Power Plant Rule is Delayed

Reuters reports that efforts by U.S. regulators to cut air pollution from coal-fired power plants faced a setback on Friday when a federal appeals court issued a last-minute order delaying their January 1 implementation.

The U.S. District Court of Appeals granted a request to stay the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) pending further court review.

The EPA finalized the rule in July, setting much stricter limits on sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants in 27 states to protect the health of residents in states downwind from the emissions.

Power generators said the January 1 implementation date was too soon to allow the design and installation of pollution control equipment to meet the rule, forcing a number of units to shut or to run only part of the time.

The group responsible for keeping the U.S. power grid reliable has warned that the cumulative impact of the EPA's rules could create power problems in Texas and New England.

Proponents of stricter rules say the industry can adapt and maintain that the costs of implementing the rules will be offset by savings from reduced healthcare expenses.

The EPA estimated that the Cross State rule will save up to 34,000 lives, prevent 15,000 heart attacks and prevent 400,000 asthma attacks each year, providing $120 billion to $280 billion in annual health benefits for the nation.

Texas challenged the EPA rule because the state was included in the final version without having an opportunity to provide input on its impact in Texas. State regulators who met later with EPA officials said the agency used faulty assumptions about the state's power grid.

U.S. Companies File Complaint Over China’s Steel Subsidies

The following was gleaned from an article in today's New York Times.  Those counting on a lot of new Green jobs in a new Green economy may want to take note.  Many of those Green jobs are not ending up in the U.S.

The New York Times

Friday, December 30, 2011

U.S. Companies File Complaint Over China’s Steel Subsidies

WASHINGTON — Four domestic companies that make most of the steel towers for wind turbines in the United States filed a trade complaint against China and Vietnam on Thursday, seeking tariffs in the range of 60 percent.

The allegations are much like the ones that solar panel manufacturers made in a similar case filed against Chinese manufacturers in October, namely that government subsidies were allowing foreign manufacturers to sell below cost in the United States, damaging the domestic industry.

The American wind industry is also subsidized, mostly through a production tax credit, but by all accounts the scale of Chinese subsidies is far larger.

The companies bringing the complaint buy high-quality plate steel and cut it so that it forms a slightly conical shape when it is rolled into a cylinder. They weld the long seam in the rolled structures, called cans, and then stack the cans to form taller units, each with a flange at top and bottom. The units are shipped to wind farms where they are bolted together to form a tower. Towers can reach 300 feet and weigh 350 tons, and the largest ones sell in the range of $600,000, a price largely determined by the price of steel.

The industry installed about 2,900 towers in 2010 and probably more in 2011.

Imports of towers from Vietnam and China roughly doubled in 2011, according to Alan H. Price, a lawyer at the firm that filed the case, Wiley Rein, which also filed the solar panel case. At one of the companies he represents, Katana Summit, an executive said that imports had been taking market share for the last several years and now had about half the market.

The complaint seeks duties of more than 64 percent on Chinese imports, and more than 59 percent for Vietnamese imports.

The case was filed by the Wind Tower Trade Coalition — comprising Trinity Structural Towers, DMI Industries, Katana Summit and Broadwind Energy — at the Commerce Department, which has 20 days to decide whether to initiate an investigation. In addition, another government agency, the International Trade Commission, will hold a hearing in about three weeks to decide whether there is reasonable indication that the domestic industry is suffering from the imports or is under threat from them. It should reach a preliminary determination in 45 days. If the commission says there is an indication of a threat, the Commerce Department would reach a preliminary determination within six months on whether the two countries are guilty of dumping. At that point, duties could be imposed.

A final determination would take about a year, if the wind coalition wins all the earlier rounds.

==========

In Solar Power, India Begins Living Up to Its Own Ambitions

The following was gleaned from an article with the above title in the December 29, 2011 New York Times.

I like this article, in part, because it provides cost data which are lacking in so many Renewable Energy articles.  Even though costs are stated in Indian rupees, conversions are provided.

For reference, a good, round, average "rule of thumb" cost for electricity in the United States is 10 cents per kilowatt-hour.  In the U.S., we burn a lot of coal and coal is cheap.

In Solar Power, India Begins Living Up to Its Own Ambitions

KHADODA, India — Solar power is a clean energy source. But in this arid part of northwest India it can also be a dusty one.

Every five days or so, field hands with long-handled dust mops wipe down each of the 36,000 solar panels at a 63-acre installation operated by Azure Power.

Two years ago, Indian policy makers said that by the year 2020 they would drastically increase the nation’s use of solar power from virtually nothing to 20,000 megawatts — enough electricity to power the equivalent of up to 15 million modern American homes during daylight hours when the panels are at their most productive.

Dozens of developers like Azure, because of aggressive government subsidies and a large drop in the global price of solar panels, are covering India’s northwestern plains with gleaming solar panels. So far, India uses only about 140 megawatts, including 10 megawatts used by the Azure installation, which can provide enough power to serve a town of 50,000 people, according to the company.

“Prices came down and suddenly things were possible that didn’t seem possible,” said Tobias Engelmeier, managing director of Bridge to India, a research and consulting firm based in New Delhi. Chinese manufacturers like Suntech Power and Yingli Green Energy helped drive the drop in solar panel costs. The firms increased production of the panels and cut costs this year by about 30 percent to 40 percent, to less than $1 a watt.

This month, the government held its second auction to determine the price at which its state-owned power trading company — NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam — would buy solar-generated electricity for the national grid. The average winning bid was 8.77 rupees (16.5 cents) per kilowatt-hour.

That is about twice the price of coal-generated power, but it was about 27 percent lower than the winning bids at the auction held a year ago. Germany, the world’s biggest solar-power user, pays about 17.94 euro cents (23 American cents) per kilowatt-hour.

India still significantly lags behind European countries in the use of solar. Germany, for example, had 17,000 megawatts of solar power capacity at the end of 2010. But India, which gets more than 300 days of sunlight a year, is a more suitable place to generate solar power

Most Indian power plants are fueled by coal and generate electricity at about 4 rupees (7.5 cents) per kilowatt-hour — less than half of solar’s cost now. In this month’s auction, the recent winning bids were comparable to what India’s industrial and commercial users pay for electricity — from 8 to 10 rupees. And solar’s costs are competitive with power plants and back-up generators that burn petroleum-based fuels, whose electricity costs about 10 rupees per kilowatt-hour.

