Photo Credit: SEIA, NHA, AWEA, GEA
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (33) Video Watch Video View image gallery Image Gallery (5) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
Previous Article
Next Article
View All
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
November 14, 2008

Investment in Renewables Will Lead to US Economic Recovery, Leaders Say

by Jennifer Runyon, Managing Editor
Washington, DC, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

In a joint conference call on Thursday, the leaders of four renewable energy industry associations -- Randall Swisher from the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), Karl Gawell of the Geothermal Energy Association (GEA), Linda Church Ciocci of the National Hydropower Association and Rhone Resch of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) -- put forth 5 key proposals that they believe are essential elements in helping bring the U.S. out of these dark economically-challenged times and into a bright, clean future.

Amend the Tax Credits

First, renewable energy industry leaders called for an adjustment to the recently passed renewable energy tax credits. The industry would like to see the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) amended so as to improve its transferability and to make it refundable.

Some of the larger investors in renewable energy development, wind projects in particular, were major banks such as Lehman Brothers, AIG and Wachovia. With those financial institutions out of the picture and so many others without a tax appetite, the way that the current investment tax credits are structured just isn't letting them work as well as they could be, explained Swisher.

"Tax-equity markets are down, but they are not out," said Karl Gawell (pictured below). But they need to work in the financial environment that exists today. 

Gawell, Ciocci and Swisher all indicated that geothermal, hydro and wind developers are ready to go now with major projects that have been put on hold due to the recent downturn of the financial markets. If the ITC was amended, the results would be immediate, they said.

"We have production lines already mapped out," said Gawell.

In addition to having the tax credits refundable and more transferable, the industry would like them extended for 5 years.

Adopt a Federal RPS

Another key policy that the joint associations would like to see immediately put in place is the adoption of a federal renewable portfolio standard (RPS) that would require 10% of electricity to come from renewables by 2012 and 25% by 2025. Measures such as these have already been set forth in Obama's energy plan. The industry associations urge the 111th Congress to adopt a federal RPS as soon as possible.

Stable federal policy is the signal that market developers need, said Swisher (left). This would replicate the effectiveness of an RPS that is already being seen in states.

Make Investments in New Transmission

Another point that all associations agreed was of utmost importance to bring the U.S. out of its economic woes was major investment in interstate electrical grid infrastructure, including new transmission and smart grid technologies. Many of the best renewable energy resources are located in remote areas that do not have ready grid-access. New transmission corridors will be necessary to bring wind, water, solar, and geothermal energy that is harvested in remote areas to areas of the country in which people reside.

There are billions of investment dollars waiting to be poured into these new technologies, said Gawell, new transmission is "the critical last step necessary to get this investment flowing."

Mandate Renewables for Federal Property

Rhone Resch outlined the fourth critical point that the industry associations are calling for: a federal mandate that all government-owned entities be powered, at least in part, by renewable energy. When Nellis Air Force base installed its 14-megawatt solar energy system, it saved the base more than US $1 million per year, he explained. Renewable energy systems lock-in long-term electric rates that save the taxpayers money.

"The government can lower costs, while increasing jobs," Resch (below, right) said.

On the topic of jobs, one of the greatest things about solar energy, explained Resch, is that you don't drill for it, "you manufacture it." Increasing our use of renewable energy as a country, he said, will unleash millions of new manufacturing jobs. He said the solar energy manufacturing industry grew an incredible 74% in 2007. The solar industry as a whole currently included 3,400 companies right now, a number that is expected to increase dramatically should the federal government take immediate action on these proposals.

"Solar has become an economic engine for America," he said. But for this growth to continue, firm commitment from the government is critical.

Wind energy has also been a critical economic driver for the country, said Swisher. In the past 18 months, 50 factories were opened or announced in the U.S., he said. The potential for wind over long-term is huge and could lead to the development of 500,000 jobs.

Invest US $30 Billion in Renewables

The last proposal that the industry associations are making to the new administration is to front-load its stated goal of investing US $150 billion in clean tech over the next ten years by investing US $30 billion in new project development and installations of renewable energy in the U.S. in 2009.

