturn.
"Solar has more applications for loan guarantees than any technology, so it’s likely to really hit solar in a negative way," Adamson said.
In a letter Adamson sent to senators urging to vote against the cut, he said that taking from the fund would "jeopardize $15 to $20 billion of private investment in pollution-free energy generation and domestic manufacturing."
On a positive note for the solar industry, Adamson said the Treasury Grant Program, which is due to expire at the end of this year, has a good chance of being extended. The Treasury Grant Program is a cash grant that may be taken in lieu of the federal business energy investment tax credit (ITC), providing a 30 percent incentive to property that is part of a qualified facility, fuel cell property, solar property, or small wind property.
"That’s been our top issue in our lobbying from an installer to a developer to a manufacturer because of the support it provides, and it has bi-partisan support. If Congress passes some kind of an energy tax bill, we’ll be able to get the energy grant bill extended."
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Nuclear and solar costs are equal – or are they?
July 28, 2010 -
On Monday, The New York Times ran a piece suggesting that solar costs are now equal to nuclear.
“Solar photovoltaics have joined the ranks of lower-cost alternatives to new nuclear plants,” John O. Blackburn, a professor of economics at Duke University, and Sam Cunningham, a graduate student, wrote in the paper, “Solar and Nuclear Costs — The Historic Crossover,” according to the piece.
It’s true: solar PV costs are rapidly declining, for a number of reasons.
On Monday, The New York Times ran a piece suggesting that solar costs are now equal to nuclear.
“Solar photovoltaics have joined the ranks of lower-cost alternatives to new nuclear plants,” John O. Blackburn, a professor of economics at Duke University, and Sam Cunningham, a graduate student, wrote in the paper, “Solar and Nuclear Costs — The Historic Crossover,” according to the piece.
It’s true: solar PV costs are rapidly declining, for a number of reasons.
Here are a few of them:
1. China has entered the U.S. market by storm, and PV manufacturing costs are cheaper than they were during the recession.
I had an interesting interview today with Ron Kenedi, VP, Sharp Solar Energy Solutions Group. He said China is in high demand of U.S. and European solar developments in order to build their solar program. Right now, the Chinese government is backing solar with low interest loans and other incentives. While Sharp does not sell solar models in China, Kenedi said this influx of Chinese interest is affecting the U.S. solar market.
“We want to make solar more affordable to the average person, and the drops came very quickly,” Kenedi said.
Because PV manufacturing costs are dropping, business is good for the U.S. solar market sending products to China.
2. Falling silicon prices.
Silicon, the semiconducting material of choice used in solar panels, is not as high in demand as it was when solar first started heating up. In 2005-2007, the solar market grew faster than was expected, especially in Germany, resulting in a silicon shortage.
“Now silicon is coming down and due to come down more in the next year,” Kenedi said.
3. Productivity increases.
While solar power was first commercialized in the U.S. by Bell Labs in the 1950s, it’s still a relatively newly developed industry. Therefore, solar companies are still discovering a sense of balance in system operations. In an interview I had last week with Tom Fair, VP of Renewables for NV Energy, he described this sense of balance to be an important part of the economic equation for PV.
1. China has entered the U.S. market by storm, and PV manufacturing costs are cheaper than they were during the recession.
I had an interesting interview today with Ron Kenedi, VP, Sharp Solar Energy Solutions Group. He said China is in high demand of U.S. and European solar developments in order to build their solar program. Right now, the Chinese government is backing solar with low interest loans and other incentives. While Sharp does not sell solar models in China, Kenedi said this influx of Chinese interest is affecting the U.S. solar market.
“We want to make solar more affordable to the average person, and the drops came very quickly,” Kenedi said.
Because PV manufacturing costs are dropping, business is good for the U.S. solar market sending products to China.
2. Falling silicon prices.
Silicon, the semiconducting material of choice used in solar panels, is not as high in demand as it was when solar first started heating up. In 2005-2007, the solar market grew faster than was expected, especially in Germany, resulting in a silicon shortage.
“Now silicon is coming down and due to come down more in the next year,” Kenedi said.
