Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

U.S. Renewable Energy Leaders: Don't Count on Carbon Price Alone

By Jim Pierobon, Contributing Writer
May 8, 2008   |   17 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"We have to set national goals for these technologies. I don't want you to think that this is going to be easy. But no one should think that renewables are going to be only a small percentage of the future if we decide that is the future we want."

-- John Coequyt, Senior Washington Representative, Global Warming and Energy Program, Sierra Club
17 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 17
May 8, 2008
Being involved in prior technical revolutions statements like 20% by 2030 indicate there are structurable problems in understanding the depth of the problem and the nature of solution. First the need for ENERGY is roughly 10 times that of electricity. So, in 22 years we will have achieved 2% of our energy needs via wind! My own "emerging growth" development company has plans for baseline wind farms of 10 GW. Minimum for CSP today is a few hundred MW -- Of course, wind energy can be culled 365x24, and why no one insists on kWh as a meaningful measurement is beyond me. Wind power does not shut down at night, and waken at the crack of dawn, major plusses. . Back to my opening statement, early calculations were 6 Brainiac/Univac type (still with tubes) computers would suffice for all of the US' computational needs. Are there economic bias and consequences in low-ball projections of renewable potentials, and global need? JR, CEO SPI JRIAM1945@aol.com
Comment
2 of 17
May 8, 2008
Robert,

You are a heretic. Most likely an oil company shill, of Western European Origin, trying to talk down these world saving technologies. Global Warming is a fact. Everyone is going to suffer because of evil men like you -- the great deniers. We are doomed unless we take the higher path.

I would burn you at on stake, but I can't figure out the proper carbon offset. Is it 3 trees in El Salvador, 5 in Alabama or 6 Solar PV panels in California? How much do you weigh?
Comment
3 of 17
You might want to read my article posted in the May issue of macCompanion magazine in the "Greenware" section - Global Warming, the Cult of Gaia and "Edidence"

http://www.maccompanion.com/macc/archives/May2008/Greenware/Global%20Warming.htm

We should be doing the economically smart things for the right reasons and not for pushing the Global Warming(tm) agenda.
Comment
4 of 17
May 9, 2008
Excuse me, I meant Geothermal and hydro too (is needed in the RE mix)
Comment
5 of 17
May 9, 2008
It's time to realize that the age of oil is almost over for everyone except the "elite". Communities need to use every available space just to grow their own food. Renewables will only account for a small % of the people. (because both we and the gov don't enforce its exponential growth while we still have available fossil energy). The rest will either live (subtainable?) or outright starve to death. What will you do when the grocery stores no longer exist because we are not energy independent! Does your community know how to make its own solar panels and batteries, if so, it might survive death by oil depletion (and have the power to pump ground water needed for sustainability).


We will not be commuting 50 miles a day after post oil crises, thus we will be able to use much less juice in our electric carts, scooters, ect. Solar and wind must account for almost 100% of humanity's energy needs or almost 100% of huminity will die!

We need to develop a blueprint that "tells" communities "how" to make and store thier own energy nomatter what the costs. You see, money (as we know it) will be a thing of the past, too, after the peak.
Comment
6 of 17
May 9, 2008
www.marshallsystem.com
Nicely produced intro. Bruce.
I often hear calls for a new "Marshall plan".
wrap it tightly and sell it to exon.
At this point they should be ready to move into a new source of central controlled user dependant energy source. I would be happy to to make them richer, selling desal water to Saudis and Chavez. Offshore is up their alley. Oil is too precious to burn.
Comment
7 of 17
May 9, 2008
To all the people who keep saying that the technology isn't available and nothing can work economically to bring down emissions, please explain why a country like Norway can emit about 40%-50% less CO2 per person than the US or Canada and why Sweden can emit less than 1/3rd as much as us. Both are: rich, lightly populated, northern countries (Norway is the richest in the world), both have high heating and cooling degree days, both have large resource (relative to its population, Norway produces 7x as much oil as Canada) and industrial sectors (Canada and the US have slightly larger "service sectors" than Sweden & Norway); being far north, they have higher need for lighting; etc. Some of the differences can be explained by Norway's greater hydro resource, but Sweden has less hydro per person than Canada. And both are highly competitive economies (Sweden is ranked 4th in the world by the World Economic Forum). There is no single reason that do better, EXCEPT that they are committed to doing better and have the confidence to try.

Most importantly, they demonstrate that we can do better, too.
Comment
8 of 17
May 9, 2008
Does anybody feel that a low cost distributed solar ($90/MWh) might solve a lot of the problems?

Further, it's been pointed out that electricity is only a fraction of the total energy need, but it can assume an ever larger percentage as the plug-in hybrid fleet becomes a larger fraction of the whole.
Comment
9 of 17
May 9, 2008
These Congressional meetings sound like a bunch of high-cost fossil-fuel and renewable-energy beggars at the public trough all whining for handouts. Fossil-fuel groups defending their tax incentives while renewable energy leaders not only cry for an extension of investment and production tax credits, but now they also want all sorts of handouts coming from carbon credits or mandates.

The first priority should be to foster competition in deregulated states. Old utility coal and nuclear plants should be required to pay back stranded benefits to ratepayers that financed their old plants (in the same way that they received stranded cost payments). The US must repeal "grandfather" exemptions for old plants that allow them to avoid meeting costly environmental laws imposed on new plants. Monopolies should be broken up and antitrust laws enforced. The U.S. should build a national grid to connect more potential competitors. Moreover, utility monopolies in regulated states should not be allowed to dump surplus power at below cost into deregulated states.