==========

(Archived Article) Wind-Power Experiment Planned on Brooklyn Plot

The following was gleaned from an article with the above title published on November 19 and 20, 2010 by the New York Times.

Wind-Power Experiment Planned on Brooklyn Plot

Debra Salomon was on her way to the new Fairway market in Red Hook, Brooklyn, when she took a wrong turn and found herself on a windblown pier that had two 90-foot Eiffel-like towers rising into the sky for no apparent purpose.

Ms. Salomon quickly saw a purpose. She is a designer and teaches design at the City University of New York, and she has been interested in finding ways to economically adapt wind energy to individual buildings. So her mind took a turn of its own.

“That looks like it should have a wind turbine on top of it,” she remembers telling herself.

The towers were located on property owned by Greg O’Connell, who, among other things, is curious about harnessing the power of wind. He was willing to let Ms. Salomon borrow the towers for her brainstorm.

The towers, were so situated that the gusts blowing off Upper New York Bay were striking them at an average of 13.5 miles per hour, double the city’s average wind speed and fit to spin the contoured blades of a small turbine consistently. The surrounding buildings were low, posing no obstructions to the wind.

Now Ms. Salomon, with a $12,500 grant from the city’s Economic Development Corporation and the collaboration of a couple of start-up entrepreneurs, wants to build an experimental 15-foot-tall, butterfly-shaped turbine atop those towers. It would produce three kilowatts of electricity to power a charging station for electric cars.

==========

EPA Finalizes 2012 Renewable Fuel Standards

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sent this out today:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 27, 2011

EPA Finalizes 2012 Renewable Fuel Standards

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today finalized the 2012 percentage standards for four fuel categories that are part of the agency’s Renewable Fuel Standard program (RFS2). EPA continues to support greater use of renewable fuels within the transportation sector every year through the RFS2   program, which encourages innovation, strengthens American energy security, and decreases greenhouse gas pollution.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) established the RFS2 program and the annual renewable fuel volume targets, which steadily increase to an overall level of 36 billion gallons in 2022. To achieve these volumes, EPA calculates a percentage-based standard for the following year. Based on the standard, each refiner and importer determines the minimum volume of renewable fuel that it must ensure is used in its transportation fuel.

The final 2012 overall volumes and standards are:

Biomass-based diesel (1.0 billion gallons; 0.91 percent)
Advanced biofuels (2.0 billion gallons; 1.21 percent)
Cellulosic biofuels (8.65 million gallons; 0.006 percent)
Total renewable fuels (15.2 billion gallons; 9.23 percent)

Last spring EPA had proposed a volume requirement of 1.28 billion gallons for biomass-based diesel for 2013. EISA specifies a one billion gallon minimum volume requirement for that category for 2013 and beyond, but enables EPA to increase the volume requirement after consideration of a variety of environmental, market, and energy-related factors. EPA is continuing to evaluate the many comments from stakeholders on the proposed biomass based diesel volume for 2013 and will take final action next year.

Overall, EPA’s RFS2 program encourages greater use of renewable fuels, including advanced biofuels. For 2012, the program is implementing EISA’s requirement to blend more than 1.25 billion gallons of renewable fuels over the amount mandated for 2011.

More information on the standards and regulations: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/regulations.htm

More information on renewable fuels: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/index.htm

R368

Library Patrons in New York Check-Out Renewable Energy

The following was gleaned from a December 27 blog post on the U.S. Department of Energy's web site.

Library Patrons in New York Check-Out Renewable Energy

December 27, 2011

 

The public library in Esopus, New York, used Recovery Act funds to install two photovoltaic arrays expected to generate 31,200 kWh of electricity annually -- approximately 30 percent of the library’s electricity use and a savings of nearly $4,000 in energy costs each year. | Photo courtesy of New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA).

Julie McAlpin

Communications Liaison, State Energy Program

In a hamlet on the Hudson River in upstate New York, two newly installed photovoltaic arrays at the local library are generating electricity, interest in renewable energy, and community pride.

Recognizing its role as an educator and community leader, the Esopus Library used a $96,790 award from the Recovery Act to install the 22.5kW roof-mounted and 5.5kW ground-mounted photovoltaic systems.

The new solar system is expected to generate approximately 31,200 kWh of electricity annually -- approximately 30 percent of the library’s electricity use and a savings of $4,000 in energy costs each year.

The ninety-six 230-watt Sharp® photovoltaic panels, made in Memphis, Tennessee, along with the PVPowered™ 30 kW inverter and rooftop DPW Solar Mounting System were installed by a crew of eight electricians over a period of three days.

After completing the 22.5kW roof system, the city still had funds to spare. In turn, the library worked with NYSERDA to modify the project contract and spend the remaining money to add the 5.5kW ground system. The unexpected second array will deliver approximately 120 percent of the electricity that the grant was based on, while still staying within the original cost. 

Electric Grid in Texas Faces Multiple Challenges

The following was gleaned from an article in the December 23 New York Times.

Electric Grid in Texas Faces Multiple Challenges

The state’s electric grid operators are coming off a tumultuous year, one they are not eager to repeat. In February, a deep freeze knocked numerous power plants out of commission as equipment broke, causing rolling blackouts across the state. Then the hottest summer on record spurred repeated conservation warnings, as grid managers worked — successfully — to avoid more blackouts.

While experts do what they can to check the skies and the temperature, grid operators are facing a tougher line of questioning about their ability to keep power flowing smoothly. A report last month by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation cited “significant concerns” about whether Texas would have enough power plants in the near future.

Regulators, eager to avoid blackouts at all costs, want to encourage construction of more power plants to meet the needs of a growing state. But consumer advocates fear this could mean higher electricity prices. Environmentalists are lobbying instead for more focus on energy savings.

Environmentalists argue that the strains on the grid should spur Texas to work on energy-saving strategies. In particular, they are pushing a program called demand response, in which businesses and consumers are paid to reduce power at times of high demand, like late summer afternoons.

