Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Building A Better Grid

By R. James Woolsey, VantagePoint Venture Partners
March 26, 2009   |   9 Comments
We can improve security and reduce uncertainty.

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

9 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 9
March 27, 2009
I note an interesting omission from the author's biographical information; usually a high-profile stint with the CIA rates some mention.

The author claims German renewable energy grew from 3% in the "late 1990s" but the share of renewables (at least according to the Germans: http://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/ren-Strom-D/index_e.html) ranged from 4.2 to 5.3% during 1995-1999. The author further states that "direct costs" to German households is $4/month but that savings in oil and gas to the German economy are $9 Billion/year. Such cryptic comparisons tend to be made when clear comparisons don't support the argument of those citing them. In this case, direct costs are only a small portion of the total costs of Germany's renewable program and these costs, in aggregate, are vastly more than the $9 Billion in "savings" that might have been obtained from reduced natural gas purchases. German renewable production last year was ~95000 GWh including their hydroelectric production so a $9 Billion savings assumes a per kWh cost from natural gas generation of ~9.5 cents/kWh, which would be a high-end estimate of the total production cost; the imported fuel costs would be significantly lower. Precise data for the total cost of the German renewable production are hard to come by (which is often the case when things are ghastly expensive) but is surely more expensive than this $9 Billion savings figure.

Of course, the author is actually advocating solar PV FITs in this article, so it is worth noting that the German solar FIT program is in the ballpark of 80 cents kWh and the FL scheme more than 30 cents/kWh. What's not to like? How about the spending of large multiples of the free market rate for electricity generation and guaranteeing these rates for decades, when this will have nearly no impact on security, environmental concerns, or future solar PV costs. Improvements to the grid or more R&D would be far more cost-effective uses of funds than FITs.
Comment
2 of 9
March 27, 2009
You would think that there was never a time, when human beings on Earth, never had to live without electricity. Without any of these energies we take for granted today. But there was.
From whatever beginings you believe manking had, creation or evolution or whatever, thousands of years went by and mankind more than just survived on Earth without electricity, mankind thrived without it.
We today are a living testiment to that fact.
It has only been in the last 100 years that mankind has "harnessed" electricity and the masses have utilized it.
Now look at us today. Catterwalling over how there is not going to be enough energy for the future. Truely pathetic. I don't pity the human race though. We desesrve what we get. But it is a...
Pity about Earth.
Such a precious gift we were given and all we can seem to do is devour it like so many locusts on a field of wheat.
Thousands of years to reach 2 billion.
The last 100 years has seen 4.5 billion more.
Electricity + People + Earth = ?
Where are we going with all of this? Or do we even care?
It would seem to me that we have all climbed aboard our technologies and are simply "bulldozing" blindly into the future, not looking at where we are going, just looking at the back of our "bulldozer" blade. Nothing can get in our way, the "bulldozer" will just push it away.
But what can a man do with his own two hands and his own two feet?
Just look at human history! Mankind accomplished a lot. After all, we are still here, we did not go the way of the Dodo's.
Comment
3 of 9
March 27, 2009
@Steven Your critique is intelligently stated up to a point. Its limitations are that you are using only an economic argument to cast aspersions and you leave the reader to assume that status quo is better. It isn't.

Mr. Woolsey's experience in Intelligence means that he has had to assess various perspectives from a number of analysts. Some of the best security analysts now say that climate change portends a serious security risk. You focus on dollars and cents ignores these other concerns.

You cannot eat or drink the geld you parenthetically suggest could be saved, and if you have the geld, you still need people surviving to serve you the food and drink. We continue to neglect ecology at our serious peril.
Comment
4 of 9
March 27, 2009
Jonathan,
Regarding your comment #3, I certainly did not suggest that the status quo was better nor did I advocate doing nothing. The last line of my comment suggests R&D and improvements to the grid; expenditures in cost-efficient renewables such as wind and geothermal (where available--FL is short on both these resources) would also be reasonable.

