Al Gore Throws Down the Gauntlet
How realistic is his challenge?
I waited a couple of days to post Al's speech until all the malarkey settled down; you've read it, the distracting attacks on Gore and supporters reversing the attack table. I've compiled here what I hope will be useful information for you to make your own decisions regarding the feasibility of Gore's challenge, what industry experts are saying and doing, clean energy legislation for incentives and tax stimulus, and other items of interest. First up the video, followed by the text....MichelleAl Gore: A Generational Challenge to Repower AmericaLadies and gentlemen:
There are times in the history of our nation when our very way of life depends upon dispelling illusions and awakening to the challenge of a present danger. In such moments, we are called upon to move quickly and boldly to shake off complacency, throw aside old habits and rise, clear-eyed and alert, to the necessity of big changes. Those who, for whatever reason, refuse to do their part must either be persuaded to join the effort or asked to step aside. This is such a moment. The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk. And even more - if more should be required - the future of human civilization is at stake.
I don't remember a time in our country when so many things seemed to be going so wrong simultaneously. Our economy is in terrible shape and getting worse, gasoline prices are increasing dramatically, and so are electricity rates. Jobs are being outsourced. Home mortgages are in trouble. Banks, automobile companies and other institutions we depend upon are under growing pressure. Distinguished senior business leaders are telling us that this is just the beginning unless we find the courage to make some major changes quickly.
The climate crisis, in particular, is getting a lot worse - much more quickly than predicted. Scientists with access to data from Navy submarines traversing underneath the North polar ice cap have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months. This will further increase the melting pressure on Greenland. According to experts, the Jakobshavn glacier, one of Greenland's largest, is moving at a faster rate than ever before, losing 20 million tons of ice every day, equivalent to the amount of water used every year by the residents of New York City.
Two major studies from military intelligence experts have warned our leaders about the dangerous national security implications of the climate crisis, including the possibility of hundreds of millions of climate refugees destabilizing nations around the world.
Just two days ago, 27 senior statesmen and retired military leaders warned of the national security threat from an "energy tsunami" that would be triggered by a loss of our access to foreign oil. Meanwhile, the war in Iraq continues, and now the war in Afghanistan appears to be getting worse.
And by the way, our weather sure is getting strange, isn't it? There seem to be more tornadoes than in living memory, longer droughts, bigger downpours and record floods. Unprecedented fires are burning in California and elsewhere in the American West. Higher temperatures lead to drier vegetation that makes kindling for mega-fires of the kind that have been raging in Canada, Greece, Russia, China, South America, Australia and Africa. Scientists in the Department of Geophysics and Planetary Science at Tel Aviv University tell us that for every one degree increase in temperature, lightning strikes will go up another 10 percent. And it is lightning, after all, that is principally responsible for igniting the conflagration in California today.
Like a lot of people, it seems to me that all these problems are bigger than any of the solutions that have thus far been proposed for them, and that's been worrying me.
I'm convinced that one reason we've seemed paralyzed in the face of these crises is our tendency to offer old solutions to each crisis separately - without taking the others into account. And these outdated proposals have not only been ineffective - they almost always make the other crises even worse.
Yet when we look at all three of these seemingly intractable challenges at the same time, we can see the common thread running through them, deeply ironic in its simplicity: our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels is at the core of all three of these challenges - the economic, environmental and national security crises.
We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change.
But if we grab hold of that common thread and pull it hard, all of these complex problems begin to unravel and we will find that we're holding the answer to all of them right in our hand.
The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels.
In my search for genuinely effective answers to the climate crisis, I have held a series of "solutions summits" with engineers, scientists, and CEOs. In those discussions, one thing has become abundantly clear: when you connect the dots, it turns out that the real solutions to the climate crisis are the very same measures needed to renew our economy and escape the trap of ever-rising energy prices. Moreover, they are also the very same solutions we need to guarantee our national security without having to go to war in the Persian Gulf.
What if we could use fuels that are not expensive, don't cause pollution and are abundantly available right here at home?
We have such fuels. Scientists have confirmed that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world's energy needs for a full year. Tapping just a small portion of this solar energy could provide all of the electricity America uses.
And enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of US electricity demand. Geothermal energy, similarly, is capable of providing enormous supplies of electricity for America.
The quickest, cheapest and best way to start using all this renewable energy is in the production of electricity. In fact, we can start right now using solar power, wind power and geothermal power to make electricity for our homes and businesses.
But to make this exciting potential a reality, and truly solve our nation's problems, we need a new start.
That's why I'm proposing today a strategic initiative designed to free us from the crises that are holding us down and to regain control of our own destiny. It's not the only thing we need to do. But this strategic challenge is the lynchpin of a bold new strategy needed to re-power America.
Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years.
This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans - in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.
A few years ago, it would not have been possible to issue such a challenge. But here's what's changed: the sharp cost reductions now beginning to take place in solar, wind, and geothermal power - coupled with the recent dramatic price increases for oil and coal - have radically changed the economics of energy.
When I first went to Congress 32 years ago, I listened to experts testify that if oil ever got to $35 a barrel, then renewable sources of energy would become competitive. Well, today, the price of oil is over $135 per barrel. And sure enough, billions of dollars of new investment are flowing into the development of concentrated solar thermal, photovoltaics, windmills, geothermal plants, and a variety of ingenious new ways to improve our efficiency and conserve presently wasted energy.
And as the demand for renewable energy grows, the costs will continue to fall. Let me give you one revealing example: the price of the specialized silicon used to make solar cells was recently as high as $300 per kilogram. But the newest contracts have prices as low as $50 a kilogram.
You know, the same thing happened with computer chips - also made out of silicon. The price paid for the same performance came down by 50 percent every 18 months - year after year, and that's what's happened for 40 years in a row.
To those who argue that we do not yet have the technology to accomplish these results with renewable energy: I ask them to come with me to meet the entrepreneurs who will drive this revolution. I've seen what they are doing and I have no doubt that we can meet this challenge.
To those who say the costs are still too high: I ask them to consider whether the costs of oil and coal will ever stop increasing if we keep relying on quickly depleting energy sources to feed a rapidly growing demand all around the world. When demand for oil and coal increases, their price goes up. When demand for solar cells increases, the price often comes down.
When we send money to foreign countries to buy nearly 70 percent of the oil we use every day, they build new skyscrapers and we lose jobs. When we spend that money building solar arrays and windmills, we build competitive industries and gain jobs here at home.
Of course there are those who will tell us this can't be done. Some of the voices we hear are the defenders of the status quo - the ones with a vested interest in perpetuating the current system, no matter how high a price the rest of us will have to pay. But even those who reap the profits of the carbon age have to recognize the inevitability of its demise. As one OPEC oil minister observed, "The Stone Age didn't end because of a shortage of stones."
To those who say 10 years is not enough time, I respectfully ask them to consider what the world's scientists are telling us about the risks we face if we don't act in 10 years. The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis. When the use of oil and coal goes up, pollution goes up. When the use of solar, wind and geothermal increases, pollution comes down.
To those who say the challenge is not politically viable: I suggest they go before the American people and try to defend the status quo. Then bear witness to the people's appetite for change.
I for one do not believe our country can withstand 10 more years of the status quo. Our families cannot stand 10 more years of gas price increases. Our workers cannot stand 10 more years of job losses and outsourcing of factories. Our economy cannot stand 10 more years of sending $2 billion every 24 hours to foreign countries for oil. And our soldiers and their families cannot take another 10 years of repeated troop deployments to dangerous regions that just happen to have large oil supplies.
What could we do instead for the next 10 years? What should we do during the next 10 years? Some of our greatest accomplishments as a nation have resulted from commitments to reach a goal that fell well beyond the next election: the Marshall Plan, Social Security, the interstate highway system. But a political promise to do something 40 years from now is universally ignored because everyone knows that it's meaningless. Ten years is about the maximum time that we as a nation can hold a steady aim and hit our target.
When President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely in 10 years, many people doubted we could accomplish that goal. But 8 years and 2 months later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon.
To be sure, reaching the goal of 100 percent renewable and truly clean electricity within 10 years will require us to overcome many obstacles. At present, for example, we do not have a unified national grid that is sufficiently advanced to link the areas where the sun shines and the wind blows to the cities in the East and the West that need the electricity. Our national electric grid is critical infrastructure, as vital to the health and security of our economy as our highways and telecommunication networks. Today, our grids are antiquated, fragile, and vulnerable to cascading failure. Power outages and defects in the current grid system cost US businesses more than $120 billion dollars a year. It has to be upgraded anyway.
We could further increase the value and efficiency of a Unified National Grid by helping our struggling auto giants switch to the manufacture of plug-in electric cars. An electric vehicle fleet would sharply reduce the cost of driving a car, reduce pollution, and increase the flexibility of our electricity grid.
At the same time, of course, we need to greatly improve our commitment to efficiency and conservation. That's the best investment we can make.
America's transition to renewable energy sources must also include adequate provisions to assist those Americans who would unfairly face hardship. For example, we must recognize those who have toiled in dangerous conditions to bring us our present energy supply. We should guarantee good jobs in the fresh air and sunshine for any coal miner displaced by impacts on the coal industry. Every single one of them.
Of course, we could and should speed up this transition by insisting that the price of carbon-based energy include the costs of the environmental damage it causes. I have long supported a sharp reduction in payroll taxes with the difference made up in CO2 taxes. We should tax what we burn, not what we earn. This is the single most important policy change we can make.
In order to foster international cooperation, it is also essential that the United States rejoin the global community and lead efforts to secure an international treaty at Copenhagen in December of next year that includes a cap on CO2 emissions and a global partnership that recognizes the necessity of addressing the threats of extreme poverty and disease as part of the world's agenda for solving the climate crisis.
Of course the greatest obstacle to meeting the challenge of 100 percent renewable electricity in 10 years may be the deep dysfunction of our politics and our self-governing system as it exists today. In recent years, our politics has tended toward incremental proposals made up of small policies designed to avoid offending special interests, alternating with occasional baby steps in the right direction. Our democracy has become sclerotic at a time when these crises require boldness.
It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more oil ten years from now.
Am I the only one who finds it strange that our government so often adopts a so-called solution that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem it is supposed to address? When people rightly complain about higher gasoline prices, we propose to give more money to the oil companies and pretend that they're going to bring gasoline prices down. It will do nothing of the sort, and everyone knows it. If we keep going back to the same policies that have never ever worked in the past and have served only to produce the highest gasoline prices in history alongside the greatest oil company profits in history, nobody should be surprised if we get the same result over and over again. But the Congress may be poised to move in that direction anyway because some of them are being stampeded by lobbyists for special interests that know how to make the system work for them instead of the American people.
