It would be instructive to see the pricing at the end of the day between coal and where and how the coal is produced, tar sands and natural gas for electrical power. The environmental costs of blowing up mountains, creating huge tailing ponds and extraction and refining costs, and transportation and distribution expenses and their impacts i.e. trains, trucks, pipelines need to be put into the equations.
The same goes between fossil fuels, hydroelectricity and nuclear, all of which have their tradeoffs. For example, what are the true disposal costs of fly ash versus that of nuclear waste, per unit generated? FCA would allow power buyers to make effective decisions on where they get the bulk of their electricity.
There are also many nagging questions over green power especially as to whether it is truly environmentally sound. For example, small scale hydroelectric projects have been touted as alternatives to large ones.
Yet is this actually the case when FCA methodologies are applied, such as on construction of the dams and building new transmission lines? It is one thing to reuse an existing dam or dammed river near in-place distribution systems, such as on the Moira River in Belleville, Ontario; it is another to 'greenfield' a run-of-river plant in coastal British Columbia.
The same goes for wind and solar power. Do they cost-effectively produce the power for the investment and operating i.e. maintenance expenses required, for the land consumed?
Questions have been raised about ethanol thanks to FCA, and it is falling out of fashion as a result what with the trucks and trains to haul and the plants to process the material. It follows wood fuel that was also touted as an alternative energy source.
I got a perspective of wood fuel some 20 years ago when I worked as a reporter in a small British Columbia town. A power plant at the local sawmill that burned waste fuel often belched out soot. The particulate matter and other emissions from wood stoves and furnaces created harmful smog in local valleys in winter.
FCA also needs to be applied to smart grid strategies. I've heard the argument that smart grid investments makes sense where electricity costs are high i.e. Ontario and grid partners i.e. in Ohio are unstable as witnessed by the 2003 blackout, but the ROI may not be there in British Columbia or Manitoba where the rates are low and the infrastructure is stable.
FCA should also be applied when comparing how that energy is used i.e. power plants to create electricity for use in rail and urban transit or in internal combustion engines. That will help policymaker decide more accurately whether to go with clean diesel, CNG/LNG, hybrid, hydrogen and electrification.
Finally FCA should be applied to conservation versus added building or buying additional generation capacity. If conservation via changes in methods and processes, or investments in more efficient technologies proves to be comparatively cheaper then more people, and commercial and institutions will conserve. And that's win-win all around.
The newspaper reports that a fair-sized portion of that land had been donated to the federal government a decade ago by an environmental group, which had purchased the property from Catellus Development with private and federal money. The rest has been protected in some form or another.
The rub comes with commitments for conserving this wide open space when the land was accepted and goals for green energy from two Administrations.
The Times said the federal government "made a competing commitment in 2005 when President George W. Bush ordered that renewable energy production be accelerated on public lands, including the Catellus holdings. The Obama administration is trying to balance conservation demands with its goal of radically increasing solar and wind generation by identifying areas suitable for large-scale projects across the West."
"Not only is the desert land some of the sunniest in the country, and thus suitable for large-scale power production, it is also some of the most scenic territory in the West," adds the story. "The Mojave lands have sweeping vistas of an ancient landscape that is home to desert tortoises, bighorn sheep, fringe-toed lizards and other rare animals and plants."
Sally adds that some believe the desert is the best place for utility scale wind and solar. "But that is not true, especially solar," she said. "Especially for solar thermal. Because the kind of solar proposed for that area needs lots of water and lots of new power lines. Neither of which exist where the power plants were proposed."
Sally and the other environmentalists who want to preserve the vistas have a valid point. Just because the power source is green it doesn't mean the power is green.There is not only the habitat destruction and the visual pollution--"utility sprawl"--but there's also emissions from the service vehicles.
This isn't new for those of who live in the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia especially. Our rivers have been dammed (damned?) for decades for green hydroelectric power, which have wreaked havoc on the salmon runs and the salmon fishery. And there are few scars uglier than the tree stumps and other remains when the water levels drop in the reservoirs. Except for the slopes stripped and despoiled with wires and pylons.
Senator Feinstein is striving to balance the green and the green. The Times reported that she had shrunk the parkland from 2.5 million acres; her bill would provide a 30 percent tax credit to developers that consolidate degraded private land for solar projects.
"I strongly believe that conservation, renewable energy development and recreation can and must co-exist in the California desert," Mrs. Feinstein said in a statement. "This legislation strikes a careful balance between these sometimes competing concerns."
The Senator has a point. The green energy developers would be better off in more ways than one if they brownfielded their projects instead. For (and ironically) they are falling into the same lazy and environmentally destructive pattern of commercial and residential developers by focusing on greenfields.
Further to the legislation why not look for alternative power sites at the huge parking lots at malls, 'office parks', and distribution centers many of which are vacant and whose landlords are hungry thanks to the downturn. Couldn't panels be mounted on new rooftops to create covered parking? Or wind turbines erected on towers that also carry power/voice/data, cell repeaters, and lighting. One big benefit is that the utility infrastructure is already there, which minimizes construction costs and line losses.
Here is another option: how about locating these plants over and by the massive amounts of publicly-owned 'freeways' throughout the region? The 'power rights' can be sold to support California's planned new high-speed rail (HSR) line, and when the trains begin to roll, to supply electricity to them. The same concept could be deployed in the Northeast with supplemental power to help power the region's large electrified high-speed and commuter rail networks. And in Texas where LRT lines are expanding in Dallas and Houston. With creaking progress now being made towards HSR in Florida perhaps solar power in the Sunshine State can help make that a reality.
