Bruce's Comments

Thank you for the thoughtful and informative article. I am delighted that NRDC is recognizing the danger of climate change and realizing that in order to address the problem we will need large scale projects like those proposed. That attitude is needed for large scale wind projects throughout the country as well, both on-shore and off-shore.

A little description of the technology would be helpful, to a non-hydro person like me. e.g. What is the energy source? What are it's advantages?

Wow, several of you sure are blasting Mr. Schwartz - and missing the point of his article. Which is that the U.S. should continue investing in the future of clean energy sources, and that it is hypocritical of those in Congress who are using this to blast the Obama administration, when many have fought for subsidies in their own districts or states. The article is very rational and factual.
The future of our energy needs to be in clean energy sources, not dirty 19th century ones, or even the supposedly new fracking ventures, which has many health and environmental problems.

Bill Fitch - Thanks for the youtube on "Nuclear Boy" and his "stinky poo"!

Seriously, considering Germany or any country, imagine what panic a terrorist action, like even a small bomb exploded in or near a nuclear plant, will have on the public and the economy. Compare that to a bomb at a wind farm.

garie-tulie's comments are right on target. The "real" price of gasoline in the U.S., counting indirect costs, is 2-3 times the current near $4/ gal. A means of correcting this, developing more renewables, cutting fuel consumption,emissions, etc. is by higher gas taxes. These can be offset by a reduction in income taxes. Lester Brown proposed phasing in 40c per gallon per year for 12 years, which would push consumers to drive less and switch to much more fuel efficint vehicles like Europe and Japan have.

When we say renewables should be "cost-effective", and consumers shouldn't "overpay", we definitely need to consider the externalized costs that aren't seen directly. For example, the new Harvard study reports the following concerning the coal industry:
"Our comprehensive review finds that the best estimate for the total economically quantifiable costs, based on a conservative weighting of many of the study findings, amount to some $345.3 billion, adding close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated from coal."
So when we realize that coal Really costs well over $25c/kWh, renewables look very good.

On the subject of "Sputnic Moment", we don't NEED that kind of "moment". We just need the decisions and political will to start moving to a renewable energy enonomy now. We have all the technologies already available to do this now (yes they can be further improved, but we don't have ot wait for any breakthroughs).
Has everyone seen the Jacobson and Delucci papers? Here's a link to Part 1 (these authors first wrote about this in Scientific American in 2009)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/business/05cheese.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha25

When you look at the CURRENT situation of most people relying on a standard electricity provider, for those of us on coal (including me unfortunately), it can be true that GHG emissions may be Higher with an electric vehicle than a high mileage vehicle. All you have to do is compare the kw/mile for the vehicle in question to mpg, convert to CO2 emitted for each and you will find a breakeven point.

However, what isn't accounted for is that many coal fired plants are running all night and producing more energy than needed, which is "spilled". If this energy is used when plugging in vehicles at night, it is almost "free" as far as GHG emissions. So the end result is that electric vehicles plugged in at night, will be of benefit.

lorin-vant-hull-16482 - Good comments. I too was wondering why CSP wasn't mentioned at all. I realize the list was for projects that came "on-line", but there were huge projects approved that I think deserved mention. There could have been a section for CSP. For example, some other projects either proposed or in construction for on-shore wind were mentioned.

One project that was supposed to be on-line by the end of 2010 was the FPL project in Florida to add a 75MW addition to an existing plant (making it a hybrid plant). I could not find info to say it was on-line though, so it must have been delayed.

Andrew, you shouldn't be so negative and cynical about this. DOE has mandates to try to get all forms of renewable industries improved and started. And improving existing technologies is not a waste of money.

CST is a proven technology that has trememdous potential to move away from carbon fuels and reduce greenhouse gases. Just because it is not as cheap as the Really old technologies (e.g. coal, which is subsidized and has hidden costs) doesn't mean we shouldn't move in this direction. Waiting for a "breakthrough" is Not the way to go. We will fall further and further behind in the Renewable arena if we do this, as well as waste any chance of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.

A different angle on this issue is that this is EXACTLY the type of investment the DOE should be doing, to jump start large renewable energy projects that have tremendous potential for the future. Subsidies are needed at this time to get the industry started, so that more experience is gained and future costs will come down.

Otherwise we will continue to fall behind in the future of renewable energy.

Boy, such negative responses! Peterson brings up many valid points and interesting facts. I, too, am concerned about the "equivalent" mpg figures that are being talked about. Frankly, I don't think a comparison to gasoline should be used at all. People are most interested in one of three things about electric vehicles: cost per mile driven, offsetting oil imports, and/or reduction of CO2.

I'm mostly concerned about environmental impacts. If your electricity is from a coal plant, there are still lots of CO2 emissions, as well as harmful pollutants being emitted. If you have a high mileage gas vehicle, your CO2 emissions may actually be less than from an electric vehicle, due to the coal burned to make those kw.

Solving all of these concerns is renewable energy. And I don't include nuclear as solving this, because it does have associated CO2 emissions in its life cycle, much higher than renewables like wind and solar, as well as its risks of terrorist threats, storage, and accidents.

Energy Policy 36 (2008) 2940– 2953, explains how the mining, milling, construction, transportation, and storage issues of a nuclear plant create CO2 emissions, sometimes half as much as from a gas fired power plant.

Most of the new concentrating solar thermal plants (CSP) being approved have some amount of thermal storage, up to 6 hours at the plant, and so produce steady power for long periods. CSP inherently has steadier power than PV and wind, due to it's hot working fluid, which is essentially a small amount of storage. Although needing high solar radiation areas like the desert southwest, they have tremendous potential for replacing fossil fuel plants.

Re: Conserving energy, and energy efficiency. Keep in mind that this newsletter is all about Renewable Energy. That doesn't mean we are not interested in energy efficience. Conservation is definitely part of the solution. If you are familiar with Princeton's "stabilization wedges" to keep CO2 down, a significant part of the strategy is for energy conservation. Joseph Romm of Climate Progress gives his version here: http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/

Re: Comment 19. From NREL report "Assessment of Parabolic
Trough and Power Tower Solar Technology Cost and Performance Forecasts", Figure 8. It was prepared by Sargent and Lundy LLC Consulting Group, Oct 2003. The 3.5 c estimate was for a Power Tower CSP system.