Desert Solar Plants Environmentalis
|
Another term for renewables is "Alternative Energy." This means it is an alternative to the conventional energy systems in use today. Hope spring eternally. There are no renewables that produce economical electric energy today and I doubt there will ever be. But renewables appear to be pushed regardless of cost. Since the electrical energy output of renewables is vary low compared to their peak capacity ratings, it is difficult to see how they will ever be economical or substantial performers. Capacity Factors To understand the energy situation it is necessary to appreciate what the capacity factor means. It is a measure of the total energy a system generates over a years operating time. If a system does not generate much energy to sell, the financial return is very low. Renewables have very low capacity factors so they don't produce much revenue. Capacity factor is one element in measuring the productivity of a wind turbine or any other energy production facility. It compares the plant's actual production over a given period of one year with the amount of energy (kWh) the plant would have produced if it had run at full capacity for the same amount of time. Example: A wind machine has a name plate rating of 100 kWe. At full power for a year it could produce 100 kW x 8760 Hrs. per year = 876,000 kWh. It actually produced 175,000 kWh that year. The capacity factor is: 157,000 / 876,000 x 100 = 0.20 or 20% This reduction is due to the fact that the wind does not blow continuously through out the year. The machine sits idly for periods of time. A conventional utility power plant uses fossil fuel, so it will normally run much of the time unless it is idled by equipment problems or for maintenance. A capacity factor of 80% to 90% is typical for conventional plants. Since nuclear plants do not have to be refueled every year, they have reported average capacity factors close to 89%, some reach 100% over some years. Renewables are subject to the wind or sun's photons. Since these items are variable, the capacity factors are only in the range of 15% to 25%.
The North West (NW) and South West (SW) are, of course, out of state contributions. Geothermal is not really a renewable since the sites play out and are abandoned. Geothermal power plant capacity has been receding during the past five years. Small hydro in the state is maxed out since there are no more existing sites and further if there were the environmentalists would not approve them. Biomass may increase, but not significantly unless the forest are denuded. This is not likely to happen. When added together, California's geothermal power plants produce about 40 percent of the world's exothermally generated electricity. The power plants have a dependable installed capacity of about 1,900 megawatts -- producing 4.9 percent of California's total electricity in 1999 (12,786 million kilowatt/hours). This is a capacity factor of 77%. A review of the data between the years 2004 to 2005 shows that the gross electric energy consumption increased by 5.78%. At that rate the state will double it's energy consumption every 13 years. The legislators have decreed by fiat that California will generate 33% of its electrical energy using renewables by the year 2020, and 50% renewable energy contribution by the year 2050. During the decade of the years 1990 -2000, California increased its renewable energy contribution by only 0.27%. Company tells U.S. it's ditching geothermal project. 12/12/2009 The company in charge of a California project to extract vast amounts of renewable energy from deep, hot bed rock has removed its drill rig and informed federal officials the government project will be abandoned. The project by the company, Alta Rock Energy, was the Obama administrations first major test of geothermal energy as a significant alternative to fossil fuels and was being financed with federal department of Energy money at a site called the Geysers, at a tiny Lake County town of Anderson Springs. My Comment: This is the last of the geothermal systems in California and it carried the last hope of President Obama's geothermal systems. Below is the latest words from the California Energy Commission. As a whole, information from the California Energy Commission shows that only 10.6% of the state’s total system power (a sum of imported power and instate generation) in 2008 was produced from renewable sources, down from 10.7% in 2007. About 45.7% of the state’s power last year was natural gas–fired, 18.2% was coal-fired, 14.4% was nuclear, and 11% came from hydropower. It seems that the writer of the above piece does not know the difference between power and energy. They should use energy in place of power in the above article. However, it is fully obvious that California will not meet the 33% or the 50% energy goals as stated. This is due to the relatively low capacity factors of the renewables, which are only about 20%. The non renewables such as natural gas, coal, and nuclear power plants are capable of capacity factors of 90%. Consider the large renewable installations currently under construction. PG&E has contracted for a 553 MWe solar plant in the Mojave Desert and SCE has a 1,500 MWe wind power farm being constructed in the Tehachapi mountains. The electrical energy from these installations will only be about 3,200 GWh per year. SCE started a 1,000 MWe combined cycle natural gas fueled plant this year. Its annual energy out put at 90% capacity factor is 8,000 GWh per year. Since California needs about 1,000 MWe of new capacity each year, it is obvious that renewables have a moving target they will never catch unless renewables are the only new power plant additions. In the latter case it would require that the power capacity of the renewables be about 4 times larger than the fissile plants to make up for the low capacity factors of renewables. . September 4, 2009. A large geothermal project in California has been abandoned. Although geothermal is the largest contributor to the renewable, this does not bode well for its future, A recent press release. A $17 million energy project in Lake County that was supposed to demonstrate the feasibility of extracting vast amounts of heat from the Earth's bedrock has been suspended indefinitely after the drilling essentially snagged on surface rock formations. A $17 million energy project in Lake County that was supposed to demonstrate the feasibility of extracting vast amounts of heat from the Earth's bedrock has been suspended indefinitely after the drilling essentially snagged on surface rock formations. The project, run by Bay Area-based AltaRock Energy, represents the Obama administration's first major test of geothermal energy as a significant alternative to fossil fuels. But since drilling began in June, the project has encountered earthquake fears and scheduling delays. Last month, federal scientists said that the company had fallen far behind schedule because a huge rig hired to drill down about 12,000 feet, or more than two miles, on federal land had not been able to pierce surface formations called caprock. The federal scientists had said that after nearly two months of drilling, the project had reached depths of less than 4,000 feet Technical problems are common in drilling operations, but some scientists said they were surprised at the severity of AltaRock's difficulties given that the drilling essentially started at 3,200 feet, at the bottom of an Now we are going to get serious about renewables after we tried them 30 years ago in California and Renewables here are still pegged at 11%. Renewables did not work well then and were not economical either. But perhaps now the sun will shine brighter and longer and the wind will blow continuously. And perhaps we will up root the vast farm lands East of the Mississippi River and use this land for wind and solar farms. PG&E Launches 500 Megawatt Solar Power InitiativeSAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 24, 2009Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) today announced plans for a five-year program to develop up to 500 megawatts (MW) of clean solar photovoltaic (PV) power in its northern and central California service area, one of the largest undertakings of its kind in the country.
