Save and Conserve

Since I moved to Salt Lake about 7 months ago, I often get asked about the biggest surprise from people back home. WIthout a doubt, I've been most surprised by how sunny it is here. The summer was insane - it was always blue skies & blazing sun.

Being a solar energy nerd, I couldn't help but wonder why there wasn't more solar out here. Turns out the state isn't even remotely behind solar & without some sort of subsidy, solar energy just isn't cost-competitive.

But it turns out that Utah isn't only a great spot for solar. As this article states, Utah has very promising wind resources. And there is geothermal out there as well.

This state is poised very well once the government begins pouring money into renewable energy & creating long-term incentives for renewable energy investment. Just watch, Utah might be behind the curve today ... but as soon as the tide turns, it will be a great spot for all types of renewable energy projects, investments & jobs.

Posted by tom c. at 3:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

I recently wrote with some intrigue about the Pickens Plan, which seeks to switch a big chunk of electricity generation from natural gas to wind & then use the leftover natural gas to power our cars ... freeing us of our epic addiction to oil imports.

On the surface, the plan seems like it could potentially work. Then you read a story like this one, titled "Wind won't solve energy crisis". Here are some of the issues called out:

The disadvantage of wind-generated electricity is poor reliability because the weather doesn't always cooperate. The most demanding need for energy is in the afternoons and during air-conditioned summers, but wind works best at night and during the other seasons, though intermittently. Even when the wind is blowing, it takes a 13 mph wind to power a large turbine.

I have heard of this before, of course. The primary issue seems to be around storage. There is currently no good way to store energy (in massive quantities) when the wind blows for later use. So the current fact of life is that wind energy comes when it wants to, not when the electric demand calls for it. That's definitely a non-starter.

Last year wind generators nationally produced only 30 percent as much energy in a year as they would if they ran at full tilt, every hour of the year, a measure called "capacity factor." Unlike nuclear power plants such as Wolf Creek, which achieve capacity factors of 90 percent or more, the wind operator cannot decide when the wind generator will run.

So it's 30% nationally. I wonder what that rate looks like in the wind corridor that Pickens talks about, stretching the length of the plains from Canada to Texas. It has to be higher, right?

Another problem with wind farms is their location. Where the wind is best is often hundreds of miles from cities that most need the power, so high-cost transmission lines must be built to transmit the electricity.

The author's point here is to underscore the hidden cost of wind power, which is the transmission line/grid side of the scheme. The writer obviously doesn't think wind power is the answer -- he is interested in nuclear power. Regardless of where his loyalty lies, I think he makes some good points. When he ends by saying that Gore & Pickens may be counting on wind power too much, it seems he may be right. There is a lot to this issue & it's hard to know which position is the right one. I personally have more digging to do on thsi topic.

Posted by tom c. at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I've been reading about the oil dependency problem in the US for at least 3 years, and I don't often find new ground being covered when I read websites & the news & watch cable. That's why I am so intrigued by the Pickens Plan.

Boone Pickens is a legendary oil man who has made billions & lost hundreds of millions in the oil business over his lifetime. He is currently throwing his weight behind wind energy, investing huge amounts in wind farms in Texas. This is a lifelong oil man putting his money into renewable energy. That should show you right there that the US can't drill its way out of the current oil crisis.

No, we need something more radical than additional drilling or emergency releases from the SPR. Pickens has a novel idea that seems to fit the bill. He wants to increase the amount of electricity produced from wind dramatically. A huge increase in wind energy will free up the natural gas supply to be used as a transportation fuel, taking some of the pressure off of oil imports (dependency). If you no longer need the gas to run power plants, you can use the resource to run cars.

Interesting idea. The Pickens Plan website has more info & I would recommend checking it out. I know some will say the notion of using natural gas to power our cars is not really a fix. However, it would reduce our imports of oil & potentially buy us more time to bridge the gap over to a new way of doing things & a new way of running daily life.

As Pickens says in the video on his site, we just can't afford to transfer $700 billion each year to foreign governments & expect our economy to work well for us. We need to start changing immediately. Pickens seems like the type of individual that the renewable industry has been looking for to spearhead change. He's well known in financial & political realms. He has a pantload of money to work with (just watch his slick ads & website). He is well-respected. I wonder if he can make this happen & get the Congress on board.

Since Congress appears to be ready to finally do something (anything), this is looking pretty interesting.

Posted by tom c. at 11:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

This article does a decent job of pointing out key barriers that will limit the installation & use of residential wind turbines:

• The federal government does not currently provide a tax credit for residential-scale wind energy
• Only a few states have enacted incentive programs for wind power
• Payback time for a wind power project can approach 20 years (way too long for mass adoption)
• Wind power only works in places where the wind blows a lot
• Even in spots with good wind, sometimes the wind doesn't blow
• For maximum gain, wind turbines need to be located high in the air ... & this causes tons of NIMBY-related issues

That last bullet really gets to me ... I have always considered wind turbines really sleek & aesthetically pleasing. I don't understand the people who feel that turbines mar the landscape. I think they fit perfectly into the built environment & make all the sense in the world (in windy areas).

I can't understand why the federal government is not underwriting renewable energy projects for residences. We need a comprehensive renewable energy bill that provides incentives (or better yet rebates) for consumers to install renewable energy like wind. In addition to growing renewable energy capacity, this would also have the benefit of creating jobs & demand for renewable energy products & services.

If you are a concerned citizen, you should support renewable energy. Get in touch with your local, state & federal representatives about this.

Posted by tom c. at 10:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In February, I wrote about the explosive growth of installed wind capacity in the US here, but I didn't have a good visual to accompany that write-up. I found this wonderful visual over at Lower (Carbon) Footprint:

click on the image to view the whole thing in a new window

Pretty much says it all. Change is definitely happening!

Posted by tom c. at 9:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I hate the fact that cutting edge, energy efficient architecture (like the Bahrain World Trade Center pictured at right) is happening in a place like Bahrain and not in "the West". I have nothing against Bahrain really, just sad that America isn't trailblazing.

It's obvious to me how late we already are in making a structure like this a reality. In 20 years, most buildings will feature some sort of building integrated (or building mounted) renewable energy. We should be leading on this & setting the example for the developing world. Instead, we've left that gig to an oil-rich nation smack dab in the middle of the Persian Gulf. How ironic.

Posted by tom c. at 1:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The modern wind turbine - often about 300 feet tall with huge blade spans - doesn't strike me as looking very durable. With so much weight (in the turbine nacelle) located so high up on top of the lean tower ... I've often wondered how these things stand the test of time & weather.

Now, I'm sure GE makes a sturdy turbine that will last a long time, but can we assume the same thing for other manufacturers?

What about the maker of this turbine?

Posted by tom c. at 4:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Update April 18, 2008: Click here to view a graphical representation of the growth in installed wind power in the USA

Although wind power contributes only a tiny fraction of total global energy supply, the amount of power generated from the wind continues to exhibit dramatic year over year growth. In 2007, installed global wind power capacity increased 27%, from 74 GW in 2006 to 94 GW. That's a big jump & is certainly excellent news that signals the market's endorsement of wind energy.

How much is the market spending on wind power? According to this report, $117.2 billion was invested on renewable energy in 2007 &:

Wind power drew the greatest amount of investments, followed by solar energy and energy efficiency, while biofuels investments slowed due to surging costs for crops.

Even more impressive, China jumped onto the wind power scene in a big way in 2007. China added 3.4 GW of wind power capacity, bringing total capacity to 6 GW. China is truly amazing. Everything in China right now is booming off the charts. There should be little question as to what underlies $90 oil ... China's demand for energy - any energy - is a runaway train right now. This wind number - a 131% year over year increase - is a testament to that fact.

In the US, installed wind capacity in 2007 jumped to 16.8 GW from 11.6 GW in 2006, an increase of 45%.