Linda Church Ciocci (left) explained that the US $30 billion is necessary because renewable energy technologies still need targeted assistance to "kick start" new projects across the country. The money would be invested in deployed projects, the electrical transmission grid and would include investment in the nascent water power companies that are just getting started.

"The fast-growing renewable energy sector is poised to help lead the U.S. economic recovery with millions of new jobs and billions of private investment dollars," the industry associations' joint statement said.

"However, the new Administration and Congress need to take action to ensure that the renewable industries' growth continues, given the current economic realities."

To listen to sound bytes from the press conference, play the video below.

Video
Image Gallery (5)
 
Previous Article
Next Article
View All
Reader Comments (33)
 
November 14, 2008
Great piece-

On the RPS, how do people see this 10% by 2012 happening? My estimates, based on EIA stats, are that the renewables share of electricity will be ~3.8% by end 2008. How do you see that share climbing to 10% over the next four years. I have strong growth getting to ~8% as wind passes 50 GW cumulative capacity and solar passes 6 GW in '12. Can biomass and geothermal grow at 30% per year? The frozen credit market makes 10% by 2012 seem very difficult to me right now, but am I being overly pessimistic? What growth do others see?
The later RPS goal of 25% by 2025 seems reasonable to me.

Dennis , www.setenergy.org
Comment 1 of 33
No image available
November 14, 2008
In comment #1 Dennis writes:
"My estimates, based on EIA stats, are that the renewables share of electricity will be ~3.8% by end 2008. How do you see that share climbing to 10% over the next four years."

Hydroelectric generation is ~7% of US energy generation and is usually counted as a "renewable" source--as it should be. Once you include that 7% reaching 10% isn't especially hard, wind alone could easily provide the needed 3% in 4 years.
Comment 2 of 33
No image available
November 14, 2008
It is not just investment in renewables but in the educational and communication (TV, newspapers) systems that help to form attitudes toward renewable investment. We also need laws passed that curtail the activities of big oil and coal lobbiests. It is almost obscene that the financial lobby spent several hundred million convincing Congress to grant billions to their institutions. They certainly know how to collect interest on their investments. It is also obscene that Exon continues to collect money from our tax payers some of whom do not even drive cars, through laws our Congress continues to implement, when this oil company's last quarter income was over 15 billion. These obscenities should be curtailed as they further undermine the present shaky economic foundation upon which our country now totters.

adrianakau2aol.com
Comment 3 of 33
No image available
November 15, 2008
In comment #3 Adrian Akau writes: "We also need laws passed that curtail the activities of big oil and coal lobbiests."

Before Adrian repeals free speech he might want to think about the consequences. The coal and oil industries received very little money from the government and could easily survive without it, whereas renewable energies are greatly dependent on government handouts promoted in large measure by very effective lobbying. One need only consider what happens to the wind turbine industry every time the production tax credit is allowed to expire--and wind is among the most efficient of renewables.
Comment 4 of 33
November 15, 2008
Steven,
I was assuming they didn't include hydro. If you include hydro, we already have 10% of electricity from renewables (7% hydro + 1.4% wind + 2% biomass + .1% solar). So, why would we set an RPS for 10% by '12? Are they really including hydro in their RPS recommendation?

Onwards to sustainability,
Dennis www.setenergy.org
Comment 5 of 33
No image available
November 15, 2008
Steven and Dennis,
Large Hydro power isn't renewable. (sadly).
Unfortunately, silt builds up behind the dam, and eventually renders the reservoir useless (and quite ruined).

If the silt is encouraged to run downstream, it kills the fish. Mother Nature is a temperamental &itch.

Run-of-river hydro might be workable, but there isn't very much installed, and the opportunities tend to be much smaller than dam-sites.

