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.
Monday, September 27, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)