So, at the end of 2007, installed wind power capacity was 94 GW & the US represented 18% of the total. At 6% of the total, China moved onto the global radar. It should be interesting to watch China zoom up the list. In about 5 years they'll probably be number one.

Posted by tom c. at 12:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Isn't it remarkable that America still doesn't have an offshore wind farm? We really need to do better ... and it looks as though the Cape Wind development (near Nantucket in Massachusetts) is going to happen. Better late than never, eh?

The US Department of Energy tells us:

The Interior Department's Minerals Management Service (MMS) has issued a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the Cape Wind Energy Project and finds no major environmental impacts from the proposed project.

The MMS report (warning: 5Mb PDF) includes the following:

• Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound is environmentally and economically superior to the alternative sites that were studied.
• Cape Wind will reduce regional emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) by 880,000 tons per year. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes climate change.
• Cape Wind will reduce regional air pollution emissions such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide that harm human health.
• Cape Wind will create hundreds of jobs.
• Cape Wind will provide a needed supply of electricity and improve electric diversification and reliability.
• Cape Wind will go a long way toward Massachusetts being able to achieve its renewable energy requirements under the State's Renewable Portfolio Standard.
• Cape Wind will not have major impacts on birds, fish, marine mammals, fishing, tourism, or on sea or air navigation.

On the bright side, it has only taken about 7 years and $100 oil to make people see that the list above makes a lot of sense in a lot of different ways for a lot of different people. Baby steps ...

Posted by tom c. at 10:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I love to find cool websites related to renewable energy or energy conservation. I especially love when you can use those websites like a tool. WalkScore is one that I have blogged about in the past. And today I found firstlook, which provides a web-based tool for you to quickly see how much solar or wind resource you have available at your address.

Both of these sites are gems in my opinion. They get you thinking about change ... positive change that could ultimately help you go renewable or use less gasoline or whatever. Anyone else have any cool web-based tools they know of?

Posted by tom c. at 12:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Energying Information Administration ("EIA") recently released the 2005 edition of their report named Renewable Energy Annual. What exactly does this report cover you ask?

The Renewable Energy Annual 2005 is the eleventh in a series of annual publications on renewable energy by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). The 2005 edition presents four reports, accompanied with data tables and graphics covering various aspects of the renewable energy marketplace.

The renewable energy sources included are biomass (wood, wood waste, municipal solid waste, landfill gas, ethanol and other biomass); geothermal; wind; solar (solar thermal and photovoltaic); and conventional hydropower.

Hydroelectric pumped storage facilities are excluded, because they usually use non-renewable energy sources for their operation. Since the EIA collects data only on terrestrial (land-based) solar energy systems, satellite and some military applications are also excluded.

The big news coming out of this report is the increase in American wind energy consumption. Total renewable energy consumption in 2005 was 6.588 quadrillion Btu, up 2.4% from 6.433 in 2004. However, wind energy consumption grew 25.6% over the same period. Granted, the total amount of wind energy consumed is not much (at 0.178 in 2005), but the growth is the story.

Wind is taking off and has a lot of headroom to grow. While wind is growing like a weed, conventional hydroelectric, solar energy, and geothermal energy are all in the growth doldrums.

The difference between wind energy and all other renewable sources becomes even more pronounced when you compare growth since 2001. From 2001 to 2005, wind energy consumption has grown 156%. None of the other sources has grown more than 21% during the same time ... although hydroelectric is a much more mature source of renewable energy, with most of the available power already harnessed for years.

Still, it's clear that the market believes wind power is where the action is going to be going forward. News that Shell is going to build a 3,000 megawatt wind farm in Texas - four times bigger than any other existing wind farm - shows that the turn to wind is at the head of a long tail.

Posted by tom c. at 10:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The American Wind Energy Association released some wind power-related stats a couple of weeks back. Some really good information on that page, including a list of the 5 largest wind farms ranked by productive capacity (in MegaWatts - MW). Note: there are 1,000,000 Watts in one MegaWatt.

Here's the list, from one to 5:

1. Horse Hollow, TX (736 MW) ... The Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center is comprised of 291 GE 1.5 megawatt wind turbines and 130 Siemens 2.3 megawatt wind turbines spread over nearly 47,000 acres in Taylor and Nolan County, Texas. Horse Hollow also happens to be the world's largest operating wind farm as of this writing.
   source
2. Maple Ridge, NY (322 MW) ... This site consists of approximately 12,000 acres of hilltop pasture and feed-crop land at an average elevation of 1600-1800 feet. Tug Hill is an ancient geologic formation that lies just downwind of the eastern shore of Lake Ontario, separated from the Adirondacks to the east by the Black River Valley. At a maximum elevation of 2000 feet above sea level, the Tug Hill plateau experiences strong lake-effect weather patterns and has long been known for its exceptional wind resource.
   source
   View a tour of the Maple Ridge wind farm over at YouTube
3. Stateline, OR & WA (300 MW) ... The Stateline Wind Energy Center is located on Vansycle Ridge,a crest of land straddling the Washington–Oregon border, near Touchet, WA and Pendleton, OR. The ridge catches winds from the Columbia Gorge, which average 16 to 18 mph. A total of 454 turbines are currently operating in both states. On average the project is expected to receive enough wind to deliver 30 to 35 percent of its peak capacity year–round—enough power for about 72,000 Northwest homes.
   source
4. King Mountain, TX (281 MW) ... This site is located on a mesa in Upton County, West Texas. The 214 wind turbines connect to the grid network via four 85MVA primary substations.
   source
   214 turbines sited in rows along the southeastern and northwestern edges of a mesa (a tabletop mountain) surrounded by deep ravines. Typical turbine spacing 2.5 D. The longest row holds 56 turbines. Dust, sand and high temperatures place extraordinary demands on the wind turbines. Consequently, the design was modified for the desert-like conditions, providing additional cooling and protection against wind-blown sand.
   source
5. Sweetwater, TX (264 MW)

Posted by tom c. at 11:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

There's a wonderful article from Outside Magazine that shows it is possible for industrialized nations to cut energy consumption, turn to renewable sources of energy, and prosper by doing it.

In fact, Samsø has spent the past decade becoming an eco-wonderland, setting up wind, solar, biofuels, and other renewable technologies to satisfy its energy needs. The island has even gone beyond "carbon neutrality," the cherished environmental goal of zeroing out the production of CO2, the greenhouse gas most responsible for global warming.

Samsø is an island in Denmark rich in the wind resource. They get so much wind that they can't use all of the electricity their turbines produce, so they sell the excess to the main electric grid. And even individuals are leveraging the wind.

Turbines are owned by private investors like Tranberg, by the government, or by cooperatives of people who bought shares to finance their construction. The process is democratic in the way so many things are in Denmark; shares cost about $360 each. Tranberg, for his part, took out a loan to buy his $1 million windmill six years ago, but the government guaranteed him an above-market price for his power. And the wind, which blows lustily here most days of the year, proved to be an even better friend than he and other islanders had hoped. Investors have seen returns of 8 percent or so a year, which works out to roughly $100,000 per onshore turbine. Tranberg's is already paid off. "It's enough income for me that I don't have to work, but I like to work," he says. Besides, he adds, talking tough for a man in clogs, "we can't put all that shit in the sky from coal. There's too much shit in the air."

The article has much, much more about this inspiring community that clearly "gets it". Check out the link to read the entire thing.

Posted by tom c. at 11:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In a rather bold move for an American ski resort, the operators of Jiminy Peak Ski Resort in western Massachusetts have decided to install a massive wind turbine in summer 2007. The picture here to your left shows the massive concrete base that Jiminy poured last fall for the 1.5 megawatt (MW) turbine, which will stand 375 feet tall (including blade span). As far as I know, this is an unprecedented plunge into alternative, renewable energy by an American ski resort. Although ski resorts are used to investing massive amounts of up-front capital for lifts and snowmaking systems, I was still fairly shocked to see a ski resort willing to invest so much in renewable energy.

Jiminy Peak has been kind enough to post many details about the turbine project on their website - two pages are available at their Media page with information on project costs and progress. Those pages contain the information I refer to in this post.

Jiminy Peak has decided to throw a lot of money at renewable energy for one primary reason: rising energy costs. From the Jiminy website:

By August of 2005 Jiminy management was searching for energy options due to the dramatic increases in energy cost on multiple fronts. For the season ending 2004 Jiminy had spent $782,766 on energy, for the 2005 season the amount was $948,421. In just 4 months oil prices had gone up 50% by mid-summer and predications for winter electricity rates indicated there would be a 50% increase. The combined impact of these energy costs were predicated to total $1,451,000. This was prior to the impacts of hurricane Katrina. (Energy costs exceeded 1.5 million dollars in 2005-2006.)

People respond to incentives. They also respond to skyrocketing costs. It's reasonable to assume that Jiminy management are environmentally conscious people who support clean, renewable sources of energy. And surely management also sees the PR value inherent in a massive wind turbine project. However, it becomes quite clear when you read the website (and when you consider that energy costs increased 58% from 2005 to 2006) that this is a management team that is primarily driven by the belief that energy costs are going to continue to rise in the future and, therefore, eat away at the resort's future profit margins.

Rising energy costs are a concern, as passing those costs onto our guests by raising lift ticket prices, could materially jeopardize the health of our industry into the future.

In case you didn't already know, it turns out that 1.5MW wind turbines are really expensive. This price tag on this project: a cool $3.9 million. The good news is Jiminy is receiving some help from the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative - details on the grant at MTC's website available here. From the Jiminy website:

In July 2005, Jiminy was notified by Massachusetts Technology Collaborative that a grant for $582,000 had been approved. The grant provided for continued engineering and consulting work, plus purchasing and installation of a turbine ranging from a .75MW to 1.5MW wind turbine.

That puts Jiminy's investment at $3.318 million. The GE turbine is expected to produce 4.6 million kWh of electricity per year. Jiminy plans to consume half that amount on site and the other half will be fed back to the grid, providing Jiminy with a substantial credit on their utility bill. Once the turbine is up and producing electricity, Jiminy - which uses about 7 million kWh of electricity per year, will only have to purchase 4.7 million kWh/year from the utility. At their current cost of $0.12 per killowatt hour (kWh), Jiminy expects to achieve a return on their $3.318 million investment in about 7 years.

The screensheet below of an Excel spreadsheet shows some back of the envelope calculations I did regarding this project.

In column B, row 21 the spreadsheet shows the amount Jiminy expects to save each year at the current cost of electricity ($0.12 per kWh). Yearly savings of $446k definitely looks pretty sweet.

In column C, I changed the cost per kWh to $0.08; yearly savings decline dramatically in this scenario and ROI is not achieved for 12 years. You can see why businesses are reluctant to invest in renewable systems. While it's wonderful to fix a large percentage of your electricity bill for 25 years into the future, you can't help but wonder "What if?" What if energy prices don't continue to rise? What if they fall in the future?

The point I am trying to make is that this project is really quite risky in my opinion. Even with a substantial subsidy in the form of a grant worth nearly $600k, this project will only turn out to be a financial homerun if energy prices maintain or rise from current price levels.

When you combine the horrific winter season Jiminy is dealing with right now with an energy complex that has seen oil prices fall from $75/barrel to $53/barrel in two or three months - indicating a significant drop in demand or even a slowing US economy - you have to wonder if Jiminy chose wisely. It is, of course, easy to armchair quarterback with the benefit of hindsight.

In any case, kudos to Jiminy Peak for taking the plunge and going big on wind energy. I, for one, applaud the project and wish them nothing but success with the turbine. I live close by, so when the turbine goes up this summer I'll try and get over there to snap some pictures and do a follow-up.

Posted by tom c. at 8:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)