Posts Tagged ‘renewable energy’

h1

Google’s investment in wind generation

May 4, 2010

Lynne Kiesling

Yesterday Google announced that their ever-growing sustainability strategy now includes investing in wind generation. Although they pursue these opportunities through their philanthropic arm, they claim that they are looking for meaningful returns on their investments in addition to their sustainability impact:

To reach a clean energy future, we need three things: effective policy, innovative technology and smart capital. Through our philanthropic arm Google.org, we’ve been pushing for energy policies that strengthen the innovation pipeline, and we’ve been dedicating resources to developing new technologies, including making investments in early-stage renewable energy companies such as eSolar and AltaRock. Smart capital includes not only these early-stage company investments, but also dedicated funding for utility-scale projects. To tackle this need, we’ve been looking at investments in renewable energy projects, like the one we just signed, that can accelerate the deployment of the latest clean energy technology while providing attractive returns to Google and more capital for developers to build additional projects.

This moves adds to their portfolio of energy activities, including the Google PowerMeter and efforts to develop more energy efficient and green data center technologies and building techniques.

I do wonder, though, if such clean tech investments stretch the economies of scope in Google’s strategy. I’d love to know the exact arguments they have made internally in deciding on these renewable generation investments. While I think they take advantage of the expected policy environment (renewable portfolio standards, etc.), these investments are pretty different from Google’s traditional areas.

h1

On the road again…

February 2, 2010

Michael Giberson

I’ll be away from my desk for a couple of days, so posting may be light. (Unless I can figure out the WordPress ap on my phone, in which case maybe I’ll live blog parts of the renewable energy conference I’ll be attending in Austin.)

h1

Tres Amigas project proposes to connect Eastern, Western, and Texas power grids

October 14, 2009

Michael Giberson

A high-profile, high-technology power project is making waves well beyond the small town of Clovis, New Mexico, where it has secured land for development.

I’ve been telling my students and anyone else I can induce to listen to me for a few minutes (i.e., mostly just my students) that my new hometown of Lubbock, Texas is in an interesting place, electrically speaking, because we are so close to that corner of the country where the Eastern Interconnection, the Western Interconnection, and the Texas (ERCOT) Interconnection meet. The developers of the Tres Amigas LLC project hope to spend about a $1 billion in Clovis, about 100 miles northwest of Lubbock, to prove that this area is in fact an interesting place.

Tres Amigas has proposed building a three-way superconducting HVDC link between the three separate power systems to allow power to be shipped among them. (Currently the systems are linked by a small number of weak and relatively unimportant DC interties.) The press releases (by Tres Amigas and partner-company American Superconductor) highlight the way the project can help foster development of renewable power in the region — and it would, and politically those are good buttons to press — as a practical matter this project should be a good deal for power plant developers of all kinds and for power consumers in the area.

Leading the Tres Amigas effort is Phil Harris, former CEO of the PJM Interconnection. As noted, power systems technology firm American Superconductor is partnering in the effort, and directing AMSC’s efforts is Terry Winter, former CEO of the California ISO.  Pat Wood, former chairman of FERC and former chairman of the PUC of Texas, is working with Texas-based transmission developer Sharyland Utilities, and the Wall Street Journal story quotes Wood as saying Sharyland is interested in partnering with Tres Amigas, too.  While the project is at an early stage, still seeking long-term financing and regulatory approvals, these are quite talented people.

Of course, Lubbock is already an interesting place, electrically speaking, because the city is served by competing distribution utilities (noted here and here) rather than by a distribution monopoly.  But that’s a local issue.  A $1 billion spent up the road a little ways could help show how interesting the area is on a much broader scale.

More links:

ADDED: POWERnews, “Transmission Project to Link Three U.S. Grids and Aid Renewables.” Once again renewable power makes the headline, but the value here comes from additional potential gains from trade that can be captured via the project. Whether solar power or coal power, consumers will be better off by having the additional options the system will provide.

STILL MORE, FROM THE COMMENTS: Popular Mechanics, “Lone Star Energy: Why Texas Will Resist the Call for a Unified Grid.” News stories suggest that Tres Amigas plans to ask FERC to confirm that nothing about the project will upset current jurisdictional arrangements regarding ERCOT.

h1

If the E-Fuel MicroFueler sounds too good to be true…

August 24, 2009

Michael Giberson

Robert Rapier draws attention to a Los Angeles Times story on a home-based ethanol system. Here are the first two lines from the story:

It sounds too good to be true: A residential system that allows people to make fuel from old beer, leftover wine and other waste products and use it to run their vehicles.

That’s what inventors of the E-Fuel MicroFueler claim, and there’s support for the idea in government, industry and pop culture.

Then Rapier begins the smackdown: Another Journalist Fails Due Diligence 101.

Actually, the Rapier smackdown begins immediately after “It sounds too good to be true” — he is a diligent applier of the maxim, “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.” — but I wanted to draw attention to the three pillars of support for the home-based ethanol machine that the article relies upon: “government, industry, and pop culture” (italics added).

