Cooler Planet

The same day the Bureau of Land Management reversed its decision to freeze applications for solar power development projects (July 2); the United Nations issued a report commending the expediential rise in global investments for all types of renewable energy projects.

According to the new UN Environment Programme report, in 2007, investors raised over $148 billion, a 60 percent increase over 2006.  Moreover, despite market downturns from the credit crisis, investments into clean energy have continued to remain strong during the first half of 2008.

That’s good news for the renewable energy industry.  As the UNEP report points out, robust growth in clean energy projects is imperative if UN targets for greenhouse gas reductions and energy efficiencies are to be met. 

The bulk of the investment continues to target wind energy, however, new investment in solar energy projects boomed.  Over $28 billion poured into solar energy in 2007, a three-fold increase compared to 2004.

Much of the investment in solar energy originated in Germany, which continues to lead the world in its investments into solar.  Chinese manufacturers also contributed significantly to solar companies that target the US market.

Here’s the link to the full report: http://sefi.unep.org/fileadmin/media/sefi/docs/publications/Exec_summary.pdf

Sometimes the public process works pretty fast.  That’s what happened last week when the US Bureau of Land Management reversed its stance on review procedures for solar power development projects located on public land in six Western States. 

On May 29, the BLM declared a moratorium on processing new applications for solar energy development.  By July 2, the department reversed its decision citing overwhelming objections raised not only by the solar industry, but also members of Congress and the general public.

According to reports in the New York Times and Associated Press, the BLM planned to continue to process the 125 applications it had already received, but freeze any others from being submitted.  The solar industry viewed the moratorium as a huge threat because it would open opportunities for other industries to claim rights to projects on that same land.

The six states affected are, indeed, prime sun-drenched states, including:  Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah.   Together they comprise about 1 million acres of territory.  

Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic Senator from Nevada was one of the loudest opponents of the original decision.  In response to BLM’s reverse, Reid praised the BLM for its  “good decision,” noting that “Nevada is the Saudi Arabia of solar energy and is poised to lead a global clean energy revolution.  We need to do all we can to encourage public and private investment in projects to develop this amazing potential.”

Clean Edge, a research and publishing company focused on renewable technologies and the non-profit organization Co-op America released a report that states the cost of electricity derived from solar power will be on par with electricity derived from fossil fuels by 2015.

The report predicts “as solar prices decline and the capital and fuel costs for coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants rise, the U.S. will reach a crossover point by around 2015.”   It also asserts that the U.S. can grow its overall contribution of electricity generated from the sun to 10 percent by 2025.  Currently, less than a tenth of one percent of total electricity comes from the sun.

The report’s authors cite the great leaps forward already made in solar installations.  In the past five years solar installations – both solar photovoltaic and concentrated solar – have expanded from 600 megawatts in 2003 to almost 3,000 megawatts in 2008, equivalent to three conventional power plants.

From a utility standpoint, solar offers distinct advantages over conventional fuel sources, such as coal and natural gas, making its competitive edge apparent within the next ten years:

• Once a solar installation is in place, utilities need minimal, if any, fossil fuel to operate the site, offsetting both the price of those resources and the cost to transport them to the site.
• Compared to nuclear, coal, and natural gas power plants, solar has low maintenance costs and provides carbon-credits, in a cap-and-trade carbon emissions economy.
• Solar-derived electricity has proven itself a cost-effective resource, particularly during periods of peak demand.

Similar to the recent report analyzing the wind power industry in the USA, government and market forces will have to continue to propel the industry forward.  However, reaching 10 percent solar capacity is within reach using current technology available today.  

Once again the sun is proving its worth.

Someone asked Cooler Planet to profile Amory Lovins.  Not an easy task given the prolific number of supporters and critics out there.  Here’s our humble attempt:

Amory Lovins is considered by many alternative-energy-enthusiasts one of our country’s leading spokesperson’s regarding energy efficiency.  His quirky style, practice-what-he-preaches approach, penchant for numbers, and compelling lectures and writings have earned Lovins numerous accolades.  Texas Instruments, Wal-Mart, and other corporate giants have enlisted Lovins and his Rocky Mountain Institute to analyze and devise strategies to maximize their energy efficiency and profitability.  Lovins is often asked to testify before Congress and weigh in on energy policy. 