If all projects are up and running by 2015, they are expected to deliver more than 1,000 gigawatt hours of power (energy, not power) each year, equal to the annual consumption of about 150,000 average homes. In all, this program would meet over 1.3 percent of PG&E's electric demand. PG&E has learned how to play the game. Half of this will be supplied by another source? And it takes 6 years to complete this? If this venture comes off it will show the folly of solar PV systems. SMUD has a 2 MWe PV system operating. They will not reveal the performance data of this system. The capacity factor of PV 's is about 15%. It will far short of expectations. See Google's 1,600 kWe system in Mountain View, CA. They were showing how well it worked until they found it only produced a capacity factor of 17%. Renewable Energy Industries Ready to Lead U.S. Economic RecoveryNovember 13, 2008 The leaders of the American Wind Energy Association, Geothermal Energy Association, National Hydropower Association and Solar Energy Industries Association today released the following statement: The fast-growing renewable energy sector is poised to help lead the U.S. economic recovery with millions of new jobs and billions of private investment dollars. However, the new Administration and Congress need to take action to ensure that the renewable industries’ growth continues, given the current economic realities. President-elect Obama has made a commitment to key policies that will spur substantial growth in America’s clean renewable energy industries and create millions of new jobs. Building upon these key policies, the renewable energy industries’ top priorities for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress include: Immediate Action: -
If the Administration and Congress can quickly implement these policies, renewable energy growth will help turn around the economic decline while at the same time addressing some of our most pressing national security and environmental problems. Expansion of renewable energy production will mean billions of dollars in economic growth, millions of new jobs, enhanced energy security as we increase domestic energy production, and critically important progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I would like to address the above assumptions. The authors of this info know nothing about renewable energy history. Renewables have been tried in California and they were found to be very expensive and produce very little energy for their capacity. I do not know who would contribute billions of dollars for Renewables. The LUZ engineering firm went bankrupt constructing the only solar plant that did work in California. I have no idea who will finance renewable systems. And there are no good wind sites remaining in California. Randall Swisher, Executive Director, American Wind Energy Association, www.awea.org, 202.383.2508, .Karl Gawell, Executive Director, Geothermal Energy Association, www.geo-energy.org, 202.454,.5261 My comment: the number of Geothermal plants in California have been deceasing over the years. Linda Church Ciocci, Executive Director, National Hydropower Association, www.hydro.org, 202.682.1700 Rhone Resch, President, Solar Energy Industries Association, www.seia.org, 202.682.0556 MAY 19,2008 One does not often feel present at the launch of something civilization changing. Electricity was in the air at the recent Washington International Renewable Energy Conference, which attracted a swarm of more than 8,600 energy entrepreneurs, government officials and academics from around the world. The first such gathering was a German government-sponsored meeting in Bonn four years ago that attracted 1,200. My Comment: Renewables are now being rediscovered as a new approach to our energy problem. Now we have to go through this farce again. What goes around comes around. But the sun will not shine longer or brighter and the wind will still be intermittent. These facts will need to be rediscovered again. Renewables are not the answer to our energy problem. A lot of money will be spent as before. The results will still be dismal. Energy Department to speed technologyWASHINGTON, Sep 2, 2008 -- UPI The U.S. Department of Energy is making up to $7 million available to speed up clean energy technologies from seven national laboratories into the marketplace.
"Our national laboratories are responsible for incredible innovation, from new efficiency technologies and biofuels to solar energy," Mizroch said. "It is absolutely critical that we move clean energy technologies to market at a rate and scale that is commensurate to the magnitude of the problem -- our environmental well-being, national security, and economic competitiveness are waiting for it." The seven Energy Department national laboratories selected were: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, $1,500,000 each; Argonne National Laboratory and the Sandia National Laboratory, $700,000 each; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, $500,000; and the Los Alamos National Laboratory, $600,000. Officials said the ultimate goal is wide distribution of energy-efficient and renewable energy technologies into the marketplace, ultimately improving the economy, reducing greenhouse my coomments:gas emissions, and increasing energy security. My comments: We have been some 30 years working on renewable technology and it is proven to be a poor energy supplier. Now the National Labs are supposed to bring out the results? What results do they have hidden some place? "Our national laboratories are responsible for incredible innovation, from new efficiency technologies and biofuels to solar energy? The National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) has been on the job for 20 years and not an economical kilowatt or BTU have they come up with. This is a farce that will never be exposed. AWEA and Broad Coalition Launch Campaign to Renew Clean Energy Tax Incentives in September AWEA - August 25, Denver More than 175 companies and organizations from across the political spectrum today joined forces to call for Congressional action to extend the renewable energy and energy efficiency tax credits when the legislators return in September session. The credits expire at the end of this year. “More than 100,000 American jobs and $19 billion in clean energy investment are at stake,” said Randall Swisher, AWEA’s executive director. “After lots of effort over the past year, the short Congressional window in September looks like the last chance for legislation to extend these overwhelmingly popular clean energy credits before they expire.” “We want Members of Congress to understand how much is at stake should the tax credits not be extended in September. Our members and allies will be sharing their sense of urgency with the nation’s political leaders as they gather here in Denver and next week in Minneapolis.” It is in contagious. Now as stated Illinois is on their way to get 25% renewable energy. There is really very little solar and wind in their state. Most of the winter the land is under snow and the wind only blows around Chicago. Illinois intends to rely on such items as biofuels, ethanol, biomass, methane digester's, and so forth to provide this energy. Every one must learn the obvious before we can get underway with the real solution. Illinois Renewable Energy Alliance sets goal for renewable energyAug 25 - McClatchy-Tribune Regional News - Tim Mitchell The News-Gazette, Champaign-Urbana, Ill. A group of more than 120 organizations, schools, local governments and businesses are banding together to increase public and private use of renewable energy sources in Illinois.