Going green does not have to mean destroying green.
Premier Power's new panel microinverter system is a set of small units that connect directly to each solar module to convert DC power into grid-compliant AC power. It transmits valuable performance data on each module to the system owner.
The payoffs? Increased solar output by as much as 25 percent over traditional inverters, not to mention a more reliable system, and the ability to monitor and respond quickly to performance issues. Also the distributed microinverter design readily permits expanded solar power generation. And, if one microinverter fails, the rest continue to operate as usual and can be replaced during routine maintenance or when convenient.
The key to making technology effective and popular is not so much big leaps but rather steady advances like these that make a difference in the ROI achieved by the purchasers. In the case of green solutions that increase in results, leading to more individuals and firms acquiring them, benefits all.
I received an e-mail last week from Jim McGilligan, who has a degree in engineering from the University of Delware, who just came across this article on water and energy titled: "What is your water footprint?" published in the (Lafourche Parish, La.) Daily Comet. Written by Tom Rooney, president and CEO of SPG Solar in Novato, Calif the article is "the best I've ever seen" on this topic, Jim tells me.
The article raises the key points that we should consider water consumption and concern ourselves with the amounts of energy required to heat and cool water when looking at shrinking our carbon footprints i.e. 'water footprints'.
For most types of commercial electric power the story says you need water: to turn into steam i.e. coal, gas, nuclear, oil or to push turbines i.e. hydro. In the former grouping this water which must be cooled and reused rather than dumped into lakes, ponds, and streams, harming aquatic life.
While the articles doesn't mention this in the latter example i.e. hydro, water must be dammed, interfering with fish runs and turning farms and forests into eerie liquid landscapes, whose remains can be seen during low levels. There has been and continues to be costly efforts to provide for or restore salmon on rivers blocked by hydro projects.
The story says that it takes at least a gallon of water to create one kilowatt hour of power: enough to run your air conditioner for one hour.
It cites estimates from Rachelle Hill and Dr. Tamim Younos of Virginia Tech University that "fossil fuel thermoelectric plants use between ... 8 to 16 gallons of water to burn one 60-watt light bulb for 12 hours per day. Over the duration of one year this one incandescent light bulb would consume about 3,000 to 6,300 gallons of water."
"So we use water to create energy, and we use energy to create water -- to create more energy to create more water," says Rooney. "And on and on and on it goes in a downward spiral that completely distorts the way we think and act about water and power."
Rooney, perhaps not surprisingly given his company recommends using photovoltaic cells. While these solutions will not replace water-based power sources (not in my part of the world i.e. the Pacific Northwest where in winter the sun is that weird object we know is out there) he does call attention to the need to cut down on water use and on the energy consumption in turning water into energy. Not when we have other uses for that water i.e. drinking, to sustain life forms that we eat.
With growing populations and global warming that has led to droughts--and the Moon a little far away for a pipeline--we can't afford to waste that ultimately life-given commodity.
Thanks Jim!
In it he writes: "Europeans are beginning to find that installing windmills to generate electricity has not led to any significant reduction in CO2 emissions--despite all the early hopes and promises. Because wind power blows only fitfully, backup conventional generators are needed, at full capital costs, for intermittent use."
"Denmark's costs are 15 cents per kilowatt hour while Ontario's cost is six cents. In the U.S., wind-powered generation is subsidized to the tune of $23.34/kwh; compare this to gas at 25 cents, coal at 44 cents, hydro at 67 cents and nuclear at $1.59. The wind itself costs nothing; harnessing it obviously is not free."
The study Dr. Strang appears to be referring to is titled "Wind Energy The Case For Denmark" published in September 2009 by the Center for Politske Studier. Among the findings are:
--"The wind power that is exported from Denmark saves neither fossil fuel consumption nor CO2 emissions in Denmark, where it is all paid for. By necessity, wind power exported to Norway and Sweden supplants largely carbon neutral electricity in the Nordic countries. No coal is used nor are there power-related CO2 emissions in Sweden and Norway."
--"Notwithstanding its many disadvantages wind power's one striking advantage is that, like nuclear, its marginal costs of operation are very small once the capital has been paid. However, unlike nuclear, many ten to fifteen year-old turbines are past their useful life. By contrast, most conventional rotating power plant can enjoy a working life of 40 to 60 years, as evidenced by most power plants in Europe today. This puts into question the strategic, economic and environmental benefits of a power plant that may have to be scrapped, replaced and resubsidized every ten to fifteen years."
Hmmm...do we have another case of well-intentioned greenwashing (with taxpayers' green) a la ethanol on our hands where the net benefits do not exceed the total costs? Wind energy, like solar, cannot effectively be used to shave the most critical need--namely coping with peak-power demands unless you want to invest huge sums in electricity storage schemes like batteries, capacitors, and flywheels; hydro has long used pumped storage that sucks up a lot of land.
Or is this an example where, like solar, wind can be harnessed only in rare and site specific cases in close implementation with other tools such as LEED-designed buildings as in the case of Other World Computing's corporate HQ in Illinois, that, as reported on TMCnet.com has become first U.S. technology manufacturer/distributor to become 100 percent on-site wind powered. OWC also installed the wind power plant and made other energy-saving and environmental-footprint-reducing investments like heat pumps and water conservation at the facility without subsidies.