Investors: Renewables Growth is Slower but Steady

By Stephen Lacey, Podcast Producer
July 5, 2010 | 27 Comments

Do you like this podcast?

Bookmark

Feed

New York, New York In just one year, the story line for the renewable energy industry has been flipped on its head. Last summer, as investors tried to figure out the stimulus package, there was a lack of capital and a pent up demand for projects. This summer, there are far fewer projects being developed, but more willingness to lend from financiers.

Dear Listeners -- While the written companion article for each episode of the Inside Renewable Energy podcast remains below, the associated audio files have necessarily been removed. We apologize for the inconvenience, and appreciate the support you gave to our podcast production.

Thank you,
RenewableEnergyWorld.com

Because the sluggish economy has made some renewables less competitive, there's a “flight to quality” in the space, according to investors at this year's Renewable Energy Finance Forum in New York City.

“The capital is there..but having a project that can be financed is difficult. I think the developers are struggling. So we have not been as busy as we've been in the past,” said Kevin Walsh, managing director of renewable energy at GE Energy Financial Services.

The combination of low fossil energy prices and lower demand for power has stymied growth in some sectors, particularly wind. In the U.S., wind installations are expected to fall by 40% this year. In Europe, installations will likely fall flat.

Solar PV will be the fastest growing industry, as it is less capital intensive, is faster to build out and does not face many of the same regulatory challenges as wind, geothermal and concentrating solar power. GE, which has been heavily involved in the wind space, is now looking to invest in large scale solar PV plants.

“We really like what we see in solar right now. That's going to be a greater focus for us as well,” said Walsh.

Over the last 18 months, companies like GE have changed up their investment strategies. In 2008, tax equity was the project financing option of choice. Those were the days when tax equity players owed enough money in taxes to take advantage of the credits. Then the financial crisis hit, reducing the tax appetite of investors. The problem was particularly bad in the wind industry. Today, because of the grant program created by the stimulus package, the tool of choice is debt.

Last year, over $5 billion was invested in wind energy projects in the U.S. Only $1.8 billion of that was in the form of tax equity.

Many developers are borrowing against the cash grant to raise money for construction, then handing the payment over to the construction lender when the project is completed. The program has already helped bring about 4,200 MW of projects online.

Unfortunately, fewer developers are now able to take advantage of the grant program because there is less demand for their energy. Even so, it's been a lifeline for the industry in the last 12 months.

Keith Martin, an attorney with Chadbourne and Parke, said that investors are very comfortable with the grant program. The big unknown is what will happen when the grant program expires at the end of this year. Most people in the industry are calling for an extension of the program until 2012, saying that the industry will shrink without it.

“The levers of public policy in Washington are broken. I just don't know if something will happen this year,” said Martin. “[investors] have to be savvy about this. You have to look at parts of the market that can stand on their own...without the support of public policy.”

That's pretty much every technology.

According to figures from the International Energy Agency released earlier this month, fossil energies got about $550 billion in subsidies in 2008, compared to $50 billion for renewables. With such heavy support for fossil energies, renewables will continue to be dependent on public policy.

Investors are watching the (seemingly always) uncertain policy debate in Washington, wondering how it will impact their current strategies. Without the grant program, a national target or a price on carbon, renewables may look less attractive to investors. The large shale gas finds in the U.S. – which will likely keep natural gas prices low for many years to come – are also going to impact the economics of renewable energy projects.

Michael Liebreich, CEO of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, said that these are all factors that the industry must deal with. They are creating the “New Normal,” where renewables grow at a more subdued and sustainable pace.

“We're neither in the depth of a trough, nor are we in an overheated stage. So this is a kind of normal year in the development of an industry,” Liebreich said.

For a comprehensive overview of the financial health of the industry, take a listen to this week's podcast, linked above. We've got interviews with Kevin Walsh of GE; Michael Liebreich of Bloomberg New Energy Finance; Fintan Whelan of Mainstream Renewable Power; Keith Martin of Chadbourne and Parke; and Ken Westrick of 3TIER.

Bioenergy, Geothermal Energy, Green Power, Hydropower, Hydrogen - Fuel Cells, Ocean Energy, Other, Solar Energy, Wind Power, Energy Efficiency

27 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 27

windation

July 5, 2010

The Grants must not expire
if the ration to renewable is about 11x less than fossil fuels how can it ever become the major source of energy ?