My guess is these folks don't actually have a plan. (You go work up a national re plan and see - it isn't trivial). The Pickens Plan was at least a plan that reflected the hard numbers. We could do 30% Wind, and we could do natural gas cars - in the end, we would be broke, NG would still be required for peak power, and for localized wind-voids. Both the new cars and CNG would be expensive while gas would be cheap. It's a horrid plan - but it is a plan. (Again, for the endless supply of RE readers who think rooftop PV is a plan, a plan is a solution which quantitatively meets the objective. "Quantitatively" means the 'rithmetic adds up.)

So the question is - did they put forth a plan?
Was it 20% Solar, 30% wind, 25% geothermal, and new Run of the river Hydro - with electric trains, subways, trams, and cars?

I didn't hear that - instead I heard policy changes to economically advantage their constituents - on the taxpayers dime.

I'm not saying we don't need RE; I'm suggesting we need a plan that has numbers, regions, resources, and technology, and where the numbers add up to 100% of our energy requirements.
Comment 6 of 33
No image available
November 16, 2008
There is a certain amount of politics in the argument about whether or not large hydro projects are renewable. These projects have significant environmental impact so they are often opposed on environmental grounds and they are far more efficient than other renewables so some of their competitors would also like them to be reclassified. The silt issue that Ben raises it not a good argument that large hydro in nonrenewable--silt is removable (albeit possibly with great difficulty) and dams can, in principle, be reconstructed at need to harness the renewable gravitational energy of water flowing downhill. It is perhaps worth noting that large hydro projects provide a significant amount of dispatchable power that can ameliorate some of the difficulties with intermittent generation schemes such as wind and solar.

Many of these RPS schemes being proposed are devoid of detail and nearly all should not be confused with an actual plan. Under such circumstances I would not be surprised if the 7% hydro generation was ultimately used in the totals so that we could declare "victory" after new renewable generation capacity badly lagged behind initial hopes.
Comment 7 of 33
No image available
November 16, 2008
It is worth noting that the claims that "investment In renewables will lead to US economic recovery" tend to be made primarily by those who will directly benefit from such investments. It is hard to see how dramatic increases in electricity prices will lead to economic recovery. Renewable energy might be desirable or even necessary on environmental grounds but claims that it will also be economically beneficial are highly dubious, and this article, for example, cites no coherent rationale for this belief.
Comment 8 of 33
No image available
November 16, 2008
Steven,
I agree that the belief in a "green economy" may be more religious than rational. There are some examples (Tom Friedman would cite the Prius as the product of Japanese green regulation) but a few examples does not an economic revolution make.

All the smart grids in the world would not raise the standard of living by any measurable degree. There is not one electronic amenity we are currently denied on account of the absence of a smart grid. Electric cars will still kill people at the rate of 55K per year US. In short, a DC/smartgrid would be expensive and solve very little.

- As an Alternative - we could build a worldclass highspeed electric train network in the US. This would allow "working class" people to commute with much higher efficiency than vehicles - this avoids the battery problem and reduces dependency on foreign energy - while creating jobs.

I'm fairly sure that on a dollar-per-avoided-barrel basis, Electric trains are cheaper than paying GM Unions workers to build PHEV (and then paying buyers to purchase them for $15K more than the same vehicle.)
Comment 9 of 33
No image available
November 17, 2008
Steven,

As someone who stands to gain directly from investment in renewables I may be too biased to see the truth. However there are some good studies out there that show the potential benefit from investment in renewables and efficiency. The efficiency piece is key.

A couple of specific things I found interesting:

1. That green investment provides more jobs per dollar investment than money spent simply on a consumer spending economic stimulus and has far greater downstream benefits.

2. Energy efficiency measures have, enabled California households to redirect their expenditures toward other goods and services, creating about 1.5million FTE jobs with a total payroll of $45 billion, driven by well-documented household energy savings of $56 billion from 1972-2006.

