Politicians Waffle On Energy While Government Leaders Take Action

It's an interesting juxtaposition when politicians take a stand against government action, pointing to a bureaucratic system ripe with waste while exhibiting the very characteristics of ineffectiveness they purport to be against.  Witnessing the debt ceiling debate, errr activism, while watching bills being voted in Congress that seek to undo past decisions makes me think of Lord of the Flies meets Fast Times at Ridgemont High, where somehow Spicoli becomes the elected leader.  Ok, actually just the former reference is accurate, but you'd expect that the new Congressional caucus came with a greater depth of knowledge.  Undoing what has already been done simply obviates the reality brought forth in Tragedy of the Commons -we must work toward the common good of a system that supports us all.  Worse, is which issues are chosen to go after, with torches a blaze, as if our species is not on a crass course with natures ability to support us (we've doubled our population in only 50yrs and natural resources are oversubscribed).  Geologists and anthropologists have even placed us in a new era - Anthropocene.  But regardless if you believe in environmental degradation or not, there is simply no reason to waste time and energy on silly grand standing pursuits when there are critical actions to be taken for our country and its people.


Exhibit #1a -Tea Partiers and light bulbs.
Amazingly, this wise new congress choose to use lighting standards as a platform for government intrusion of privacy and right to free choice.  You'd think they might have used a more astute prop such as CAFE standards, or at least they could have done their homework to find out that that the law is an energy efficiency standard, not product outlaw.  Of course that might have uncovered the fact that incandescent lights are the biggest electricity demand in our country (remember Timothy, turn off the lights!).  The Pop and Bake oven even used a 100W bulb as its cooking element!  Of course, contrary to the libertarian mindset that no one wants these CFLs, Home Depot will tell you that CFLs were the biggest selling item on the shelf, if they could even keep it stocked.  Now that's freedom of choice.


Exhibit #1b -Rick Perry on the EPA their job killing regulation.
For the life of me I can't figure how the air pollution requirements of utility scale generation, specifically coal fired power plants, would kill jobs.  Regardless whether you add technology to existing plants or convert to natural gas, the costs are somewhere around half a billion dollars per utility scale plant.  That sounds like jobs to me.


Exhibit #2a -Federal government and sustainable energy.
When Obama took office the administration knew that one of the best approaches to supporting the new green economy was to be the buyer.  Green building guidelines were adopted for all federal agencies with respect to integrated design principles, optimized energy performance, water conservation, indoor ari quality, and reduced environmental impact due to materials.  This 30% reduction by 2015 builds on the executive order from the Bush era [Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007] that by 2030 100% reduction in fossil fuel consumption (below 2003 baseline).. that's Net 0 yo.  And in turn these policies indeed have been major drivers in reducing building energy consumption (40% of our national energy profile) and paving the way for wide spread green building -and retrofit- adoption while simultaneously lowing the annual expenditures by an equivalent amount today and far exceeding inflationary rates tomorrow.


Exhibit #2b -DoD has already chosen energy security and cost hedging.
The major story just starting to break out of the dark is the amazing advances taking place in the Department of Defense.  All politics aside of course when it comes to long term strategy and serious decision making.  From the Marines adopting new energy tech (solar charging) to significantly increase in-field time, lower costs, and most importantly reduce the risk to troops through far fewer fuel transports; to the navy already achieving 30% reduction in global fuel consumption (through bio fuels) with another 50% reduction target!  The DoD is no lot of fools.  I can't wait to see some of the grander plans coming out of the other two branches, no doubt coming to air waves near you soon.


Exhibit #2c -DOE Secretary Chu on energy and the great American innovation machine.
A nobel prize winner in physics, creator of Bio-X the cross discipline scientific initiative, professor at Stanford, with a past at Bell Labs -Secretary Chu well understands the power of innovation when a critical mission is at hand.  His critical mission is driven by climate change and the future of our species.  (Catching Mr. Chu's brief synopsis of climate history and analysis proving where we are, and likely to go, is quite eye opening.  Did you know that in the last ice age global temp was only 6C less than this century's average; we're projected to increase global temp by 6C in the next several decades -if 6 minus is continents under ice what is 6 plus?)  Regardless whether one believes in environmental concerns, the rest of the world does and is rapidly advancing to the head of the line while the US struggles to find a common mission.. much less a common vision.  The point is that Secretary Chu sees a mission far greater than the space race and he understands how to spark the specific strings of imagination, ingenuity, an good old team work in order to achieve grand breakthroughs on the order we need.  Capitalism is awesome but free markets don't create an atomic bomb nor a moon shot.


The only answers you need to determine:

• Are politicians protecting us or holding us back?;
• Is federal government an ineffectual bureaucracy or the enabling system of our better future?

Negawatts Megawatts - RE vs EE

I find myself needing to right about negawatts and megawatts, just to push the point that there is little utility in generating renewable megawatts if the efficiency negawatts have not been harvested. I'm reminded of the gluttony in Super Size Me - if one continues to gorge on unhealthy food, but occasionally consumes apple wedges or the lettuce based 'salad', can you really champion those habits as if he/she is making a difference in their overall health? I think not. So why do we feel that generating our ever increasing energy needs from renewables will save the environment.. or save us from rapid and intermittent climate change? It won't.