If the US cannot politically make a legitimate attempt to foster real competition in all states, I would support feed-in tariffs set at the lowest-cost needed for supply to meet demand.
Comment
10 of 17
May 9, 2008
I have a report that indicates that renewable energies are a myth. I realize that I'm going against an ideology here. My hope is that science is stronger than ideology. This report will be updated within a week and will have more on renewables, and the news is not good. This report is getting some notice. If you do a search on -- peak oil renewables -- my site comes up: here tis the report: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
Comment
11 of 17
May 9, 2008
These "renewable capacity added"-numbers look impressive but efficacy is questionable unless we get the realizable PLFs close to long term economic viability,rather than just adding GWs.
Comment
12 of 17
May 9, 2008
Enter the peacemaker.

Robert, whether you agree with GW or not, wouldn't you be thrilled with a renewable source that could produce electricity equivalent to five nuclear generating stations from one single plant?

And Bill, do you really give a damn whether Robert intellectually agrees with GW or not as long as you both support the same solution?

I have patented the first system to harness deep ocean hydrothermal vents for large-scale electricity production, and simultaneously it's the first practical deep ocean mining system.

The power available is simply enormous. I expect 20 GW plants to be a practical reality in the very near future. The reason for the incredible numbers is because of the intensely-focused, high volume nature of hydrothermal energy. It's completely unlike wind or solar, both of which require vast tracts of land to gather enough energy to make a difference.
Comment
13 of 17
Don't rubbish solar, we need it like wind, lots of it, yesterday. Solar great for the higher demands for electricity during the day, and will be available for the summer peaks. No such guarantee with wind, though geographically dispersed wind plant will help reduce the variation in wind power. This is where load following gas plant can be of real value supplying the gap between wind and solar and demand.

The real issue is the horror waste of money and effort on baseload coal and nuclear.
Comment
14 of 17
May 11, 2008
Interesting comments. Would anyone else consider using a combination, of every type of renewable energy to produce power.
How to store power, is then the next question to answer, till the power is needed. I believe that renewable power is the only way forward to do this.
Storing power as we all know can be done by a battery, or by pumping it to a height as in hydro, or by biopower. Coal and oil originally was what is now known as, either biomass or biopower if you consider it. I was reading a newspaper recently that reckoned that there was 1/3 of wood grown in a country every year, was available to be used as a fuel. Woodpellets or logs or wood bricks, can all be used to keep us warm. A 1/3 of food bought is again thrown away, every animal reared for food again has a 1/3, not able to be eaten.
Has anyone else wondered?. Why the energy in food is measured in calories, and the energy we use to heat the home and ourselves and to drive cars, is measured in bhp or kWh. Its really the same thing, its just confusing using different values. In a fact long time ago energy or power was measure in joules.
I was told recently, something that I believe is true, "Do'nt ask for grants,
do'nt tell them out, just go ahead and do it". Thats a old Yorkshire saying. The person who said that had being involved in the only two biomass plants out of ten in the UK that were then working and producing heat and electricity.

If anyone is intersted in contacting me, my mobile or cell phone is, 07796 533 460,
alternatively my e-mail address is gregson.john@yahoo.co.ok

John Gregson
Comment
15 of 17
May 12, 2008
Read 'em and weep:

Current world population: 6.4 Billion (25% currently lack electricity. They want it.) 2050 forecast: ~9 Billion.
Current US population: 303 Million 2050 forecast: 400 million.
From EIA: current US energy demand: ~100QBtus.
Forecast for 2030: ~118 QBtus.

From the article, AWEA's Randy Swisher says wind can deliver 20% of electricity's needs by 2030. I hope so, particularly since, if all goes well, a considerable portion of our current transportation load will shift fom petroleum to the grid, courtesy PHEVs, etc. FYI: Petroleum now accounts for some 40% of TOTAL US energy consumption.

25-50 years from now, RE will still account for but a fraction of total energy needs for a growing US population.

Bottom line: we will continue to rely upon FF for a major portion of out total energy needs. THAT's WHY we still need subsidies for FF industries. We will need IGCC, CCS, and, I maintain, nuclear to get us "there". Better to have excess, redundant capacity, rather than insufficient. If you doubt that, ask any politician accountable to the public.....

RE has shot itself in the foot for years by seeking to somehow "punish" FFs for doing what nothing else could do: power a nation. So intent upon inflicting punishment has RE been that it has made that the centerpiece of its agenda (denial of FF incentives) rather than simply securing similar incentives for itself. (Those are two different goals.)

Given the energy needs of the nation, and RE's limited ability to address those needs (I realize wind is but one part of the RE solution), it will take an all hands effort to reduce emissions, and power the nation.

If Hansen's latest predictions (NASA) are to be believed, we'll need nuclear's 19% (and even more), to facilitate the expeditious retirement of old coal plants.

And better still, we need more attention to negawatts.
Comment
16 of 17
May 15, 2008
I am thrilled by the solutions suggested by Bruce and G T. However, how can long term use be assured if these vents are affected by inner earth movements (I imagine the earth is always moving and it could affect the operation if a vent is obstructed in any way)?? The other barrier to overcome, the transmission from ocean located generation to an on-land grid. Similar concern as the offshore wind power has. Anyway I think you've got a tremendously good idea. Good luck.
Comment
17 of 17
in response to Clifford at Peak Oil, don't you think Boone Pickens is on the right track with wind? (and solar)
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=747990771
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

Advertise With Us

Renewable Energy World Africa ClearEnergy Inc. HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. Texas Combined Heat & Power Initiative Richardson RFPD, Inc. HelioSage Mannvit
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters