Energywise

Though signs abound that the U.S. energy industry is expecting a nuclear energy renaissance, sharp questions have been raised about the ability of the domestic power plant construction industry to deliver. Now ace energy reporter Rebecca Smith is reporting in The Wall Street Journal evidence of substandard counterfeit components being sold to operating atomic power plants. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has alerted utilities of two cases.

One case involved sale of circuit breakers designed to protect equipment from electrical surges: in all, 140,000 breakers sold in the United States as products of France's Schneider Electric Co. turned out to have been made in China, and a few may have found their way into a nuclear power plant operated by Duke Energy Corp. A second case involved water valves for the Southern Company's Hatch nuclear power plant in Georgia.

At present, according to Smith, applications for 15 new U.S. nuclear power plants are pending in eight states. But how fast could manufacturers actually deliver all the parts needed? The NRC chairman notes that the number of U.S. suppliers has declined from 1,350 in 1977 to about 700 today. Last year, an executive with Southern Company told this reporter that the U.S. industry could initiate at most two or three new reactor projects per year, for the time. In terms of energy delivery, that is roughly equivalent to the rate at which wind power currently is being expanded in the United States.

If you're still one of those people who tend to think of wind energy as a bit exotic, only suitable for exceptional situations, even then not likely to contribute much to the big picture, it's time to stop being that kind of person once and for all. According to a report this week from Worldwatch, about 20,000 megawatts of wind capacity was installed in 2007, bringing the world total to 94,100 megawatts, or, more concisely, 94 GW. Wind was the leading source of new electricity in Europe and second only to natural gas in the United States.

Allowing for the customary factor-of-three discounting of wind capacity to account for wind's intermittency, 94 gigawatts is the equivalent of about 31 GW of baseload coal or nuclear generation--the same thing, in other words, as building 31 standard nuclear power plants. In terms of average household use rates, which often are put at about 1 kW, 31 GW is enough power for 31 million homes.

The United States led the way last year, adding 5,244 megawatts of wind, followed by China--a surprise! (see next issue of IEEE Spectrum magazine)--and Spain. Overall, Germany still has the largest wind total, more than 22 GW--the equivalent of four or five 1 GW baseload plants, taking into account that the discounting is higher for Germany (more like a factor of 4 or 5) because, having pushed wind harder, they've installed turbines in some less than ideal locations.

Even so, Germany's socialist and green leaders believe that wind can continue to meet most of the country's additional energy demand in the coming years, though more conservative leaders like Chancellor Angela Merkel do not agree.

According to another Worldwatch report, wind investments accounted for 47 percent of global investment in renewable energy technology last year, followed by photovoltaics, which was about 30 percent. New solar PV capacity came to 2.8 GW in 2007, according to Worldwatch's estimate, and about 3.43 according to a recent Lux report. Both estimate the cost of the new PV investments at about $21.2 or 21.3 billion.

The value of wind investments last year came to $31 billion. On a dollar per watt basis, that means that new wind is costing about $1.55, new PV between $7.6 (Worldwatch) and $6.2 (Lux). In other words, per unit capacity, photovoltaic energy is between four and five times as expensive as wind.

New York state's new governor David A. Paterson, who took office just weeks ago, replacing disgraced governor Eliot Spitzer, deserves great credit for moving fast to address the region's long-term energy needs. In a plan issued yesterday, April 10, Paterson re-established a state energy planning board, told the state's two largest power authorities to aggressively pursue conservation, and said Long Island would build some kind of large solar facility.

The major immediate news in Governor Paterson's announcement was his decision to firmly oppose construction of a large liquefied natural gas terminal, Broadwater, in Long Island Sound. "Shame on us if we cant develop a responsible energy policy without sacrificing one of our greatest natural and economic resources," the governor said, referring to the stretch of water separating Long Island from southern Connecticut.

Broadwater has attracted sensible criticism from many city and regional opinion leaders, including The New York Times. But those leaders have not always coupled that opposition with realistic ideas about how to meet the region's long-term energy needs without aggravating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Paterson takes an important step in the right direction by re-establishing an energy planning board, which he said will consider other proposals for LNG terminals, among other things.

Possibilities for conservation may be limited in energy-efficient New York City, but on Long Island and upstate, where automobile use is heavy and population sprawled, much more will be achievable. Paterson said that the Long Island Power Authority is preparing a $1 billion, 10-year conservation plan, and that the New York Power authority has promised to double conservation spending to $1,.4 billion through 2015.

Paterson announced that LIPA will be issuing a request for proposal for a major solar facility on Long Island. It will be interesting to see what the RFP looks like. Central solar generation has not so far proved cost-effective, and where it's been tried--cloudy Barvaria, for example--it's been a boondoggle. But perhaps LIPA will come up with something that at least points the way to a brighter solar future, perhaps a decade or two down the road.

You don't have to be an anti-nuclear fanatic to wonder whether it would still make sense, were we starting from scratch, to build a large nuclear power plant complex just upriver from New York City, on the edge of a metropolitan area containing nearly 20 million people. So it's not surprising that the New York State government has decided to challenge the renewal of licenses for the two Indian Point reactors, which expire in 2013 and 2015, and nor is it surprising that the New York Times has weighed in with an editorial saying the state deserves to have its day in court. "This should not be misconstrued as an attack on nuclear power," said the Times three months ago. "Indeed, the state has an obligation to explain what it would do about the 2,000 megawatts of electricity that would be lost if the plant closed."

Indeed. And The Times might be construed as having the same public responsibility. But to judge from a more recent editorial, commenting on a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal to be built in Long Island Sound, one might wonder whether its editorial writers really grasp the implications of their own fine rhetoric. The Times opposed the Broadwater LNG terminal, which would provide the city with a billion cubic feet of natural gas per day, with this "crucial caveat": its critics, in opposing it, "are committing themselves to bearing the cost of the cleaner, greener way. This means a serious commitment to energy conservation and serious investment in wind and solar power, and in retooling existing power plants for efficiency and cleanliness," said the Times.

That's a cop-out if there ever was one. Conservation is a very good thing, and some of the world's most imaginative green architecture is being done in New York City today. But remember, on a per capita basis, because of its population density, New York is already the most energy-efficient and energy conserving place in the whole country. There is only so far that conservation and improved energy efficiency can go.

The 2000 MW Indian Point complex, as it happens, has just been retooled for greater efficiency--and won't be getting much better than it already is. As for the rest of the city's power, it comes from miscellaneous other fossil plants, and no matter how much you improve them, they're still going to be spewing undesirable amounts of greenhouse gas.

Solar being nowhere near ready for prime time, that leaves wind. So if you take the Broadwater terminal out of the equation or close down Indian Point, what then is the Times proposing? Does it want to fill Long Island Sound with 1000 very large wind turbines? That's what it would take to make up for Indian Point, or to meet needs comparable to what Broadwater might supply.

Gearing up for Earth Day on April 22, Green Plug, the manufacturer of a universal charger, has issued a call for below-the-desk photos.

Green Plug's product was one of the highlights of Demo 08, a showcase for emerging companies. The company has developed universal power connector that talks to products that contain its licensed technology. The products tell the connector what voltage they need and when they're done charging; it saves energy as well as eliminates heavy power "bricks", the kind that you may be kicking beneath your desk right now.

For its Earth Day contest, Green Plug wants pictures of what it calls the "unsightly tangle of wires, black bricks, and wall warts" that eventually become, company CEO Frank Paniagua Jr. says, part of the 379 million discarded external power supplies that end up in U.S. landfills annually.

To enter, post your snapshot at http://greenplugcontest.typepad.com. The winner gets lunch with former Brady Bunch star Christopher Knight and his wife Adrianne Curry. Knight went on to a successful career in the computer industry, founding Eskape Labs to develop digital appliances, including video devices. He sold the company in 2000 and went back to a television career. Greenplug identifies him as a green advocate, whatever that is. The second place winner gets a $500 Wal-Mart gift certificate; the connection between Wal-Mart and Earth Day escapes me.

Photo by Jim Dennewill.

Though solar industry revenues are expected to keep growing nicely to 2012, supplies of photovoltaic modules will outpace demand starting next year, which could lead to sharp drops in PV prices and a shake-out among solar companies. Those are the main conclusions of a new study from Lux Research, a firm with offices in New York, Boston, San Francisco, and Amsterdam that provides strategic advice and guidance on emerging technologies.

Lux predicts that manufacturers of solar equipment will see their revenues climb by more than 25 percent per annum in the next few years, with government subsidies in Japan, Germany, and Spain the main driving force. The combined capacity of new solar installations worldwide is expected to be about 3.5 gigawatts this year--roughly the equivalent of building a single, standard-sized nuclear power plant, allowing for the intermittency of solar energy.

At present, PV growth rates are somewhat limited by shortages of crystalline silicon, the most widely used material in solar cells. Though polysilicon will remain in short supply until 2010, demand will shift somewhat to newer technologies, including thin-film photovoltaics, PV concentrators employing higher-grade PV material, and thermal concentrating systems.