The utility commission is looking at expanding Texas’s demand-response capabilities next year, helped by the continuing rollout of smart meters.

Robert King, president of the Austin consulting firm Good Company Associates, said two of his energy clients planned on beginning demand-response programs in Texas next year for the first time.

The commission is also considering regulatory changes that should make storing electricity in batteries easier.

==========

KCP&L Plan Shifts to Efficiency

The following excerpt is from an article in today's Kansas City Star about a local electric utility, Kansas City Power and Light (KCP&L), that is making energy efficiency a part of its business model.  Previously, KCP&L's energy efficiency efforts were done primarily for public relations.  But a new Missouri law makes it profitable for KCP&L to pursue energy efficiency seriously.

The following excerpt gives an idea of what the article is about.  More details are available in the complete article.

KCP&L plan shifts to efficiency, seeks payback for saving energy

By STEVE EVERLY

The Kansas City Star

Friday, December 23, 2011

Kansas City Power & Light, in a historic shift for the utility, filed plans Thursday with Missouri regulators to sell less electricity.

The company, like other utilities in the region, has depended on selling electricity to recover its costs and earn a profit. Building more power plants was the gauge for its success. Its conservation efforts, such as rebates to customers for buying energy-efficient air-conditioners, were pilot programs and not part of KCP&L’s long-term plans.

But the company says it’s time for a change, for energy efficiency to take on a more serious role. So its latest plan takes advantage of new Missouri regulations that make it possible for utilities to curb consumption and not be penalized financially.

And customers, though they might pay higher rates initially to help cover the upfront costs of conservation efforts, are expected to eventually see lower rates after the efficiencies start paying off.

The combination, say the utility’s officials, convinced them that for the first time energy efficiency should have an official place in its business plans.

The plan, as conceived, would ensure a sustained program that includes rebates for commercial and residential customers who buy energy-efficient equipment and lighting. There would also be rebates for disposing of inefficient air-conditioners and refrigerators. Other programs include telling residential customers how their electric usage compares with others in similarly sized homes, and what can be specifically done to reduce consumption.

KCP&L would give the program $25 million a year, which would be expected to eventually save the utility much more than that. The rule of thumb is that it costs one-fifth as much, or less, to eliminate the need for a kilowatt of electricity as it does to produce that much electricity. So the savings could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars over a few years.

A problem in the past has been figuring out how to encourage utililty convervation efforts, because they reduce electricity sales and thus cut into revenue. In addition, utilities haven’t always been able to build the costs of conservation efforts into their electricity rates.

But in 2009, state legislators passed the Missouri Energy Efficiency Investment Act, which called for treating investments in curbing consumption in the same way as investments to deliver electricity. It took a couple of years to work out the regulations to put the law into effect, including how to measure energy savings.

(Archived Article) Nimby Rears Its Head Against Wind Power Project

For those not familiar with the acronym, NIMBY stands for Not In My Back Yard.  When I was a young engineer reviewing permit applications for sanitary landfills, I became very familiar with the NIMBY phenomenon.  Anytime anyone proposed a sanitary landfill for a particular location, you could just count on opposition from the neighbors.

But I later learned it wasn't just landfills.  Neighbors will oppose proposed airports, shopping malls, homes for unwed mothers, you name it.

The following excerpts were taken from an article published by the New York Times on or about November 13, 2010.  It describes how a San Francisco resident who wanted to put up a wind turbine learned the meaning of NIMBY.

The New York Times

Nimby Rears Its Head Against Wind Power Project

By JOHN UPTON

When Nathan Miller decided that he wanted to generate renewable electricity to power his family’s home in San Francisco’s Miraloma Park neighborhood, he pursued an unusual path. Mr. Miller crunched some numbers and decided to shun solar power, the most common residential alternative-energy choice in San Francisco.

Mr. Miller’s household consumes most of its electricity in the afternoons and evenings, when the family is at home, but solar energy is strongest in the middle of the day.

So Mr. Miller, whose home is in the foggy, breezy saddle between Twin Peaks and Mount Davidson, decided to opt for wind.

He planned to install a Skystream wind turbine in his front yard at a cost of $7,500, lowered from $20,000 after government subsidies for alternative energy.

But the path to Mr. Miller’s dream of energy self-sufficiency took a turbulent turn after he filed the required permit application with the city’s building department.

Acting on the advice of a city planner, Mr. Miller capped the windmill at 35 feet, the height limit for buildings in his low-density neighborhood.

Mr. Miller’s neighbors caught wind of his plans through public notices.

Mr. Lawhon was not alone in his objections.

The board of the Miraloma Park Improvement Club, a neighborhood group, voted unanimously to file an appeal seeking rejection of Mr. Miller’s permit application.

In various documents, the club outlined a dizzying list of objections: The wind turbine would be ugly and noisy and create light pollution; it would distract drivers and kill birds; it would be ineffective; it could topple.

Mr. Miller now has to persuade the planning commission to dismiss the pleas of his neighbors.

==========

EPA News Release on New Air Pollution Standards

The previous post contains an excerpt from an article published by The Hill describing how dozens of electrical power plants, most of them coal-burning, will close down, rather than upgrade, to meet new air pollution regulations.  In this post, I am presenting an EPA news release to provide that agency's perspective on the matter.  I would recommend reading the EPA news release and the article from The Hill in its entirety before forming an opinion.

EPA Issues First National Standards for Mercury Pollution from Power Plants/ Historic ‘mercury and air toxics standards’ meet 20-year old requirement to cut dangerous smokestack emissions

Release Date: 12/21/2011

Contact Information: Enesta Jones (News Media Only,jones.enesta@epa.gov, 202-564-7873, 202-564-4355 Doretta Reaves (Non Press Inquiries), Reaves.doretta@epa.gov, 202-564-7829 En español: Lina Younes, younes.lina@epa.gov, 202-564-9924, 202-564-4355

EPA estimates that the new safeguards will prevent as many as 11,000 premature deaths and 4,700 heart attacks a year. The standards will also help America’s children grow up healthier – preventing 130,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms and about 6,300 fewer cases of acute bronchitis among children each year.