The value in renewable energy is awareness and proof. Everyone can get excited about it and energy becomes front of mind. Capital can get excited about it and that creates prof in projects. Entrepreneurs can get excited and that creates jobs and buoyancy for an industry. And policy makers can get excited about it (if our Representatives would get off their silly stumps). So although leading with the megawatt RE before cleaning up with the negawatt EE doesn't make sense... maybe it does! Its all a game of psychology isn't it.

However, we can't negate the point that the quickest energy path forward is by far and away through energy efficiency. We could achieve a 30% reduction in our energy needs in the next 20years. It will take twice that long with renewables.  But with both, we can offset half of today's consumption of fossil fuel in just 20 years!

Solar Thermal in Colorado and Beyond

Solar thermal may be older, more efficient, and a more straight forward renewable energy than its newer brethren solar electric.  But just like some families the first born remains in the shadows while the younger sibling steals the limelight.  Why is this?  Because PV (photovoltaic) produces electricity, widely consumed and normally generated by coal, where as ST (solar thermal) produces heat, often generated by natural gas.  Addressing green house gases from coal fired power plants with bling on your roof is definitely sexy; addressing the more direct form of solar gain is simply practical but less exciting.  Teh question is: is addressing practical applications of equal importance to our sustainable energy future?  In the follow-on report I seek to shine light on the pros and cons of each technology, their applications, economics, and the state of Solar Thermal in Colorado and the Nation.  Most interesting however are newer technologies that fall into 'thermal' and address peak electricity demand!


Pros:

PV produces electricity; has lots of consumer awareness; and now has widely available incentives in the US with 'net metering' policy that allows grid tied solution (think storing when producing and not using).

ST produces heat and is highly efficient; energy is easily stored; the carbon payback from production is rapid; and several new technologies address electricity.


Cons:
PV comes with a significant manufacturing impact (high energy loads, high carbon release, plus transportation); is very low in efficiency; production is not aligned with peak load demand; and there is no reasonable energy storage option.
ST is not plug and play; has few cost offset incentives; and offsets natural gas which is cheap.


Near Future:
PV is seeing a number of breakthroughs on the efficiency scale but related economics will need to mature.  The storage option could be well aligned with the e-vehicle revolution and grid intelligence but that will take a number of years to really flesh itself out to a state of robustness, and comes with a significant cost in infrastructure.  We are starting to see utility scale economics work as the manufacturing base over-supplies the market demand.  Technology break throughs are needed and much R&D monies are being deployed to both efficiency and storage research.
ST is seeing a nice resurgence with a number of high quality products and new technological approaches that move far beyond heating water.  We can now do space cooling in addition to space heating; commercial scale hot water; industrial scale process water and even process steam; and the coolest approach is utility scale CSP (concentrated solar power).  Major Incentive programs are just now becoming available, in some states, and gas utilities are pursuing how natural gas can offset peak electricity demand!


Applications:
PV - micro scale consumer devices; residential electricity; commercial electricity; community electricity; and utility scale electric power.
ST - residential hot water and space heat; commercial hot water, space heat, and space cooling; commercial process water; industrial process water and steam; district energy scale space heating and cooling; district energy scale electric generation; utility scale electric generation.


Economics:
The rule of thumb on PV with both federal 30% incentive and utility based incentives are about a 10 year payback to ROI with another 10-15 years of free energy after that.  Electricity has a fairly stable price, but it is trending upward and will continue to do so as State's adopt renewable energy portfolio standards.
The rule of thumb on ST looks about the same at 10year payback with only the 30% federal tax credit, but that is entirely dependent on the cost of the legacy fuel. When put against natural gas, although a volatile priced fuel, paybacks are way out at 20yr but when local incentives are applied we're back at the sub 10yr point.  When up against propane the economics are awesome, on the scale of energy efficiency payback of 3-5yrs.  Add local incentives to that and paybacks can be 1yr.  When you can offset electricity we look like a 5 yr payback; and against heating oil near 7.
However, it shouldn't go without addressing that PV is virtually plug and play at scales below 250kW.  A recent study shows economies of scale around 100kW that don't appear to exist at larger scales. ST takes piping and even though plumbing is no big deal there are more holes to cut and flows to address.  Economies of scale definitely fall away from small in favor of large for this reason, and lean heavily toward commercial and industrial installations.  Although, a residential system can simply be a packaged kit which doesn't seek to offset all hot water needs.  A simple cookie cutter approach can cut down on soft costs.


Technologies:
For solar thermal we are seeing special glass glazing that pull in more sun yet radiate less back; we are seeing concentration technologies; advances in evacuated tube; hybrid technologes; and now combined systems that use solar drivers as 'when-available' engine with boiler based hot water as the base source.

What to Watch For 2011/2012
Natural gas volatility due to speculation and environmental regulation.
State based policy and incentives.
Commercial and industrial applications.
Space heating and cooling.
Solar thermal utility scale electric.
Thermal electricity from both direct solar and indirect waste heat.


Tune into the Solar Thermal Alliance of Colorado [COSEIA] for legislative activity.
http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/solar-energy-news/solar-thermal-alliance-of-colorado-111710/