If you want to know the truth about gasoline prices, here it is: the exploding demand for oil, especially in places like China, is overwhelming the rate of new discoveries by so much that oil prices are almost certain to continue upward over time no matter what the oil companies promise. And politicians cannot bring gasoline prices down in the short term.
However, there actually is one extremely effective way to bring the costs of driving a car way down within a few short years. The way to bring gas prices down is to end our dependence on oil and use the renewable sources that can give us the equivalent of $1 per gallon gasoline.
Many Americans have begun to wonder whether or not we've simply lost our appetite for bold policy solutions. And folks who claim to know how our system works these days have told us we might as well forget about our political system doing anything bold, especially if it is contrary to the wishes of special interests. And I've got to admit, that sure seems to be the way things have been going. But I've begun to hear different voices in this country from people who are not only tired of baby steps and special interest politics, but are hungry for a new, different and bold approach.
We are on the eve of a presidential election. We are in the midst of an international climate treaty process that will conclude its work before the end of the first year of the new president's term. It is a great error to say that the United States must wait for others to join us in this matter. In fact, we must move first, because that is the key to getting others to follow; and because moving first is in our own national interest.
So I ask you to join with me to call on every candidate, at every level, to accept this challenge - for America to be running on 100 percent zero-carbon electricity in 10 years. It's time for us to move beyond empty rhetoric. We need to act now.
This is a generational moment. A moment when we decide our own path and our collective fate. I'm asking you - each of you - to join me and build this future. Please join the WE campaign at wecansolveit.org.We need you. And we need you now. We're committed to changing not just light bulbs, but laws. And laws will only change with leadership.
On July 16, 1969, the United States of America was finally ready to meet President Kennedy's challenge of landing Americans on the moon. I will never forget standing beside my father a few miles from the launch site, waiting for the giant Saturn 5 rocket to lift Apollo 11 into the sky. I was a young man, 21 years old, who had graduated from college a month before and was enlisting in the United States Army three weeks later.
I will never forget the inspiration of those minutes. The power and the vibration of the giant rocket's engines shook my entire body. As I watched the rocket rise, slowly at first and then with great speed, the sound was deafening. We craned our necks to follow its path until we were looking straight up into the air. And then four days later, I watched along with hundreds of millions of others around the world as Neil Armstrong took one small step to the surface of the moon and changed the history of the human race.
We must now lift our nation to reach another goal that will change history. Our entire civilization depends upon us now embarking on a new journey of exploration and discovery. Our success depends on our willingness as a people to undertake this journey and to complete it within 10 years. Once again, we have an opportunity to take a giant leap for humankind.
Source: www.wecansolveit.org/content/pages/304/------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's some recent action from the Bush Administration. I find it amazing how the adminstration, who has gutted the EPA and reversed its many good works, can have the gall to conveniently call for an environmental impact studyBush administration halts solar energy projects on federal landsPhoenix Business Journal - by Mike Sunnucks
Friday, June 27, 2008
The Bush administration has put a two-year stop to solar energy projects on federal lands in Arizona and other Western states while it studies their environmental impact. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of Energy will study the impact of solar energy production and other facilities that could be developed on public lands in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, California, Colorado and Nevada.
There are 125 applications by solar energy companies to build facilities on public lands in those states.
The review will take two years worrying a solar energy sector looking to expand in the western U.S. including Arizona. A number of U.S., German and Japanese solar energy companies want to locate or expand in Arizona and other Western states amid concerns about high energy costs and emissions.
Critics have questioned the Bush administration policies and links oil and gas companies saying the administration is too cozy with those energy sectors. Source:www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/06/23/daily67.html------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can the U.S. Reach 100 Percent Renewable Electricity in 10 Years? by Paul Gipe, Wind Expert
Washington, D.C., United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]
July 17, 2008
Q: In Al Gore's speech this week in Washington, he said that the U.S. should strive toward getting 100 percent of its electricity from renewable resources in 10 years. Is it realistic to propose a target like that? -- Terry G., Berkeley, California
A: Terry, that's a very good question, and one that I'm sure a lot of people who heard his speech will be asking. Ten years is certainly an aggressive target, but many experts who consulted with Gore have said that it is achievable. Some experts would say that it is more likely within a 12-20 year time frame, but whatever the case, the point is that the target is theoretically feasible and we should be doing all we can to try to rise to the challenge.
Below is a portion of my speech that I gave to Gore's Solution Summit in January. In the presentation, I outline the possibility of getting one million megawatts from wind in the U.S. — an important part of this 100 percent target that was just proposed by Gore.
From a January 10th 2008 speech to Al Gore's Solution Summit:To significantly address the United States' contribution to climate change and to prepare for the diminishing supply of liquid fuels and their increasing volatility, the nation needs to embark on a grand effort to install one million megawatts (MW) of wind generating capacity. Anything less will miss the mark.
North Americans have been dabbling around the edges of energy policy. Until recently, few have acknowledged the seriousness of the challenge facing the continent.
The scale of the task is enormous, but eminently doable. Americans have risen to great challenges in the past and we can do so again. Americans built great public work projects to pull ourselves out of the Great Depression. The hydroelectric projects on the Columbia, the Colorado, and the Tennessee rivers are witness to what we can accomplish when we put our minds to it. We rose to the challenge of fascism in WWII. We belatedly granted civil rights to all our citizens in the 1960s and in the modern era we have pushed cigarette smoking to the fringes of society.