Amory Lovins has long been a proponent of solar energy.  The sun powers Lovins’ home (which also served as the original Rocky Mountain Institute headquarters) in Colorado.  Passive solar design, the use of photovoltaic arrays and solar hot water panels generate enough energy to grow at least 28 banana crops and support other tropical vegetation.  Not bad for a building that has no centralized heating or cooling system and is located up high at 7,100 feet in the Rocky Mountains.  

Lovins’ opinion regarding energy policy is once again being sought.  His answers often seem prescient regardless to whether he said them in 1976 or 2008.  In 1976, Lovins published an article, Energy Strategy:  The Road Not Taken?, that laid out his vision and rationale for pursuing “a soft energy path.”  Lovins argued that developing soft energies, such as solar, wind, and geothermal and creating technologies that capitalize on truly using energy efficiently would create a strong and energy-independent USA.  Even then, Lovins disputed the pursuit of nuclear energy development as a costly and economically non-viable choice.  That article and the subsequent 1970s Energy Crisis catapulted Lovins into the energy policy spotlight.

Today Lovins continues to make his case.  On March 12, 2008, Lovins in his invited testimony to the US House of Representatives’ Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming explained that nuclear energy does not make sense from an economic perspective.  The plants are too costly to build and private markets are not interested in financing nuclear power because of the perceived financial risk.  Furthermore, true nuclear power emits less carbon dioxide once in operation, it is so expensive to install and maintain that its cost far exceed the expense to develop other alternative energy infrastructures such as wind, solar, geothermal, or biofuel.

For those of you interested in hearing Amory Lovins explain his positions, there is a great video clip on You Tube from a Charlie Rose interview with Lovins on November 28, 2006.  

There’s an adage advertisers refer to when explaining why advertisements and messages are repeated.  According to marketers, it takes at least 11 times before your audience “takes in” your message.   Lovins and his cohorts at the Rocky Mountain Institute have certainly talked about energy policy and energy efficiency more than 11 times; this time people are listening.  For as Lovins points out in his conversation with Charlie Rose, “what people are finally figuring out is that it doesn’t matter how low the price of oil goes, energy efficiency is still a great deal.”

On Monday, June 16, USA Today published an article about rising electricity costs.  Rising prices for the raw material – such as coal and natural gas – and aging power plants that need upgrades contribute to spiking electric rates.   According to the newspaper, some ratepayers will see increases of nearly 30 percent in the coming year.

The seemingly never-ending news about increasing gasoline and electricity costs point to same trend.  Competing world demand for fuel effects the price of the resources we’ve come to rely on. 

In another, unrelated report published on Friday, June 13 the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency announced that China has now surpassed the United States in terms of carbon emissions.  China’s overall carbon dioxide emissions are estimated at 24 percent, whereas carbon dioxide emissions in the USA account for approximately 21 percent.  

Clearly, the United States is not the only country in the world seeking energy.  Demand from others contributes to rising raw energy prices as well.

Enter stage right:  alternative fuel.  We all know solar, wind, and tides will not solve all our energy needs, but they can certainly help mitigate some of these ever-looming impacts.

One has to wonder how much glum news it takes to break Congressional gridlock over extending tax credits for renewable energy . . .

The same day – Tuesday, June 10 – the US Senate stymied renewable energy tax credits, the City of San Francisco City Council passed some.  The San Francisco’s new Solar Energy Incentive Program ordinance passed by a vote of 8 to 3.  The program will offer residents $3,000-$6,000 toward the purchase of solar energy systems; businesses organizations can receive up to $10,000 for installing a solar photovoltaic system.  The City designated $3.5 million to fund the program for 10 years.  It also plans to pilot a $1.5 million, one-year program that will fund non-profit organizations and low-income housing developments that install solar photovoltaic arrays.

In announcing San Francisco’s groundbreaking legislation Mayor Gavin Newsom said that he hoped that within 10 years the program’s rebates could increase the number of solar panels in the city from roughly 750 to 15,000 and add 50-megawatts of power to the city’s electricity supply.

