Might as well face it, we’re addicted to oil

I have been meditating — an occasionally dangerous past time for reporters – on the metaphor often used to describe the United States’ overdependence on fossil fuels, addiction, and what that might mean in terms of envisioning and implementing a recovery strategy.

The classic, 12-step recovery model requires putting the plug in jug — or in this case, the barrel — going cold turkey and learning to live life on life’s terms without one’s drug of choice.

Applied to fossil fuels, the standard argument against such an approach is that it’s not feasible. We don’t have the alternatives up and running to replace oil. True, for now.

That said, the model from another 12-step program — one that deals with eating disorders — might be a more useful approach, providing a number of intriguing directions to pursue. Food addictions are not well understood and, compared to alcohol, can be much more difficult to deal with because, of course, one cannot stop eating. 

One has to, instead, adopt different attitudes and behaviors around food and eating.

What would it look like if we decided to similarly change our relationship to fossil fuels?  Yes, we need energy, and fossil fuels are a major source for now, but the goal should be to reduce their use to a bare minimum – to those uses where nothing else will do — as quickly as humanly possible.

Even as our weather becomes increasingly erratic  –  and more clearly connected to fossil fuel-driven climate change –  we’ve got a lot of oil heads in Congress and corporate America in major denial about the impact of the U.S. and world’s fossil fuel addiction. And I don’t think anyone out there really wants to find out what it’s going to look like if and when we hit bottom — 12-step speak for all heck breaking loose.

One group looking for workable, timely solutions is the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century, an international group with members ranging from high-level government and business representatives to nonprofits and local government groups.

Their mission is to stand up as much renewable energy as possible as quickly as possible worldwide, in both developing and industrialized countries. Their most recent publication, the Renewables 2012 Status Report, shows to what extent that is and isn’t happening.

The main take-away here is that ramping up renewables is a matter of a nation’s vision coupled with policy and commitment. The report notes:

At least 118 countries, more than half of which are developing countries, had renewable energy targets in place by early 2012, up from 109 as of early 2010. Renewable energy targets and support policies continued to be a driving force behind increasing markets for renewable energy, despite some setbacks resulting in a lack of long-term policy certainty and stability in many countries.

Last year, 71 percent of new power generation capacity in the European Union came from renewables, bringing the EU’s total renewable electricity production to 31.1 percent.

Compare those figures to the U.S. where renewable energy projects accounted for 39 percent of our new generation last year, bringing our total nationwide renewable generation — not including hydropower — to 4.7 percent, up from 3.7 in 2009.

Meanwhile, China has surged ahead with renewable development, leading the world with 282 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity. More than 20 percent of its new generation last year was non-hydro renewables.

Efforts by individual states also show that accelerated renewable ramp-up is possible. South Dakota now produces 22 percent of its power from wind, followed by Iowa at 19 percent.  In California, where utilities must generate 33 percent of their power from renewables by 2020 — the state’s three main utilities, Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric, have hit 20 percent or higher in power from renewable sources.

Of course, renewables are only one part of the bigger picture which must also include energy efficiency and major changes in our consumer culture and behavior around energy use.

Coming up with new ideas and approaches to such challenges will be at least part of the agenda at a high-level energy conference I’ll be attending Tuesday in Las Vegas. The 5th annual National Clean Energy Summit is sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and as one might expect, he draws some big name speakers.

The opening keynote will be given by U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar — I’m hoping to get in a few questions about solar development in Riverside East — and President Bill Clinton will be giving the closing keynote and having an on-stage conversation with Reid.

In between there will be panels on getting off oil, fostering innovation and providing consumers with more and better energy choices.

I’ll also be visiting BrightSource Energy’s Ivanpah solar project – thousands of mirrors circling big solar concentrating towers — to get an advance peek at what the company has planned for its Rio Mesa and Palen projects in eastern Riverside County.

And yes, I’ll be blogging and tweeting from the conference and writing articles for The Desert Sun, so this time at least, what happens in Vegas definitely won’t be staying there.

 

Another solar manufacturer defaults on DOE loan guarantee

Abound Solar, a Colorado-based solar panel manufacturer,  announced Thursday it is ceasing operations and will be filing for bankruptcy, and yes, it had a loan guarantee from Department of Energy, raising the specter of another Solyndra.

But, as reports across the Internet are being quick to note — the company had only drawn down $70 million of its $400 million loan guarantee, and it had about $300 million in venture capital and private investments.

Concerns about undue influence by high-rolling Democratic party donors  will likely also not be an issue, as the firm drew both red and blue investors.

According to a report on Bloomberg Businessweek website, Abound’s investors included –

– Pat Stryker, the billionaire heiress of a medical devices company, who has been a big fundraiser for President Barack Obama.

– Raymond Debbane, who has donated to Republican candidates including Rep. Darrell Issa, the California Republican who led an investigation of the U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee program.

