Why Renewable Energy?

Lower Cost, Lowered Volatility

---

 ~ Furniture and home furnishings retailer Ikea plans to double spending on renewable energy to $4B by 2020. The PR value is probably great, but saving money is the driver:

The additional spending on projects such as wind farms and solar parks will be needed to keep expenses down as the company maintains its pace of expansion, Chief Executive Officer and President Mikael Ohlsson said in an interview in Malmo, Sweden.

“I foresee we’ll continue to increase our investments in renewable energy,” said Ohlsson.

Ikea plans to get 70% of its energy consumption from renewables by 2015, and 100% by 2020. Not only are wind and solar approaching or reaching grid parity in many places, they provide pricing stability and predictability for businesses, something not provided by volatile oil prices.

The Unlikely Opposition to Energy Independence

Tied to the Grid

---

 ~ Ironically, aspirations of being (partly) off-grid are thwarted by the grid itself.

Even if the progress to national energy independence is halting, and frustrated by barely-concealed Big Oil interests at every turn, still we can each act locally, right? Each of us as individuals can buy plug-in electric vehicles, retrofit homes with energy efficiency measures, and install solar panels on roofs. Can't we?

Sure. But it turns out that these don't confer the independence one might imagine.

Take solar panels, for example. When Superstorm* Sandy savaged the US Northeast, there were doubtless many who thought their preparation installing rooftop solar panels would prove prudent, and reward them with continued electricity and the breadth of common Western comforts it affords.

They were wrong.

Energy Lies—XIV

"More Domestic Oil Production For More Energy Here At Home"

---

 ~ A favorite claim of the Drill Baby Drill crowd is that if we produced more domestic energy (specifically oil) we would produce more gasoline domestically, leading to lower prices at the pump.

There they go again. Like the myth of trickle down economics, they keep repeating the claim, but history shows it to be false.

There are reasons for that of course. A big one is that Big Oil doesn't actually keep that new production here at home:

Buried Treasure?

Keep Fossil Fuels Buried

---

 ~ We should leave our fossil fuels in the ground.

And not just because it would keep that carbon and its climate change impacts out of the atmosphere, but also because it would add to our energy security as a country.

Keeping more of our fossil fuel wealth in the ground would increase our energy security in two ways:

Worthy Website—IV

Let's Go Drill the Arctic!

---

 ~ This website has been around a while, but it has been freshened up lately because of Shell Oil's imminent plans to start exploratory drilling off the coast of Alaska. A sample crowd-sourced advertisement for Shell's "Let's Go!" campaign:

It takes a few minutes of poking around for most to realize that this is not an official Shell Oil website, but a very clever and detailed parody. Like all good satire, it is darkly humorous and all-too-plausible.

A Renewable Energy Future

80% By 2050

---

 ~ A new study by the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) shows that the future of electrical energy could be composed primarily from renewable technologies. Is it really possible?

It's not the first such study. Several others have come to similar conclusions. The NREL study adds further rigor and detail to the argument and makes a straightforward statement:

Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the country.

Short-Sighted and Fuelish

Weakening National Security

---

 ~ The GOP hatred for all renewable energy technologies has jumped the shark.

They are no longer content with demagoguery about Solyndra, squelching renewable energy, and gutting regulations to promote drilling on every square inch of land and sea. No, now they even demand a prohibition on the development of alternative fuel capability by the US military.

There was a time that our military leaders got pretty much whatever they wanted if they made any kind of case that it supported the warfighter or enhanced national security. No more. Evidently "support the troops" is a political bromide or a bumper sticker, but not something that covers the making of policy if military leadership dares an initiative that bucks GOP ideology, or annoys its campaign bagmen.

Hare-Brained

Trends in Cleantech Funding

---

 ~ According to the latest Pew Charitable Trusts report "Who's Winning the Clean Energy Race?, the US regained the lead in spending in 2011. China had invested the most in each of the prior two years, and will probably retake the top spot in 2012. Why? Much of the US investment was accelerated in advance of the expiration of critical incentives, particularly the Section 1603 program.

Energy Lies—XI

"Renewable Energy Mandates Raise Electricity Rates"

---

 ~ A common trope among defenders of fossil energy is that mandating renewable energy punishes ratepayers by forcing utilities to pass on increased generation costs.

But there's no truth to the charge:

Upon examining electricity rate data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration spanning the decade from 2000-2010, a Center for American Progress analysis found zero statistically-significant difference in how renewable electricity standards affect changes in rates.

Energy Lies—X

"Drilling More Will Keep Gas Prices Low"

---

 ~ Consumption of gasoline in the US has been falling for years:

As a consequence, US oil refineries have increased exports:

No surprise here. As US domestic demand falls, prices would normally drop unless supply also decreased. Were supply to increase, prices would drop even more. Instead, supply is being diverted, and prices are going up.

The market for oil and refined products is global. With demand surging in developing economies, and the price there higher, a global commodity like gasoline is sent into the global market, not kept in the US to lower prices.

So think about that the next time you hear some politician, or API apologist pointing fingers about higher gas prices. It isn't evil environmentalists or intransigent bureaucrats, it's economics, stupid.

A Tale of Two Regulatory Regimens

Regulatory Chutzpah

---

 ~ Regulations are for thee, not for me.

Such might well be the motto of the American Petroleum Institute (API), the hyperventilating and richly funded lobbying apparatus of Big Oil in the US. When it comes to regulations on oil and gas, the API affects the highest dudgeon as it rails indignantly against the ostensibly onerous burden saddled upon their industry, which they claim will cost jobs, stunt economic recovery, and make us all more dependent on foreign sources of energy. No surprise, their concern about regulations turns out to be highly selective.

Oily Implications

The Saudi Arabia of... Reason?

---

 ~ Q: Who said this?

We know that pumping oil out of the ground does not create many jobs. It does not foster an entrepreneurial spirit, nor does it sharpen critical faculties.

A: Saudi Arabia’s Oil Minister Ali Al-Naimi.

We certainly live in a bizarre time. Top Saudi officials look to grow their economy away from a dependence on oil, and have also suggested they should keep some oil in the ground to ensure their energy future.

Energy Lies—VII

"Oil Companies Need Subsidies for Incentive"

---

Big Oil doesn't need subsidies at high prices

 ~ The API, lead lobbyist for Big Oil, has long claimed that subsidies and tax breaks for oil companies are absolutely necessary to provide incentive for exploration and production and to prevent industry job losses. Without them, workers would be laid-off, domestic oil production would plummet, prices would skyrocket, and our dangerous dependency on foreign sources would become dire.

Looks like they neglected to fully convince the former CEO of Shell Oil:

Large oil companies don’t need tax subsidies when oil prices are high, a former CEO of Shell Oil said Thursday.

“In the face of sustained high oil prices it was not an issue—for large companies—of needing the subsidies to entice us into looking for and producing more oil,” John Hofmeister told National Journal Daily.

Perhaps that's why he is the former CEO.

We Need More Public Transit

And Public Transit Needs Us

---

 ~ Why public transit?

Riffing on Stuart Smalley: It's good enough, it's smart enough, and doggone it, people like it!

Americans, regardless of political affiliation, support public transit. Everyone who takes public transit contributes to decreased congestion, decreased carbon emissions, and decreased oil/gas use. It's funny to think otherwise. Public transit riders also save money.

Public transit revitalizes communities and leads to economic (re-)development. People choose public transit if given a level of service that represents something close to a comparable choice. Public funding of public transit makes sense, and smart political leadership just gets it done. Unfortunately, others still don't get it.

The demographics in America are changing. The outer ring suburbs are dying and not coming back; both empty-nest Boomers and younger Millennials want to live in livable, walkable cities well-served by public transit where they don't even need to own cars.

Why support pubic transit? It's really rather simple:



Public transit: good, smart, and people like it.

---

Cross-posted to Fare-Free NW blog.

Doc Hastings Offers Bad Medicine

Deeply Unserious Governance

---

 ~ Representatives such as Doc Hastings (R-Pasco, WA) are why only 9% of voters approve of the job Congress is doing.

Hastings chairs the House Natural Resources Committee, and has used that position as a soapbox for views which neither accord with public opinion nor have any hope of becoming pragmatic, effective solutions to our problems.

Last week he renewed the feckless call for oil drilling in the Alaskan Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR.) Won't happen. Even if the House can pass something on this the Senate and even President Obama are unlikely to agree. This is a fight waged for partisan point-scoring and base-pandering, nothing more, and as such, it represents a squandered opportunity to propose—and dare one say—negotiate legislation that pragmatically addresses real problems that still beg for solutions.

An American Grandee

Short Term Self-Interest Prevails

---

 ~ A key Congressman on energy policy figuratively threw up his arms this week, declaring that against China in the global market for solar panels and wind turbines, the US "can't compete." He's wrong, and he's a hypocrite. He also repeats the interesting history of long-term losers clinging to the short-term gains of a vanishing status quo.

Florida Republican Cliff Stearns, Chair of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, stated that federal efforts to support renewable energy were a waste of taxpayer dollars, too risky, and weren't creating jobs. He stated that further green energy loan guarantees be halted "so that they could be looked at more carefully," which is Washington-speak for killing the program.

The White House showed some spine for a change, as spokesman Dan Pfeiffer shot back:

Chairman Stearns and other members of his party in Congress believe that America cannot, or should not, try to compete for jobs in a cutting edge and rapidly growing industry. We simply disagree: the answer to this challenge is not to wave the white flag and give up on American workers. America has never declared defeat after a single setback – and we shouldn’t start now.

Cellulosic Aviation Biofuels

Record USDA Grants to UW, WSU

---

 ~ The announcement of the record grants for aviation biofuel research are exciting indeed and a great coup for biofuel researchers in the Pacific Northwest.

The 5-year grants, part of the Agricultural and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) are the largest ever from the USDA. USDA was surprised at the level of interest when the funding opportunity was announced. 63 groups expressed interest and 35 were selected to submit full proposals. Of those, 30 made application, and 8 finalists were invited to Washington to present their proposals. The 5 winners include the teams led by researchers from the UW and WSU, each of which received $40M in funding. Each team is a consortium of members; approximately 62.8% of the funding will go to land grant universities and 22.9% to industrial (business) partners, with rest divvied up among other universities, federal partners and one non-profit organization.

Programmatically, the 5 teams are all striving to develop sustainable biofuels, particularly for aviation, a pressing need also a focus of the Sustainable Aviation Fuels Northwest (SAFNW) initiative announced earlier this year. The teams have some research overlap in their proposals: 62% of the funding targets woody biomass and 25% perennial grasses, with the rest going towards sorghum and other feedstocks. None of the funded research seeks to repurpose food crops into biofuels.

Some challenges the teams will face in creating a sustainable biojet fuel:

• Building an energy industry in rural areas
• Developing viable lignin coproducts. (As the old joke has it, “You can make anything out of lignin, except money”)
• Tremendous variability in the lignocellulosic cell walls of different feedstocks (e.g. between hardwoods such as poplar, alder and the ubiquitous North American softwoods, especially the Northwest’s Douglas fir) and between the different parts of the plant: stem, bark, leaves, etc. There are many tradeoffs between ease and cost
• Cost-effective pre-treatment alternatives, including optimal chip or particle size, and the presence of dirt and other contaminants (especially from woody municipal solid waste)
• Feedstock development strategies
• Establishing viable supply chains from landowners to aviation fuel
• Determining feasible transportation logistics that optimize what is being transported, how, and how far
• Stakeholder/community/social outreach: the project is unique because of the extraordinary level of vertical integration required

Seeds of Outrage

The Power of Civil Disobedience

---

~ Tim DeChristopher, a US political prisoner, writes from jail, a month into his 2-year sentence:

With civil disobedience cases, however, the government puts an extra value on an apology. By its very nature, civil disobedience is an act whose message is that the government and its laws are not the sole voice of moral authority. It is a statement that we the citizens recognize a higher moral code to which the law is no longer aligned, and we invite our fellow citizens to recognize the difference. A government truly of the people, for the people, and by the people is not threatened by citizens issuing such a challenge. But government whose authority depends on an ignorant or apathetic citizenry is threatened by every act of open civil disobedience, no matter how small. To regain that tiny piece of authority, the government either has to respond to the activist’s demands, or get the activist to back down with a public statement of regret. Otherwise, those little challenges to the moral authority of government start to add up.

It is happening again, now, as hundreds are jailed at the White House protesting the Keystone XL pipeline. While not yet approved, the fix appears in. We will seemingly allow the construction of a pipeline from the environmentally disastrous Alberta tar sands to Texas, where refiners will process the devil's excrement into fuels, many of which will then be shipped elsewhere. The oil patch will get richer, the environment dirtier, the air yet fuller with greenhouse gases, but we will not see cheaper energy, more security, or some magical economic recovery due to all the jobs it will supposedly create.

Meanwhile, real solutions go begging.

Time Grows Short

Oil is a finite resource

---

~ Production peaked in the US decades ago, and the global peak is happening now, if it hasn't already. The transition to a new energy economy must happen because our ability to produce fresh supply will decline, even as economic development quickens throughout the developing world, boosting demand. There are other reasons too: climate change, energy security, and addressing energy poverty, the root of poverty generally throughout the world.

Making the transition is an urgent need:

The most critical question is how much time we have to make the transition. A fully equipped hospital with on-duty surgeons and staff may be the ideal technology for a critically injured patient. But they mean little to such a patient if we are in the position of having to build the hospital and train the surgeons and staff before administering treatment. I think this analogy aptly describes our current predicament. If you miscalculate concerning the time question, it will not matter how clever human beings are.

Our Earth, the patient, suffers from a growing number and severity of injuries. Delivering the cure will take substantial time and investment. What are we waiting for?

---

This is a repost from my earlier blog of 4/27/10.

Energy Self-Reliance

Most States Could Power Themselves

---

~ Via Grist, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance has issued a report that shows 31 states could generate all their energy needs for local renewable sources. Sadly, the report is over a year old, but a quick scan suggests that the data is probably still pretty relevant.

States in green could generate more than 100% of their needs. Those in red, 25% or less. Orange and yellow states do better than the red ones, but still would require energy imports or other ways of meeting their local demand.

It's interesting the ways in which this map does and does not correspond to political support for renewable energy. Just because a state could be self-sufficient (e.g. Oklahoma) does not mean that its leaders support it. Just because it cannot yet be (e.g. New York) does not mean that its leaders aren't supportive.

What the map does show clearly, however, is that there could be a very strong political majority for energy self-sufficiency, if only the argument were made, and the bogus counter-arguments, especially about jobs, could be debunked.