3. Productivity increases.
While solar power was first commercialized in the U.S. by Bell Labs in the 1950s, it’s still a relatively newly developed industry. Therefore, solar companies are still discovering a sense of balance in system operations. In an interview I had last week with Tom Fair, VP of Renewables for NV Energy, he described this sense of balance to be an important part of the economic equation for PV.
“People are getting smarter about how to do projects. Every hole you drill, every bolt you fasten, everything becomes a balance down to the knit. That progress will continue as people become smarter.”
So PV prices are coming down. And according to The New York Times report, the costs of nuclear power have been rising over the past eight years, so that nuclear and solar’s crossover occurred at 16 cents per kilowatt hour.
But here’s the rub: Comparing the costs of various renewable resources is like comparing apples to oranges.
In his article, “How to Compare Power Generation Choices,” in Renewable Energy World, John Hynes, partner at Excidian, explains how base load determines true cost.
“It makes no sense to compare the cost per kWh to generate electricity from wind on land with the costs per kWh to generate electricity from coal because these two technologies satisfy two different customer needs,” Hynes writes.
While solar plants may be far cheaper to build than nuclear or power plants and not be restricted by EPA regulations and such, solar is not capable of operating 24/7 like nuclear or coal. Solar is what’s called “peak load generation,” meaning these plants operate at their maximum capacity for about 5 to 15 percent of the hours in a year. Why? Because the sun goes down at night. And while solar storage and molten salt reserves may turn that tide over time (more on that to be blogged latter), nuclear’s load factors exceed 75 percent and are usually more like 90 to 98 percent.
So is it even possible to compare solar and nuclear costs?
Yes, but you’d have to change one technology so that both technologies are in the same load factor category, Hynes suggests. Essentially, a nuclear power plant would have to be reduced to operate at its maximum capacity for only 5 to 15 percent of the hours in a year.
Only then could solar and nuclear start talking apples to apples.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
US Solar Growth: 10x By 2014?
July 22, 2010 -
Solarbuzz, a market research business focused on solar, released a study recently projecting that solar growth in the U.S. will grow tenfold by 2014. Everyone knows solar is hotter than...well, I'll save the 'sun' puns for later. But tenfold growth? Is that an exaggeration, or could the U.S. really become the world leader in solar power in just a few years?
In 2009, the U.S. solar market grew 36 percent, according to the United States PV Market 2010. However, this didn't come close to the 62 percent growth experienced during 2008. This was due in part to 2009 economic recovery, as well as transformations in the solar industry, including changing roles of utility companies, lower cost PV modules from Asia, and new direct-to-market approaches.
California continues to lead U.S. in solar developments, with 53 percent of U.S. PV on-grid installations. But even with California's golden glow, the U.S. is still third in the global solar market, behind Germany and Italy. In a press teleconference yesterday, Nancy Pfund, Managing Partner for DBL Investors, said that the U.S. solar market will "need to be more patient" before California shines at full brilliance.
"California has the fastest growing distributed solar market in the world. The scale of our effort is going to dwarf other parts of the world," Pfund said.
Within the next five years, Solarbuzz predicts that the market will grow to between 4.5-5.5 GW (about ten times the size of the 2009 market). This adds up to an average annual growth rate of 30 percent. Motivations will be utilties positioning themselves more aggresively to meet the obligations of the Renewable Portfolio Standard, the development of new state markets, and the return of the corporate segment.
At least for 2010, many utilities are motivated by the Treasury Grant Program. This program, initiated in 2009, allows the commercial tax credit to be taken as a cash grant for a limited time. However, this program ends at the end of 2010, so many in the solar industry wish to meet the start-construction deadline by year end.
For more on developments in solar technology, see my story in the upcoming September issue of Power Engineering.
Solarbuzz, a market research business focused on solar, released a study recently projecting that solar growth in the U.S. will grow tenfold by 2014. Everyone knows solar is hotter than...well, I'll save the 'sun' puns for later. But tenfold growth? Is that an exaggeration, or could the U.S. really become the world leader in solar power in just a few years?
In 2009, the U.S. solar market grew 36 percent, according to the United States PV Market 2010. However, this didn't come close to the 62 percent growth experienced during 2008. This was due in part to 2009 economic recovery, as well as transformations in the solar industry, including changing roles of utility companies, lower cost PV modules from Asia, and new direct-to-market approaches.