The links to the studies:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/pdf/green_recovery.pdf

http://are.berkeley.edu/~dwrh/CERES_Web/Docs/UCB%20Energy%20Innovation%20and%20Job%20Creation%2010-20-08.pdf

We can debate the specific numbers but I do find an investment in a "green" economy to be the most compelling economic stimulus. Giving more money to investment banks, auto companies or continuing the idea that we can shop our way out of crisis don't seem like better alternatives.

Thanks,

Eric Zimmer
http://tipenergy.typepad.com
Comment 10 of 33
No image available
November 17, 2008
Eric,
I'll bet I could argue that the single best RE job on a jobs-per-net-expenditure basis would be housing insulation. It's not a sexy job, but presumably that's what you're talking about.

I get the sense that job simulators are looking for future-relevant jobs, and somehow stuffing houses full of ground-up newspaper doesn't feel like The Next Big Thing (tm).

Frankly, I don't know what TNBT is, but I doubt its PV, and it isn't PHEV - why - because Chindia is the next big place, and they can't afford to drive batteries and don't care about smog much. (You can't build a hybrid for $2k).

I think that mass transit may be TNBT. Cars are only useful until parking becomes the biggest problem. We're basically there in our big cities. Solving Global warming with electric mass transit is far easier than with PHEV.

With this out of work economy, taking the morning train may be more compelling.
Comment 11 of 33
No image available
November 17, 2008
Ben,

All good points.

Insulation is an important item. Stuffing insulation in holes is not a sexy job but being part of a team that makes buildings energy efficient is better. Maybe you start as the insulation person and can move up to the person who does audits or leads the team.

I think solar thermal for hot water and heating is a good strategy and has good payback.

I don't know that we'll have one TNBT but hopefully a lot of ideas used strategically.

Investments in mass transit need to be made. The questions are how do we stimulate this economy now and well as prepare for the future. Light rail is a great idea and needs to be started now but takes years to come to fruition. Running more buses can be done quickly.

PV costs will come down significantly with mass deployment. It is experience in manufacturing and installing that allow for cost reductions. PV will make more sense at that point. We get caught in a Catch-22 prior to that. It is too expensive until we install a lot of it.

Thanks,

Eric

http://tipenergy.typepad.com
Comment 12 of 33
No image available
November 17, 2008
The economic impact of new rail projects can be immediate. Most of the jobs are up-front. You create jobs up-front which cannot be outsourced. And the jobs are created in all 50 states not just Michigan.

PV is now an import product from China. Continuing to subsidize PV means sending more money to China. personally, I love China, but they need to build their own economy, not merely depend on wages, work conditions, and environmental standards which would be felonies if committed in the United States.

PV will never solve the oil crisis or the global warming crisis. It is a solution without a problem. It costs more money per carbon offset or oil barrel avoided than wind, solar thermal and CSP.
Comment 13 of 33
No image available
November 17, 2008
Forgive me if I shift the conversation a bit. With federal regulations and tax credits influencing the market, I'm curious to know, from an industry perspective, how long it takes for these regulations to turn into jobs in respectable quantities. I've seen estimates that RE markets in some cases will grow at 40-50% annually for the next 3-5 years. Much more in other markets. Again, how does this growth translate into actual jobs.

Also, many individuals will moving into employment in the industry with little experience in RE. Can you provide me with 3 primary areas of concerns that employers have regarding hiring new personnel into the industry?
Comment 14 of 33
No image available
November 17, 2008
Tom,
Mr. Friedman would suggest that GE would beef up its existing RE product line (mostly Wind Turbines) immediately if there were a long-term price signal such as a carbon tax or RPS. The First wave might be engineers and plant construction or outfitting, then factory workers, installers, and finally maintenance staff.

As to the question of "expertise" I would point out that Wind is aerodynamics, Solar PV is a silicon product, these tend to well-understood problems - there is plenty of experience at every level of production in these generic fields. RE is not a specialty in itself, but rather a combination of diverse and existing disciplines with a shared goal.