In addition, Abound’s energy loan application earned a bipartisan letter of support from Indiana lawmakers due to the the company’s plans to build a plant in the state.

Republicans Sen. Richard Lugar and Rep. Dan Burton and then-Sen. Evan Bayh and Rep.  Pete Visclosky, both Democrats, signed an Oct. 30, 2009 letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, voicing “strong support and encouragement” for the company’s loan application.

GreenTech Media has a good behind-the-scenes report on the events and market forces leading to the company’ s decision to close its doors, laying off 125 employees.  While the company cited competition from low-cost Chinese panels as a central cause for its failure, GreenTech reports it hit a cash-flow crunch as it was trying to ramp up a new,  more efficient version of its thin-film panel.

The firm awaited $10 million from the DOE and $10 million from its investors, but had a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. The DOE was waiting for the investors, and the investors were waiting for the DOE. Abound’s venture investors include DCM, Technology Partners, GLG Partners, Bohemian Companies, and Invus. DOE money is milestone-based and comes with very specific spending covenants.

Abound’s management found itself in a very sticky spot, locked in a survival race between burn rate and ramping up the factory to run at high enough utilization to lower costs and generate revenue and eventually profit. Add impatient investors, a flinchy DOE, and a media faction hungry for Obama DOE scandals — and it was a queasy mix, almost from the start.

The Department of Energy, possibly learning from Solyndra, has been trying to stay ahead of the story with a post on its website, putting this latest failure in context.

Damien LaVera, deputy director of the DOE’s Department of Public Affairs, acknowledges that loan guarantees to solar manufacturing firms do carry higher risk, but that they account for only 4 percent of department’s loan guarantee portfolio.

In the case of Abound, he said:

Because of the strong protections we put in place for taxpayers, the Department has already protected more than 80% of the original loan amount. Once the bankruptcy liquidation is complete, the Department expects the total loss to the taxpayer to be between 10 and 15 percent of the original loan amount.

The bigger question, he says, is whether the U.S., which invented solar technology, is going to cede the field in manufacturing to China, which in 2010 alone provided $30 billion in subsidies to its solar manufacturers.

Some in Washington believe that the United States cannot, or should not, compete with China when it comes to solar manufacturing – and aren’t willing to make any investments or take on any risks to win the global clean energy manufacturing race. Meanwhile, China . . . is surging to capture roughly half the market. That’s because China realizes this is a huge global market and a competition worth winning.

We respectfully disagree with those who are willing to cede thousands of high paying jobs and the innovations to come over the next decade and beyond to our competitors in China and around the world. Americans invented solar technology, and with the right support our companies can out-innovate and out-build any competitor, anywhere in the world. 

The recent ruling from the Department of Commerce, slapping high tariffs on Chinese-made solar cells will have little impact on Chinese dominance in the market, most experts agree, because the major Chinese manufacturers are setting up to circumvent the tariff by moving their operations to other countries.

Following the electrons: The consumer-power disconnect

I was down with a cold last week, which while not particularly fun in and of itself, gave me the time and enforced bed rest to finish a book I’ve been reading in fits and starts for the past couple months – “Big Coal” by Jeff Goodell.

It is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand energy in the United States– its history, present and potential future –  and the short- and long-term implications of our continued reliance on fossil fuels.

Goodell provides a concise history of the development of electricity in the U.S., from Thomas Edison’s first power plant in New York to the creation of big power companies, which started in Chicago at the turn of the 20th century, and the establishment of state and federal regulatory commissions. Samuel Insull, an English-born protégé of Edison, is the man who came up with the idea of getting U.S. consumers hooked on cheap, coal-fired power and all the electronic appliances that followed in its wake.

Insull understood, if you made power cheaper, consumers would use more of it.

“As early as 1914,” Goodell writes, “nearly every type of electric appliance known to us today could be obtained: not just electric stoves and heaters, but electric kettles, toasters, dishwashers, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, mixers, potato peelers, knife grinders and vibrators (a very popular item, usually marketed as a way to relieve female ‘hysteria’).”

Underlying all this, Goodell says, is the connection between electricity and modernity and progress.

But, he continues, the problem is that Americans, and others in developed and developing countries, are disconnected from the sources of the electricity that we expect to be available on demand when we switch on a light or power up our laptops, like the one I’m typing on right now. We are, Goodell writes, clueless.

“But it is also the kind of cluelessness that power companies have spent years encouraging. If you doubt this, just try deciphering the spinning wheels on the electric meter outside your house. Power companies figured out long ago that the more they isolate consumers from the true costs and consequences of their kilowatts, the more successful the companies will be.”

Whether or not digital smart meters will reconnect us to our kilowatts remains to be seen.