Alliance Director Blake Roderick, who also is executive director of the Farm Bureaus in Pike and Scott counties, said the coalition was organized to promote the goal of producing 25 percent of all energy used in Illinois by the year 2025. "Renewable energy has been a big issue for us, and we look at 25x'25 as the vehicle to help reach that goal," he said. The coalition intends to work to increase use of biofuels, ethanol, biomass, methane digesters, wind farms, solar energy and hydroelectric generation. "By 2025, American farms, forests and ranches can provide 25 percent of the total energy consumed and produce safe, abundant and affordable food, feed and fiber," said Scott County farmer Mike Wortman For all its promise, relatively little electricity currently comes from renewable sources, other than hydropower. According to the Energy Information Administration, renewable resources produced 2.3% of the U.S. electricity energy supply in 2005:
In contrast, coal-fired generation produced 49.7% of U.S. electricity supplies in 2005, followed by nuclear power at 19.3%, natural gas at 19.1%, hydropower at 6.5% and oil-fired generation at 3%. Also geothermal is not really a renewable. A gem from professor Ferdinand Banks. I have studied the energy situation in Germany for many years, though not in detail because my knowledge of the German language has unfortunately deteriorated. A monumental scam is being perpetrated on the German people and others by the Energy-Elite and politicians in Germany and Brussels. The so-called intention to replace nuclear by wind and other renewables is ridiculous, although amazingly some high-level and/or influential academics have unfortunately bought this silliness. Yes, many people in that country - and perhaps a majority - do not want to have anything to do with nuclear, and their wishes should be respected, but clearly nuclear or coal will have to provide all or a large part of the German base load. Excerpts from an article by Lester Brown, founder and president of the Earth Policy Institute, and Jonathan Lewis climate specialist and lawyer with the Clean Air Task Force. This concerns ethanol. Food-to-fuel mandates were created for the right reasons. The hope of using American-grown crops to fuel our cars seemed like a win-win-win scenario: Our farmers would enjoy the benefit of crop-price stability. Our national security would be enhanced by having a new domestic energy source. Our environment would be protected by a cleaner fuel. But the likelihood of these outcomes was never seriously tested, and new evidence has shown that the justifications for these mandates were inaccurate. Congress took a big chance on biofuels that, unfortunately, has not worked out. Now, in the spirit of progress, let us learn the appropriate lessons from this setback, and let us act quickly to mitigate the damage and set upon a new course that holds greater promise for meeting the challenges ahead. It is now abundantly clear that food-to-fuel mandates are leading to increased environmental damage. Producing ethanol requires huge amounts of energy - most of which comes from coal. The North West (NW) and South West (SW) are, of course, out of state contributions. Geothermal is not really a renewable since the sites play out and are abandoned. Geothermal power plant capacity has been receding during the past five years. Small hydro in the state is maxed out since there are no more existing sites and further if there were the environmentalists would not approve them. Biomass may increase, but not significantly unless the forest are denuded. This is not likely to happen. When added together, California's geothermal power plants produce about 40 percent of the world's geothermally generated electricity. The power plants have a dependable installed capacity of about 1,900 megawatts -- producing 4.9 percent of California's total electricity in 1999 (12,786 million kilowatt/hours). This is a capacity factor of 77%.
A review of the data between the years 2004 to 2005 shows that the
gross electric energy consumption increased by 5.78%. At that rate the
state will double it's energy consumption every 13 years.
The legislators have decreed by fiat that California will generate 33% of its electrical energy using renewables by the year 2020, and 50% renewable energy contribution by the year 2050. During the decade of the years 1990 -2000, California increased its renewable energy contribution contribution by only 0.27%. The wecansolveit.org people, with Al Gore, are going to solve our energy problems with solar panels shown below. They state the following:We can help break our addiction to fossil fuels like coal and oil by switching to renewable energy. In fact, with upgrades to our electricity grid, the United States could meet all of its power needs, with renewable energy and support a significant portion of our transportation needs, too. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Selling electricity back to state: Utilities, S.C. officials to debate giving consumers energy credits
Feb 14 - McClatchy-Tribune Regional News - Noelle Phillips The State, Columbia, S.C. If you're laying solar panels on your roof or building a windmill in the backyard, soon you will know how much utility companies will pay for the electricity you generate.
.Under the government program, a homeowner can install a solar energy system, for instance, use electricity to run things in the home and then sell the leftover energy back to utility companies.
My comments: This has to be the joke of the century. Sell excess energy from a solar system on your roof or a wind machine in your back yard? Solar PV systems are so expensive and produce so little energy that it would be a gross loser. And a wind machine in your back year? Boy wouldn't your neighbors like that?
Some thirty years ago concentrating solar plants were built in the California desert. Most of them failed or the builders went bankrupt in building them. Now we are going to try it again. This final effort should again prove the folly of these plants. In part below is a recent announcement about the project. The impetus behind the proposed solar site is state mandates that force utilities to offer a set percentage of their electric generation from renewable energy.
Energy suppliers scattered throughout the Southwest have asked bidders to submit proposals to build a 250 megawatt solar power project.
The consortium plans on picking a winner by June 2008 so that the project would be completed by 2012. It would be "concentrated solar power" that focuses sunlight, usually with mirrors, to heat a fluid to high temperatures to drive the engine -- something that proponents say can be used for large-scale solar power generation. That differs from the more traditional approach of photovoltaic solar power systems in which light interacts with sheets of semiconductors to generate electricity.
The partners in the proposed 250 megawatt concentrated solar power project are the Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Salt River Project, Southern California Public Power Authority, Tucson Electric Power and Xcel Energy.
PG&E Receives Approval for 585.5 MW of Renewable Power
SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 21 /PRNewswire/ Pacific Gas and Electric Company announced today that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has approved four new renewable energy power purchase agreements. The four renewable projects -- three utility-scale solar and one geothermal -- will generate 585.5 megawatts (MW) of renewable, clean electricity for PG&E's customers in northern and central California.
Among the four new contracts, PG&E announced a landmark solar thermal project with Solel-MSP-1. The Mojave Solar Park, to be constructed in California's Mojave Desert will deliver 553 MW of solar power, the equivalent of powering 400,000 homes. The plant utilizes Solel's patented and commercially-proven solar thermal parabolic trough technology. When fully operational in 2011, the Mojave Solar Park plant will cover up to 6,000 acres, or nine square miles in the Mojave Desert. The project will rely on 1.2 million mirrors and 317 miles of vacuum tubing to capture the desert sun's heat.
My comments: PG&E must play the game, but they will prove the folly of trying to get renewables to provide the stated goal of 20% renewables by 2020. For example the statement that the 553 MWe solar power plant will provide the energy for 400,000 homes is a factor of four off of the mark. It will only provide the electrical energy needs of 100,000 homes if it works at all. And the cost per kW-hr will be very high.
Solar, wind too expensive, so IDAHO should focus on nukes
BOISE, Idaho (The Associated Press) - Oct 3 - By JOHN MILLER Associated Press Writer
Idaho should bolster its ties to the nuclear power industry to underpin economic growth and curb greenhouse gas emissions because alternative energy sources like solar or wind are too costly to meet the state's future needs, Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter said Tuesday.
California should take note of this announcement. It is true.
Britain Set to Miss Targets on
Renewable Energy
Aug 13 - Evening Standard; London (UK) By PIPPA CRERAR
BRITAIN has no hope of hitting targets to get 20 per cent of the country's energy from wind, solar and wave power by 2020, officials have warned.
An internal briefing paper suggests looking at ways to "wriggle out" of the European Union green energy commitment.
Environmental groups and opposition MPs accused the Government of "living a lie" by promising targets they knew they could not meet. Officials at the Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform admit they are unlikely to get more than nine per cent of energy from renewable sources by 2020.
Getting above the current two per cent would be "challenging" and under current policies green energy sources would account for only five per cent by 2020.
My Comments: Britain is realistic about renewables. In the US we will not hit the target of 20% either, but we talk about it as if we will. California will not hit it either. California was going to be 40% renewables by the year 2,000. They are now 10% and holding.
There seems to be a prevailing thought that says green technology can produce clean pollution free fuels that emit very little green house gases upon combustion. All we need to do is to spend money to find it.
First let's look at liquid fuels that lend them selves to combustion. There are about 40 some liquid or gaseous fuels such as ethanol, natural gas , gasoline, biodiesel, and hydrogen, etc. All of the fuels except hydrogen are carbon based. That carbon is the element that undergoes combustion to produce heat energy. Under this mode they all produce carbon dioxide as one of the combustion products. Hydrogen on the other hand also undergoes combustion but its only emission product is water.
Ethanol is thought to relieve the CO2 green house gas somewhat, but some quarters say it does not because it requires more natural gas energy to manufacture than it provides during combustion. At the same time ethanol uses some green house gas CO2 in its growing process.
This argument will go on forever, but one thing is sure, hydrogen does not produce green house gases if it is obtained using nuclear energy as its providing source of energy. Also wind energy provides green house gas free hydrogen.
The question remains, wind or nuclear energy to produce vehicular fuels? I come down on the nuclear side because nuclear power plant capacity factors are 90% whereas wind is about 20%. Thus it would require a factor of three or four in wind power installations to match nuclear plants. In other words to replace each 1,000 MWe nuclear power plant installation would require about 4.000 MWe of installed wind machine power to match the energy output. This is a deficiency that will never be over come.
Here is what is happening about renewables in the US. They are being force fed to the utilities regardless of cost and productivity.
Utilities like the tax benefits that come with providing renewables. While such investments have not fruitful, power companies are expressing concerns that those emerging technologies are still expensive and that the permitting process is just as onerous as other fuel sources.
Much of the growth so far in the renewable energy sector is largely because of government-sponsored tax breaks and state renewable mandates that requires utilities to provide a certain level of green energy.
Major Holes Found in Renewable Energy Bill: Lawmakers Try to Salvage an Alternative Energy Proposal That Was Years in the Making
Environmentalist groups have pushed for years for a state policy that requires utilities to develop renewable energy and efficiency programs. But many of those groups are fighting a bill in the General Assembly that includes their long-sought goal.
The legislation requires that 12.5 percent of the electricity sold by utilities such as Progress Energy and Duke Energy come from renewable sources and efficiency programs. The measure overwhelmingly passed in the state Senate, but it has bogged down in the House.
Renewables are getting scrutiny. An engineer from the state's Department of Environment and Natural Resources' Division of Air Quality told the energy committee that solar energy is too expensive for wide-scale deployment and wind power too controversial in the mountains. The agency said this week that power plants fueled by wood waste generate more pollution than modern coal fired plants.
My comments: From the last paragraph it seems that the renewables will not achieve the original results that are sought, and are too expensive. This will always be the case where ever renewables are installed.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company Seeks to Increase Renewable Energy Resources for its Customers
Pacific Gas and Electric Company announced today that it has issued a Request for Offers (RFO) to solicit renewable energy supply on behalf of its five million electric customers
The renewable energy projects may be proposed in the form of power purchase agreements from generation sources owned and operated by others, or new generation facilities constructed for utility ownership, or sites suitable for development of renewable energy projects. PG&E will accept deliveries anywhere in California, thereby potentially avoiding uneconomic transmission cost.
A bidders conference is scheduled for April 3 and offers are due on May 31..
My comment: PG&E is getting smart. They are not going to risk spending their money building renewable energy systems, they are asking others to do so. PG&E can buy the energy if someone can generate it at a reasonable cost. If no one can, and I believe that is the case, PG&E has shown an effort to get renewable energy. Also if they do get bids, they will ask the CPUC to approve it along with the increase in cost.
Let's see if there are investors that will risk their money to build renewable energy system. Perhaps the Sierra club or some other environmental organization will put their money where their mouth is.
National Renewable Energy lab (NREL) To Build Research Support Facility
The US Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has issued a request for proposals for design and construction of a state-of-the-art office building for the laboratory’s campus in Golden, Colo.
My comment: This is about the only thing that the NREL has done. They have not developed a single new or economical renewable system in their existence. There are 800 persons floundering around in this organization. Ask them about information and see what you get. Nothing more than a tutorial that they give to school children. No real performance data. And a lot worthless paper studies.
Bold U.S. Energy Goal Put Forward on Capitol Hill: 25 Percent of Energy From Renewable Sources by 2025
WASHINGTON, Jan 18, 2007 /PRNewswire-USNewswire
A bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives have re-introduced the 25x'25 House and Senate Concurrent Resolutions calling for a new national renewable energy goal: 25% of the nation's energy supply from renewable sources by 2025. The resolutions spring from an expanding and politically influential coalition that now includes nearly 400 agriculture, industry, and environmental groups, as well as over 20 current and former governors and several state legislatures.
My Comments: Here are a bunch of politicians all without any technical training or experience led by Bill Richardson. Bill announced years ago that he would lead New Mexico into the leader of renewables. He has not done so as of this date. I have heard how renewable will be advanced soon. When I came to California in 1975, the CEC announced that California would be 40% renewables by the year 2,000. They are just about 10% now and I do not believe that trumped up number.
They never learn from the past as new players march blindly down the road to renewables. We have a national Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) in Colorado with 800 employees who spent billions so far on renewables and have not yet come up with anything. ZIP
As for renewables, here is the skinny in a nut shell.
-
Hydro Power Dams. No new sites available
-
Solar too expansive and poor performance. Only present in a few states such as Arizona and California.
-
Wind Only blows in a strip of area the US from the Dakotas on to Texas. And is intermittent.
-
Geothermal: Not really a renewable, and very few sites.
-
Biomass: Things like ethanol take more energy to product than they return.
Here is a statement from Nancy Rader, executive director of the California Wind Energy Association.