"By cutting emissions that are linked to developmental disorders and respiratory illnesses like asthma, these standards represent a major victory for clean air and public health– and especially for the health of our children. With these standards that were two decades in the making, EPA is rounding out a year of incredible progress on clean air in America with another action that will benefit the American people for years to come," said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. "The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards will protect millions of families and children from harmful and costly air pollution and provide the American people with health benefits that far outweigh the costs of compliance."

“Since toxic air pollution from power plants can make people sick and cut lives short, the new Mercury and Air Toxics Standards are a huge victory for public health,” said Albert A. Rizzo, MD, national volunteer chair of the American Lung Association, and pulmonary and critical care physician in Newark, Delaware. “The Lung Association expects all oil and coal-fired power plants to act now to protect all Americans, especially our children, from the health risks imposed by these dangerous air pollutants.”

More than 20 years ago, a bipartisan Congress passed the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and mandated that EPA require control of toxic air pollutants including mercury. To meet this requirement, EPA worked extensively with stakeholders, including industry, to minimize cost and maximize flexibilities in these final standards. There were more than 900,000 public comments that helped inform the final standards being announced today. Part of this feedback encouraged EPA to ensure the standards focused on readily available and widely deployed pollution control technologies, that are not only manufactured by companies in the United States, but also support short-term and long-term jobs. EPA estimates that manufacturing, engineering, installing and maintaining the pollution controls to meet these standards will provide employment for thousands, potentially including 46,000 short-term construction jobs and 8,000 long-term utility jobs.

Power plants are the largest remaining source of several toxic air pollutants, including mercury, arsenic, cyanide, and a range of other dangerous pollutants, and are responsible for half of the mercury and over 75 percent of the acid gas emissions in the United States. Today, more than half of all coal-fired power plants already deploy pollution control technologies that will help them meet these achievable standards. Once final, these standards will level the playing field by ensuring the remaining plants – about 40 percent of all coal fired power plants - take similar steps to decrease dangerous pollutants.

As part of the commitment to maximize flexibilities under the law, the standards are accompanied by a Presidential Memorandum that directs EPA to use tools provided in the Clean Air Act to implement the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards in a cost-effective manner that ensures electric reliability. For example, under these standards, EPA is not only providing the standard three years for compliance, but also encouraging permitting authorities to make a fourth year broadly available for technology installations, and if still more time is needed, providing a well-defined pathway to address any localized reliability problems should they arise.

Mercury has been shown to harm the nervous systems of children exposed in the womb, impairing thinking, learning and early development, and other pollutants that will be reduced by these standards can cause cancer, premature death, heart disease, and asthma.

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, which are being issued in response to a court deadline, are in keeping with President Obama’s Executive Order on regulatory reform. They are based on the latest data and provide industry significant flexibility in implementation through a phased-in approach and use of already existing technologies.

The standards also ensure that public health and economic benefits far outweigh costs of implementation. EPA estimates that for every dollar spent to reduce pollution from power plants, the American public will see up to $9 in health benefits. The total health and economic benefits of this standard are estimated to be as much as $90 billion annually.

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and the final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which was issued earlier this year, are the most significant steps to clean up pollution from power plant smokestacks since the Acid Rain Program of the 1990s.

Combined, the two rules are estimated to prevent up to 46,000 premature deaths, 540,000 asthma attacks among children, 24,500 emergency room visits and hospital admissions. The two programs are an investment in public health that will provide a total of up to $380 billion in return to American families in the form of longer, healthier lives and reduced health care costs.

More information: http://www.epa.gov/mats/

Dozens of Power Plants Closing

The following is an excerpt from an article by The Hill.  I am not sure that imposing tough new environmental regulations in a fragile economy with high unemployment is the smartest thing that we could be doing as a nation. But no one asked me for my opinion.

Dozens of Power Plants Closing Due to New EPA Rules

December 21, 2011

The Hill

BRIAN KOENIG

Due to new federal air pollution regulations, more than 32 power plants across the country will be forced to close their doors, according to a recent Associated Press survey. Those plants, which are mostly coal-fired, discharge enough electricity to supply more than 22 million households, the survey notes, and their closure will lead to job layoffs, depleted tax revenues, and a considerable hike in electric bills. The areas that will be hit hardest are the Midwest and in the coal belt (Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky), where dozens of plants will likely be retired.

Two regulations are in question: One aims to curb air pollution in states downwind from pollutant-heavy power plants; and the second, which was finalized last week, would enact the first standards for mercury, acid gas, and other pollutants from plant smokestacks. In total, the new regulations could eliminate more than eight percent of coal-fired generation nationwide.

AP’s survey, the first of its kind, looked at the analyses by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of plant retirements and interviewed 55 power plant operators about the effects on power supply and about their plans to deal with the new regulations.

Basing their assertions on energy analyses, congressional reports, and government regulators, critics have predicted that the new EPA regulations will lead to widespread blackouts, and possibly the retirement of coal as a power source altogether. However, proponents of the rules claim that those studies inflate closure numbers by considering plants shutting down for reasons other than the EPA’s new restrictions.

(Archive Article) Green Power's High Cost Scuttles Projects

The following was gleaned from a New York Times article with the above title published on or about November 8, 2010.

Electricity generated from wind or sun still generally costs more — and sometimes a lot more — than the power squeezed from coal or natural gas. 

Prices for fossil fuels have dropped in part because the recession has reduced demand. 

In the case of natural gas, newer drilling techniques have opened the possibility of vast new supplies for years to come.

The gap in price can pit regulators, who see their job as protecting consumers from unreasonable rates, against renewable energy developers and utility companies, many of which are willing to pay higher prices now to ensure a broader energy portfolio in the future.

In April, for example, the state public utilities commission in Rhode Island rejected a power-purchase deal for an offshore wind project that would have cost 24.4 cents a kilowatt-hour. The utility now pays about 9.5 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity from fossil fuels.

The state legislature responded by passing a bill allowing the regulators to consider factors other than price. The commission then approved an agreement to buy electricity from a smaller wind farm, although that decision is being challenged in the courts.