Since 1995, 46 start-up solar companies have made initial public offerings, 35 of them in just the last three years. But the number of IPOs dropped in 2007 (perhaps signaling harder times ahead), and there was a 40 percent drop in the total amount of money raised, by comparison with 2006.

Almost every major solar project--including the big photovoltaic roof that Google has installed at its Mountain View headquarters--depends on public subsidies. Lux believes that will continue to be the case at least until 2012, with richer subsidies in countries like India and China supplanting those being reduced or phased out in some of the more highly industrialized nations.

Back in the 1980s, when concern about a possible nuclear winter was at its height, the conservative columnist William Rusher jokingly referred to the tendency of catastrophists like the late Carl Sagan to talk "lip smackingly" about the end of the world. Those were the days when concerns sparked by a new U.S.-Soviet arms race were at their height, and scientists were warning that an all-out nuclear war would produce so much soot, the world would be plunged into a multi-year winter making life for the survivors virtually unsustainable. Sagan was among the leading scientists drawing attention to this dire scenario.

Given the satisfaction Rusher took from mocking those who liked to roll up every conceivable disaster into one irresistible package, he'd probably enjoy the report that is being posted today by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, "Massive Global Ozone Loss Predicted Following Regional Nuclear Conflict." The article postulates that a regional nuclear war involving India and Pakistan would kick so much soot up into the stratosphere, heating of ambient gases would accelerate the chemical reactions that break down ozone as high as 60 kilometers up. The result here on the surface of the earth: a thinning of ozone north and south of 20 degrees latitude--everywhere north of Mexico City, for example, or south of Rio--to levels characteristic of the Antarctic ozone hole that has caused such serious concern in recent decades.

Michael Mills, the atmospheric scientist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, who is lead author of the PNAS paper, says the ozone thinning would lead to much higher rates of skin cancer and cataracts, and have drastic effects on plant ecology during the five to eight years it persisted.

For those able to contemplate catastrophe scenarios with cool objectivity--without smacking their lips--a recent study estimating the chances of nuclear war will be of interest in this context. That risk analysis, described in the current issue of IEEE Spectrum, finds that the odds of nuclear war during the Cold War years might have been as high as 5 in 1000 per year. Similar odds might hold in situations like the India-Pakistan stand-off.

What a dilemma for environmentalists: trees, or solar energy? Both are good for the environment. Both are beloved by the environmental community. Both fight global warming.

But sometimes, you just can't have both. That's what happened in Sunnyvale, Calif. From 1997 to 1999, Richard Treanor and Carolyn Bissett planted eight redwood trees at the edge of their property. In 2001, neighbor Mark Vargas, installed a 10 kw solar system on his roof and trellis, to power his home and charge his electric car.

The solar system worked just fine. And the trees grew, as trees, especially redwoods, tend to do. And the trees started to cast shade on Vargas's solar panels.

Vargas asked the neighbors to trim the trees back from as much as 12 meters to 4.5 meters. Treanor and Bissett (who drive a Prius) said no. In December, after several years of mediation and, one has to assume, decidedly chilly neighborly relations, solar prevailed; a Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge found Treanor and Bissett in violation of the 1978 Solar Shade Control Act that prevents people from planting trees or shrubs that shade an existing solar system on a neighboring property. Last week, the wood chips flew and at least one of the trees got trimmed back; Treanor and Bissett took pictures and hope the so-called "poodle cut" will be dramatic enough to satisfy the judge.

In response, California State Sen. Joe Simitian introduced a bill protecting trees planted before solar panels were installed, even if the trees grow and later shade the panels. Sort of a first-come, first-serve solution.

But nowhere in the heavy media coverage of this neighborhood squabble have I read any analysis of the real question. That is, which option is better for the environment, letting the trees grow, or letting the sun hit the solar panels unobstructed.

I took this question to H Scott Matthews, assistant professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University: considering global warming, is the carbon dioxide absorbed by the growing trees more or less than the greenhouse gases that would be created in generating replacement energy? And, while air conditioning isn't a big concern in California, in many places you would also have to consider the impact of shade on air conditioning use, that is, does losing the trees mean the homeowner has to crank up his air conditioning in the summer?

Matthews did a rough back-of-the-envelope calculation for me. In Northern California, an average household consumes 7 MWh of electricity per year; from the grid, that could represent 3 tons of carbon dioxide. Let's say a solar installation only reduces a household's consumption of electricity by half, that's 1.5 tons. Matthews couldn't find numbers on redwood trees (which grow like weeds), but figures Douglas Firs are in the ballpark. An acre of Douglas Firs sequesters about 5 tons of carbon dioxide a year. Douglas Firs are planted at a density of about 400 per acre, so, if I'm doing the math right, Treanor and Bissett's eight trees soak up about 0.1 ton of carbon dioxide a year. So, says Matthews, solar panels win; and, he says, "I'm not a fan of solar PV technology." (He didn't factor in air conditioning; the difference was big enough to make that it particularly relevant.)