“Big Coal,” which was published in 2006, focuses on tracing the electrons back to their sources in coal seams in the ground in West Virginia and other states – where mountain-top mining is destroying small communities. He looks at the public health impacts of coal-burning power plants and the political power of coal companies and the way they have shaped our country’s energy policies or lack thereof.

For Coachella Valley readers, one of the book’s most relevant and riveting sections is Goodell’s discussion of particulate matter pollution – what is called PM-10 and PM-2.5 around here. The microscopic particles that are one result of the burning of fossil fuels, PM-10 stands for particles that are 10 microns or less; PM-2.5 are 2.5 microns or less. A micron is one-millionth of a meter; 10 microns are about one-seventh the diameter of a human hair.

Beyond their small size, which makes them easy to breathe in and become lodged in a person’s lungs, what’s dangerous about particulates are the toxic substances they bind with – such as carbon, sulfur and metals.

The CoachellaValley’s PM-10 pollution, while on a downward slope, has for years exceeded state and federal safety levels.

In “Big Coal,” Goodell focuses on the work of Joel Schwartz, a former energy analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency — now at Harvard — who in the 1980s and early ‘90s did ground-breaking studies on the connection between PM-10 and human illness and mortality.  In Steubenville, Ohio –- a city with high air pollution from steel mills and other industrial plants –- Schwartz documented that “deaths from pneumonia, lung disease, and heart attacks rose along with increases in particle pollution.”

More important, he found in study after study that there seems to be no safe threshold under which particle pollution stops causing illness and death.

While all this makes for engaging and occasionally enraging reading – it’s Goodell’s conclusions that really challenge the reader. While he does not doubt the reality of climate change, he also is very clear-sighted about how focusing on solving the problem doesn’t lead to constructive thought or action. He quotes at length from conversations he had in China with Dan Dudek of the Environmental Defense Fund, who is a leading expert on cap-and-trade systems:

“I’m for anything that helps us think differently about global warming,” Dudek says. “A lot of people are fixated on cutting carbon emissions, which is fine, but it also narrows the conversation. Ultimately, what matters is what happens in the atmosphere, not what happens at any particular power plant.”

And another Dudek quote:

“The point here is not to solve global warming. That’s dead-end thinking. That’s the kind of thinking that leads to endless debate about what we should and shouldn’t do. I’ve been hearing it for twenty years. How much longer can we talk about this? I’ve been in enough rooms where people whine about the evils of the coal or oil industry, who want to sit around and debate who is worse, Big Coal or Big Oil. You know what? Who cares? It gets you nowhere. What’s important is to get people moving in the right direction. It’s about leveraging creativity and energy, about working from the bottom up. It’s about starting a revolution. We don’t need Einstein here. We need Steve Jobs.”

As gasoline climbs toward $5 a gallon, intense storms continue to ravage American towns and Republican presidential candidates escalate their assaults on renewable energy development –- the need to think about climate change differently has never been more critical and urgent.

Goodell argues that our continued dependence on fossil fuels holds back the creativity and innovation needed to grow a different, greener economy.

“It’s not that I have blind faith that technology will save us or that I think we can snap our fingers and replace all the coal plants in the world with wind turbines and solar panels,” he concludes. “I simply believe that it’s within our grasp to figure out less destructive ways to create and consume the energy we need. Ultimately, the most valuable fuel for the future is not coal or oil, but imagination and ingenuity. We have reinvented our world before. Why can’t we do it again?”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Solar is good for U.S. trade

Today sees a new report from GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association about solar’s role in U.S. global trade, and the results are encouraging.

The headline here is that in 2010 the U.S. was a net exporter of solar energy products to the tune of $1.9 billion.

The breakdown on 2010 figures:

U.S. solar had a positive trade balance with China, with figures running from $247 million to $540 million.

The U.S. has become a major expoerter of polysilicon, the basic material needed to make crystalline silicon solar panels — the most common type. In 2010, we sent $2.5 billion worth of polysilicon overseas.

Our second biggest expoert is manufacturing equipment for photovoltaic panels, where our sales were $1.4 billion.

The catch in all this is that our biggest import was PV modules, where we spent $2.4 billion. In other words, it looks like we’re exporting the basic materials and machines and then buying back finished products.

Finally, on the domestic front,  GTM and SEIA calculated solar installations in the U.S. generated about $6 billion in business, with about $4.4 billion staying in the U.S.  On a micro level, what that means is that for every dollar spent on a solar installation in the U.S. last year, 75 cents stayed here.

The breakdown by technology:

– $3.6 billion from photovoltaic

– $419 million from solar thermal, also called concentrating solar

– $400 million from solar heating and cooling.

Hopefully more of those dollars will be spent in the Coachella Valley and eastern Riverside County if and when large-scale solar projects begin construction in the Riverside East solar zone between Joshua Tree National Park and Blythe. Smaller, micro-grid projects–50 megawatts or less–are also in the valley’s future.