According to an article in San Francisco Business Times, a 3-kilowatt solar photovoltaic system costs roughly $30,000 in San Francisco (that includes the components and installation).  The City’s new solar energy incentives, plus the $2,000 federal tax credit (that hasn’t yet expired), and the State of California’s solar rebates can reduce a resident’s outright cost by as much as 40 percent.  For the remainder, residents can tap into banks that offer low-interest loans for solar installations.

San Francisco becomes the first municipality in the nation to offer such a large-scale rebate program to its residents.  Moreover, the City tied the higher residential incentives to “green collar jobs.”  Residents and businesses that hire an installer that employs graduates of San Francisco’s workforce development program are eligible for the highest rebates.

One would think that all the brouhaha about $4-a-gallon gas prices would get Congress to act on passing legislation addressing energy policy.  Perhaps they would, if this were not an election year.

That’s the current excuse as to why the bill to extend renewable energy tax credits was stymied in the Senate yesterday – June 10, 2008.  The bill fell 10 votes short of the amount it needed to make it to the floor for debate.  According to the New York Times, Democrats sensed that even asking Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, or ailing Senators Edward Kennedy and Robert Byrd back to vote would not change the outcome. (Note John McCain was not there either.) True the vote was 50–44 in favor and fell largely along party lines, but 10 votes is a significant gap. 

Perhaps the bill also perished because the Democrats tried to bring to the floor a different bill that would have created a windfall profits tax of 25% for the oil industry with the proceeds earmarked to fund new renewable energy initiatives.   Plans to fund the renewable energy tax credits came from closing a loophole that targets specific offshore corporations (essentially hedge-fund managers).  Taken together, the two bills gave Republicans the fodder they needed to decry any new taxes.

Who knows what will happen next.  There are still six months left before the end of the year.  Six months provides enough time in politics – to borrow a cliché – for anything to happen.

Someone asked Cooler Planet about Congressman Roscoe Bartlett’s stance on solar energy.  Here’s what we found out.

Roscoe G. Bartlett has a doctorate in human physiology and is an eight-term Republican Congressman representing the 6^th District in Maryland.  He is a Conservative Republican who is also a stalwart solar energy advocate. 

Before his successful bid for Congress in 1992, Bartlett had an illustrious career as a professor, research scientist, farmer, and land developer.  During the 1960s, Bartlett directed the Space Life Sciences research group at John Hopkins University’s Applied Physics Laboratory where the lab’s research contributed to NASA’s missions on Gemini, Mercury, and Apollo. 

That background must have contributed to his support of solar power.  According to Congressman Bartlett’s website, during his tenure as a consultant and land developer his company “built more than 100 homes in Frederick County, many of them solar powered.” 

Today, Bartlett seems to practice what he preaches.  He designed and built his solar-powered home.  And he was the first US Congressman to buy a Prius.  (In 2008, the Baltimore Sun wrote an article examining what type of cars Maryland’s elected officials drive and discovered that Roscoe Bartlett is one of only two that drives a hybrid – and that Bartlett’s Prius is his second one). 

Bartlett’s interest in solar and other forms of renewable energy comes from a pragmatic recognition that oil cannot indefinitely supply our collective “energy appetite.”  On his website Bartlett states, “Oil dependency is increasing at such a rapid rate that it will eventually pass current production and manufacturing capabilities. That is why I have been, and continue to be, a supporter of our renewable energy legislation and programs.”

Energy is definitely Bartlett’s “puppy.”  He firmly believes Hubbert’s Theory of Peak Oil; much of the impetus behind Bartlett’s energy policy stems from a solid belief that we are on the downward side of the supply bell-curve regarding oil. 

Similarly, Bartlett recognizes that climate change is real.  He has spoken eloquently in Congress about how carbon dioxide emissions impact our atmosphere.  On that basis, he supports nuclear power.  In a March 6, 2008 speech on the Congressional Floor, Bartlett spoke about the feasibility of alternative energy sources, including nuclear power.  Bartlett explained that from a carbon emissions standpoint, “nuclear, by the way, is even better.  After you have paid a carbon cost for building the nuclear power plant, then there is no carbon dioxide produced for the duration of that nuclear power plant.”