Matthews also pointed out that the trees cut down in Sunnyvale means the carbon sequestered there will be released through decomposition or burning. "Better build some more solar panels fast!"

This issue is not likely to go away. This month northern California 4-H club members are madly planting redwood trees to do their part to counteract global warming. Meanwhile, the state of California has earmarked $3.2 billion to subsidize homeowners looking to install solar cells, with a goal of putting solar on a million rooftops.

Photo: Joseph Tringali/iStockphoto

The head of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) said on Friday that the federal government has awarded $2.4 million to 12 cities that are leaders in using solar energy.

At the New Frontiers in Energy Summit 2008 in Denver, DOE Secretary Samuel W. Bodman announced grants of $200 000 to the dozen selected cities that best exemplified a commitment and comprehensive approach to the deployment of solar technologies and the development of sustainable solar infrastructures, in order to make electricity from solar photovoltaics cost-competitive with conventional electricity by 2015.

These so-called Solar America Cities will also receive funds from private resources that should boost the overall benefits of the program to some $12 million this year, the DOE said in a press release on Friday.

"These Solar America Cities aim to jumpstart integration of solar power and encourage other cities across the nation to follow suit," Bodman stated. "The innovative programs already underway in each city will help us raise the bar of what's possible and will help cities and towns across America harness the tremendous potential of the sun."

Bodman said the 12 new Solar America Cities are: Denver, Houston, Knoxville (Tenn.), Milwaukee, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Orlando, Philadelphia, Sacramento, San Antonio (Tex.), San Jose (Calif.), Santa Rosa (Calif.), and Seattle.

The DOE said it will also provide hands-on assistance from technical experts to help cities integrate solar technologies into energy planning, zoning and facilities; streamline local regulations and practices that affect solar adoption by residents and businesses; present solar financing options; and promote solar technology among residents and local businesses through outreach, curriculum development, and incentive programs.

The 2008 Solar America Cities join 13 others from last year, which received $5.4 million from the DOE initiative. Those metropolises consisted of Ann Arbor (Mich.), Austin (Tex.), Berkeley (Calif.), Boston, Madison (Wis.), New Orleans, New York City, Pittsburgh, Portland (Ore.), Salt Lake City, San Diego, San Francisco, and Tucson (Az.).

All 25 are expected to adopt a variety of approaches to build up their solar infrastructures and deploy cutting-edge technologies that include solar water heating, photovoltaics, and large-scale solar thermal technology, according to the DOE.

[Editor's Note: Please see our feature "Solar-Cell Squabble", in the current issue, for an update on low-cost organic photovoltaic technology.]

Howls of protest greeted the California Air Resources Board decision this week to reorient its zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate to promote plug-in hybrids over fully battery-electric vehicles. Activists came to Sacramento in force (and in EVs -- see video below) to decry what EV booster group Plug In America called a "shameful weakening of the ZEV Program."

The ZEV directive requires car manufacturers to market ultraclean and emissions-free vehicles (or buy credits earned by others making such vehicles). The California Air Resources Board decision yesterday reduces the quantity of emissions-free battery or fuel cell vehicles mandated for the 2012-2014 period from 25,000 to as few as 5,357, responding to automaker concern over the cost and reliability of EV batteries and fuel cells.

CARB says this reduction is offset by new rules recognizing the transitional value of plug-in hybrids. The agency claims that the ZEV rules will require automakers to produce up to 58,000 plug-in hybrids over the 2012-2014 period, thereby mainstreaming electric vehicle components and charging infrastructure that will hasten the day when the pure EVs go mainstream.

However, Plug In America claims the new rules will actually lead to 18,000 less plug-in hybrids over 2012-2014. It's difficult to say who is right because the ZEV rules are devilishly complex, and automakers are not currently required to disclose how many credits they have banked (a transparency gap the new rules would fix).

Plug In America charges that California legislators should take back responsibility for driving electrification of the automobile, but ironically one of their proposals seems to affirm the very battery qualms underlying CARB's revisions. Specifically, Plug In America proposes that legislators free manufacturers from providing the 15-year, 150,000-mile warranty CARB requires for hybrid batteries. That hardly seems like a recipe for driving mass confidence in the electric car.