Woolsey's data is inaccurate, his comparisons muddy, and his arguments devoid of an economic rationale for the steps he endorses. Pointing out these flaws is not the same as casting "aspersions"--that would involve attacking someone's integrity, whereas I merely criticized his arguments and conclusions.
Comment
5 of 9
March 27, 2009
FITs are a social experiment. We don't know how well they will work but that is what experimentation is all about.

Given his CIA background he is predictably obsessed with oil independence and things like "Russian aggression." Interestingly enough, our biodiesel refiners have been exporting so much of their product that the EU had to slap them with import duties. He is right about our need to electrify transport and eliminate coal as our main source of power generation. How we do that is the tricky part.

http://www.biodiversivist.com
Comment
6 of 9
March 27, 2009
Steven makes important points regarding the costs of feed-in tariffs that are glossed over by Mr. Woolsey. But, Steven's statement about "...spending of large multiples of the free market rate for electricity generation..." gives me pause because there really is no free market for utility provided power and the market that exits is rife with imperfections that Adam Smith would recognize.
1. Electricity utilities remain monopolies; even in "deregulated" states the distribution utility is a monopoly. 2. To counter monopoly power, we have highly intrusive economic regulation by state utility commisions as well as some federal regulation by FERC; ratemaking has little to do with free market and the system is stacked against entrepreneurial challenge to incumbent utilities. 3. Externalities--the atmosphere is used as a free dumping ground for CO2 and for other pollutants not captured by pollution controls plus other environmental impacts and, in the case of FL, oil dependency impacts. Those costs/impacts/damage are not captured by the market.

Also Steven says "R&D would be far more cost-effective uses of funds than FITs." R&D is vital but the technology-push of R&D needs to be linked to market-pull. New technologies need markets or else they sit on the shelf--or they're not developed in the first place because investors don't see a market opportunity. FIT, renewable portfolio standards, pricing carbon, or other mechanisms stimulate private sector R&D and other investment by supporting markets for innovative energy tech.

30 cents/kWh is expensive versus most utility generation but may not be so bad on a hot weekday in FL (or NY, CA...) with time-of-day and peak demand charges or considering smog impacts from combustion-based generation. PV on your roof competes with retail cost not util generation cost. On the other hand, if FIT gets you 30 c/kWh from a wind turbine spinning at 3am it is indeed very expensive.
Comment
7 of 9
March 27, 2009
Thank you for your support of feed-in tariffs and pointing out renewable energy dividends don't discriminate in favor of large central power plants the way some other renewable incentive programs can. The unholy alliance of the utility monopolies, windpower industry and environmentalists have convinced Obama and the many Democrats to support a combination of renewable portfolio standards and competitive bidding, which in many states has been allowing utility monopolies to rig the bids in favor of their own generators, affiliates and even friends, especially those in the windpower industry (while regulators sit on their hands).
Comment
8 of 9
March 27, 2009
By far the best way to make the grid secure is to go underground. Major high voltage links can be taken out by a single well-placed bomb at the foot of a tower. HVDC underground can be cheaper but it is often ignored in the US
www.clrlight.org/hvdc.htm
Comment
9 of 9
March 27, 2009
This author wrote about a time when power was out in most or parts of Florida. He wants us to believe that people with their own power stations via wind turbines or solar panels could provide localized power perhaps to a number of neighbors in a community. I don't think so!!! Grid interconned systems are designed to shut off on a mili second when there is nothing to synchronize and commute to. Perhaps, if these people were off the grid, would they realize a benefit of having the refrigerator, air-conditioning, and lights still work--they would not however be contributing power to their localized grid. Geeez.
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

The Interstate Renewable Energy Council Ambient Technologies, Inc. Stoel Rives LLP Prudent Living, Inc. Rotork plc SunMaxx Solar Standard Solar Inc.
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