I guess having the support of pop culture gets you pretty far in L.A., but out here, a little further away from the sparkling lights and Malibu breezes, we typically seek out a somewhat more substantial foundation.

Rapier mentions an 18-month old story on the company in the New York Times, which while also a bit excited by the company’s project, manages to inject a moderating opinion or two.  Daniel M. Kammen, of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley, is quoted as saying about the project “skepticism is a virtue.”

The LA Times notes that Shaquille O’Neal in an investor in the distribution company for the product.  Maybe that is part of the “pop culture” support.  He seems to have plenty of money to play with, so why not?  The company’s plans seem to rely heavily on the idea of a $5,000 federal tax credit for buyers.  But since the federal government doesn’t have plenty of money to play with, I’d say here is another place that skepticism would be a virtue.

What public benefit, exactly, are taxpayers paying for when one of us buys one of these systems?

h1

Feed-in tariffs waste resources and make it harder to meet Europe’s renewable energy goals

August 13, 2009

Michael Giberson

Feed-in tariffs waste resources and make it harder to meet Europe’s renewable energy goals according to a guest post by Omar Abbosh on the Financial Times Energysource blog, at least in the absence of a single, integrated electric power market in Europe.  Abbosh, a managing director at Accenture, notes that generous feed-in tariffs have led Germany to build a lot of solar and wind power capacity, but renewable energy output would be significantly higher had those wind power turbines been built in the U.K. and the solar power systems installed in Spain.

I’m putting a slightly more negative spin on the feed-in tariff issue than Abbosh himself does (in part as a reaction to the “unequivocally superior” comment discussed earlier), so I’ll give Abbosh the final word:

To reach our renewable targets more cost effectively, Europe must implement a consistent policy framework to drive renewable generation to those areas with greatest natural advantage. Options include centrally coordinated carbon contracts and feed in tariffs.

Options include a feed in tariff? Well, he is right that a Europe-wide feed in tariff would likely do a better job than more localized feed in tariffs of locating renewable energy resources where they would produce more output.

Of course, one goal of renewable power policy in Europe is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and locating wind and solar where they produce the most output doesn’t necessarily imply the largest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.  It is possible, for example, that solar power generation in Germany offsets mostly coal-fired plant output while in Spain it would offset natural gas fired generation.  I’m speculating, so my illustration may be in-apt, but the point remains.  Apparently it is harder to distort the market in just the right way than it looks.

(Oh, I forgot that I was giving Abbosh the last word.

Sorry.

Now back to his post:)

However, we advocate the introduction of European Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs).

Under a European RECs system, each nation would agree to levels of electricity generation from renewables, based on the availability of the natural resource in question.  Certificates would be allocated to renewables generators, who would then sell them on an EU-wide trading platform to suppliers unable to meet their obligations. …  As a market-based approach, European RECs would be compatible with the EU’s existing Energy Trading System (ETS).

… Only by replacing distorting national subsides with a coordinated and consistent policy can Europe achieve its renewables targets and continue to lead the climate change debate.

h1

Same old advice gets new package

August 2, 2009

Michael Giberson

My essay of advice to free-market windpower critics, originally published at Master Resource, has been re-published at AltEnergyStocks.

(But the really interesting new stuff at AltEnergyStocks is the immediately prior post on how lead-carbon battery developments will challenge lithium-ion designs for uses in which lithium-ion’s low weight is not a critical factor.  So do go re-read my essay, so the hits are high and Tom Konrad will consider publishing me again someday, but then click back a post and read John Petersen on battery technology.)

h1

Wind energy code of conduct for New York

July 30, 2009

Michael Giberson

The office of the attorney general of the state of New York announced yesterday that a total of 16 … wait, make that 17 wind power companies have signed onto the state’s new “Wind Industry Ethics Code.” The news release indicates that the main point of the industry “ethics code” is to prohibit conflicts of interest between municipal officials and wind companies and establish related public disclosure requirements. Concerns about improper conduct had spurred an investigation by the attorney general’s office last year.

Why this requires an “industry code of conduct” I don’t know. Seems like local government officials should already be subject to laws and policies prohibiting them from using governmental authority to secure private benefits. Offering bribes or similar inducements to public officials is also likely already illegal in New York.  So what’s so funny about wind power development in New York that it requires a sub-industry specific code of ethical conduct?

The first news release issued yesterday said 14 additional companies had signed the ethics code (that is in addition to the two companies that signed last year after coming under investigation by the state). By the way, the news release said, the attorney general’s office was continuing its investigation by serving a subpoena on Reunion Power, which “has not agreed to sign the Code.”

A few hours later a second news release announced that, surprise!, Reunion Power had agreed to sign the attorney general’s ethics code. The second news release quotes the attorney general, “Accordingly, with this development, virtually the entire wind industry (17 of 17 major companies) has agreed to this new standard of transparency and accountability.”