Companies that make solar cells and wind machines argue that a national energy policy is needed to guarantee them a market that will allow their industry to develop.

The United States has relied on a combination of state renewable energy mandates and federal tax credits to encourage greater reliance on energy from renewable sources. Legislation that would have set a price on carbon-dioxide emissions and included a standard for increasing the share of clean energy in the nation’s electricity portfolio failed in Congress this year. 

Energy-Efficient Holiday Lights

This is from a U.S. Department of Energy blog.

South Carolina Community Lights Up the Season with Energy-Efficient Holiday Lights

December 20, 2011 

  

Carolers sing in front of Forest Acres, South Carolina's new LED holiday light display. | Photo courtesy of Richland County, S.C.

Eric Escudero

Senior Public Affairs Specialist & Contractor, Golden Field Office

What does this mean for me?

• LED holiday lights reduce energy usage by 90 percent when compared to traditional incandescent lights.

A South Carolina community is proving that energy efficiency can improve the holidays by reducing energy and maintenance costs, thanks to its new LED holiday lights. Richland County, S.C., allocated a small portion of an Energy Department-funded Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) to the city of Forest Acres to purchase the new lights.

The new LED holiday lights are expected to reduce energy usage by 90 percent when compared to traditional incandescent lights. Other advantages to switching to LED holiday lights include a reduced risk for fire since LEDs do not produce heat. The LED lights also don’t need to be replaced as often as incandescent lights, and normally last at least 10 to 20 percent longer.

“Using energy-saving LED lights for holiday lighting displays is a great example of how communities are making simple changes that can make a big difference in reducing energy costs,” said Ted Donat, program lead for the Energy Department’s EECBG Program. “This project in Forest Acres can serve as a model to homeowners, as well as other local governments, for switching to energy-saving lights that will make your home, town or city more energy efficient and save money on utility bills.”

The EECBG grant was funded through the Recovery Act, which required the city purchase only American-made products for the project. Forrest Acres purchased the LED lights from a business in Raleigh, N.C.

“Forest Acres is proud to make the switch to more energy-efficient holiday lighting and lead South Carolina in this initiative,” said Forest Acres Mayor Frank Brunson. “This is one of many efforts the city is doing to save energy and go green.”

This is one of Richland County’s 18 energy-efficiency projects funded by the Department’s EECBG program. Other projects include a hot water heater in the judicial center that will replace a 5,500-gallon boiler six months out of the year to heat domestic hot water, as well as a new chiller for a detention center and hybrid vehicles.

Wrapping Up Energy Savings

This is from the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Savers blog.

We’ve Got Saving Energy All Wrapped Up

December 19, 2011

Every year at holiday time thousands of pounds of wrapping paper is produced, using exorbitant amounts of energy, and quickly discarded just moments after opening your shiny new object. The colorful gift wrap loses energy through production, shipment and storage; a thought that is not exactly glittering. In fact, each ream of paper takes approximately the energy equivalent of 2 gallons of gasoline to produce.

A few years ago I realized how much wrapping paper is wasted during the holidays and made a personal quest to no longer purchase any more of the festive paper. It was a challenge, but I knew I was saving a lot of energy and money, and I was no longer contributing to deforestation. I had to think creatively, and searching the web for ideas, successfully found new ways to wrap my gifts. Each year since then I’ve done my best to continue the tradition, and my gifts are always quite an array of different papers. One of my favorite gift wrapping ideas included outdated grocery advertisements (collected from family) that highlighted specials on meats and poultry; I used this paper to wrap a grill.

For smaller gifts such as jewelry, I have used discarded magazine pages with pictures of trees and snow. This year I’ll be wrapping my gifts with white packing paper that I have saved from past mail orders. I ironed the paper to release the crinkles and may decorate it with holiday stamps or paint to add to the festive look; I will encourage the recipients to recycle it once the gifts are opened. For larger and bulkier items, I will be reusing a couple of gift bags from previous gifts, and I’ve even thought of putting some gifts in tote bags to be used later for groceries. Bows and ribbons can be trickier; I have sometimes used ribbons from products, old clothes, or simply used an accent like a sprig of greenery.

Wrapping gifts in fabric can be a great choice, but only if the fabric is going to someone who will reuse it to say, sew into a new shirt. Buying fabric just for the sake of wrapping is not any more energy efficient than paper. However, if the gift can be wrapped in something that is also part of the gift, then problem solved, such as kitchen utensils wrapped in cloth napkins, or bath products wrapped in a fluffy new towel. For bonus points, make one of those gifts something that’s energy efficient!

Don’t forget about the other packaging involved in your gift-giving. Try to recycle cardboard boxes, buy items with less packaging, and use biodegradable or recycled packing materials when you ship gifts (and we are hoping that delivery service has chosen to implement more energy efficient delivery trucks. Of course the most energy efficient way to wrap gifts is not at all! Choose presents that don’t need wrapping. Donations to charities, classes on a fun new hobby, and tickets to events can be given in a simple card made from recycled paper or a paper alternative.

Integrating Variable Wind Energy into the Grid

A few years ago, I overheard some local utility employees discussing wind power at a conference.  They were agreeing that if not for the Government mandates and subsidies, their utilities would not touch wind power.  The problem was pretty much the variability of production.


The post below was taken from one of the U.S. Department of Energy's blogs.  I wanted to post this announcement on my blog quickly so I have not had a chance to review this report, yet.  It sounds like they may have found some ways to address the variability issues.  Hopefully, so.

New Report: Integrating Variable Wind Energy into the Grid

December 19, 2011 

  

The Energy Department and Alstom Grid announce the availability of a new report on integrating wind energy into the electrical grid. | Image source: The Strategies and Decision Support Systems for Integrating Variable Energy Resources in Control Centers for Reliable Grid Operations Report.

Charlton I. Clark

Integration Team Lead, Wind and Water Power Program

What's in the report?

• Insights direct from grid operators about the challenges, solutions, and successes of integrating variable wind energy into the grid.

Wind doesn’t always blow consistently and sometimes doesn’t blow at all, but wind energy is not unreliable – just ask grid operators.