"All the considerable progress that
we've made toward the 2020 goal indicates that we'll be able to achieve the 20
percent goal with no significant additional cost than if we were getting energy
from fossil fuels," said Nancy Rader, executive director of the California Wind
Energy Association, a trade association representing wind energy companies.
Although the power sector hasn't significantly increased the percentage of power
coming from renewables yet, as soon as pending infrastructure comes on line, the
industry will see a "large chunk" coming from renewables, Rader told UPI.
My comments: As hard as I try I do not see any real progress toward a large chunk of renewables. Just a little here and there so the Utilities are showing some effort. Wind energy? SCE is putting in about 1,500 kWe of capacity, but remember that the capacity factor for wind in this state is only about 23% or less. Not much energy for the wind installation. Where is the large chunk coming from?
Here is one I do not understand. FERC does not have jurisdiction intrastate, only interstate (between various states) electric power actions. Seems the California ISO would like the federal government to pay for green energy transmission lines. Also seems unfair because many states do not have green energy transmission lines.
California ISO Asks Federal Government to Back New Plan for ''Greening the Grid''
In a precedent-setting move that could have national implications, the California Independent System Operator Corporation (California ISO) filed today with its regulator, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), to approve in concept a financing plan for transmission trunklines to remote locations in order to get green power from multiple users onto the grid.
When the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power put in transmission lines to Arizona's nuclear power plants, they paid for it themselves.
Greenpeace Testimony_Moore_04-28-05.pdf
Here is a statement that sums up the renewable energy sources debate.
We can't have a debate on climate change without discussing nuclear energy, and while I encourage renewable energy sources, let's get real, none of them will ever run the Brussels metro system.''
— Terry Wynn
Hillary Clinton knows about wind and solar, here is what she had to say:
Hillary cited scientific estimates that the wind potential of just three states - Texas, Kansas and North Dakota - is equal to more than half of the electricity we consume today. California could meet half of its power needs from solar alone, she asserted.
My comments: California has not had success with solar. Solar II has been junked and the parabolic solar systems have capacity factors of only 22%. After 30 years of solar development in California they produce only 0.3% of the State's electric energy. And wind energy is less than 2.0%
DTE Energy Seeks Renewable Energy Agreements
DTE Energy has issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to purchase Michigan-based renewable energy for the company's proposed GreenCurrents renewable energy program.
A key element of the Green Currents program is to encourage the development and operation of new renewable energy projects in Michigan, according to Trevor F. Lauer, vice president of marketing for DTE Energy.
"The RFP we issued requires that providers be located in Michigan, and that their renewable energy facilities be newly constructed," Lauer said. "We want the resources for the Green Currents program to be homegrown -- and we're interested in signing long-term agreements with developers who share that vision."
Renewable energy is power created from sources that can be replenished naturally, including solar, wind, geothermal and biomass energy. While the sources of this energy are essentially free, the facilities needed to generate usable renewable power are currently more costly to build, operate and maintain than conventional sources of electricity. Costs are expected to decrease over time as customer demand grows, and more renewable energy facilities are brought on line.
MY Comment : Having gone to college and lived in Michigan for seven years, I think that this is something that belongs in the comic strip. What renewables are there in Michigan? No geothermal wells, not a windy state, solar panels would be under snow half of the year, and no hydro sites. They do grow some corn, but not for ethanol which takes more energy to make then it gives back.
This is another renewable by fiat, lets have some even if it is not economic or available.
Watchdog Urges Overhaul of Green Energy Scheme
Jan 23 - Independent, The; London (UK) Developers of renewable energy schemes such as wind farms are profiteering from the Government's drive to curb carbon emissions by making customers pay more for their electricity than is necessary, the energy regulator Ofgem warned yesterday.
Publishing figures which reveal that the cost of the so-called "renewables obligation" is at least eight times greater than other schemes designed to combat climate change, Ofgem called for a wholesale shake-up of the current arrangements.
The obligation works by requiring energy suppliers to buy a certain proportion of their electricity from renewable sources or buy certificates to cover the shortfall. The cost of this is then passed on to the end customer.
Ofgem calculates that since the obligation was introduced in 2002 customers have been overcharged by [pound]740m. The scheme adds [pound]7 to the average annual bill at present, but by 2015 this will have risen to [pound]20. At present, 5 per cent of the UK's electricity comes from renewable sources, but this is due to rise to 20 per cent by 2020.
The regulator said the way the scheme worked meant that customers paid more even if renewable generation projects did not get built or were delayed, for instance by planning problems.
My Comment: This could also happen in the United States. Look out for it.
DOE adjusts projections downward for renewable power growth
Renewable power sources are projected to grow only 1.5 percent per year through 2030, a rate equal to the growth in electricity use, according to the latest long-term energy projections from the Department of Energy's (DOE) Energy Information Administration (EIA). The projected rate yields only a 45 percent growth in renewable power production by 2030. The EIA adjusted its forecast downward from last year's figures "because new, less positive cost and performance characteristics are assumed for several renewable technologies." With natural gas and nuclear power production also losing market share, coal power is expected to take up the slack, with an additional 156 gigawatts of generating capacity. As a result, fossil fuels are projected to still supply 86 percent of US energy needs in 2030 (the same as today), and carbon dioxide emissions are expected to grow by 1.2 percent per year, increasing 35 percent by 2030.
My comment: It is obvious that the renewable contribution to our energy mix is significantly below what the State of California thinks it will be. Not a favorable situation for global warming is it? What's more I do not think renewables will even grow 1.5% per year.
California utilities now lag in efforts to achieve the state's goals for energy conservation and increased use of renewable fuels, but regulators hope that the apparent shortfalls merely reflect growing pains in ambitious new programs and limitations in data collection.
Chicago Mayor's Green-Power Goal Falls Short
Nov 21 - Chicago Tribune Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's ambitious plan to run Chicago government partly on wind and solar energy has drawn praise from environmentalists, envy from other cities and a speaking invitation from actor Robert Redford.
But five years after Daley pledged to buy a fifth of the city's electricity from renewable sources by the end of 2006, Chicago's energy mix isn't so green. Nearly all of the megawatts powering City Hall and other government buildings are still coming from nuclear and coal plants.
After deals to buy power from wind farms and landfills fell through or were canceled, the fanfare surrounding the mayor's vow has quietly been replaced with more modest attempts to install solar panels on buildings such as fire stations, schools and the Chicago Cultural Center. My comment: Solar in Chicago? Half of the year the solar panels will be under a snow bank.