The industry is so diverse, it's hard to identify 3 concerns. If you're interested in Oilgae, then biology would be important, for Wind power understanding VIO, for Solar PV, lobbyists are most important because the product is less competitive than a GM car.
Comment 15 of 33
No image available
November 19, 2008
All the above are great proposal and comments. However, let us go to the basics. Applying technology which is available to produce a good product, simple construction, efficient, low maintenance would impose itself.

Shamil Ayntrazi, PE
www.renewableenergypumps.com
Comment 16 of 33
No image available
November 19, 2008
We should be doing the exact opposite to what Enron did when it fleeced thousands of pepole by inflating electric rates to Californians. Enron went bankrupt like many of the banks that have been forced to go belly up as well.

People are also taking a 2nd look at this picture since Lehman Bros, and Wachovia failed while promoting alternative energy. One considers the failure was intentionally induced by the Oil Lobby while shifting focus from them to the Mortgage Housing Industry.

What we need is not government handouts but a strategy to base our financial system not on the US Government or the Banking albatross, but have the Energy Companies become the producers for our future.

People who invest in Geothermal Energy will also get a payback when the Geo Company gives investors the inflow of revenue when electric is sold to the public. It is the exact opposite of the Enron thieves, who actually began this bankrupt roller-coaster ride and have slid us into this recession.

I know if it was my Geo Company which I am actively trying to start I will have a provision that people who invest in the Development of Geo Thermal, our company will make good by paying on your homes mortgage in return....once electric is on line and flowing into the community.

This means people get more back than their initial investment. It would be set at established levels such as 150,000 mortgage at $350 per month for 15 years paid by the Geo Company.....after the investor made their investment.

We are in a serious fix to say the least. Which comes first? Buy the House, or create the job to buy the house. We can't buy houses without jobs, so obviously we need to make the investment in the Geo- Energy company. This will create stable communities....and only one house per buyer can take advantage of this incentive to promote this great alternative energy.
Comment 17 of 33
No image available
November 19, 2008
That all sounds great. Though, its not like we haven't heard all of this before. This is all a classic case of wishful thinking. The whole truth about the United States government (that the news media isn't making known to the public in plain simple english) is that its becoming a socialist republic.
What we have been seeing over the past 2 months is, in a manner of speaking, the vaccum cleaner saleman throwing dirt on your floor as soon as you've opened the front door to see who it is.
What I see the RE industry doing is no different than a majority of other industries. What is it that sets the RE industries apart from the others? What, RE wants to "save the planet." Is that it? It would seem to me that those in high places of RE are going to make their fortunes first while leaving it up to everybody else to "save the planet." Is that really any different than any other industry? I think the term is "money monger."
I propose that the RE industries as a collective step out of the line. Step away from all those that are lined up with their hands out wanting more and more government money. Be different. Do something for the American people. Become a part of this American nation and liberate us from the tyranny of big business and a coruptted government. There is a way, but it means a personal sacrifice. This is a part of what it means to be an American. RE leaders, do this and let the people see you do it. Stand up in defiance to the esablished way commerce has corrupted the U.S. government. Give people a different path to choose from the same old, same old.
What we have to do now to afford your products is to seek out any and all government assistance (something the industry is already doing), and go into debt for several decades of our lives.
Liberate the American people. Vanquish the power companies, don't go to bed with them. Tell the U.S. government you don't want there money, that your going striaght to the Americans and get there support. Liberty!
Comment 18 of 33
No image available
November 19, 2008
"Investment in Renewables Will Lead to US Economic Recovery, Leaders Say."

Hey, Jennifer I think the "printers" left out a word from your opening title.

"Government investment in Renewables Will Lead to US Economic Recovery, Leaders Say."

There. Isn't that really the message you wanted to convey?