Comment
2 of 27

cessgene

July 5, 2010

But now the europe market is crazy. After October , I think the solar market will have great change !

Nanjing Cessgene Group Limited
Rick Kim
www.cessgene.com
sales@cessgene.com

Comment
3 of 27

Anonymous

July 5, 2010

In a particularly erroneous comment the author writes: "According to figures from the International Energy Agency released earlier this month, fossil energies get about $550 billion in subsidies each year world-wide, compared to $50 billion for renewables. With such heavy support for fossil energies, renewables will continue to be dependent on public policy."

To begin, the report does not use the word EACH; indeed, it states that CONSUMPTION (a critical modifier the author left out) subsidies increased from $342 billion in 2007 to $557 billion in 2008 according to their methodology. A consumption subsidy occurs when a nation keeps the price of a fossil fuel artificially low to allow its population to meet basis needs, such as when gasoline prices in oil producing nations are kept artificially low within their own borders. Iran leads the list this year at over $100 billion, followed by Russia, Saudi Arabia, China, and India. Values for the US and the European Union are both 0 in this category. In short, these are not the usual subsidies people like to rant about as preventing entry of renewables into the market.

The IEA also estimates the more usual types of subsides (tax code, R&D, etc.) for various energy generation schemes, but their methodology is pretty weak; for renewables they merely use a figure of 5 cents per kWh of non-hydro renewable generation. On a per kWh basis subsidies for renewables dwarf those for fossil fuels--even without estimating the value of RPS requirements, 20 year guaranteed pricing FITs, etc. Of course, the issue is largely moot as changing the subsidy environment is no substitute for technological innovation leading to competitive prices.
Steven

Comment
4 of 27

StephenLacey

July 6, 2010

Steven -- thanks for the correction on the "each" word choice. It was $342 billion the previous year. I appreciate the correction.

On your comment about consumption subsidies -- Earlier this month, the IEA's Chief Economist said that ending such subsidies would be critical to making an energy transition. The phase out of consumption subsidies could cut oil use by about 6 million barrels a day:

"This is the only single policy item that could make such a major change in the global energy and climate-change game," he said.

While these may not directly compete with the type of subsidies we usually think of, last year's report requested by Congress shows that about $120 billion in external costs are not factored into the price of energy. Surely that is a type of consumption subsidy keeping energy artificially low.

With that said, I think the call is getting stronger to factor in the external costs of fossil energies, strip away other subsidies and let fossils and renewables compete head to head.

As one of my favorite journalists, Vijay Vaitheeswaran of the Economist says:

"Free trade beats state aid."

Comment
5 of 27

Anonymous

July 6, 2010

Stephen,
I agree--a cut in consumption subsidies would dramatically reduce oil consumption and improve economic activity, but this is unlikely to occur. Totalitarian regimes use state control of the economy and inefficient subsidies to the poor as a way of maintaining their control. Even if, Iran, for instance, eliminated its fuel consumption subsidies they would not likely spend any money on biofuels. We should not be holding out hope of major innovations in the energy sector coming out of OPEC or much of the rest of the third world economies.

The problem with arguments pointing to massive "savings" from reduced external costs is that such savings don't readily translate into improved economic activity. Better air quality, reduced asthma rates and other health benefits, less damage to the environment, etc., are going to be seen as modest benefits in the developing world compared to the advantages of electricity and heat in the winter.

As for your statement that: "I think the call is getting stronger to factor in the external costs of fossil energies, strip away other subsidies and let fossils and renewables compete head to head," I think the situation is quite the reverse. RPS policies and other government mandates--if they prove to be enforceable--will force much of the new energy facilities constructed in the US and Europe to be from renewable technologies and may even lead to idling extant production facilities before their rated lifetimes are exceeded. Sum such shift may be required by climate change concerns, but this certainly isn't head-to-head competition.
Steven

Comment
6 of 27

StephenLacey

July 6, 2010

Steven --
Well, I suppose you are right that such benefits in the developing world might not be as attractive in the short term as a robust supply of electricity and fuel. Unfortunately, one need only to look at China's air and water quality to realize that such "benefits" have serious consequences.

In many areas of the developing world, distributed renewables can be deployed faster and more reliably than a large scale build-out of infrastructure. While the external environmental and health consequences are incredibly important, the simple efficiency of deploying distributed energy is a very compelling selling point.

On the external costs issue, I also agree -- I think the trend is toward more subsidies, not less. But I also hear many more calls among people in the energy community to simply strip away subsidies for both energies. Whether or not it has traction, that's another story.

Comment
7 of 27

rod-adams-151678

July 7, 2010

Steven:

I would be all for head to head competition between all energy sources. Of course, in your article and in the comments that follow, there appears to be a rather large competitor left out of the discussion - nuclear fission.

China is mentioned as having experienced the air quality issues and other environmental challenges associated with rapid economic development based on coal, but no one in this conversation has mentioned that the solution that the country is implementing with due haste is a massive build out of new nuclear power plants. Sure, you can find lots of articles about their large renewables energy business, but about 95% of their wind and solar production is aimed at the export market where there are massive government subsidies to be captured.

In contrast, China only has one small export market for its growing nuclear component manufacturing base (Pakistan). It is keeping all of the rest of that production at home with a goal of building about 120 GWe of nuclear capacity by 2020. They might miss that target by a year or two, but that nuclear capacity will be quite a bit different from renewables capacity of the same magnitude because it will run at full power about 80-90% of the time and produce massive quantities of cheap, emission free electricity.

Having a nation like China with cheap, clean electricity will make it very difficult for the rest of the world to compete for any industrial production at all, especially when you recognize that South Korea, Japan, and Vietnam are planning to follow the same path.

Here are the facts from the US about the production cost of electricity from various sources using 2009 numbers (cents per kilowatt-hour) based on FERC 1 form filings from utilities and models from non regulated power producers:

Nuclear - 2.03
Coal - 2.97
Natural Gas - 5.00
Petroleum - 12.37

Nuclear has most of the benefits of emission free renewables with one incredible advantage - it is reliable.

Comment
8 of 27

Anonymous

July 7, 2010

In this article following is mentioned:

'Last year, over $5 billion was invested in renewable energy projects in the U.S. Only $1.8 billion of that was in the form of tax equity.'

But i've read many other reports which say that approx USD 18.6 Bn was invested in renewable energy projects in US in 2009 as against an investment of approx USD 35 Bn by China.

Comment
9 of 27

a-b-24958

July 7, 2010

" On a per kWh basis subsidies for renewables dwarf those for fossil fuels--even without estimating the value of RPS requirements, 20 year guaranteed pricing FITs, etc. "

Well in the USA, on a per dollar spent basis, fossil fuels subsidies dwarfs renewables. Enough said about this country's priorities, I guess . . .

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/10/fossil-fuels-subsidies-more-than-doubles-those-for-renewables
Fossil Fuel Subsidies More Than Double Those for Renewables. More than half the subsidies for renewables—$16.8 billion—are attributable to corn-based ethanol. Of the fossil fuel subsidies, $70.2 billion went to traditional sources—such as coal and oil—and $2.3 billion went to carbon capture and storage.

*******
When one includes the very long list of externalized costs attributable to coal, nuclear and oil based consumer culture, including endless war, investment choices become clear. I add here that present day accounting principles are entirely appropriate for a culture that has learned to become sustainable by internalizing profits and externalizing costs. And concerning china as an alternative to this example, well nothing quite props up the bottom line like slave labor and no pollution/health/safety/quality controls...

Comment
10 of 27

a-b-24958

July 7, 2010

" Here are the facts from the US about the production cost of electricity from various sources using 2009 numbers (cents per kilowatt-hour) based on FERC 1 form filings from utilities and models from non regulated power producers:
Nuclear - 2.03 / Coal - 2.97 / Natural Gas - 5.00 / Petroleum - 12.37
"

Old already built NPP's in the USA are already written off, meaning their 20 years investment payback time is now expired, and they therefore can produce electricity at cheap rates, because the fuel is basically free.

Hereunder another example of prices for new built NPP's in Europe or the USA, lowest price is 9 cent per kWh in Europe, and 13 cents per kWh in the USA. And this are FACTS.

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-06-21-is-a-utility-only-cap-and-trade-bill-worth-passing/
From Sean Casten :
It is good to start examining the huge spread of prices paid for 'clean energy'. For everyone's edification, not one of the 260 energy recycling projects built by companies I have led have ever received more than 6.5 cents per kWh in external power sales. All of the approaches that use energy twice including Biomass CHP, gas fired CHP and recycling of industrial waste energy pencil at under the 9.9 cents per kWh.

Re nuclear, we repeat the assertion that all new nuclear will raise the current rates. Amortize $5,800 per kW over 25 years at 11% all in costs, assume the plant operates 8,000 full load hours per year, and you need 8.6 cents per kWh just for capital. Add labor, O&M, fuel, and reserves for decommissioning and spent fuel disposal and the owner will need 12 to 13 cents per kWh for the investment to pencil. I am not aware of any evidence that the $10,300 per kW estimate is high, and it is in the middle of the Vogtle Georgia NPP estimates.

Comment
11 of 27

rod-adams-151678

July 7, 2010

@a-b-24958

Wow, lots of commentary and data there. Please tell me how the high capital cost of nuclear is that much different from the high capital cost of renewables on a per unit energy produced basis?

The large projects that you are focusing on can certainly produce some scary numbers, but take a close look at the financing assumptions that you use. How many rooftop solar systems would be installed if the purchaser had to assume an interest rate of 11%? You only allow for a 25 year payment period, yet fully 60% of the nuclear plants operating in the US are already licensed to operate for 60 years and most of the rest will also receive license extensions. The NRC and DOE are already doing the materials research needed to evaluate if they can be licensed for safe operation beyond that 60 year period.

In contrast, how many of the wind turbines that were built during the 1970s boom period are still producing competitively priced electricity?

Finally, though I support the development of large nuclear installations where they make sense, I am far more excited by the potential uses of smaller nuclear facilities that can be built in modular fashion or deployed in a distributed fashion. These smaller facilities are also suitable for industrial cogeneration, desalination, or district heating to make use of the waste heat.

As I said in my initial comment - I would welcome the ability for nuclear energy to compete on a reasonably level playing field and do not ask for any subsidies - as long as the other sources of energy are willing to give up their subsidies, mandates, set-asides, and FITs.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast
Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.

Comment
12 of 27

StephenLacey

July 7, 2010

Anonymous -- that 5 billion figure is for wind projects only, not all renewable energy projects.

Comment
13 of 27

phil-manke-79191

July 7, 2010

Steven, you said; "Solar PV will be the fastest growing industry, as it is less capital intensive, is faster to build out and does not face many of the same regulatory challenges as wind, geothermal and concentrating solar power."

This may be so in the utility or purchased power segment, but distributed solar thermal is far and away the most cost effective solar alternative energy. It is certainly less capital intensive than PV. The PV industry grows largely because of massive capitol investments of large industry and governments. The overall benefit to the economy would be in distributed solar thermal that anyone and everyone could tap into at lower costs up front. The financial institutions are also drawn to the large investments required by PV projects. This does not make them more efficient, only more workable on large scales. The facts remain that distributed solar thermal can produce more power at lower costs for the infrastructure without the massive link with the banks. But, it seems that no one (Solar Industry Advocate Org) in this country is willing to get solidly behind a beneficial public movement unless it can tow the parasitic wall street financieers along with it.

Comment
14 of 27

Anonymous

July 7, 2010

In comment #9 a-b-24958 writes: "Well in the USA, on a per dollar spent basis, fossil fuels subsidies dwarfs renewables. Enough said about this country's priorities, I guess . . ."

This is a result of selective counting. Exxon Mobile paid no Federal taxes recently because their profits were taxed offshore and that is considered a tax subsidy yet when GE (a major wind turbine maker) also pays no Federal taxes using similar tax regulations no one counts that as a subsidy. The value of RPS requirements is huge for the renewable industry, but is usually not accounted for in renewable subsidy totals. The benefit of net metering is critical to household-scale PV but no one bothers to count that as a renewable subsidy. I could go on for pages.... Government intervention (at least in the US and the EU) into the market place overwhelmingly favors the renewables sector and the obvious metric for understanding how this affects market share is the dollar amount per unit of energy. Overall amounts--even when properly counted--are not good indicators of market trends.
Steven

Comment
15 of 27

StephenLacey

July 7, 2010

Phil, you bring up an excellent point. In a lot of markets, the LCOE for solar hot water is around 6-8 cents. As Dell Jones of Regenesis Power likes to say, "utilities are stepping over dollars to pick up pennies."

But the growth in Solar PV can't be ignored. The growth of "wholesale distributed power" -- 5-20 MW projects -- is really pushing the cost curve for PV downward....

Comment
16 of 27

a-b-24958

July 8, 2010

" The combination of low fossil energy prices and lower demand for power has stymied growth in some sectors, particularly wind. In the U.S., wind installations are expected to fall by 40% this year. In Europe, installations will likely fall flat. "

http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/10203/ewea-predicts-10-gw-of-wind-to-be-installed-in-europe-during-2010-/

EWEA predicts 10 GW of wind to be installed in Europe during 2010. Total installed wind power capacity by the end of 2009 was 74 767 MW.

Comment
17 of 27

a-b-24958

July 8, 2010

" " In comment #9 a-b-24958 writes: "Well in the USA, on a per dollar spent basis, fossil fuels subsidies dwarfs renewables. Enough said about this country's priorities, I guess . . ."

*** anonymous : This is a result of selective counting. Overall amounts--even when properly counted--are not good indicators of market trends. ***

Duh … Wonder what you are accounting, huh ? $70 Billion to fossil fuels versus $ 5 Billion to renewables, if the $ 18 Billion plus for ethanol fuel bribing isn't accounted for.

In other words, FF receives more than 10 times the cash bribes given to renewables.

Enough said about this country's priorities, I guess . . .

Comment
18 of 27

a-b-24958

July 8, 2010

" I am far more excited by the potential uses of smaller nuclear facilities that can be built in modular fashion or deployed in a distributed fashion. These smaller facilities are also suitable for industrial cogeneration, desalination, or district heating to make use of the waste heat. "

I am far more excited by the slow rise of renewable energy, where radioactive wastes don't have to be kept into account, once you are dead and your kids have to deal with your legacy : cleaning up the 91 million gallons (345 million liters) of high-level waste left over from plutonium processing, millions of cubic feet of contaminated tools, metal scraps, clothing, oils, solvents, and other waste. And with some 265 million tons (240 million metric tons) of tailings from milling uranium ore—less than half stabilized—littering landscapes.
If we continue down the nuclear pathway we simply create more and more of this dangerous stuff for which we have no solution. We are currently "storing in place" hoping that someone will think of something. For every nuclear plant we build we create one more rot in place dangerous problem for those who follow us.
There are no such things as safe NPP plants in France. They regularly have to shut down plants due to problems, like blocked sea water intakes for core cooling forcing emergency core shutdowns, jammed fuel rods during extraction to shut down cores, too hot cooling water intake temperatures because the lakes water is getting too hot during summertime, strong river dry up during summer due to high hot water exhaust levels into river from NPP's and so on. France use their NPP plants to cover up to 80% of their electricity supply, that wear and tear NPP's enormously while following peak load demands up and down during the day. In contrast the USA only use it's NPP's in baseload mode, and even then, they required up to 18000MW in pumped up storage backup, for when demand is low during late evenings or weekend.

Comment
19 of 27

a-b-24958

July 8, 2010

" I am far more excited by the potential uses of smaller nuclear facilities that can be built in modular fashion or deployed in a distributed fashion. These smaller facilities are also suitable for industrial cogeneration, desalination, or district heating to make use of the waste heat. "

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/06/foster-wheeler-to-supply-torresol-steam-generators?cmpid=SolarNL-Tuesday-June22-2010

June 18, 2010. Foster Wheeler AG announced that a subsidiary of its Global Power Group has been awarded a contract to design, supply and provide site advisory services for two sets of solar steam generators, including preheaters, kettle type evaporators, superheaters and reheaters, as well as low pressure and high pressure feedwater heaters. The equipment delivery is scheduled for the first quarter of 2011.
The plants will use Seners's concentrated parabolic trough technology (SENERtrough) and will have energy storage capability by means of molten salt tanks that is designed to provide up to seven hours of plant operation without sun radiation. The plants are expected to operate approximately 3,500 hours/year. The equipment will be integrated into the Valle 1 & Valle 2 Solar Thermal Power Plants, located in San José del Valle, Spain. The plants, which are owned by Torresol Energy, a company created by Spain-based Sener (60%) and the Abu Dhabi-based company Masdar (40%), will have an installed power capacity of 50 megawatts (MW) each.

http://www.pv-tech.org/news/_a/project_focus_morocco_secures_agreements_for_9billion_solar_plans/

Morocco has now reportedly secured agreements with the World Bank, the European Commission and Germany in connection with its large-scale US$9 billion solar project, which is expected to produce 38% of the country's power by the year 2020. The project consists of five power generation sites that will produce 2000MW of electricity, with a combined surface area of 10,000 hectares, in Ouarzazate, Ain Bni Math

Comment
20 of 27

a-b-24958

July 8, 2010

Comment
21 of 27

rod-adams-151678

July 8, 2010

@a-b-24958

You mention the dangerous stuff left over from nuclear activities. Much of what you are talking about is associated with nuclear weapons production, not nuclear energy. Even so, can you tell me how many people have been injured by exposure to this admittedly dangerous material?

In the entire history of nuclear power operations, I have been unable to find a single instance of a member of the public or a worker involved in the operations who was hurt by exposure to the used fuel materials. That material is dangerous, but we know how to handle it safely. It will last a long time, but so will the lead that forms my car battery and the mercury that is inside the thin glass tubes surrounding fluorescent light bulbs.

You mention the performance of the off-shore wind turbines and the fact that they have achieved 4,000 full load hours in a year. Of course, most people do not have the number of hours in a year memorized, but it happens to be 8,760. 4,000 full power hours in a year means a capacity factor of 45.7%. The entire US fleet of old nuclear power plants has achieved an average of more than 7800 full power hours over a 10 year period. Last year, 13 plants produced 8760 full power hours - they did not come off 100% output for the entire year.

One more thing - if off shore wind is so promising, why will consumers in New England be paying 20.7 cents per kilowatt hour for power from Cape Wind with a 3.5% per year escalation for the first 15 years? Of course, if federal subsidies get removed, that price increases by at least 2.1 cents per kilowatt hour (PTC) and as much as 5 cents (if accelerated depreciation is also removed).

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20100507005698&newsLang=en

Comment
22 of 27

StephenLacey

July 8, 2010

Ab24968 --
Europe installed about 10 GW of wind last year. They'll install about 10 GW again this year, making the growth curve flat.

Comment
23 of 27

Anonymous

July 8, 2010

Ab24968:
You like to quote obscure statistics; perhaps you will provide some specific ones too.
In this "$5 billion dollars" you claim that is all non-ethanol renewables get in subsidies:
1) What value is attached to state RPS requirements? If $0, why do you think it is worth so little?
2) What value is attached to the free grid access conferred by mandatory net metering? If $0, why do you think it is worth so little?
3) Why do you think it is appropriate to count tax rules exploited by Exxon as fossil fuel subsides but you don't count it in the $5 billion when GE does the same thing?
4) Do you count aid to poor families to pay heating expenses as a subsidy for the fossil fuel industry? (Many of these so-called subsidy studies do...) and do you count a $1 subsidy to a poor person to purchase fuel or electricity as worth the same as a $1 cash grant? If so, how can you defend such accounting? Would you cut heating subsidies to the poor?
5) My utility extracts a hefty fee each month for converting to renewables. Is that included in the $5 billion dollar subsidy figure? No such subsidies exist for fossil fuels so don't you think you get a distorted picture if you leave these out?
6) Some studies count the maintenance of the strategic fuel reserve as a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry. Do you? Would you de-fund it if you had the chance?
7) The production tax credit for wind is guaranteed for ten years. Doesn't the value of this guaranteed credit already exceed a value of $5 billion alone?
8) Do you believe that renewables would be better off (and gain market share) if all subsidies were eliminated? If not, why don't you think it is irrational to complain about subsidies for fossil fuels?
Steven

Comment
24 of 27

a-b-24958

July 13, 2010

" You mention the dangerous stuff left over from nuclear activities. Much of what you are talking about is associated with nuclear weapons production, not nuclear energy. Even so, can you tell me how many people have been injured by exposure to this admittedly dangerous material? "

About 100 000 deads from radiation inducted cancer in Ukraine alone in a decade . . .
About 200 000 malformed newborns in Ukraine alone in 20 years, all from radiation contamination
About 10 soviet nuclear submarines rotting on the bottom of the Atlantic, after some technical accident causing their sinking.