As a result, Chicago has ceded bragging rights as one of the nation's top buyers of green energy to such cities as San Diego and Austin, Texas.
Washington State's Initiative 937 penalizes utilities if they do meet renewable standards.
Background: Initiative 937 requires Washington state’s major utilities to gradually increase the amount of new renewable resources they use. Utilities will also be required to pursue all low-cost energy conservation opportunities for their customers. 1937 will guarantee that by 2020, 15 percent of the electricity from Washington’s largest utilities comes from plentiful and homegrown renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, and helps homeowners and businesses save on energy bills by assuring that we get all the cost-saving energy efficiency available in this state.
Pros and Cons
Cons:
Research indicates there might not be enough power available from renewable resources to meet the initiative's requirement that large utilities get 15 percent of their power from clean energy by 2020.
Forcing power companies to produce more wind, solar and other types of clean power could cost more, and clean the air less, than I-937 supporters project.
Pros:
Initiative supporters dismiss any concerns that I-937 might not meet expectations. But even if all the benefits don't pan out, I-937 is worth moving ahead with, said Chris McCullough, campaign manager for the initiative.
"We have a choice. We can continue on the same path, a path we know has economic costs to it and has environmental costs to it. Or we can choose a different path," "We have to start doing something about this. ... The time to talk about this is over. We have to start acting."
The problem I have with this type of approach is this: Lets do something even if it is wrong.
They have arrived at the conclusion that most of the renewables will be wind because it is the most economical, They have done no studies to answer such questions as is there enough high category wind sites in the state for the utilities to choose? How much NIYBY will take place? Do the utilities have enough back up power to serve when the wind does not blow?
Thus is a typical blind alley approach by those who think that renewables are the answer to their energy supply. And they never consider that the cost of energy will certainly go up with the enactment of this initiative.
Another problem I have with the rationale of this program is the misinformation about productivity. The proponents say that the 3,8000 MWe of wind machines that will be added will serve 2.8 million house holds. They do not know that wind machines do not operate all of the time and have capacity factors of only 25%. Thus 3,800 MWe of wind machine capacity will serve only a fraction of 2.8 million house holds. The real number is 850,000 house holds.
Minnesota will have renewables by fiat even though the state will not have enough electric energy.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty, governor of Minnesota, made greater reliance on renewable energy a major goal when he signed legislation that requires 25 percent of the state's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2025.
Representatives for power producers, however, warn that if the proposal becomes law it would undermine their ability to meet the state's growing energy appetite. And they say one unintended consequence is to make it more difficult to increase the role of renewable energy sources, such as wind, biomass and solar, in the production of electricity
"As much as I'm committed to climate change issues, in this particular case, I think that (some of the provisions) are just flat-out bad public policy," said Larry Johnston, chief legislative and regulatory officer of the Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, a cooperative power agency.
Geothermal Going down in Capacity, not up.
The most developed of the high-temperature resource areas of the state is the
Geysers (a photo of a Geysers' power plant's Unit # 18 is shown to the right).
Located north of San Francisco, the Geyser was first tapped as a geothermal
resource to generate electricity in 1960. It is one of only two locations in the
world where a high-temperature, dry steam is found that can be directly used to
turn turbines and generate electricity
It is unfortunate that there is only one location in California where the steam is hot enough to supply a Rankine cycle power plant. All of the other areas require that the water -steam mixture be separated. This requires using more capital equipment to separate the water and eject it back in the earth.
Geothermal plants find natural steam source running out (Excerpts from a news release.)
Geothermal plants in The Geysers area north of the Napa Valley have tapped steam fields to produce electricity since the 1960s. The 350-degree steam rushes more than 1,500 feet up from the earth, spinning turbines that create a constant flow of electricity.
State power grid managers estimate they're losing about 900 megawatts of geothermal electricity due to the gradual depletion of the steam fields. Steam fields are created when water flows through fissures in the rock deep in the earth and is heated by hot magma. Geothermal plants tap into that pressure and use it to spin turbines.
The plants in The Geysers reached their peak power production in the 1980s, producing about 2,000 megawatts of electricity. Basically, they took out the water in the form of steam faster than Mother Nature was putting it back in. The available steam declined. There really aren't other dry steam fields. In effect, there was never a sustainable level of production; you always would have depleted it eventually.
More Big News About Geothermal
U.S. Geothermal Completes $34 Million Project Financing
Aug 10 - PRNewswire-FirstCall U.S. Geothermal Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: UGTH; TSX-V: GTH) -- U.S. Geothermal Inc., a Boise, Idaho based renewable energy company developing power from geothermal resources, announced today completion of $34 million in project financing for Phase 1 of its Raft River project. Phase 1 is expected to produce 10 MW of electrical power to be delivered to Idaho Power Company under a 20-year power purchase agreement.
My Comment:
Big news, but a small project. And it is very expensive being $3,400 per installed kilowatt. It will not provide economical electrical energy. And it is not really renewable. .
Manure to Methane A news release
Farmers buy digesters and either use the gas themselves, sell it to a utility or use it to power a generator that feeds electricity to the utility's grid. In another mode, the manufacturer owns the digester and sells the gas. In those cases the farmers provide the manure and the land, and get the fertilizer, bedding and a cut of revenues from sales of gas. Last year, for example, Hunter Haven Farms in Pearl City, Illinois, paid $960,000 half of it subsidized by state and federal grants for a GHD digester that processes waste from 600 dairy cows. Hunter Haven then feeds its methane into a generator and sells the resulting electricity to Commonwealth Edison for 3.5 cents per kilowatt hour. Five Star Dairy, a 900-cow dairy farm in Elk Mound, Wisconsin, anticipates a similarly sweet profit stream from the $1.2 million Microgy digester it installed in 2004. "We're not taking any risk, the reduction in odors is huge, and we're powering 600 homes with 900 cows," said Lee Jensen, Five Star's general manager. "You've got to admit, that's pretty efficient."
In California, the Sierra Club, for instance, opposes subsidies for methane power plants because of concerns about huge dairies that can number several thousand cows. The environmental group says manure-based energy should not be considered "renewable" because it is the byproduct of an "inefficient ... (and) wasteful" industry.
My comments: Since the Farmers I knew used the manure in a spreader to fertilize the soil, I wonder if there is a net energy gain in taking the manure out of the fertilizer chain?
Anyone know why the Sierra Club dislikes cows? i guess they fart to much.
Against the Sierra clubs wishes, PG&E is going full tilt toward natural gas from cow manure. I guess cow manure is renewable.