There is a new acronim Americans should learn its,
U.S.S.R. - the United States of Socialist Republics

Where have all the people of this American nation gone?
Have they gotten lost in the everyday trudgery of work, pay bills, work some more, make the commerce and government wealthier and more powerful. The same commerce and government that has marginalised the opening phrase "We the People." You all saw it printed accross the top of those so called "tax rebate" checks. "The American Worker."
We work for industry to earn a few dollars. Just enough to get by. We are bomdarded by industry with temptations to go into debt for decades out of our lives; in order to have the products made by industry; so we can put on the apperance that we earn more than what idustry is paying us; there by insuring a lifetime of servituded. Then we die.
My vision of this new age, nuclear family in the U.S.of A is of a round, flat track, suspended from darkness with darkness in every direction away from that track and this is where the American people are, going around and around. Off in the distance though in one direction, we just are able to see the skeletons of the past. This helps keep us on track. Look the other way though, beyond the illusion created to hide it from us, and you will see the skeletons of our future. We cannot rely on the U.S. government anymore. It has been corruptted by commerce.
Comment 19 of 33
No image available
November 19, 2008
In educating about Green Building and Renewable Energy I have found that applying current energy efficiency technology is the quickest way to reduce our carbon footprint and boost our economy. The first fuel economy standards and energy tax incentives of the Carter administration led to a 14% reduction in energy use in 10 years while we grew our GNP 94% during a period of extremely high interest and inflation. The resulting drop in energy prices due to decreased demand led to low fuel prices.
Government policy has the potential to create positive change. Though the commercial tax incentives were extended to 2016, the residential incentives only got a one year extension.
The 2005 Energy Bill and the extensions of the incentives received no funding to educate the public about the incentives.
North America has the worst energy efficiency of any continent having the highest per capita energy use.
The low hanging fruit of energy improvements has the potential to allow us the breathing room on climate change and economic growth for us to live to see renewable energy take the lead.
My wife and I started the Lehigh Valley Green Builders Forum (www.lvgreenbuilders.org) to educate about the tremendous potential of energy efficiency in the built environment.
We find that people want to learn how to make a difference in their energy use and effects on the environment.
Energy improvements to existing buildings are the best investment we can make with a great return on investment. Energy improvement jobs build the local economy and create manufacturing jobs at the same time. They also make our businesses more profitable. Energy improvement financing is one of the most profitable parts of the banking industry, and the banking industry is virtually oblivious of the market for such financing.
Our Green Building Expo will teach the public about the tremendous difference they can make in their effects on the environment. www.lvgreenbuilders.org/expo
Comment 20 of 33
No image available
November 19, 2008
Bravo, Thomas Schmidt!

Wind energy is the antithesis of a solution as it's land and sea guzzling; and neither affordable nor reliable. I join you in calling on the AWEA to redefine the primary incentive that the nation provides for these technologies today--staggering public debt in exchange for perceived value from the public perspective. Enron Wind is a fine business model from the industry perspective, but American citizens are not served by it. Instead, we enter into their servitude by embracing this industrial religion. And, we even ignore the ugly truth if about it when it's spoken. The wind industry primary incentive isn't about cleaner air or water. If it was, our generous public subsidies would be tied by index to reduction in harmful emissions.

The AWEA, BWEA's, etc., primary motivation is tax sheltering that shifts monetary and resource wealth from the public to industry.

In the words of Pete Stark, CA rep: "This isn't a wind farm, it's a tax farm."

"The nation needs an ambitious plan to promote the deployment of wind and other renewable energy technologies -- and the urgent first step it must take is to rapidly extend the expiring renewable energy credits, which are the primary incentive that the nation provides for these technologies today."

-- Randall Swisher, Executive Director, AWEA

Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow focusing on energy policy and environmental protection at the Cato Institute:

"Renewable power mandates merely accentuate the inefficiency and cost premiums attached to so-called renewable power sources. If renewable power saved consumers money, created jobs, or carried any of the other economic benefits so frequently claimed by environmental activists, then government would not have to pass a law to force power companies to purchase it or consumers to buy it."