Our next great challenge will be the rapid conversion of American electricity supply from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy, and the conversion of the bulk of personal transportation to electric vehicles. In doing so we can transform society and re-industrialize the continent's heartland.
Here's a simple summary of targets necessary to make the difference needed:
Currently the U.S. consumes ~4,000 terawatt-hours of electricity per year (TWh/yr) That's 4,000 billion kWh/yr. Americans use more electricity per capita than almost anyone else on the planet. Europeans, for the same level of comfort, services, and industrial production, use one-half the per capita consumption of Americans. The U.S., then, can cut its consumption of electricity by at least 50% for the same standard of living as now. Thus, a rational target for U.S. consumption is ~2,000 TWh/yr.
Wind is only one form of renewable energy. To build a truly sustainable supply we will need all forms of renewable energy, not only wind. Nevertheless, we'll only examine the role that wind can play.
Wind generation is variable. At any single wind turbine the wind is not always blowing. However, when a continent-wide network of wind turbines are connected together, wind can provide a significant portion of total generation. Some studies have suggested that 50% of supply can be provided by wind with modest amounts of backup generation.
Wind could then supply 50% of reduced U.S. consumption or ~1,000 TWh/yr. (This is equivalent to ~25% penetration for the business as usual case, that is, without a massive conservation effort.)
Today most wind turbines in North America are installed on the windiest sites possible. These turbines are highly productive. However, as the industry expands, it will be forced to use increasingly less windy sites. Typically, wind turbines on a regional or national scale, like those in Germany, Denmark, or California, produce ~2 TWh/yr for every 1,000 MW of wind capacity installed.
For the wind to generate ~1,000 TWh/yr, we would need to install ~500,000 MW of wind generating capacity across the breadth of the country.
Now, let's turn to the enormous number of passenger-vehicle miles traveled annually in the United States. Their consumption of liquid fossil fuels contribute substantially to America's carbon emissions.
Americans drive ~5,000 billion kilometers per year. To power this fleet with electric vehicles would require a huge new supply of clean electricity. Current electric vehicles can travel ~0.25 km/kWh of electricity supplied. Thus, converting passenger vehicles to electricity will require the generation of ~1,000 TWh/yr. Using the same assumptions as before, this would demand the installation of ~500,000 MW of new wind generating capacity.
To provide 25%-50% of electricity supply with wind and 100% of passenger-vehicle miles traveled with electricity will require the installation of ~1,000,000 MW of wind generating capacity.
Theoretically, it can be done. There's more than ample land area in the U.S. for such a large number of wind turbines. Even with very open spacing (e.g. turbines placed 8 rotor diameters by 10 rotor diameters apart) ~1 million MW would require little more than 3% of the land area of the lower 48 states. And of this land, the wind turbines would only use about 5% for roads and ancillary facilities.
Moreover, the U.S. has the manufacturing capacity to build such a large number of machines within less than two decades.
Every year American manufacturers of heavy trucks churn out ~300,000 vehicles. Each heavy truck is the equivalent of a ½ MW wind turbine. Thus, heavy truck manufacturers alone build the equivalent of ~150,000 MW/yr.
If two-thirds of truck production were diverted to manufacturing wind turbines, the industry could build ~100,000MW/yr. Thus, it is theoretically possible that the American heavy truck industry could provide 1,000,000 MW in about one decade.
Clearly one million MW of wind capacity in the United States alone is an ambitious target, but it's a target worthy of a great nation.
Source: www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/ate/story?id=53095------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 21, 2008
U.S. Utilities Evaluate Solar Power as Portfolio Option to Meet Nation's Energy Demands
Delegation Returns from Fact Finding Mission to Germany
Washington, DC The Solar Electric Power Association (SEPA) today announced results of a recent fact finding mission to Germany. The mission, developed by SEPA in partnership with the World Future Council and Washington State University, was the first tour of its kind to expose U.S. utility executives and managers to the success that Germany has had in its climb to become the world's leader in solar deployment. During the five-day fact finding mission, the delegation met with German electric utilities, executives from leading photovoltaic technology companies, and visited multiple small and large scale solar installations. U.S. utilities are increasingly interested in exploring options that will help keep pace with the growing demand for electricity and address Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) mandates and climate change concerns. In a period of rising energy costs, solar energy is becoming an increasingly important and valued part of a responsible portfolio to help solve the growing global energy crisis. Education, in formats such as the fact finding mission, remains a key to addressing issues surrounding integration, scalability and reliability of solar technology options for electric utilities and their customers.
During the mission, direct interaction with influencers in the German energy market allowed the U.S. utility executives a unique opportunity to gather best practices and discuss with their German counterparts many areas of interest including feed-in tariffs, associated costs for solar modules and systems, and grid integration processes. In meetings with investor owned utilities, municipal utilities, and the Fraunhofer Institute, the delegation learned that even with high solar penetration--commonly 20 percent and as high as 30 percent--grid integration issues have not been a problem for German utilities.
Prior to the trip, the participating utilities reported that their companies on average were likely to seriously engage in solar within two to five years. However, after exposure to the German market and seeing what is possible today without negatively affecting the power grid, participants collectively reported in a post-trip survey that serious engagement is likely to happen within the next one to two years.
"Now that these U.S. utility decision makers have seen first-hand how integration of solar is providing tangible value to German utilities and society as a whole, they can translate these examples into solar activity here in America," commented Julia Hamm, SEPA executive director and organizer of the mission. "In the past year, there have been a significant number of utility announcements about large-scale solar projects in the U.S., but what we have seen are only the tip of the iceberg--utilities will emerge as the solar industry's largest and possibly most important customer segment."