So the 17 companies faced a choice to either (a) sign on to a statement that makes the attorney general look like a champion of good government, or (b) become the target of a potentially costly publicly-disclosed state-funded investigation into company activities.

I don’t know about accountability, but I’d say the attorney general’s actions are pretty transparent.

(HT to Wind Power Law Blog.)

h1

Wind power: My advice to free market critics

July 29, 2009

Michael Giberson

I have a longish guest post, “Windpower: Focusing the Criticism Away from NIMBYism and Aesthetics,” up at Master Resource, Rob Bradley’s free market energy blog.  In general, in the post I offer advice to free-market-oriented critics of wind power, urging them to focus on the distortionary policy problems and to stay away from arguments that seem to encourage more unprincipled policy intervention into markets.

Here is the somewhat dry introduction to the essay:

Market-oriented policy analysts have not been shy about cataloguing the problems surrounding windpower development. But in the enthusiasm to oppose the government interventions accompanying wind generation, market-based analysts sometimes have strayed beyond principled defense of markets and unwittingly offered support to anti-market NIMBYism and other meddlesome sentiments. Policy analysts examining wind power issues should consider more carefully which issues ought to be pursued through the policy process.

I run through a list of frequently made anti-wind power complaints – too costly, unreliable, uses too much land, etc. – and try to explain where the policy issues are, and, especially, where they are not.

Read the rest at Master Resource.

h1

Balancing swings in power from wind farms on the Bonneville Power Administration grid

July 28, 2009

Michael Giberson

From the Yakima Herald-Republic, “Ebb and flow of wind power stress NW power grid,” a report of the challenges in keeping the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) transmission grid balanced when power output from wind farms varies quickly:

In the space of one hour last month, electricity generated at wind farms in the eastern end of the Columbia River Gorge shot up by 1,000 megawatts – enough to power some 680,000 homes.

Less than an hour later, it plummeted almost as much.

Sitting in front of 10 computer screens in a fifth-floor room of the federal Bonneville Power Administration headquarters in Portland, Kim Randolph had to react quickly.

Working from a keyboard, she diverted millions of gallons of water away from massive turbines spinning in Columbia River dams and sent it around the dams.

The 17-year veteran power operations specialist remembers how fast she needed to work as a wind storm caused generation to peak and fall three times over eight hours.

“You have to get it in hand and get it in hand very quickly,” she said.

Getting it in hand is a balancing act. It means balancing the power generated by 31 dams, a nuclear power plant and now wind farms in order to send a stable flow of power into the BPA’s 15,238-mile grid across the Pacific Northwest.

It also means balancing the grid’s needs against those of fish and commercial river traffic on the Columbia River.

Getting power from wind, which can vary greatly, is complicating that balancing act.

The article provides some background on wind power development in the Pacific Northwest and the difficulties the BPA is having managing some of the more extreme variations in output.  One of the points made later in the article is that independent (non utility) power generators in the area have long felt that BPA needed to update its transmission grid and interconnection rules.  The relatively rapid development of wind power has helped push BPA to work a little harder on these issues.

But the thing that really struck me when reading the article was the manual intervention to keep the system in balance.  Given the complicated balancing act – varying wind power, varying consumer load, and hydro power availability limited by current fish and commercial river traffic – wouldn’t it make more sense to have these things automated? (Likely they do for operations within some range, but maybe the automation can’t handle more extreme variations.)

Another issue raised late in the article concerns a controversial three-strikes-you’re-out rule to be implemented this fall for wind generators that don’t respond to requests for curtailment from BPA, and a related proposal to allow wind power generators to pay fossil-fueled power plants to curtail in place of a wind power farm.  A less cumbersome and more transparent approach is available in regions with independently-operated energy balancing markets, which provides an economical way to identify which units to curtail when supply and demand threaten to move out of balance.

RELATED: A BPA press release from July 21, 2009, said the agency proposes to increase rates for energy customers by 7 percent on average.  Also, “BPA’s relatively new rate for wind integration services has been reduced substantially from the initial proposal due primarily to efforts from the wind power industry to improve their operational practices.”

Also, a “BPA and wind power” story from The Oregonian, with more emphasis on BPA’s proposed rate increases for wind power generators and other details on rule changes. The Oregonian article suggests that the wind integration rates were reduced (from a nearly 300 percent increase to a mere 90 percent increase) largely due to a “firestorm of criticism.”

More information on BPA and wind power (from BPA).

h1

The gold in the oceans and the gold in algae biofuels

July 26, 2009

Michael Giberson

The gold in the oceans and the gold in algal biofuel have much in common. You can develop a production process in each case, but the capital and operating costs for producing each are far too high for them to be commercially viable.

I don’t begrudge anyone trying in either case to improve upon the processes. But can we please do it with a minimum of fanfare and press releases?

That’s Robert Rapier at R-Squared Energy Blog, reacting to a news story about Solix Biofuels indicating the company was about to begin “full scale commercial operation” of its plant. Apparently in this case, “full scale commercial operation” yields about 0.4 barrels of algal oil a day.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 50 other followers