In a new report, Strategies and Decision Support Systems for Integrating Variable Energy Resources in Control Centers for Reliable Grid Operations, they offer their first-hand perspectives on how variable energy sources, including wind energy, actually impact grid operations.

Grid operators are the individuals who ensure that you receive electricity reliably and at an economical price. They balance electricity supply and demand 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. You can think of them as the air traffic controllers for the power system, constantly monitoring and directing activities on the grid to keep the lights on in your home.

The study, a first-of-its-kind review, finds that the ability to forecast variable energy output is vital to successfully integrating variable energy into the electrical grid. The study also finds that decision support tools are also essential to helping grid operators incorporate wind forecasts and obtain optimal power flow in their grids. The study describes several decision support tools that are currently used by grid operators. However, existing decision support tools in the United States need to evolve further as more domestic variable energy enters the electrical grid.

Despite these challenges, the grid operators interviewed have a positive outlook for integrating variable energy and are eager to share and apply best practices with other operators.

The Energy Department funded two organizations, Areva Federal Services and Alstom Grid, through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. As part of this study, Areva and Alstom interviewed 33 grid operators in 18 countries who, together, are responsible for integrating 72 percent of the wind energy world-wide into their grids. Alstom presented some of their findings in a webinar in October 2011.

Over the past two decades, there has been a large increase in the production of wind energy across the world, growing from roughly 2 gigawatts in 1990 to almost 200 gigawatts in 2010. That’s enough wind energy to serve about 50 million U.S. homes. The final report and executive summary provides even more insights direct from grid operators about the challenges, solutions, and successes of integrating variable wind energy into the grid.

(Archived Article) Portugal Gives Itself a Clean-Energy Makeover

The contents of this post were gleaned from a New York Times article with the above title.  The original article was published August 9, 2010.

Five years ago, the leaders of Portugal decided to harness the country’s wind, hydropower, sunlight, and ocean waves.

Nearly 45% of the electricity in Portugal’s grid will come from renewable sources this year, up from 17% just five years ago.

Land-based wind power has expanded sevenfold in that time.  And Portugal expects in 2011 to become the first country to inaugurate a national network of charging stations for electric cars.

Portugal has little fossil fuel of its own.

Portugal participates in the European Union’s version of cap and trade.

Portuguese households have long paid about twice what Americans pay for electricity.

To force Portugal’s energy transition, the prime minister’s government restructured and privatized former state energy utilities to create a grid better suited to renewable power sources.  To lure private companies into Portugal’s new market, the government gave them contracts locking in a stable price for 15 years.

Portugal has large untapped resources of wind and river power, the two most cost-effective renewable sources.

While the government estimates that the total investment in revamping Portugal’s energy structure will be about 16.3 billion euros, that cost is borne by the private companies that operate the grid and the renewable plants and is reflected in consumers’ electricity rates.  The companies’ payback comes from the 15 years of guaranteed wholesale electricity rates promised by the government.  Once the new infrastructure is completed, it is expected that the system will cost about 1.7 billion euros a year less to run than if formerly did, primarily by avoiding natural gas imports.

To ensure a stable power base when the forces of nature shut down, the system needs to maintain a base of fossil fuel that can be fired up at will.

Portugal began upgrading its grid of transmission lines a decade ago.  Accommodating a greater share of renewable power cost an additional 480 million euros, an expense folded into electricity rates.

Environmental and conservation groups are concerned about the effects of so many new wind turbines and dams on wildlife and habitat.

Renewable energy has not created many green jobs.

(Archived Article) Wind Turbine Projects Run Into Resistance

This post summarizes an interesting New York Times article with the above title that was published on or about September 9, 2010. (When I download an article from my Kindle to my computer, the date recorded is the date of the download, not the date of publication.)

Although this article did not contain many of the numbers that I am so fond of, it still highlighted a problem that does not receive much discussion.  People interested in the proper siting of wind turbines should take note.

BARSTOW, Calif. — The United States military has found a new menace hiding here in the vast emptiness of the Mojave Desert in California: wind turbines.

Moving turbine blades can be indistinguishable from airplanes on many radar systems, and they can even cause blackout zones in which planes disappear from radar entirely.

Clusters of wind turbines, which can reach as high as 400 feet, look very similar to storm activity on weather radar, making it harder for air traffic controllers to give accurate weather information to pilots.

Although the military says no serious incidents have yet occurred because of the interference, the wind turbines pose an unacceptable risk to training, testing and national security in certain regions, Dr. Dorothy Robyn, deputy under secretary of defense, recently told a House Armed Services subcommittee.

Because of its concerns, the Defense Department has emerged as a formidable opponent of wind projects in direct conflict with another branch of the federal government, the Energy Department, which is spending billions of dollars on wind projects as part of President Obama’s broader effort to promote renewable energy.

Eliminating turbine clutter on radar is complicated. Part of the challenge is that many radar systems in use in the United States date back to the 1950s and have outdated processing capabilities — in some cases, less than those of a modern laptop computer.

While there are technology fixes to ease interference on these aging systems, it can be tricky to filter out just the turbines.

On radar, “a wind turbine can look like a 747 on final approach,” said Peter Drake, technical director at Raytheon, a major provider of radar systems. “We don’t want to have the software eliminate a real 747.”

The Energy Department says the problem should be solvable through new technologies.

DOE Blog Post: Farming Out Heat & Electricity thru Biopower

Farming Out Heat and Electricity through Biopower

December 16, 2011

 

Cows like these in Skagit County, Washington, supply the biodigester developed by Kevin Maas of Farm Power up to 70,000 gallons of manure per day. The newest Farm Power facility in Washington generates enough electricity to power 500 homes. Photo courtesy of sea_turtle.

Julie McAlpin

Communications Liaison, State Energy Program

Maas' biodigester:

• Creates electricity from the biogas produced through anaerobic digestion.
• Recycles dried, fibrous solids from the process to make cow bedding.
• Returns digested liquid waste back to farms for fertilizer.

Five years ago, Kevin Maas and his brother Daryl started a business producing electricity from what many would consider an unlikely source -- cow manure.

Kevin Maas developed an anaerobic digester and then a company around a biodigester, which heats and processes dairy manure and other organic wastes in an oxygen-free environment designed to induce digestion by bacteria and then collects the bacteria’s output -- methane-rich biogas.