While in Germany, the delegation spent a significant amount of time learning about the policy that has driven the solar market in that country: the Renewable Energy Act, or EEG, which is also referred to as a feed-in tariff. The EEG guarantees each plant operator a fixed tariff for electricity generated from renewable sources which are fed into the public electricity grid. The tariff paid is dependent on the technology used, the year the installation was put into operation, and the size of the plant. Each grid system operator is obliged to pay the statutory tariff to the plant operator. Momentum for a feed-in style incentive structure has been gaining traction at both the national and state levels within the U.S., and the delegation was eager to learn more about the EEG's impact on the German utilities.
"Germany has established a national renewable program that has achieved impressive results in terms of the large amounts of solar deployed and innovative developments in solar technology. The technology innovations are directly transferable to the U.S. and will facilitate the scalability and competitiveness of solar," said Roy Kuga, vice president of energy supply at Pacific Gas & Electric Company and a member of the delegation. "The potential for solar in the U.S. is great given the higher level of solar radiation compared to Germany, and PG&E remains committed to helping realize this potential within California at competitive prices."
Regardless of geography, customer demand for solar exists in the U.S. and will continue to expand based on rising energy costs and environmental concerns. Installation and utilization of solar in states across the country is now underway and will continue to pick up speed due to an increasingly friendly regulatory environment. Returning from the tour, Gainesville Regional Utilities' Assistant General Manager for Strategic Planning, Ed Regan, said, "Many residents in my Florida community believe we should think globally and act locally, and we believe a commitment to solar energy does just that. Local and federal incentives have lit a fire under the amount of solar activity and investment going on here."
Upon returning to the U.S., SEPA prepared a report summarizing the key findings of the mission. The report is available for download at
www.solarelectricpower.org/docs/Germany%20summary%20report.pdf. Photos and interviews with utility participants and SEPA executive director Julia Hamm are available upon request. If you would like to schedule an interview, please contact Josephine Mooney at jmooney@solarelectricpower.org or at 202.857.0898 x6.
About the Solar Electric Power Association: From national events to one-on-one counseling, SEPA is the go-to resource for unbiased and actionable solar intelligence. SEPA is comprised of over 300 utilities and solar industry members. Breaking down information overload into business reality, SEPA takes the time and risk out of implementing solar business plans and helps turn new technologies into new opportunities.
www.solarelectricpower.org.
Source: www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/partner/story?cid=1410&id=53105------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wind Farms: Pros vs. Cons wind farms The use of wind turbines for the generation of green electricity is often an emotive subject and there are persuasive arguments for and against the proliferation of this form of renewable energy generation.ForLand-based wind energy has the potential of covering six times the world's electricity consumption, or one time the world's total energy consumption.
The energy consumption for production, installation, operation and decommission of a wind turbine is usually earned back within 3 months of operation.
After decommissioning wind turbines, even the foundations are removed.
Conventional and nuclear plants also have sudden unpredictable outages. Statistical analysis shows that 1000 MW of wind power can replace 300 MW of conventional power.
More recent wind farms have their turbines spaced further apart, due to the higher capacity of the individual wind turbines. They no longer have the cluttered look of the early wind farms.
It is possible to hold a conversation directly underneath a modern wind turbine without any difficulty whatever and without raising one's voice. The modern turbine is quieter than its predecessors owing to improvements in the blade design.
Studies show that the number of birds and bats killed by wind turbines is negligible when compared with other human activities such as traffic, hunting, power lines and high-rise buildings.
AgainstThere is a perception that wind farms are noisy and are eyesores.
The large number of turbines required for a viable wind farm, and the huge number of wind farms required to meet the ambitious goals of the wind energy industry and governments, ensures that more people will be affected by them.
The construction of a large wind energy facility is also far from ecologically benign in previously undeveloped locations. It requires wide straight flat roads, a large hole filled with tons of steel and concrete to secure each giant assembly, clearing of trees in wooded areas and a transformer and power lines for each turbine.
Siting wind farms offshore can address these objections in some cases while raising other issues, such as dangers to navigation and the possible adverse effect of low-frequency vibration on aquatic life.
Another important complaint is that wind turbines kill many birds and bats. Siting generally takes into account bird flight patterns, but most paths of migration, particularly for birds that fly by night, are unknown. A survey at Altamont Pass, California conducted by a California Energy Commission in 2004 showed that turbines sited there killed 4,700 birds during the study, however it can also be argued that the environmental effects of other methods of electricity generation are potentially infinitely more dangerous if an holistic approach is taken to the issue.
From: www.cus.net/renewableenergy/subcats/wind/wind.html------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Environmental Pros and Cons of Wind PowerWednesday, June 7th, 2006 4:36 pm
Written by: Sandy Kim
A Science Tuesday article of the New York Times (June 6th, 2006) was titled “Debate Over Wind Power Creates Environmental Rift“ by Felicity Barringer. According to many polls from the United States and United Kingdom, the majority of the population see the environmental benefits of utilizing wind power, but Dr. Dan Boone of the mountainous region of southwestern Pennsylvania believes that certain areas must be kept clear from wind projects due to its negative environmental impacts. In my personal opinion, though powerful Dr. Boone’s arguments are for importance of environmental preservation, the alternatives to wind projects seem worse for nature. The article mentions opportunity costs as well, seeing as energy source must be created by some sort of mean.The following NSDL resources can aid in the furthering exploration of the related topics of this article.