Bartlett often is the man behind recent renewable energy legislation.  In explaining why he introduced legislation to extend renewable energy credits Bartlett wrote:

 “Solar power has grown annually an average of 18 percent with the federal credit; it grew 57 percent alone in 2007.  Why dim this bright spot in our shaky economy?  An independent study by Navigant found that nationally, “112,000 jobs in the wind and solar industries (78,000 wind, 34,000 solar) and $19 billion in investment” are at risk over the next six to eight months if the renewable energy tax credits are allowed to expire.”

He does not support ethanol because he views subsidies towards its production as a negative impact on markets within the food supply chain.

Bartlett’s stand on renewable energy has provoked ire even among his supporters. Just last week – May 22, 2008 – Bartlett changed his long-term position against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and publically stated he will back drilling there.  Bartlett announced that he is co-sponsoring the American Energy Independence and Price Reduction Act because the bill specifies that all the revenue garnered from drilling leases in the refuge’s coastal strip will be earmarked for alternative and renewable energy programs. 

Bartlett acknowledged that his reversal stems from skyrocketing oil prices.  He recognizes that drilling in the ANWR will impact the wildlife there, but Bartlett in making his announcement said, “I have been to ANWR.  I am convinced that the environmental impact will be minimal.” 

Bartlett’s pro-solar stance and support of alternative energies does not necessarily make him an all-encompassing environmentalist.  Curiously, the League of Conservation Voters who publishes a Scorecard each year based on a Congressman or Senator’s voting record, gave Bartlett a 45% score in 2007 and he hasn’t ranked much higher in previous years. 

Bartlett’s votes regarding energy and the environment seem to reflect a strict position of his values – he is a devout Seventh Day Adventist who believes in stewardship of our land but not necessarily wide spread use of federal mandates unless the science supports the intended objectives.  Overall, however, Roscoe Bartlett’s impressive understanding of energy issues and policy has made him one our country’s most important advocates for advancing renewable energy.

There’s an article in today’s Wall Street Journal that contrasts Barak Obama’s and John McCain’s views on energy policy.  We’ve contrasted both candidates’ views on solar energy in previous blog posts.  The Wall Street Journal  article focuses on how each men view the role of the federal government in changing US energy policy.

On the surface, their rhetoric sounds the same.  Both McCain and Obama talk about the importance of achieving energy independence.  Both are willing to consider nuclear power.  And both recognize the importance of addressing global warming via carbon dioxide emissions.

In the end though both men embrace relatively classic Republican and Democratic solutions toward energy independence.  John McCain favors a government hands-off approach, whereas Barak Obama is more willing to fund programs that foster the development of alternative energy technologies.  McCain is wary of incentives, such as tax credits for renewable energy because he views them as subsidies, something he is disinclined to support.

Obama, on the other hand, believes the industry could greatly benefit from a government boost and has stated his intention to create a goal that the USA obtains at least 25 percent of is electricity from renewable sources by 2025.  Obama wants to challenge the country to reduce its carbon emissions to 80% of 1990 levels; McCain seeks a 60% reduction.

The article also points out the inconsistencies within each candidate’s position.  McCain has successfully remained absent from voting on all the major legislation involving climate change and energy policy over the last couple of years.  Obama walks a fine line between the coal and ethanol interests he represents for his home state of Illinois, and his more aggressive approach toward carbon emission reduction and renewable energy.

With gas prices rising almost daily, the public has a heightened interest.  Let’s see if McCain and Obama refine their energy policy approach in the days ahead.

Starting in 2010, all new homes built in Hawai’i must install a solar hot water system – the first state in the nation to pass such a law.  The bill passed unanimously in the State House and with only two dissents in the State’s Senate. (The law allows for a few exceptions if conditions truly hinder, but mostly solar hot water heaters rule.)

Hawai’i has joined with other states in establishing clear goals to add renewable energy into the general mix of energy sources.  Hawai’i plans to obtain at least 70 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2030.

The new solar hot water law will help propel Hawai’i toward its goal.  Proponents expect that the electricity costs in these new solar homes will decrease by at least a third.  Not too shabby considering Hawai’i has some of the most expensive electricity rates in the USA.