Agreement for Renewable Natural Gas
Cow power is the newest and most innovative way PG&E is realizing its renewable energy goals with the signing of an agreement with Microgy, Inc. ("Microgy"), a subsidiary of Environmental Power Corporation (Amex: EPG), to deliver renewable natural gas. The agreement involves the purchase of up to 8,000 million cubic feet of pipeline quality renewable natural gas daily. The gas will be generated by Microgy facilities in California.
PG&E's management team has exhibited vision and leadership, and are excited about enhancing their partnership to bring the benefits of renewable energy technology directly to California's consumers."
The Democrats think that renewables are the answer.
According to the Consumer Alliance for Energy Security, the Offshore Continental Shelf (OCS)—85 percent of which is off-limits to exploration—is estimated to have enough natural gas to heat 100 million homes for the next 60 years and enough oil to drive 85 million cars for 35 years. Thanks to the vote in the House, it remains off-limits.
When the House of Representatives voted to open the Arctic Refuge to oil drilling in late May, Rep. Pelosi again issued a statement decrying “the same, tired ideas on energy such as opening the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. We should not sacrifice the Arctic coastal plain, one of America’s last truly wild places, for the sake of a small amount of oil.”
Small? Well, if anyone considers an estimated 10.4 billion barrels to the nation’s oil supply “small”, then one wonders what they consider large? The vote was 225 to 201. In truth, only 2,000 of the nearly 20 million acres of ANWR would be needed for oil and gas production, contributing billions in tax revenue, and creating or sustaining thousands of American jobs.
Opening ANWR and the Offshore Continental Shelf would bring many benefits. Put simply, more oil and natural gas means lower prices. With it come greater national security and more independence from the vagaries of Middle Eastern politics.
Speaking for the Democrats and echoing the cries of environmental organizations opposed to energy independence, Rep. Pelosi called for “home-grown renewable energy, innovative technologies, and efficient use of energy in our homes, vehicles, workplaces, and factories.” Blah, blah, blah!
This is the kind of empty environmental rhetoric that has left Americans paying higher prices for oil and natural gas than ever before. It posits the use of wind and solar energy on a scale that is neither viable, nor realistic because neither will ever produce enough energy to replace conventional sources.
Rep. Pelosi said that, “America’s farmers will fuel our energy independence”, apparently by “rapidly expanding] the production and distribution of biofuels, encouraging the deployment of new engine technologies for flex fuel, hybrid and biodiesel vehicles; and encouraging cutting-edge research to develop the next revolution in renewable energy.”
The notion that America or any of the other industrialized nations of the world will be able to depend on energy sources from corn and other agricultural products in the near future is absurd. Moreover, it ignores the vast reserves of known and yet to be discovered of oil and natural gas that exist.
Renewables are being forced on utilities in California
Since Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) began its RPS Program, it has entered into 13 contracts for 443 MW of renewable energy, enough power to serve more than 325,000 customers. California’s RPS Program requires each utility to increase its procurement of eligible renewable generating resources by 1% of load per year, so PG&E anticipates additional renewable solicitations in future years as well. The RPS Program was passed by the Legislature and is managed by California’s Public Utilities Commission and Energy Commission.
PG & E Is forced to promote renewables to satisfy the PUC and other Gov agencies.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company announced it has entered into a contract with Military Pass- Newberry Volcano Project, LLC to purchase up to 120 megawatts (MW) of renewable geothermal energy resources to help meet its customers' future electricity needs. Electric generation from this renewable energy resource will provide enough power to supply nearly 100,000 PG&E customers.
My comment: By fiat the State government is forcing the utilities to use renewables in California regardless of whether or not they are economical. I am not sure how we will pay for the added cost. But we certainly will pay for it. Moreover, geothermal is not really a renewable and 120 kWe is a drop in the bucket. And we do not know just how much or how long energy will be produced by the new geothermal plant. Eventually it too will run out of steam
It is insanity to have utilities achieve 20% of their energy as renewables
The State of California requires that all utilities, including the Los Angles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), produce 20% of their electric energy from renewables by the year 2010?
There is an article in the Energy Daily about the LADWP. They would need 3 billion kWh per year to meet this requirement. To do this with wind machines they would have to install about 1,400 MWe of wind machines which is about 80% of the total capacity in Cal today. They have looked into it and found that the price of wind machines are skyrocketing because of demand. And the Audubon Society is fighting them.
And the Union in LA is fighting this because the wind machines would not employ union workers in the City of LA. And they also do not have the capital to fund such an undertaking. Can they construct about as many wind power machines as already exist in the State? Where would they be placed? And what about the real big utilities? They would want wind machines also. This should also be a price jolt for the LADWP since they have been vary good at keeping the price of energy low.
They will be penalized if they do not meet this requirement. It ought to be fun to see what happens to all utility electric energy producers when 2010 gets here.
Consider the other renewable alternatives.
-
Solar: Too expensive and it takes 4 times the capacity to equal the capacity of conventional power plants.
-
Small hydro: No sites remain for his option
-
Biomass: Limited amount available.
-
Geothermal : Not being built now in California. Indians object to using their burial grounds.
-
Ocean thermal or waves: This is a comic strip method. None exists today in the State.
Currently 19 states also require 20% renewables. What do you all think?
*Currently only 5.7% of the installed wind power capacity exists east of the Mississippi.
My family and I moved from Naperville. Illinois to San Jose, California in 1975. Shortly after that the California Energy Commission (CEC) published the results of a study which predicted that renewables would supply 40% of California's electric energy by the turn of the century. I wrote an article in the San Jose Mercury News that predicted that renewables will be no where close to 40%. From the table above you can see who was right. Moreover, there is even less geothermal energy generated today than 25 years ago. Today there are 2,000 MWe of wind machines installed that did not exist 25 years ago. And these machines now generate only 1.3% of California's electrical energy.
We the Tax Payers Must Subsidize Renewable Energy Systems
The individual states require that there be a prescribed amount of renewable energy capacity installed. The following is a report of what is required by the American Electric Power Company. American Electric Power owns more than 36,000 megawatts of generating capacity in the United States and is the nation's largest electricity generator. AEP is also one of the largest electric utilities in the United States, with more than 5 million customers linked to AEP's 11-state electricity transmission and distribution grid. The company is based in Columbus, Ohio.
American Electric Power (NYSE: AEP) issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for renewable energy to help fulfill energy-supply requirements for its retail customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas.
AEP is seeking bids from renewable-energy providers that could place new generating facilities into service by Dec. 31, 2005.