California continues to lead U.S. in solar developments, with 53 percent of U.S. PV on-grid installations. But even with California's golden glow, the U.S. is still third in the global solar market, behind Germany and Italy. In a press teleconference yesterday, Nancy Pfund, Managing Partner for DBL Investors, said that the U.S. solar market will "need to be more patient" before California shines at full brilliance.
"California has the fastest growing distributed solar market in the world. The scale of our effort is going to dwarf other parts of the world," Pfund said.
Within the next five years, Solarbuzz predicts that the market will grow to between 4.5-5.5 GW (about ten times the size of the 2009 market). This adds up to an average annual growth rate of 30 percent. Motivations will be utilties positioning themselves more aggresively to meet the obligations of the Renewable Portfolio Standard, the development of new state markets, and the return of the corporate segment.
At least for 2010, many utilities are motivated by the Treasury Grant Program. This program, initiated in 2009, allows the commercial tax credit to be taken as a cash grant for a limited time. However, this program ends at the end of 2010, so many in the solar industry wish to meet the start-construction deadline by year end.
For more on developments in solar technology, see my story in the upcoming September issue of Power Engineering.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Shale plays: Vaulted treasure for power industry?
July 12, 2010 -
Before joining Power Engineering, I wrote about oil and gas. For the last few years, the hot topic in O&G has been shale plays. Plays like the Barnett, Marcellus, and Haynesville are hotter than Lebron's switch to the Heat. Acquisition prices for such plays are soaring into the billions.
But when it comes to the power industry, I'm learning that shale plays are virtually useless -- at least for now. Like a treasure stored in an impenetrable vault, shale plays have need for much development both on the midstream O&G side, as well as the power operations side. To start with, pipelines to transfer the natural gas from the plays to plants are virtually non-existent. In addition, even if a smooth transport system were developed, coal-fired power plants can't be easily retrofitted to burn gas.
Last week, the American Public Power Association (APPA) released a new natural gas report: Implications of Greater Reliance on Natural Gas for Electricity Generation. Among the findings, Aspen Environmental Group, who conducted the research, uncovered "no instances of coal plant retrofits to natural gas." Not only is switching all coal-fired generation to natural gas impossible due to insufficient natural gas supply, but the entire plant infrastructure would have to be wiped clean.
"It would be more feasible and cost-effective to construct new natural gas units or to dispatch excess capacity at existing natural gas units than to convert a coal plant because of technical and economic factors." -GAO, “Implications of Switching from Coal to Natural Gas,” GAO-08-601R, May 1, 2008. Found at:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08601r.pdf
Not only does retrofitting a coal-fired plant to natural gas seem impossible, but such a retrofit would also leave certain areas with insufficient system resources. It would take four to six months to complete all of the retrofits, and that would lead to a number of brownouts or blackouts.
And let's not forget about air permits. While some would say the EPA shows favoritism towards natural gas-fired facilities, at least three air permit issues would still exist:
1) Patriculate matter (PM). If the natural gas-fired unit is larger than the coal-fired unit that it replaced or is in operation even more (which it most likely would be), the particulate emissions may be even higher for the gas unit.
2) The National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for nitrogen dioxide (NO2). This rule implimented a new 1-hour standard for ambient NO2 at 100 parts per billion. The concern is that background ambient NO2 levels would be determined by monitors placed near highways. "This will force urban areas into nonattainment and trigger more stringent permitting requirements for NGCCs," according to the APPA report.
3)CO₂. It's the great air regulation mystery floating around these days (no pun intended). How will CO₂ be regulated? As long as the Clean Air Act regulates CO₂ and Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements at power plants will require some type of controls on CO₂ emissions.
Oh, and one more regulation to keep in mind for the future: the regulation of hydrochloric acid (HCI). EPA plans to regulate HCI from smaller combustion units under the Industrial and Commerical Boiler Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) requirement. EPA has not yet proposed any HCI limit for natural gas-fired utilities, but future compliance obligations should be assumed.
While shale plays may seem like a hidden treasure for the oil and gas industry, it's going to be a long road before these natural gas resources would start to be of value to the power industry. Retrofits for switching from coal to natural gas seem to be out of the question; therefore, it would be years before most plants could/would switch to natural gas-fired. And even still, EPA would have emissions regulations on natural gas-fired plants.