The system, the first-of-its-kind in the state, stores the gas from the biodigester and then feeds it through bright yellow pipes into an engine generator to produce electricity. After digestion, the fibrous solids are separated and dried, then returned to dairy farms for use as cow bedding. The digested liquid is also returned to farms, stored in lagoons, and then spread on fields, providing nutrients for crop production.

A few years later after learning about the State Energy Program, the Maas brothers applied for and received a $1.06 million Recovery Act grant from the Department of Commerce to construct a second digester near Lynden, a small Washington town just south of the Canadian border.

Nearby MJD Farms, a dairy farm with over 2,000 cows, agreed to supply the manure -- 70,000 gallons per day. 

A closed-loop heat extractor at the Lynden facility uses the heat produced by the burning methane biogas for multiple purposes. First, it heats the digester vessel to sustain bacteria growth. Second, it dries the fiber product. Third, it heats water that is piped to a nearby commercial greenhouse for radiant floor heating.

Maas calculates that the greenhouse, owned by Van Wingerden Greenhouses, will save approximately $30,000 per year in energy costs due to its participation in the digester project. The greenhouse employs 15 workers.

Farm Power Lynden generates over 6,000 megawatt hours of electricity per year, 20 times the amount of power to run its own operations, or enough electricity to power 500 homes. The excess electricity is sold to Puget Sound Energy under a 10-year fixed-price contract.

The methane emissions eliminated by the Lynden facility are projected to reduce net annual greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to taking 3,000 cars off the road.

Farm Power is currently working to establish additional digester projects in the state. “The State Energy Program is outstanding,” said Maas. 

Anaerobic digestion of agricultural waste is a proven and rapidly growing source of renewable energy generated at more than 150 other facilities around the country.

(Archive Article) Noisy Wind Turbines Attract Complaints

The following was gleaned from a New York Times article published October 5 or 6, 2010.  Although the New York Times is a left-leaning newspaper, its reporters are honest enough to report some of the drawbacks, as well as the advantages, of renewable energy.  That, together with figures of cost, generating capacity, etc. can lead to reasonable discussion of the pros and cons of locating a renewable power facility in a particular area.

I hope you enjoy this condensed version of the article.

Noisy Wind Turbines Attract Complaints

By TOM ZELLER Jr.

VINALHAVEN, Me. — Nearly all of the residents on this island in Penobscot Bay, celebrated the arrival of three giant wind turbines late last year. That was before they were turned on.

Now, a dozen or so neighbors living less than a mile from the $15 million wind facility here, say the industrial whoosh-and-whoop of the 123-foot blades is making life unbearable.

In Vinalhaven, an audio consultant hired by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection determined last month that the 4.5-megawatt facility was, at least on one evening in mid-July when Mr. Lindgren collected sound data, in excess of the state’s nighttime sound limits. The developer of the project, Fox Island Wind, has contested that finding, and negotiations with state regulators are continuing.

Maine, along with many other states, puts a general limit on nighttime noise at 45 decibels — roughly equivalent to the sound of a humming refrigerator. A normal conversation is in the range of 50 to 60 decibels.

In almost all cases, it is not mechanical noise arising from the central gear box or nacelle of a turbine that residents react to, but rather the sound of the blades, which in modern turbines are mammoth appendages well over 100 feet long, as they slice through the air.

Turbine noise can be controlled by reducing the rotational speed of the blades. But the turbines on Vinalhaven already operate that way after 7 p.m., and George Baker, the chief executive of Fox Island Wind — a for-profit arm of the island’s electricity co-operative — said that turning the turbines down came at an economic cost.

“The more we do that, the higher goes the price of electricity on the island,” he said.

A common refrain among homeowners grappling with sound issues, however, is that they were not accurately informed about the noise ahead of time.

Richard R. James, an acoustic expert hired by residents of Vinalhaven to help them quantify the noise problem, said there was a simpler solution: do not put the turbines so close to where people live.

“It would seem to be time for the wind utility developers to rethink their plans for duplicating these errors and to focus on locating wind turbines in areas where there is a large buffer zone of about a mile and one-quarter between the turbines and people’s homes,” said Mr. James, the principal consultant with E-Coustic Solutions, based in Michigan.

Vinalhaven’s wind farm enjoys support among most residents.

But that is cold comfort for residents living near the turbines.

==========

(Archive Article) Huge Wind Turbine Farm Opens Off Southeast England

I will be uploading a series of New York Times articles that I downloaded from my Kindle over the past couple of years.  One thing that I really appreciate about the New York Times articles is that they include numbers.  We simply must have some numbers relating to amount of power generated, area occupied, construction costs, operating costs, etc. if we are to have intelligent discussions about renewable energy and possible alternatives.

Unfortunately, this article contains no cost data, but other data are presented, and that is a start.

Huge Wind Turbine Farm Opens Off Southeast England 

Published September 23 or 24, 2010

By JULIA WERDIGIER

LONDON — The world’s largest offshore wind turbine farm, with a capacity to power more than 200,000 homes for a year, opened on Thursday off the coast of southeast England.

The wind farm is operated by Vattenfall, a Swedish energy company, and has 100 turbines spread over 13.5 square miles. At 377 feet tall each, the turbines are visible from the coast in Kent. The wind farm took more than two years to build and is expected to generate 300 megawatts of electricity.

Vattenfall’s turbines mean that power generated from wind can reach five gigawatts in Britain, enough “to power all homes in Scotland,” Chris Huhne, Britain’s energy secretary said in a statement.

“We’re in a unique position to become a world leader in this industry,” Mr. Huhne said. “We are an island nation, and I firmly believe we should be harnessing our wind, wave and tidal resources to the maximum.”

The British government has said it aims to support the renewable energy industry to achieve its goal to get 15 percent of energy from sources like wind farms by 2020. The efforts have focused mainly on wind power in recent years. Wind accounts for about 4 percent of Britain’s electricity needs.

Some industry executives feared that more government investment would be threatened in October, when the coalition government presented its program of spending cuts intended to reduce the budget deficit.