Title: Wind Energy Manualwww.energy.iastate.edu/renewable/wind/wem/wem-02_toc.htmlAs the name indicates, this site consists of general background information about wind energy. The website is geared for individuals who are looking into alternative energy sources.
Title: Wind Powering America: Clean Energy for the 21st Century (revised)
www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp?purl=/15009683-XFW1sN/native/The website takes a very positive outlook on wind energy and its benefits and possibilities, but is nevertheless informational and helpful to look at to understand the general picture.
Title: National Wind Technology Center (NWTC)www.nrel.gov/wind/index.htmlWe must include this NSDL resource since it is the website of the National Wind Technology Center and we are, after all, talking about energy harnessed from wind. These researchers work with the wind energy industry to lowers costs and to develop state of the art technological advances in the industry.
Title: Wind Energy: Clean and Greenwww.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/836850-aVYVmk/native/836850.pdfThis NSDL resource is policy-oriented as it presents many surveys and polls from the United States and the United Kingdom to argue that society in general has a very positive view of harnessing wind energy as a better alternative to oil and fossil fuels. This article highly praises the environmentally friendly aspects of wind energy and very little of the its negative effects.
Title: What’s Up With the Weather?: NOVA and Frontline Examine the Truth About Global Warmingwww.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/index.htmlAs a PBS resource, this information is very reliable. Different parts of many environmental arguments can be traced back to global warming and its effects, including the issue of whether wind energy is relatively more helpful or harmful to the environment. There is a section on this website titled “Beyond Fossil Fuels” which presents a clear FAQ by Professor Martin Hoffert on the many possibilities for fuel in the future and how it all relates back to global warming.
Title: Technology and Environment: Alternative Energywww.technologystudent.com/energy1/engex.htmAn informative exploration of the major alternative energy sources that are currently being explored, including wind power. Some of the other sources are solar power, sea power, and dams/hydroelectricity. There are lesson plans, animation, and suggested activities
Grade level: K-6
Title: Wind Energy: Energy from Moving Airwww.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/renewable/wind.htmlA brief description of wind energy (its uses and the basic science behind it).
Grade level: K-6
Title: Wind with Millerwww.windpower.org/en/kids/index.htmAn interactive site with a cool teacher named Miller. There are both online and suggested activities to teach children about wind energy
Grade level: K-6
Title: Thar She Blowswww.teachengineering.com/view_lesson.php?url=http://www.teachengineering.com/collection/cub_/lessons/cub_energy2/cub_energy2_lesson07.xmlAn informational and detailed lesson plan for upper elementary school teachers. Includes lessons, assessments, further resources, and suggested activities, including the building of an anemometer to measure wind speed!
Grade level: 3-6
Source: expertvoices.nsdl.org/newstopiccenter/2006/06/07/the-environmental-pros-and-cons-of-wind-power/------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article contains info on current legislation. I've posted more info on the bill and its status after the article...MSenate Passed One Year Extension of Production Tax CreditRune Birk Nielsen (2008-04-11)
The U.S. Senate has passed an amended H.R. 3221, a current housing stimulus bill that also contains extensions for the Production and Investment Tax Credits for renewable energy. The bill now goes to the House of Representatives for further consideration where it is likely to face some opposition from Democrats who are unhappy about the fact that the legislation fails to identify the source of the money to pay for the tax credits, writes
www.renewableenergyworld.com The language containing the extensions was authored by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and John Ensign (R-NV) and is called the Clean Energy Stimulus Act of 2008. The language, which was attached to the housing bill as an amendment, has bipartisan support to extend the commercial Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar and fuel cell projects for eight years and removes the utility exemption.
"Satisfying our energy needs and reducing our reliance on foreign sources is a challenge that we must meet, but that can only happen with the right incentives in place," Sen. Ensign said. "Our bipartisan bill will help put us on a path toward energy independence with American ingenuity leading the way."
The bill also extends the residential solar credit for one year and removes the US $2,000 cap. The bill now has 30 co-sponsors, including members of the GOP who have opposed previous attempts to pass a tax credit extension such as Sen. John Sununu (R-NH).
"Rising energy prices place enormous financial pressure on families and businesses across New Hampshire and the nation," Sen. Sununu said. "These renewable energy tax credits help lower this burden and represent smart investment policy for our environment. Most important, the bill makes good sense for New Hampshire where our wood, biomass, and wood pellet industries here have provided jobs across the state."
The vehicle for the package has not yet been announced, though some have speculated that it will be attached to an upcoming Housing Bill. Those behind the bill are confident they can get the 61 co-sponsors that the bill will need to pass the Senate.
"From New Hampshire to Michigan to Oregon, this bill provides a much-needed shot in the arm for our ailing national economy. This legislation will create thousands of jobs, unleash billions in investment and prevent a major disruption in this fast-growing sector - all at a time when we need it the most," said Rhone Resch, President of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).
The American Wind Energy Association also applauded the Senators' work, saying that this extension will benefit both the renewable energy industries and the economy as a whole.
"We commend Senators Cantwell and Ensign for their leadership in crafting a bipartisan approach to the urgently needed extension of renewable energy tax incentives that are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. More than 116,000 jobs and US $19 billion in investment in new, clean energy sources like wind and solar power hang in the balance awaiting Congress's decision on this critical issue," said Gregory Wetstone, Senior Director of Governmental and Public Affairs for the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).
