Bryan -- thanks for the catch, I've fixed that error.
Cliff -- wasn't trying to imply some maximum cap for the development pipeline, though presumably it's not an infinite number due to many factors (available sites, supply chain capabilities, financing, etc). I suppose one could argue that assigning the word "pipeline" to define development activities involves an inference of some physical maximum, but that's another semantics game...
Hi Steven: Yes that was an error that we picked up during the magazine editing process; I've updated that paragraph to reflect our final changes. Apologies.
Steven, thanks for pointing that out, sloppy math error/conversion on my part. Fixed now.
Phil Brooks: Thanks for your service. Image is updated.
Thanks Gerry, I added the link in.
Dennis, thanks for your input. We must have crossed paths a couple of times on Weds-Thurs. We took video inside every house, talking with them about the unique features -- check out our video section, we're posting 4-5 new ones each day this week: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/video And yes some participants clearly emphasized some criteria over others, such as mass-market appeal vs. architectural innovation vs. affordability. Will be interesting to see how that gets weighted out in the end for an overall winner.
Fixed the billion/trillion typo, thanks for pointing it out.
Steven: I followed up with Ron about natural gas; he said it sets the market price for electricity today & into the future b/c it's most often the unit on the margin, but prices here in the Northeast will depend on additional infrastructure being built to serve the region's winter generation needs... if that happens prices will be lower, if not they'll be very high in the winter.
Suzan: yeah I've been tracking the Maine offshore wind debate (I'm from there), and the latest AP report about LePage explicitly trying to torpedo the Statoil deal. But re: high pricing, note that offshore wind is significantly higher than other established generation sources b/c it's new and has a lot of extra costs ... as Ron says above, that's understood and accounted for by those who are committing to it.
Anon -- note this story broke into 2 pages, some your questions are addressed toward the end...
- Capacity factor of the new biomass plant will be around 10-12 percent with a thermal efficiency percentage in the mid-30s. Capacity as a biomass plant is expected to be the same as when it was coal, ~211MW. Flexibility from ~30 MW up to full 200+.
- Feedstock is wood pellets, with strict requirements on the two suppliers. Emphasis on hardwoods; no wood waste or bark. During production they'll continue to evaluate their feedstock usage and upgradability, e.g. whether to use torrefied pellets; their overdesigned (for biomass) furnace gives them some flexibility there.
- We were told CO2 emissions will be reduced by 80-85 percent vs. coal.
- How biomass and other renewable energy sources are calculated, and by what criteria, as "true green power" is a broader topic with multiple interpretations.
Gregor -- true enough, it's not the first example of such efforts, some of which are well underway in the field & with results and payback. I'll have a follow-up on one of these shortly.
Julie -- By the rankings, Florida was 11th in cumulative solar installations (186 MW) and 17th in 2012 installs (24 MW). On a per-capita basis Florida ranks 16th cumulative (10 W/person) and 22nd in 2012 (1 W/person) -- per-capita rankings tend to not favor states with higher populations. The report did call out Gainesville, as an example of local policies friendly to residential solar, including its first-in-the-nation per-kWh incentive payments. The report also highlights Gainesville Regional Utilities, which has 15.1 MW total solar capacity, more than 8 percent of the state's total, even though it serves a tiny sliver of the state's population.