Britain has about 260 wind farms operating across the country and off its coasts.

Vattenfall operates 700 wind turbines in countries including Sweden, Germany, Poland and Britain.

The British wind farm is part of Vattenfall’s plan to double its electricity generated from wind power from 2009 to 2011 by building nine wind farms in six countries.
==========

Bioenergy Pumps New Life into Pulp and Paper Mills

From the website of the U.S. Dept. of Energy.  Personally, I find this announcement to be rather unsatisfying. Which biofuels are they producing?  Ethanol?  Biodiesel?  What processes are they using?  What are the break-even costs of the finished products and how do those compare with similar products produced by conventional means?

I am all for turning wastes into useful products, but we need more information than what this announcement provides.

Bioenergy Pumps New Life into Pulp and Paper Mills

December 13, 2011 

Old Town Fuel and Fiber, a former pulp mill, converts a portion of
the wood chips used to make pulp to biofuels. |
Energy Department photo.

Neil Rossmeissl

General Engineer

What does this project do?

• Breathes new life into shuttered factories and mills.
• Saves and creates jobs.

Despite Americans’ voracious appetite for paper products -- a staggering 700 pounds per person annually -- America’s pulp and paper industry has been struggling as of late due to competition from countries where environmental standards are less stringent and labor rates are lower. To stem plant closings and retain American jobs, the Energy Department’s Biomass Program is helping the industry diversify by producing bio-based products such as biofuels and bio-based chemicals.

We started in Maine, which is the second leading paper-making state by volume, producing three million tons of pulp in 2009. Today, there are nine paper companies employing approximately 7,400 people with an average annual salary of over $63,000. However, due to the weak economy and overseas competition, the current industry is struggling to stay afloat.

The struggle of paper mills in this region is distilled in the story of Penobscot Chermical Fiber Company. In 1882, a saw mill in Old Town, Maine, began using its wood byproducts to produce fiber as a commercial product. This repurposing of the mill created a new venture which became the Penobscot Chemical Fiber Company, a staple of the community that produced pulp fiber and quality jobs for over 100 years.

However, in 2006 the economic pressures became too great and the last owner, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, officially shut down the mill – costing 400 workers their jobs in the process. But where many saw a dying industry, a small group of investors saw potential. That same year, they bought the mill and submitted a proposal to the Energy Department to convert a portion of the wood chips used to make pulp to biofuels. Its application was selected and since then the mill has reopened as Old Town Fuel and Fiber and 300 people were rehired. The management team has been working with us as part of the Biomass Program’s Integrated Biorefinery portfolio to re-purpose the site to produce fuel, fiber and other products.

This might seem like an isolated example, but the entire pulp and paper industry is well-positioned for this kind of bioenergy re-invention. They understand the technology to deconstruct wood, have an experienced and capable work force, and the biomass supply chain is already in place. Because the jobs are higher quality, they can also get support from state and local authorities. Many of these converted mills could be repurposed and commissioned within 12-15 months after approvals, saving jobs and providing economic opportunity across states such as Maine, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and New York.

Marriott in Deal to Reduce Energy Use at Hotels

The following was gleaned from an article in the Dec. 13 New York Times with the above title.

Marriott International, has signed a deal to reduce its hotels’ energy use, particularly during times of peak demand.

Marriott will save on electric bills and also earn incentive payments from utilities as a reward for its efforts during peak periods when utilities struggle to meet demand and often have to pay high prices for electricity.

But the success or failure of the program, will be in how well it can make the cuts without affecting its customers.

Marriott signed the agreement with Constellation Energy last month and plans to adopt the energy-saving program at 264 of its hotels in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic states and in Texas and California.

The VirtuWatt energy management system from Constellation will work with the hotel’s property management system to track power use and automatically activate the cuts when utilities are strained.

Constellation will cover about half the cost of installing the automated technology, but most hotels would break even on the investment within two years and generate at least 25 percent returns — and as much as 100 percent returns — by the end of the five-year agreement through the cost savings and the incentive payments.

“In effect, the hotels act like a generator in the market, and a reduction in consumption is roughly the same as the addition of a new generator to the system,” a utility representative said. “And so we pay them roughly what we would have paid a generator to produce the same amount of energy.”

==========

Ancient Italian Town Now Has Wind at Its Back

The following was gleaned from a September 28, 2010 New York Times article with the above title.  I believe it provides insight into why some European communities have found it economically feasible, even beneficial, to incorporate renewable energy into their energy mix while few American communities have found that to be the case.

Faced with sky-high electricity rates, small communities in Italy have turned to making renewable energy. More than 800 Italian communities now make more energy than they use because of the recent addition of renewable energy plants.

The Italian town of Tocco da Casauria was motivated to adopt renewable energy because Italy already had among the highest electricity rates in Europe, and nearly three times the average in the United States.

 High electricity prices in Italy are a result of various forces: Italy has almost no fossil fuels of its own, and until last year, it banned nuclear power plants.  And, as in much of Europe, the lure of alternative power here was sweetened by feed-in tariffs — government guarantees to buy renewable electricity at an attractive set price from any company, city or household that produces it.

In the United States, where electricity is cheap and government policy has favored setting minimum standards for the percentage of energy produced from renewable sources rather than direct economic incentives like Europe’s feed-in tariffs, stimulating alternative energy has been only mildly successful. But in countries where energy from fossil fuels is naturally expensive — or rendered so because of a carbon tax — and there is money to be made, renewable energy quickly starts to flow.

With its four wind turbines, Tocco is now essentially energy independent from a financial standpoint, generating 30 percent more electricity than it uses. Production of green electricity earned the town 170,000 euros, or more than $200,000, last year.

Impressed with their new turbines, Tocco’s residents have lately turned to renewable resources to resolve other civic problems.  An installation of solar panels now lights walkways, powers the office and generates an income of 1,500 euros a year, or $2,000, to pay for maintenance at the town’s ancient cemetary.

A growing number of wealthier homeowners are paying these experts to install solar panels. The stucco home of Domenico Marini, a dental technician, has roof panels in addition to a koi pond and garden gnomes. His monthly electricity bills have dropped to $0 from as much as $700.