Are shale plays a vaulted treasure that the power industry should leave vaulted, or are they worth all the trouble?
Before joining Power Engineering, I wrote about oil and gas. For the last few years, the hot topic in O&G has been shale plays. Plays like the Barnett, Marcellus, and Haynesville are hotter than Lebron's switch to the Heat. Acquisition prices for such plays are soaring into the billions.
But when it comes to the power industry, I'm learning that shale plays are virtually useless -- at least for now. Like a treasure stored in an impenetrable vault, shale plays have need for much development both on the midstream O&G side, as well as the power operations side. To start with, pipelines to transfer the natural gas from the plays to plants are virtually non-existent. In addition, even if a smooth transport system were developed, coal-fired power plants can't be easily retrofitted to burn gas.
Last week, the American Public Power Association (APPA) released a new natural gas report: Implications of Greater Reliance on Natural Gas for Electricity Generation. Among the findings, Aspen Environmental Group, who conducted the research, uncovered "no instances of coal plant retrofits to natural gas." Not only is switching all coal-fired generation to natural gas impossible due to insufficient natural gas supply, but the entire plant infrastructure would have to be wiped clean.
"It would be more feasible and cost-effective to construct new natural gas units or to dispatch excess capacity at existing natural gas units than to convert a coal plant because of technical and economic factors." -GAO, “Implications of Switching from Coal to Natural Gas,” GAO-08-601R, May 1, 2008. Found at:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08601r.pdf
Not only does retrofitting a coal-fired plant to natural gas seem impossible, but such a retrofit would also leave certain areas with insufficient system resources. It would take four to six months to complete all of the retrofits, and that would lead to a number of brownouts or blackouts.
And let's not forget about air permits. While some would say the EPA shows favoritism towards natural gas-fired facilities, at least three air permit issues would still exist:
1) Patriculate matter (PM). If the natural gas-fired unit is larger than the coal-fired unit that it replaced or is in operation even more (which it most likely would be), the particulate emissions may be even higher for the gas unit.
2) The National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for nitrogen dioxide (NO2). This rule implimented a new 1-hour standard for ambient NO2 at 100 parts per billion. The concern is that background ambient NO2 levels would be determined by monitors placed near highways. "This will force urban areas into nonattainment and trigger more stringent permitting requirements for NGCCs," according to the APPA report.
3)CO₂. It's the great air regulation mystery floating around these days (no pun intended). How will CO₂ be regulated? As long as the Clean Air Act regulates CO₂ and Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements at power plants will require some type of controls on CO₂ emissions.
Oh, and one more regulation to keep in mind for the future: the regulation of hydrochloric acid (HCI). EPA plans to regulate HCI from smaller combustion units under the Industrial and Commerical Boiler Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) requirement. EPA has not yet proposed any HCI limit for natural gas-fired utilities, but future compliance obligations should be assumed.
While shale plays may seem like a hidden treasure for the oil and gas industry, it's going to be a long road before these natural gas resources would start to be of value to the power industry. Retrofits for switching from coal to natural gas seem to be out of the question; therefore, it would be years before most plants could/would switch to natural gas-fired. And even still, EPA would have emissions regulations on natural gas-fired plants.
Are shale plays a vaulted treasure that the power industry should leave vaulted, or are they worth all the trouble?
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Questions left unanswered by EPA’s transport rule
July 8, 2010
By now, most people in the power industry have formed an opinion about the transport rule from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released on July 6. The new rule calls for reductions in sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen dioxide (NOx) emissions that would cross state lines.
2012? Really?
Industry opinions about the rule vary, but most folks say their biggest worry is meeting the 2012 compliance deadline. In order to cut emissions, plants will have to install new control equipment, switch to low sulfur coal, or use control equipment that they already have installed. But converting to a new type of coal isn’t as simple as ordering a book on Amazon and waiting for it to be delivered. Many companies have contracts with their current coal suppliers that may run until 2014. And if plants decide to go the route of installing new control equipment, such as NOx burners, Selective Catalytic Reduction, or scrubbers (Flue Gas Desulfurization), it will be a frantic race to do so before the 2012 deadline.