Bio: Economist John Kay
http://www.johnkay.com/

'Green lobby must be treated as a religion'
http://www.johnkay.com/political/479
Comment 21 of 33
No image available
November 19, 2008
Telegraph UK

'Wind farms fail to deliver value for money, report claims'
By Patrick Sawyer
14 Sep 2008

"Wind farms are failing to deliver value for money and distorting the development of other renewable energy sources, a report claims"

"Excessive subsidies make them an expensive and inefficient way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a study by the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) think-tank says."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2910739/Wind-farms-fail-to-deliver-value-for-money-report-claims.html

Reuters

November 7, 2008
By Bernie Woodall

'California study shows high cost of renewable power'

"While renewable power one day may compete with baseload power sources such as natural gas, coal and nuclear, it currently is more costly, and much less dependable."

California Public Utility Commission Report article:

http://in.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idINN0629356520081107?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0
Comment 22 of 33
No image available
November 19, 2008
RE Wind Energy Efficiency #22, Barabara we have a class of wind powered turbines that are a multiple the cost efficiency of traditional. There are several reasons for this not just improved technology. Re these calculations, $.05/kWh, or less with scale (e.g., 10GW wind farms in choice areas) is our plans. Technology move and improves (and disrupts) if it does its job. Remember Wind Power is BIG Business, with BIG Companies, making BIG ROI's, without anything that looks like a war on energy.
CEO, Sannerprojects, Inc Sannerwind@gmail.com
Comment 23 of 33
No image available
November 19, 2008
Steven Posted: November 15, 2008

One need only consider what happens to the wind turbine industry every time the production tax credit is allowed to expire--and wind is among the most efficient of renewables.

Not true, Wind is about 25 to 30% efficient when compared to geothermal. This, of course is due to the fact that wind is intermittent and geo it 24/7
Comment 24 of 33
No image available
November 19, 2008
Again, not one word about conservation and efficiency being job one. In a finite world where we now face the limits from depletion of non-renewable resources one would think the paradigm of unlimited growth would finally be seen for what it... namely a dead end. Renewables are great, but there is NO WAY they will be able to support the mindless waste and consumption so prevalent in our world today.

Todd
Comment 25 of 33
No image available
November 19, 2008
Todd, Go up to my comment number 20. Increased Energy efficiency is the missing key. It is not as sexy as a windmills or solar panels, but has the best return on investment. Bruce
Comment 26 of 33
No image available
November 19, 2008
Ron,
When I said "One need only consider what happens to the wind turbine industry every time the production tax credit is allowed to expire--and wind is among the most efficient of renewables" the relevant metric for efficiency was kWh of electricity per dollar cost. This is the relevant metric if one is considering whether or not a generation method can survive without subsidies and it is the relevant metric I consider every time I open my electricity bill.
Comment 27 of 33
No image available
November 19, 2008
Thank you for your response, Jay. I understand. WindCats and PetroCats are one in the same involved in the diversification of their energy investment portfolios. Enron Wind became GE Wind and Shell became ShellWind, Chevron became Chevron Wind and so on. As the VP and chief counsel of GE states: "Green is green."

To me, the larger the industrial footprint, the less green the energy option.

My interpretation is that your new and improved turbine design is a work in progress--unproven. I applaud your entrepreneurial spirit.

I agree with Todd Cory. Conservation and efficiency should be our first priority. If Big companies could reap Big ROI's by moving in an Earth friendly direction, we'd have some traction.

Presently, wind energy is wishful thinking at its worst--from the public and environmental perspectives.

I think that we need to create and enforce penalties to stem the wind industry's blatant and perpetual overstatement of benefits and understatement of associated risks. We should also mandate DOI/USFWS interim wind turbine siting guidelines, to address the killing of endangered species by wind turbines. The AWEA 's response to Natural Resources' Chairman Rahall's attempt to do just that was, "hysterical", according to the Chairman. Unrestricted development rights, no matter what the environmental consequences may be, is obviously the goal of the AWEA. Actions speak more loudly than words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liNIqYNHRXE&NR=1
Comment 28 of 33
No image available
November 20, 2008
We need laws against enviro's (ok, not really) who would rather see the economy and the icecaps melt in favor of not allowing big wind (and more importantly, big solar thermal with heat storage across much of the deserts) to do their jobs! Big anything is inherently dirty, smiten with the gleem of gold... yet we survive from that and would not even exist at all without it! (Think oil babies) Now, though, big anything doesn't have to kill the planet if we allow largescale RE.