" One more thing - if off shore wind is so promising, why will consumers in New England be paying 20.7 cents per kilowatt hour for power from Cape Wind with a 3.5% per year escalation for the first 15 years? "

http://www.windpowermonthly.com/go/windalert/article/1007939/?DCMP=EMC-WindpowerWeekly

World's second biggest offshore project gets green light, the 576MW Gwynt n Môr project off the Welsh coast.
The project will significantly aid Wales ambition to supply a third of its electricity through wind. Installation of the 160 3.6MW Siemens turbines will begin late next year. These are expected to start producing electricity by 2013. Overall completion is set for 2014. The project will cost € 2 billion with € 1.2 billion of this going to Siemens, which has a five-year O&M contract. The budget also includes grid connections and two transformer platforms. (Investment of 3.5 per Watt). Permission to build Gwynt n Môr was agreed in late 2008. Gwynt n Môr will the second biggest wind farm in the world, however it falls some way short of the 1GW London Array project that is currently being build in the Thames Estuary.

Comment
25 of 27

a-b-24958

July 13, 2010

" Ab24968 -- Europe installed about 10 GW of wind last year. They'll install about 10 GW again this year, making the growth curve flat. "

And the really important question : how much will the USA install this year ?

Comment
26 of 27

a-b-24958

July 13, 2010

Anonymous, I do not want to answer your diatribe of questions, since I do live in Belgium, and really do not give a shit about your personal situation, or the mess the USA has created concerning renewables.

However, I inform you that I am receiving 100 percent renewable electricity on my home teller since 2006, from a utility called Ecopower cvba (google it). They invoice me 18 cents per kWh, which is the same rate that my previous utility called Electrabel invoiced me. Electrabel supplied me a mix of coal, natural gas and nuclear electricity, before I switched to Ecopower.

My point is therefore that it do NOT cost me one cent more to receive 100 percent clean electricity, so why would I bother support dirty nuclear or coal / NG power, given my personal example ?

And I inform you that Europe has signed the Kyoto Protocol, and has an Emission Trading System in place to reduce carbon emissions in a general way. I still have to see your corrupt Congressmen do the same over there. Not holding my breath on that one.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5401870,00.html
http://www.biomassmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=2325

The European Union officially adopted a 20-20-20 Renewable Energy Directive on Dec. 17 2008 setting climate change reduction goals for the next decade. The targets call for a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2020 compared with 1990 levels, a 20 percent cut in energy consumption through improved energy efficiency by 2020 and a increase to 20 percent in the use of renewable energy by 2020. In 2005 renewable energies from hydro power, solar, wind, biomass or geothermal sources accounted for less than seven percent of the EU's total energy consumption.

Comment
27 of 27

Anonymous

July 13, 2010

a-b-24958 writes in comment #26 in response to questions in comment #23: "Anonymous, I do not want to answer your diatribe of questions"

I note that this is the typical reaction of those who insist on quoting the data of highly biased subsidies studies. If you point out any of the many clear individual inconsistencies they don't want to talk about it but usually insist on continuing to cite bogus data.

he/she also goes on to write: "However, I inform you that I am receiving 100 percent renewable electricity on my home teller since 2006, from a utility called Ecopower cvba (google it). They invoice me 18 cents per kWh..."

Well, 18 Eurocents (~23 US cents/kWh) is pretty expensive (more than double the US average). Also, the cost per kWh to generate a few percent renewables isn't the same as the cost to generate 100% renewables. The cost would almost surely be much more because you would have to deal with intermittency issues, the limitation on good sites for wind that is already slowing European adoption rates, and a host of other things. The rich people of Belgium might be able to afford such costs but we need technologies that can convert China, India, etc. into a renewable paradigm. That won't happen at 23 US cents/kWh and not because of some trifling subsidies fossil fuels enjoy. You may find it an inconvenient truth, but renewables are not being held back by some conspiracy of fossil fuel cartels and their allies but merely because they are as of yet too expensive. Quibbles about subsidies are a distraction from reasonable policies that might push renewables forward.
Steven

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!

NEW Smart Phone App

Stephen Lacey

About: I am a reporter with ClimateProgress.org, a blog published by the Center for American Progress. I am former editor and producer for RenewableEnergyWorld.com, wh... more »