The bill contains provisions that would:
Extend the Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit's (PTC) placed-in-service date through 2009 for facilities that generate electricity from wind, closed-loop biomass, open-loop biomass, geothermal energy, solar energy, small irrigation power, landfill gas, and trash combustion.
Extend the solar energy and fuel cell investment tax credit through 2016.
Extend the 30% residential energy-efficient solar property credit through 2009 for purchases of qualified solar property used to generate electricity or heat water.
Extend the 10% energy-efficient credit for existing homes through 2009.
Extend the energy efficient new homes credit through 2010.
Extend the energy-efficient commercial buildings deduction for property placed-in-service through 2009, and increases the maximum deduction amount from the current US $1.80 to $2.25 per square foot.
Extend the energy-efficient appliance credit for appliances produced in 2008, 2009, and 2010.
Authorize an additional US $400 million of Clean Renewable Energy Bonds and extends authority to issue such bonds through 2009.
Related links
Senate Passes Housing Bill with PTC & ITC Extensions Included
AWEA
Source: www.windpower.org/composite-1922.htm------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legislation > 2007-2008 (110th Congress) H.R. 3221: Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008A bill to provide needed housing reform and for other purposes.Sponsor: Rep. Nancy Pelosi [D-CA]show cosponsors (18)
Cosponsors [as of 2008-07-21]
Rep. Xavier Becerra [D-CA]
Rep. James Clyburn [D-SC]
Rep. Rosa DeLauro [D-CT]
Rep. John Dingell [D-MI]
Rep. Rahm Emanuel [D-IL]
Rep. Barton Gordon [D-TN]
Rep. Steny Hoyer [D-MD]
Rep. Tom Lantos [D-CA]
Rep. John Larson [D-CT]
Rep. Edward Markey [D-MA]
Rep. George Miller [D-CA]
Rep. James Oberstar [D-MN]
Rep. Collin Peterson [D-MN]
Rep. Nick Rahall [D-WV]
Rep. Charles Rangel [D-NY]
Rep. Christopher Van Hollen [D-MD]
Rep. Nydia Velázquez [D-NY]
Rep. Henry Waxman [D-CA]
Cosponsorship information sometimes is out of date. Why?
Cost: $4 per American over the 2008-2012 period. ?
The cost is estimated from a Congressional Budget Office report, by dividing the estimated cost of implementing the legislation by the U.S. population. It is of course just a gross estimate. The report is linked to below.
Bill Text: Summaries (CRS, PVS)
Full Text
Status: Introduced Jul 30, 2007
Scheduled for Debate Sep 5, 2007
Amendments (235 proposed) [details]
Passed House [details] Aug 4, 2007
Passed Senate Apr 10, 2008
Differences Resolved -
Signed by President -
The bill may now proceed to a conference committee of senators and representatives to work out differences in the versions of the bill each chamber approved. The bill then goes to the President before becoming law. [Last Updated: Jul 20, 2008]
Last Action: Jul 15, 2008: Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Show All Related Votes
Other Titles: -- Building American Homeownership Act of 2008
-- Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008
-- FHA Manufactured Housing Loan Modernization Act of 2008
-- FHA Modernization Act of 2008
-- Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act of 2008
-- REIT Investment Diversification and Empowerment Act of 2008
From: www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-3221------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a site you can visit for individual incentives and tax breaks on a state by state basis. I've listed Pennsylvania's as an example of what you'll find there because that's where I'm from. It is fon a pro- solar website, but the incentive info is not related solely to the solar industry. If you click on the source below, you will find a link for each state on your right....MPennsylvania State Solar Power Rebates, Tax Credits, and IncentivesUpdate 7/16/08 -
Special Session Senate Bill 1
A few weeks ago, the Pennsylvania Senate held a special session and finally passed some meaningful solar energy legislation for home and business-owners. While the bill passed by a 44-5 margin, the House of Representatives still needs to vote on it. The odds are good that this bill passes. So, some congratulations are in order on making it this far. The bill earmarks $650 million for alternative energy investments and is front-loaded over the next two years to provide some immediate impact. Specifically, it provides up to $100 million dollars in loans, grants, and rebates of up to 35% of the purchase and installation costs of solar and PV panels. More information will follow once this bill hopefully becomes law. A factsheet of SB 1 is available here.
While this is great news, the legislature has stalled on passing House Bill 2200. This bill would allow almost all Pennsylvania utility customers to benefit from the implementation of smart utility meters and real time pricing. Many customers do not realize when they are being charged for energy consumed at peak demands. Smart meters would allow those customers to see when their usage is being charged at a higher rate, thus encouraging energy conservation. A factsheet about HB 2200 is available here.
Here’s a list of where to get information, help, and most importantly, MONEY, for energy efficient improvements for your small business or home if you live in Pennsylvania. Enjoy.
1. EMAP, the Environmental Management Assistance Program was created by the Pennsylvania Small Business Development Centers which have consultants to help you (for free) in anything dealing with Energy Efficiency. Here you can sign up for an energy assessment and someone will come out and see where you would best be benefited by energy efficiency improvements. You can also call 877-ASK-EMAP and get a free consultant to answer any questions about energy efficiency.
2. The Small Business Advantage Program grants money for energy efficiency upgrades like solar power and pollution prevention. That’s free money…. but they’re out of it. Gotta wait till next year.