"Extension of the federal Production Tax Credit program for renewable- energy sources that are operational by the end of 2005 provides a potential opportunity to procure cost-effective renewable energy to help meet the needs of customers of Public Service Company of Oklahoma and Southwestern Electric Power Company," said Tom Hagan, executive vice president - AEP Utilities-West.
The federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) provides owners of renewable resources a tax credit equal to $18 per megawatt-hour for 10 years beginning on the facilities' in-service date. An this credit escalates by about 3.0% each year.
In June, AEP announced that Public Service Company of Oklahoma had signed a contract, contingent on passage of the federal PTC, to purchase up to 106.5 megawatts of Oklahoma-generated wind power for 20 years.
Generation technologies eligible to bid into the RFP include wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal, biomass and biomass-based waste products, including landfill gas.
Here again the renewables are so expensive that they need a 1.8 cents per each kWh generated as a kick back. Also they have a very short depreciation income tax write-off. And you the tax payer will pay these subsidies. The preferred technology will be wind power. There is no hydroelectric, geothermal and very little solar in the Prairie states. So wind power will be used whether it is economic or not. Solar is way too expensive to choose. And they will go on deceiving themselves about how well the wind machines are performing. And they will not have higher capacity factors in the future any more than they did in the past.
Germany is proud to have the Greens take over and the country go with renewables exclusively. But it appears that this is not advisable. See news release below.
Economics minister warns of non-nuclear Germany hooked on Russian gas
Federal Minister of Economics Michael Glos on Jan. 2 advised that Germany's 2001 nuclear phase-out timetable be rescheduled and the future role of nuclear energy reconsidered because the country's reliance on Russian natural gas poses a threat to Germany's energy security.
Germany must "reevaluate the situation and look at what can be done so as not to become (excessively) dependent on energy sources," Glos said. "I want it to be recalled that in Germany we have nuclear reactors." Under the last government of Social Democrats (SPD) and Greens, these were "doomed to be shut down," Glos said.
National Environmental Policy (NEP)
The NEP is an organization that tracks energy, but believes that renewables are our only solution to the energy problem. The following is a quote.
"Only two percent of our electricity comes from renewable energy. However, advances in renewable energy technology have made large-scale commercial development economically feasible. The United States is blessed by an abundance of renewable energy resources from the sun, wind, and earth. We need to begin to tap these potential resources in order to protect our environment and decrease our dependence on fossil fuels."
"In order to increase our use of renewable energy sources, NET advocates for the enactment of policies that would encourage the development and adoption of renewable energy technologies. NET supports the establishment of a Renewable Energy Standard, which would require that a certain percentage of our nation’s electricity comes from renewables."
My comments: The State of California has been employing renewables for more than 30 years. With the exception of hydro-electric dams, I don't see where renewables have made any large-scale commercial development economically feasible. The NEP offers no evidence on their Web Site. If renewables are so economical why do we need to require that renewables be installed by fiat? Employing renewables by fiat is a typical response from those who avoid the facts of the situation. The facts are, none of the renewables are economically feasible and probably never will be.
Quote from Peter Huber.
Their suggested action would be disastrous to the human race. In his book HARD GREEN, Pete Huber points out that prescriptions of the Soft (environmentalists) are grossly perverse.
"However good their intentions, the results are wanton destruction of the environment. Stop using premium fuels in big power plants. Instead prefer the wood fuel the led to the deforestation of all of England. The Soft technology environmentalists advocate living off the land. Once again, burn wood, garbage, bacterial mats, sunflower oil, peanut shells, chicken dipping, etc. Spread expensive low yield solar PV’s and wind power over all of the land and make more dams. Wind power is dilute, produces little energy, and consume large land masses. This is a prescription for destroying the land, not saving it. Nuclear power is energy intensive, and the best source of energy to spare the land and atmosphere."
Massive 'Green' Complex to be Built in New York
Jul 05, 2005 -- Voice of America News/ContentWorks
American developers are about to break ground on what they hope will be a $20 billion super mall designed to show the United States how to end its dependency on fossil fuels.
The northern New York state complex is designed to be powered completely by renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and fuel cells. Even the bulldozers that will level the ground are powered by biodiesel (made from vegetable oil).
U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton persuaded Congress to help fund the "green" (nonpolluting) project, in part to be a showcase for clean technologies.
The New York Times notes it is not clear if the developers can raise all the money needed for the ambitious project.
My comment: They have a long way to go since there is virtually no wind and solar in New York State, and also fuel cells are not renewables.
From Peter Huber
Renewable fuels have made no visible dent in energy supplies despite the hopes of Greens and the benefits of government-funded research, subsidies, and tax breaks. About a half billion kWh of electricity came from solar power in 2002—roughly 0.013 percent of the U.S. total. Wind power contributed another 0.27 percent. [1]
The other great hope of environmentalists, efficiency, did improve over the last couple of decades—very considerably, in fact. Air conditioners, car engines, industrial machines, light bulbs, refrigerator motors—without exception, all do much more, with much less, than they used to. Yet in aggregate, they burn more fuel, too. Boosting efficiency actually raises consumption, as counterintuitive as that sounds. The more efficient a car, the cheaper the miles; the more efficient a refrigerator, the cheaper the ice; and at the end of the day, we use more efficient technology so much more that total energy consumption goes up, not down. [1]
[1] Taken from a paper published by Peter Huber, Mark Mills published in the City Journal Home.
Truthout-Environment is a publication pushing renewables. They offer the following statement:
"The chief criticism of renewables is that they will never supply energy on the scale needed. It is true that wind power alone will never do the job. But add in tidal power, micro-hydro and biomass, and the problem starts to disappear. Wind power and biomass are nearly as cheap as coal while other renewables, such as wave power and photovoltaic cells, are moving steadily towards competitiveness."
My comment: Tidal power, wave power, and micro-hydro systems do not exist the world today. I see no evidence that photovoltaic cells will ever be economical. Biomass was an 18 the century energy source. Organizations such as this tout renewables without ever investing the real facts.
Epilogue
In my opinion. renewables will never be a significant contributor to the national energy supply. Renewables are expensive and don't provide the level of supply reliability we've come to expect. They fall short because of their low capacity factors. And their capacity factors will never improve significantly because the sun will never shine more intensely or longer than it does now, and the wind will never blow continuously.
Faith in renewables does hinder the utilization of nuclear energy as we have seen in the mistaken logic offered by the religions, environmentalist, and liberal politicians.