Melissa McHenry, spokesperson for American Electric Power (AEP), said one of AEP’s initial concerns is whether 2012 is a firm limit or not.
“You can’t replace a piece of generation that quickly or do a retrofit that quickly,” McHenry said.
What’s My Allowance?
Another question many in the industry are asking is what each state will do with their allocations. EPA has three approaches listed, and each has different strengths and weaknesses. The first approach – which is EPA’s preferred approach – allows intrastate trading and limited interstate trading among power plants but requires each state to meet its own emissions control obligations. The second approach allows for trading among power plants within a state. And in the third approach, EPA specifies the allowable emission limit for each power plant and allows some averaging of emission rates.
“The allowance market in the new rule will be interesting. If you get to the point where you’re just trading within the state, how big are the utilities going to be?” said Block Andrews, strategic environmental solutions associate with Burns & McDonnell.
At the time the court vacated the CAIR in July 2008, the allowance market eliminated the existence of NOx allowances because they were a creation of the CAIR rule. How will EPA refigure the new rule to allow for NOx allowances? It seems the allowance markets may be jostled until these questions are answered.
Do we have the people to make this happen?
One thing’s for certain – there are enough technologies available to implement the new boilers, burners or scrubbers in power plants needed to meet the new EPA guidelines. W. Randall Rawson, President and CEO of the American Boiler Manufacturers Association, wonders if the right people are in place to make the transition.
“It’s a caution as an industry we have to talk about. Times have changed to a certain extent. We don’t have the work force we used to, for a lot of reasons: mergers, retirement, consolidations.”
With that in mind, the question is whether or not the existing equipment can be put to use in a timely manner.
What questions are boggling your mind after the announcement of the new Transport Rule? Leave me a comment to continue this ongoing conversation.
By now, most people in the power industry have formed an opinion about the transport rule from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released on July 6. The new rule calls for reductions in sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen dioxide (NOx) emissions that would cross state lines.
2012? Really?
Industry opinions about the rule vary, but most folks say their biggest worry is meeting the 2012 compliance deadline. In order to cut emissions, plants will have to install new control equipment, switch to low sulfur coal, or use control equipment that they already have installed. But converting to a new type of coal isn’t as simple as ordering a book on Amazon and waiting for it to be delivered. Many companies have contracts with their current coal suppliers that may run until 2014. And if plants decide to go the route of installing new control equipment, such as NOx burners, Selective Catalytic Reduction, or scrubbers (Flue Gas Desulfurization), it will be a frantic race to do so before the 2012 deadline.
Melissa McHenry, spokesperson for American Electric Power (AEP), said one of AEP’s initial concerns is whether 2012 is a firm limit or not.
“You can’t replace a piece of generation that quickly or do a retrofit that quickly,” McHenry said.
What’s My Allowance?
Another question many in the industry are asking is what each state will do with their allocations. EPA has three approaches listed, and each has different strengths and weaknesses. The first approach – which is EPA’s preferred approach – allows intrastate trading and limited interstate trading among power plants but requires each state to meet its own emissions control obligations. The second approach allows for trading among power plants within a state. And in the third approach, EPA specifies the allowable emission limit for each power plant and allows some averaging of emission rates.
“The allowance market in the new rule will be interesting. If you get to the point where you’re just trading within the state, how big are the utilities going to be?” said Block Andrews, strategic environmental solutions associate with Burns & McDonnell.
At the time the court vacated the CAIR in July 2008, the allowance market eliminated the existence of NOx allowances because they were a creation of the CAIR rule. How will EPA refigure the new rule to allow for NOx allowances? It seems the allowance markets may be jostled until these questions are answered.
Do we have the people to make this happen?
One thing’s for certain – there are enough technologies available to implement the new boilers, burners or scrubbers in power plants needed to meet the new EPA guidelines. W. Randall Rawson, President and CEO of the American Boiler Manufacturers Association, wonders if the right people are in place to make the transition.
“It’s a caution as an industry we have to talk about. Times have changed to a certain extent. We don’t have the work force we used to, for a lot of reasons: mergers, retirement, consolidations.”
With that in mind, the question is whether or not the existing equipment can be put to use in a timely manner.
What questions are boggling your mind after the announcement of the new Transport Rule? Leave me a comment to continue this ongoing conversation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)