3. “Growing Greener” is a PA program with a boatload of cash ($600 mil) to dole out for green projects. Here’s how to apply.
4. “Energy Harvest” is another PA grant program where Pennsylvania fights for Federal grant money. Energy harvest is closed for 2007 but go here to be notified when it reopens.
5. “AFIG,” The Alternative Fuels Incentive Grant Program is a fairly small PA grant program with money for things like bio diesel, so if you want to convert your old diesel benzo you might be able to get some free ducats here for that…. But no money for rims :-(… I checked.
6. Yay, more acronyms… The PPAA, or Pollution Prevention Assistance Account Loan Program has low interest loans for small business taking on projects to reduce waste, pollution, or energy use (yay, that mean solar power!). You can get up to 75% of the cost of the project at a rate of, no kidding, 2%… BAM!
7. SAG, the Site Assessment Grant Program funds up to 80 percent of the cost of a site assessment. It’s closed for the time being… call 717-772-8951 to find out if and when it re-opens. Also, while you’re at it, another program out of money that will reopen is PEDA, the Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority from which you can solicit money….. next year.
8. NEWPA offers some low-interest loans for small business complying with some energy efficient practices.
Hope this helps… this covers the vast majority of ways to get free money or cheap money in Pennsylvania for your solar power projects.
Click here to have multiple solar installers bid to upgrade your Pennsylvania home or business.
Source: www.solarpowerrocks.com/pennsylvania/------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's some ways you can reduce your personal carbon footprint during the hot weather. Practical Alternatives to Air ConditioningWednesday, June 25, 2008
Besides burning a hole in your wallet from your rising energy bill, air conditioning your home also burns a hole in the ozone. If you want to save the planet but don’t want to sweat all day every day, here are a few alternatives to the traditional air conditioner.
1. Swamp cooler – These units don’t use harmful refrigerants, but rely on the cooling effect of water evaporation to lower the air’s temperature.
2. Ceiling fans – Putting a fan in each room keeps the air circulating, making it feel fresher and cooler.
3. Whole house fan – Installing a fan system that pumps air in through the cool basement and out the hotter attic helps reduce the overall temperature in the house.
4. Ice block cooler – These devices create blocks of ice at night with a harmless refrigerant, and then cool structures during the day by pumping melting water and cooler air through buildings and homes.
5. Cool night air – Fanning cooler air in the windows during the night, and then closing the windows on the sunny side of the house during the day does wonders.
6. Insulation – Improve the insulation in your attic and inside your home. Follow that by improving your “outdoor insulation” by planting shade trees around the house.
7. Shirts off – Keep yourself cool by wearing light-colored clothing and less clothing. Losing weight, if needed, can also help you cool off faster.
Source: blog.owneriq.net/?p=632------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope you've found this compilation useful. Share it with your children; they're the ones who will have to deal with the consequences of mankind's actions. Will Congress get any meaningful legislation passed? Well....here's a song from School House Rock which explains why they never get much done. Enjoy!
Your's in Service,
MichelleI'm Just A Bill Listen Here I'm Just A Bill wav: www.school-house-rock.com/Bill.html I'm Just A BillBoy: Whew! You sure gotta climb
a lot of steps to get to this
Capitol Building here in
Washington. But I wonder who
that sad little scrap of paper is?
I'm just a bill.
Yes, I'm only a bill.
And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.
Well, it's a long, long journey
To the capital city.
It's a long, long wait
While I'm sitting in committee,
But I know I'll be a law some day
At least I hope and pray that I will
But today I am still just a bill.
Boy: Gee, Bill, you certainly have a lot of patience and courage.
Bill: Well, I got this far. When I started I wasn't even a bill, I was just an idea.
Some folks back home decided they wanted a law passed, so they called
their local Congressman, and said, "You're right, there oughta be a law."
Then he sat down and wrote me out and introduced me to Congress. And I
became a bill, and I'll remain a bill until they decide to make me a law.
I'm just a bill
Yes I'm only a bill,
And I got as far as Capitol Hill.
Well, now I'm stuck in committee
And I'll sit here and wait
While a few key Congressmen discuss
and debate
Whether they should let me be a law.
How I hope and pray that they will,
But today I am still just a bill.
Boy: Listen to those Congressmen arguing! Is all that discussion and debate about you?
Bill: Yeah, I'm one of the lucky ones. Most bills never even get this far. I hope they
decide
to report on me favorably, otherwise I may die.
Boy: Die?
Bill: Yeah, die in committee. Ooh, but it looks like I'm gonna live!
Now I go to the House of Representatives, and they vote on me.
Boy: If they vote yes, what happens?
Bill: Then I go to the Senate and the whole thing starts all over again.
Boy: Oh no!
Bill: Oh yes!
I'm just a bill
Yes, I'm only a bill
And if they vote for me on Capitol Hill
Well, then I'm off to the White House
Where I'll wait in a line
With a lot of other bills
For the president to sign
And if he signs me, then I'll be a law.
How I hope and pray that he will,
But today I am still just a bill.
Boy: You mean even if the Whole Congress says you
should be a law, the president can still say no?
Bill: Yes, that's called a veto. If the president vetoes
me, I have to go back to Congress and they vote
on me again, and by that time you're so old...
Boy: By that time it's very unlikely that you'll become
a law. It's not easy to become a law, is it?
Bill: No!
But how I hope and pray that I will,
But today I am still just a bill.
Congressman: He signed you, Bill!
Now you're a law!
Bill: Oh yes!!!