What I want to ask an economist is this: Even though billions of mirrors and (solar) thermal storage would cost more than coal, wouldn't all those extra jobs and supporting jobs ofset the extra costs in electric rates (and promote more jobs in the electric vehicle sector)?

I am also not sure if we should instead just focus on advanced (very deep)geothermal since that would be able to support thousands of such global populations???
Comment 29 of 33
No image available
November 20, 2008
Energy conservation and efficiency is by far fastest ROI. It is also a zero cost job creation program. Among renewables, ground source heat pumps and air to air heat pumps are the most commercial. They are much cheaper than other sources of heating and cooling. Much of the discussion above is about electric loads. Heating and cooling loads are a much higher factor in the carbon loads. In the case of PV, wind and CSP , many of the comments don't take into account that all involve current investment with free power in the future. A 20 year window involves a known price structure fixed at the beginning. Other forms of power have unknown and generally rising fuel price structures. This is a significant factor in investment decisions.
Comment 30 of 33
No image available
November 21, 2008
Bob,
the problem with efficiency is that consumption (and non-consumption) are moderated by a price signal (the longer the more effective).

What we have in this country is a price signal which says waste energy - in fact waste tons of energy - it's cheap, and we promise to make it cheaper. Remember your generation grew up under the atomic promise which was: "Energy too cheap to meter".

The problem we are in today isn't the fault of right-wing religious zombies - it is in great part the fault of the atomic energy sciences which promoted the promise of a downward price signal for energy.

When energy is subsidized people are paid to consume, and charged a premium to conserve. In that setting - what sense is there in stuffing newsprint in your walls? The only rational energy consumer is the Feds - everyone else is hidden from both the costs of consumption, and more importantly in your case, the benfits of conservation.
Comment 31 of 33
No image available
November 21, 2008
The 30% tax credit for installation of renewable energy systems which was intended to jump start the market is rendered impotent because customers still need to finance the balance. Without the availability of consumer credit nothing will happen.

It would also help if the tax credit could be spread over multiple filing years. Many home owners may not owe all of their 30% in a single filing.

Commercial buildings will most likely be serviced by large contractors. The housing market will be serviced by small, local contractors. The entire country will be depending on small locals to retrofit existing single family homes. Installation of solar panels and hook up to hot water and electric service is relatively simple mechanically. Much easier than building additions for instance. This means most local contractors will be able to install with minimal retraining of the work force on hand. Right now they are all sitting on the bench.

This industry could be the beginning of a recovery, but as things stand now their success is impossible.

I saw a feature on TV that said a nationwide electric grid as extensive as the interstate highway system would only cost $60 billion. This at a time when the government is throwing $800 billion to a trillion good dollars after bad. What is the question here? $60 billion for a national electricity grid which will be permanent vs. bailing out a level of greed that makes Enron look like a Sunday school picnic? It seems that smoke and mirrors are deemed to be 15 times more valuable than a true, lasting solution.

Too much rhetoric, too little action.
Comment 32 of 33
No image available
November 21, 2008
Jennis,
How much new energy would a 60 Billion energy grid generate?

Zero. Squat. Zip. Zilch.

The grid has been the problem for like 3 days in the last decade.

A Time may come when the grid is the problem, but throwing money at the grid first doesn't strike me as very good planning.

In the meantime, don't let facts get in the way of your bambi fantasies.
(ie 60 Billion will solve the energy crisis and global warming by rebuilding a new grid).

For a counter view - Wave energy could be the new energy source, in which case you don't need a new grid across the red states - that expense would have been wasted. Solar could become cheaper in which case you don't need a new grid.
Comment 33 of 33
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
Solar Energy International Geothermal Energy Association Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Solar Electric Power Association ORMAZABAL bees - bioenergy events & services
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo