Category Archives: Alternative Energy

Dept. of Energy’s Analysis Says Wind and Solar Not Competitive

Posted on March 2, 2011 | 1 comment

The Dept. of Energy’s Energy Information Agency (EIA) publishes their take on the relative cost of electrical generation systems every year.  This year’s “Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2011” forecast the dollars per megawatthour prices from different sources of electricity in the year 2016.  The EIA use 2016 because the long lead-time for some technologies are such that they could not be brought on before 2016 unless they were already under construction.

Lets cover some terms here to make sure we understand, before we look at the Levilized cost table, what criteria the EIA used to assemble it.

Levelized cost is often cited as a convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies.  Levelized cost reflects overnight capital cost, fuel cost, fixed and variable O&M cost, financing costs, and an assumed utilization rate for each plant type. For technologies such as solar and wind generation that have no fuel costs and relatively small O&M costs, levelized cost changes in rough proportion to the estimated overnight capital cost of generation capacity. For technologies with significant fuel cost, both fuel cost and overnight cost estimates significantly affect levelized cost. “

(Overnight capital cost is the total cost, even if it took several years to build, as if it could be built in one day.)

“The availability of various incentives including state or federal tax credits can also impact the calculation of levelized cost. The values shown in the tables below do not incorporate any such incentives.  .”

A 3% penalty is added to fossil fuel plants that have high CO2 emissions, and that adds to the “ …. cost terms      its impact is similar to that of a $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fee when investing in a new coal plant without CCS,..   The adjustment should not be seen as an increase in the actual cost of financing, but rather as representing the implicit hurdle being added to GHG-intensive projects to account for the possibility they may eventually have to purchase allowances or invest in other GHG emission-reducing projects that offset their emissions.”

This chart gives renewables no credit for available subsidies and fossil fuel plants(coal and natural gas) are penalized for CO2 emissions.

The “total system levelized cost”–  the last column in the chart– is the forecast cost of electricity in 2009 $/megawatthour for each of the examined “plant types”.

The first three natural gas cases would be considered standard power generating facilities and their prices range from $66 to $89 per megawatthour.   The next two are “backup/peak” cases. These unit are natural gas driven turbines designed to be put rapidly into or taken out of service in order to  meet a rapid change in customer electrical demand OR  an unexpected change in supply of electricity.  These turbines are not something you want on-line like a major coal, nuclear or natural gas power generating plant because of their high cost,  but the major plants are not flexible enough to meet rapid demand changes.  In the past, the need for these turbines was, although not exclusively,  to manage rapid demand increases.   But now that wind and solar power are now mandated to be in the mix,  irregular swings in supply must  also be met.  The wind can quit blowing or the sun quit shining resulting in rapid changes in supply that cannot be predicted.   At this time, if the electrical system is required  to take on an electrical supply from either or both wind or solar, the system operators typically have to install matching turbine capacity to meet the swings introduced in the supply by these renewables.

The column labeled “capacity factor” represent the percentage of the rated capacity that is actually delivered by the various types of facilities.  The totally reliable system would operate at capacity 100% all of the time. The major fossil fuel power plant’s inability to produce at rated capacity occurs about 15% of the time.  Often the majority of this loss is due to planned shutdowns for annual maintenance.

Further examination of the chart shows that only the plant type onshore “Wind”   ($97/megawatt hour) is in the ballpark versus the cost for fossil fuel based power-generating facilities.  And none of the wind or solar cases exceeds a capacity factor of  34%,  with solar thermal at 18%.   Many critics say that 34% is misleading high because wind can not be banked upon to meet peak system demand.

What can we conclude from the Department of Energy’s EIA calculations?   Neither wind nor solar are cost competitive versus fossil fuel plants.   And this is likely to remain unchanged for a long time to come.  Through lavish use of subsidies, these facilities can be made to look competitive. However, no matter how the renewable cost looks after subsidies, you are still paying the non-competitive difference as the Federal and State governments are using your tax money to pay for the subsidies.

A final thought on the EIA analysis.  In the real world, duplicate fossil fuel capacity has to be added to match renewable electric supply because it is undependable.  So the backup unit capital cost should be charged against the wind and solar cases to make this comparison reflect reality.  That, of course, would make these renewable energy cases look even less competitive.

To read the EIA levelized cost report click here.

cbdakota

1 Comment

Posted in Alternative Energy, Energy Development, Environment, Windpower

Obama’s Administration Policies Wont Lower Gas Prices

Posted on February 27, 2011 | Leave a comment

Whenever the price of gasoline takes a sharp rise, I get a flood of emails that have some scheme to beat those wascally waiders of our pocket-book–the usual suspect is Exxon/Mobile.   The scheme calls for us to not buy from Exxon or who ever the scheme writer doesn’t like.   Then this narrative says that to get back into the market the target company will have to lower prices thus start a price war.  This scheme might lower prices a few cents per gallon over time but it would not be  significant.  A more effective scheme would be for automotive community to drive 10% fewer miles each month.  The recent recession did affect supply and demand enough to make a significant change in price.  But now that we seem to be climbing slowly out of this really bad economy, we are driving more and the  gasoline prices are moving up.

Along with more miles being driven, the crude oil traders, fearing loss of producing fields resulting from the turmoil in the Middle-East,  are trying to secure their supply.  Thus bidding up of the price of a barrel of crude is underway.  Couple those two issues with the declining value of the dollar, the price  of crude is now in the vicinity of $100 per barrel.  (Remember, oil trades are denominated in dollars US.)

If the citizens of the US really want to bring crude oil prices down (and thus pump pricing) then it will be necessary to implement a program that will be at odds with the current administrations policies.  The Heritage Foundation has a proposal for doing just that: “THREE POLICY CHANGES TO HELP WITH GASOLINE PRICES” on their WebMemo blog site. The thrust of these three policy changes is summarized here:

A Familiar Pattern. When petroleum and gasoline prices shot up during the energy crisis of  1970, the experts and pundits predicted imminent resource exhaustion, skyrocketing prices, and energy poverty. Instead, markets responded by searching for, discovering, and producing enough oil to provide over two decades of low prices. For instance, in the U.S. alone, the number of drilling rigs more than tripled between September 1973 (before the Yom Kippur War and the subsequent Arab oil embargo) and December 1981. Now, imminent oil depletion and the futility of drilling are again supposedly on the horizon. However, increased drilling activity follows increased petroleum prices. Blunting this natural market response will drive up energy prices and reduce national income. This, plus the Keystone XL pipeline and scaling back EPA expansion of the Clean Air Act, would do much to stabilize gas prices and energy costs in general.

The three policy changes necessary according to the Heritage Foundation are:

1  INCREASE DRILLING

  • Relatively small changes in supply can have large impacts on price, especially when markets are tight. And tight markets are what caused the petroleum price spikes of 2008 and will cause them again if production is shut down while demand from a growing world economy squeezes the spare capacity the world has enjoyed for the past couple of years.
  • The first and most obvious place to drill is where there are already drilling rigs and proven reserves— such as the Gulf of Mexico. Despite the majority recommendation of its own scientific panel, the Obama Administration stopped virtually all new drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. There have been recent signs that this policy might change. “Might” needs to be “will,” and soon.

2 SHELVE “LOW-CARBON FUEL STANDARDS”

  • The concept of “low-carbon fuel standards” is driving opposition to a petroleum pipeline from Canada.  With its oil sands, Canada has more proven petroleum reserves than any country other than Saudi Arabia. A consistent ally and long-time friendly neighbor, Canada is exactly the sort of supplier the U.S. should want to fill the gap in the petroleum it cannot produce on its own. But some policymakers want to put these vast reserves off limits to American consumers.
  • The Keystone XL pipeline would bring the U.S. over a million barrels of petroleum each day—more than it imports from either Saudi Arabia or Venezuela (the U.S.’s two largest suppliers after Canada and Mexico). Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should be applauded for her statements in support of the pipeline.  However, other components of the Administration, notably the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), have taken steps to slow or stop the pipeline.

3  STOP EPA ABUSE OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT

  • The EPA’s abuse of the Clean Air Act will drive up refining costs and, therefore, gasoline prices. Though the use of the act to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) would create large problems in many places, the EPA recently started the process to regulate CO2 emissions from refineries. This regulation goes beyond the gasoline reformulation mandates that balkanize gasoline markets with higher-cost boutique fuels.
  • The new CO2 regulation puts an additional burden on refiners’ costs and subsequently raises prices of gasoline, diesel fuel, and home heating oil. Further, it will increase the amount of refined product the U.S. imports and reduce employment in an industry with wages that are more than 40 percent higher than the national average.

To read the Heritage blog in full  click

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, cap and trade, Energy Development, Environment

WINDPOWER AND ELECTRICAL STORAGE-BOSTON CONSULTING REPORT

Posted on February 16, 2011 | 4 comments

Many readers of these posting are familiar with the Boston Consulting Group (BCG). During the years I was active in a business management role, we used BCG to provide consultancy for some of our business ventures.  BCG describes themselves as:

BCG is a global management consulting firm and the world’s leading advisor on business strategy. We partner with clients in all sectors and regions to identify their highest-value opportunities, address their most critical challenges, and transform their businesses.

I cannot speak to their specific claim to be the “world’s leading advisor on business strategy” but I believe that they are among the world’s best.

Why am I qualifying their expertise?   Because I want to use the report they issued in March 2010 as a reference: 1) to increase the reader’s understanding of the issues and 2) for demonstrating that without electricity storage, wind and solar can never make a real impact on electrical supplies.   Their report is titled “Electricity Storage—Making Large-Scale Adoption of Wind and Solar Energies a Reality”.   This report may be seen in total by clicking here.

A prior posting in this blog, “WINDPOWER WITHOUT ENERGY STORAGE DOES NOT COMPUTE” makes the case that these alternative energy sources are unreliable and thus cannot be scheduled as necessary to provide reliable transmission to customers.   Our government is offering large subsidies to make these alternatives “competitive”; however, the alternatives will never be truly competitive without energy storage.

These energy sources require something to compensate for the times when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine.   To compensate, the BCG report discusses four approaches for electricity storage:

  • Grid Extension
  • Conventional Backup Power
  • Demand Side Management
  • Large Scale Storage

Grid Extension “involves linking electricity grids from different regions and transferring power from one to the other to compensate for fluctuations” BCG discusses the problems with this approach and conclude that it “will likely make an important contribution. ……But grid extension is not a standalone solution for the long run.”

Conventional Backup Power is the use of primarily fossil fuel powered generation plants that are brought on line or taken off line to compensate for the swings in Wind and Solar power generation.  BCG’s report presumes that fossil fuel power is the backup and concludes that”…we do not believe conventional backup capacity will be sufficient on its own or sustainable as we move toward a renewables-dominated electricity system in the long term”. (My emphasis added).   There is great momentum for the replacement of fossil fuels, particularly in the political class, as they lust for the attendant taxing and regulating which the removal of fossil fuels from general use would entail.   There is great uncertainty in the science of man-made global warming and thus any taxing and regulating is premature in particular because we are beginning to see an unraveling of this concept at present.

BCG continues by saying “Still we believe that conventional backup capacity will be indispensable for achieving the integration of renewable energy sources into the current power system in the coming years.”

Demand Side Management is described as having customers that are willing to scheduling their production or drying their clothes or what ever around the availability of electricity.   BCG states that this will have limited value and cites studies carried out in Germany and the US  ”found that Demand Side Management offers a demand reduction potential of only approximately 2 percent of peak load.”

Large Scale Storage is the collection of excess power generated, for example, when the wind and sun are peaking.  BCG states the positives for storage “Unlike interregional compensation, storage provides a self-sufficient solution for one specific region and hence is not affected by increases in penetration of fluctuating renewables across the board.

As BCG says,  “The approach is not perfect, however.  All electricity-storage technologies are inefficient to a degree: part of the energy fed into the system cannot be discharged later on and is lost. “ BCG notes that the range of efficiencies ranges from 45% to 80% and BCG states this is a key weakness for storage.  BCG lists the following as possible candidates for commercial storage.

  • Mechanical storage which encompasses pumped hydroelectric               storage, compressed air, and flywheel energy.
  • Thermal storage encompassing hot water, molten-salt, and phase change material storage.
  • Electrical storage including supercapacitors and superconducting magnets
  • Electrochemical storage including flow and static batteries.
  • Chemical or hydrogen storage

BCG looks at the pros and cons of these candidates and you can read the full report and make your own judgment about which ones, if any, will be the winners.

BCG further says:  “While the business case for investing in storage is currently weak, that situation will necessarily change.  Today’s fluctuations in generation are compensated for relatively easily and cheaply by flexible conventional power plants, but the march toward a fossil-fuel free energy landscape continues:……”  and “Wind and solar PV are the most competitive and widely available renewable sources and will certainly account for the lion’s share of the renewable energy produced—-and they require storage to be viable.”

The report is a good source for background information and, and in my view, it supports the obvious conclusion that wind and solar are, at the current time, largely an unnecessary expenditures that the ratepayer must endure.  Two issues are yet to be resolved.  Firstly, to be technically and economically viable electrical storage facility will have to make their way into the system.  Hopefully not, as the BCG report supposes, through yet more subsidies but rather at a time when the market forces are such that these energies are the logical, economic way to go on their own merit.   The second issue is that question of man-made global warming (AGW) theory and the part it is playing.  In my view the time frame for these renewables to make their way into the market should not be predicated on being supported by such a slender reed as AGW.   I believe these renewables will take a hit that will set them back many years when the rate payer revolts against the high price and unreliable delivery brought about by non-economic, government mandates.

cbdakota

4 Comments

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, Energy Development, Environment, Windpower

WINDPOWER WITHOUT ENERGY STORAGE DOES NOT COMPUTE

Posted on January 30, 2011 | 3 comments

Just for starters, lets say it so everyone knows where this posting is coming from:

Because Windpower energy is unreliable and thus cannot be scheduled as necessary  for transmission to customers, it does not make any significant addition to the US energy supply base.  Presently, it thrives only because financial slight of hand (subsidies) and legislative mandates requiring that it be part of the utility’s energy mix.  Moreover, and somewhat ironically, it does not result in a reduction of CO2 from fossil fuel burning; in fact it usually requires additional fossil fuel based generating capacity to provide the backup.

Until such time as reliable and economic energy storages systems are developed wind energy will be an expensive burden to the ratepayers.    If the government wants do spend my money to develop alternative energy sources, put it where it will have real value—energy storage.

Jon Boone posted “Oxymoronic Windpower (Part II:Windspeak)” on the MasterResource site and lists reasons why windpower is not presently a viable energy source:

Let’s examine the evidence.

1.Despite more than 100,000 huge wind turbines in operation around the world, with about 35,000 in North America, no coal plants have been closed because of wind technology. In fact, many more coal plants are in the offing, both in the US and throughout the world. Moreover, a Colorado energetics company, Bentek, recently published a study about wind in Texas and Colorado showing, in its study areas, that wind volatility caused coal plants to perform more inefficiently, “often resulting in greater SO2, NOx, and CO2 emissions than would have occurred if less wind energy were generated and coal generation was not cycled.” Further examination of fuel use for electricity in both states during the time of inquiry suggested that wind caused no reduction in coal consumption.

2.Unpredictable, undispatchable, volatile wind can provide for neither baseload nor peak load situations. It can only be an occasional supplement that itself requires much supplementation. Consequently, as Australian engineer Peter Lang once wrote, since “wind cannot contribute to the capital investment in generating plants… [it] simply is an additional capital investment.”

3.Wind technology does NOT represent alternate energy. Since wind cannot provide controllable power and has no capacity value, it cannot be an alternative for machines that do provide controllable power and high capacity value. Wind therefore is incapable of entering into a zero-sum relationship with fossil-fired capacity—that is, more wind, less coal. All other conditions being equal (demand, supply, weather, etc), more wind generally means more coal.

4.None of the considerable public subsidies for wind, indeed, not even state renewable portfolio standard (RPS) laws, are indexed to measured reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and fossil fuel consumption. Consequently, there is no transparency or accountability for how wind technology will achieve the goals set forth by those policy initiatives. This means that corporations with a lot of fossil-fired marketshare to protect have no obligation to replace it with wind. And they don’t. Because they can’t. Freedom from responsibility is a child’s fairy tale dream come true.

5.The work of a number of independent engineers—Hawkins, Lang, Oswald, Le Pair and De Groot—suggests that even the most effective fossil fuel pairing with wind, natural gas, will very marginally reduce overall natural gas consumption beyond what would occur using only natural gas generators, without any wind whatsoever.

6.Because oil provides barely 1% of the nation’s electricity, wind represents no threat to oil’s marketshare.

Regarding point no. 2 above,  the operator of the electrical distribution system has to provide power that meets the customer’s quantity demand very precisely at a steady voltage and frequency.  With coal, natural gas or hydro the base load can be managed.   To manage the demand peaks and valleys, natural gas turbines are often used as they can be brought on line or taken off line rather rapidly.  These facilities are under the control of power plant operations. Wind however is not controllable.  Sometimes the wind blows,  sometimes it doesn’t and it can change in a matter of minutes from high speed wind to medium speed wind to no wind and vice versa.

If a reliable and cost effective energy storage system were available,   the  windpower unit could direct its production into that system.  The storage system would allow the windpower unit to take advantage of the days when the wind was blowing forcefully and store the power.  This would significantly raise the ratio of delivered power as a function of rated power.  The electrical distribution system operators would know how much power was available and could  schedule it from the storage system.

Alas, no such energy storage system is currently available.

cbdakota

3 Comments

Posted in Alternative Energy, Energy Development, Environment, Windpower

Non-US Companies Lead Wind Energy Program

Posted on June 6, 2010 | Leave a comment

Some of you might be surprised to learn that non-US companies make most of our wind energy equipment and are the principal beneficiaries of wind related stimulus dollars.  But it is true and the Lobbying Organization that seems to be leading this effort is the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).  Russ Choma posted “Foreign Firms Dominate Wind Energy in US, Land Stimulus Dollars” in the Energy Tribune in which he discusses the players, who’s building, where is the money going and what part do American manufacturers play.

Look at what Choma reports about the leadership of the AWEA:

AWEA also claims credit for being “the voice of wind energy in the U.S.” by representing “more than 2,500 member companies and offering a possible solution to the government’s dream agenda for energy and environmental policy: a clean, alternative power source spun out of America’s air. But ironically, this political force is dominated by foreign companies, which make up two-thirds of the organization’s event sponsors. AWEA’s current board president, Donald Furman reports to Iberdrola Renewables from Spain and the previous board president, Jim Walker, works for the French corporation EDF Energies Nouvelles. The powerful association’s controlling “leadership council” has 20 slots, and 10 are filled by representatives of European-owned companies that pay $150,000 a year each for a voice in the political agendas AWEA pushes in D.C.

Foreign companies have a right to participate in lobbying organizations but why is AWEA overwhelmingly directed by foreign companies when rank and file membership is probably overwhelmingly American.  My guess is that they probably set up AWEA and have the money to fund its operation.  (Disclosure:  I represented a major chemical company’s particular product line before my retirement.   We and several other major companies with similar interests formed a trade association and we took over management.  We did not conspire to set prices, nor do anything illegal.  So, I am not suggesting that the AWEA is doing anything illegal either.)

What Choma’s posting does expose is that the monies for equipment and the subsidies for promotion of wind energy go mainly to foreign companies.  Lets look at some examples:

Subsidies

The makeup of the AWEA reflects the state of the wind energy industry in the U.S. America’s wind farms now have the capacity to power as many as 9.7 million homes — about 2 percent of the nation’s energy needs — but foreign companies build many of the turbines being installed today. In part, that’s because American utilities lack the expertise, and few American companies manufacture the equipment. Overseas companies also own and manage many of the wind farms sprouted along our amber fields of grain. Last year their U.S. subsidiaries even tapped the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, sending billions in federal stimulus dollars to foreign-owned energy and manufacturing conglomerates in Europe and Asia.

Through one stimulus measure — the Section 1603 Grant Program — developers of renewable energy are entitled to a reimbursement of 30 percent of the cost of building a facility. Since last September, that government program has given out $2.3 billion to developers of U.S. wind farms. About 70 percent of the rebates — more than $1.6 billion in U.S. tax dollars — has gone to foreign developers, according to an analysis in February by the Washington-based Investigative Reporting Workshop of grant information released by the Department of Energy.

And Manufacturing

Among other goals, the stimulus package is meant to “create new jobs and save existing ones.” Supporters say this particular stimulus program has generated jobs in construction and maintenance of new wind farms. But the bulk of economic activity from investing in wind, as much as 70 percent according to industry analysts, is in manufacturing of turbines, and most of that manufacturing is done by foreign firms.

Wind turbines are composed of a giant steel tower supporting huge blades and a control unit called a nacelle. Both the tower and the turbine’s nacelle (containing the gear box, speed shafts, generator, brakes, and other parts) require a high-level of manufacturing precision and reliability. At last count, 1,758 of the 2,211 turbines put up under this stimulus grant program were built by foreign companies, according to the most recent analysis by the Investigative Reporting Workshop.

Some of these companies have invested in U.S. factories and others are planning to do so. But the level of investment varies widely, from companies like Spain-based Gamesa, which has the ability to completely manufacture some models at its Pennsylvania plants, to India-based Suzlon, which has only one American plant that builds just one component — hubs.

An example of foreign dominance of wind power is the Meadow Lake Wind Farm in Indiana. The farm, which picked up $113 million in U.S. stimulus funds, was developed by a Portuguese firm, Horizon-EDPR. Horizon hired the Danish firm Vestas to construct the turbines using steel towers built by the Vietnam factory, CS Wind, with blades and giant nacelles from Denmark.

A wind farm built for Puget Sound Energy, also by Vestas, received $28.6 million in stimulus funds. Its steel towers also came from Vietnam and the blades and nacelles from Denmark. And the U.S stimulus grant program gave $91.3 million to the Bull Creek wind farm in Texas — a project that consists of 180 Japanese-built wind turbines constructed under the supervision of a British company for Japanese owners who use a French firm to manage the site.

And our manufacturing position is slipping:

It’s not surprising that foreign companies collected the majority of stimulus dollars spent on the wind industry. Compared to mature and vibrant wind power industries in Europe and Asia, the U.S. has only two homegrown wind turbine manufacturers of any significance: General Electric and Clipper Wind. While both have assembly plants in the U.S., they also import many parts from factories overseas. G.E. and Clipper accounted for 49.3 percent of the U.S. turbine market in 2008. By 2009, that had slipped to 45.7 percent. As of late 2009, the two U.S. companies combined have 32.3 percent of the market for wind plants currently under development, according to AWEA market reports.

G.E. has three turbine manufacturing and assembly facilities in the U.S.: Greenville, S.C., Pensacola, Fla., and Tehachapi, Calif. G.E. also operates three wind turbine component manufacturing facilities in China. The company has opened a plant in Vietnam with the announced purpose of manufacturing up to 10,000 tons of components for use by G.E. in other countries.

Senator Schumer (D NY) wants to introduce a “buy American” bill to refocus stimulus spending to create American jobs.  According to Choma:

The bill attempts to apply the same “Buy American” provision that exists in other areas of the stimulus to renewable energy grants, but includes significant exceptions that make it more about transparency than about blocking imports. The proposed law would not apply to products produced by foreign companies at facilities in the U.S., provides exceptions if no American product exists or is too expensive, and requires the “Buy American” clause be applied in line with existing international trade agreements, many of which prohibit protectionist actions. While the “Buy American” clause might not be ironclad, the proposed legislation would require the administration to disclose to Congress how many American jobs would be created with each grant and why a foreign product was used instead of an American one.

To read all of Choma’s posting click here.

Cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, cap and trade, Environment

WHAT IS “GREEN TECH”?

Posted on June 6, 2010 | Leave a comment

I want to feature green technology in my blog more than I have in recent times.  So, it seems that this should begin with some basics and why not do that by using a  Greg Collins posting titled “Green Tech Defined” on the American Thinker website. The term “green tech” gets a lot of use but what does it really mean?    He breaks down the Green Tech term into three subclasses:  Efficiency Tech, Bull Tech, and Real Tech.

Collins begins with Efficiency Tech:

This is what most people conceive of as Green Tech. It is largely based on the principle of conservation of energy or the use of renewable resources to generate energy and consists of solar panels, LED lights, Toyota Priuses, insulation, and the like. These technologies are proven, but we are nearing the plateau of capability for the scientific principles that underlie them. In other words, each dollar spent on research to improve these items yields smaller and smaller gains.

Efficiency Tech products are also becoming a commodity — it is a dead end for businesses looking for growth. American manufacturers specializing in the assorted paraphernalia of the “Green” market will find that their products are identical in quality to those manufactured more cheaply in Asia. As items become commodities, price becomes the most important factor, slimming profit margins and impeding growth. A similar situation happened to computer manufacturers in the last ten years. Several years ago, IBM realized that PCs had become a commodity and offloaded its PC manufacturing business to the Chinese firm Lenovo in order to focus on the much higher profits of its software business. Thus, all those stimulus dollars we spent creating “Green” jobs by supporting efficiency-tech manufacturing in the U.S. were a short-sighted waste; anyone who believes the U.S. can manufacture commodities cheaper than China ignores the lessons of the last thirty years of economic change.

Adding to what Collins says, wind turbines are produced more cheaply overseas than in the US.  Moreover, Chinese solar cells seem to dominate the world market. Cap and Trade bills are designed to ration our energy thus making fuel prices skyrocket. Further these bills tend to have “Buy- American” clauses which will make the already subsidize, overpriced, renewable energy  alternatives, even more costly.

He next defines Bull Tech thus:

Bull Tech is technology that seems visionary but whose “Green” value is illusory because the real environmental or financial costs are concealed, or the widespread adoption of the technology is impossible, or because it is financially unavailable to most Americans.

Examples of Bull Tech include the Chevy Volt, the Tesla, ethanol, and biofuels. Take for example the much-hyped electric automaker Tesla. Can you guess the average cost of a new car sold in America? $28,400. The price of an absolute, base-model, stripped-down Tesla? $50,000. This is after $7,500 tax credit from Uncle Sam, so the real cost is $57,500 plus the cost of installing a 220-volt plug in your garage. Not only are Teslas financially out of reach for the average American, but they aren’t zero emissions, either. The electricity to manufacture and power them has to come from something, and guess where it most comes from? Coal-fired plants.

Just because their real “Green” value is minimal and their future is dim doesn’t mean Bull Tech companies have no role in modern America. Quite the opposite is true. Their plants provide photo-ops for politicians, their stocks serve as pump-and-dump opportunities for speculators, their products serve as social ornaments for the rich, and, most recently, their popularity serves as means through which other companies can mend their reputations.

And he sums it up with Real Tech:

Let me bury a common misconception about the future of Green Tech. Sorry to break your hearts, millennials, but there will be no green “Manhattan Project” in the U.S. Why? Because we lack the clarity of vision, prioritization of resources, and empowerment of leadership that only the bloodiest and most costly war in history could provide. That would be World War II, milleninals. This isn’t 1943 — it’s 2010, and even with 10% unemployment, things are still pretty good from a historical standpoint. That aside, just imagine the modern regulatory headaches involved with practically everything the Manhattan Project did, from the use of eminent domain to take land from a boys’ private school to the above-ground detonation of a nuke inside the lower 48. These days, it takes decades to get permission to install oversized windmills off the Massachusetts coast; keep in mind that in 1945, there was still concern among physicists that a nuclear explosion would light the atmosphere on fire and destroy the world.

A green job is not a machinist working on the propellers for a wind farm. It’s definitely not that hot new electric car your yuppie neighbor just bought. The “Green” economy is the slow, deliberative problem-solving among a computer programmer, an electrical engineer, and an industrial engineer in a cubicle farm in California determining how their plant in China can most efficiently produce their product. That’s what America does best right now.

The bad news is that Green Tech will be a long, hard slog, not a short, sexy photo-op. The good news is that the future looks more like the words on the back of my iPod — “Designed by Apple in California. Assembled in China.

Ok, and thanks for the definitions, Gregory.

To read his full posting,  click here.

Cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, cap and trade, Electric Vehicles, Environment, Uncategorized

AGW is Dead—Preacher and the Bootlegger-Part 3

Posted on May 16, 2010 | Leave a comment

Have you heard the story of the preacher and the bootlegger?  It’s a story where two different sets of moral views cause the preacher and the bootlegger to vote for the same thing. The preacher wants to ban booze. He votes for prohibition.  So does the bootlegger, because his business depends on prohibition.

So we have the preacher and the bootlegger saga underway for those favoring the imposition of Cap and Trade legislation.  The greenie wants to ban CO2 and he believes that by imposing cap and trade, his desire will be accomplish.  The corporate chief wants to ban CO2 because he believes his nuclear generated power will become a vast source of income for his company.  So, if you are John Rowe, CEO of Exelon, you might want to promote the Kerry/Liebermann cap and trade bill in order to make more money.  According to the Daily Caller blog, John Rowe said in an interview with Forbes magazine:

“Exelon needs that legislation to happen sooner rather than later. Without a carbon price of some sort, Exelon’s fortunes aren’t so bright…. Rowe acknowledges [that] ‘There’s nothing that’s going to drive Exelon’s profit in the next couple of years wildly. It just isn’t going to happen.’ Except, of course, carbon legislation. And because of that, the company views spending on lobbying for legislation almost like a capital expense.”

Around the same time as those Exelon revelations, Mike Morris, the CEO of America’s largest coal burning utility, American Electric Power (AEP), told Forbes that the scheme—which, by chance he, too, is promoting—would add billions in additional costs to his company, certainly, but he chuckled at the beauty of it: they get to pass those billions on to the ratepayer, with a little something on top for themselves. Under cost-recovery schemes giving a percentage for their troubles, the more it costs, the better.

These billions, which come from you—at least so long you don’t or can’t leave the energy companies, as Morris notes in his interview—would also in some cases be for no additional capital expenditure or other outlays or obligations on their part, outside of the army of lobbyists—er—”public affairs specialists,” working feverishly to get this burden enacted into law. “Exelon would gain simply because a price on carbon would raise the cost of production for fossil-fuel-powered electricity. Most of that would be passed on to customers, raising the wholesale price of power. Exelon’s revenues would rise, but its costs wouldn’t.”

One notes that Conoco-Phillips was for the House passed Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill until they discovered that the cost of US produced gasoline (something they make a lot of) would be made non-competitive versus imported gasoline.  So then they were against the Waxman-Markey bill.  The new bill—Kerry-Lieberman– applies import duties on imported gasoline.  Wonder of wonders, they are now for this one.

GE stands to gain by the wind and solar requirements in this new law, one would surmise, as they do make wind turbines.   Some companies are fully into alternate fuels, such as biodiesel or ethanol.  They have businesses where they have a technological advantage,  that will be profitable when fossil fuels are being arbitrarily priced out of the market.  Hasn’t President Obama promised to drive the coal operations out of business, by the way?

We have a number of companies, all expecting to profit from the imposition of cap and trade legislation.  The sponsors of the bill are spieling these companies as enlightened, good protectors of the global.   Well just like the bootlegger, one has to realize what are their real motives. They support cap and trade not based on science but on a short-term market place advantage.  They are delusional if they are not aware that in the long run, this system will destroy them too.

Do you think that these companies are looking out for your interests when they back Cap and Trade?

See also AGW is Dead–Long live Cap&Trade-Part 1

AGW is Dead–Cap &Trade Profiteers-Part 2

Cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, cap and trade, Environment

AGW is Dead–Long Live Cap&Trade?-Part 1

Posted on May 15, 2010 | 2 comments

Senator Graham said of the new bill just introduced into the Senate:

“It’s not a global warming bill to me.  Because global warming as a reason to pass legislation doesn’t exist any more.  There is no bipartisan support for a Cap-and-Trade bill based on global warming”.

So why does the misnamed “American Power Act”, despite what Graham said, have a Cap-and-Trade provision when there is no reason to limit CO2?

Graham’s thinking is correct with regard to man-made-global warming (AGW).  The AGW theory was thoroughly discredited when the movement’s leaders’ deceit was exposed by the Climategate scandal. The American people don’t want Cap-and-Trade.  Nor do the Chinese, the Indians, the Brazilian, etc.  Even the Europeans are now saying “no mas” to future cap and trade programs.

Cap-and-Trade is designed to ratchet up the price of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, coal, etc) making them so expensive that we will be required to limit our use of gasoline, electricity, and home heating.  The citizens of the US are convinced that this is something they do not need to do.   And contrary to the warmists and the media spin, it’s not that they are uninformed but rather as they become more informed, they are less and less in favor of Cap-and-Trade.

But the political elites and many rent seeking corporations are determined to foist it on us.  In this case I do not believe they, “as the adults”, think they know better and must lead the “children” to a better place.   Believe me its not altruism, it is money and power that drives them.

The current administration appears to be after control of the Nation’s private sector.  They have voted themselves control of the medical sector.  They have introduced legislation to give them control of the financial sector (the part that they don’t already control).  Now it is energy.

History shows us that government has terrible a record of picking winners and losers in the people’s business.   Think of those nations where the government runs everything.  Put in mind, the Soviet Union, Cuba, and most recently, Greece.  Our nation has been successful because the market place (you and me) picks the winners.  Remember President Carter was going to save us in the 80tys, by funding new facilities to use coal to make synthetic oil. Seemed like a good idea but it was not economically viable.  But with Cap-and-Trade, the Obama government doesn’t care if good choices are made, money will roll into the IRS coffers in any event.

And the government will have control through regulations.  Every liberals dream—tax and regulate.

Senator Kerry says that this is a stronger bill because  some corporations were at the negotiation table and helped formulate this bill.   Yes,  they were, but these corporations are equally as insidious when they carve out dispensations for themselves so that they can profit at the expense of their competition and the people that got them up the ladder by purchasing their products.

In my next blog I will expand on the fraud taking place in Cap and Trade markets, and the disgusting things that some corporations are doing in support of this bill all in the name of profit.

Cbdakota

2 Comments

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, cap and trade, ClimateGate, Environment

The IPCC Must Go-Part 3: The Whitewash

Posted on March 15, 2010 | 2 comments

With much fanfare, the UN says the IPCC will submit to independent review of “procedures and practices”.  The leader of this review will be Robbert H. Dijkgraaf, head of the Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. Dijkgraaf says that his mandate is not to look at past mistakes but to ensure that the IPCC’s next report, its fifth, on the state of climate will be accepted by the public and scientific community. (Emphasis added by Cbdakota). This is a whitewash, not intended to validate the science of man-made global warming (AGW) so badly shattered by Climategate and a myriad of errors in the  2007 IPCC AR4.  He will see that the process is correct, not if the science is correct.  So he may be on his way to Paris, when Berlin should be his destination but he can say with confidence that he stayed within the speed limit and obeyed all road signs.

He intends to get ten top scientists to do the review. You can bet that no one that would have interest in challenging the AGW theory will be part of his panel.  So neither Linzen nor Idso nor Soon nor Spencer nor any other of the distinguished skeptical scientists will have to sit by a telephone so as to not miss the call from Dijkgraaf to join his panel.   For that matter, Steve McIntyre, a man who could keep those ten scientists honest, wont be asked to participate, either.

IPCC must go.  The UN is not willing to appoint a panel of that has warmers and skeptic to review the validity of the science.  That would be risking the death of the entire carbon control gravy train.   So, once again, you see them putting bandages on the corpse in hopes no one notices.

See also IPCC Must Go:Part 1

and        IPCC Must Go:Part 2, Global Temperature Manipulation

Cbdakota

2 Comments

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, cap and trade, ClimateGate, Environment, IPCC

Is Ethanol Fuel Causing Starvation?

Posted on February 11, 2010 | 3 comments

Is the corn used to produce ethanol motor fuel causing a massive increase in undernourished people in the  world?   A posting in the Energy Tribune suggests that using corn to produce ethanol is doing just that.  Their posting is based upon an Earth Policy Institute study which states that the grain consumed for the production of ethanol in 2009  was enough to feed 330 million people for one year at average world consumption.

I am always made a little uneasy by Organizations that can come up with numbers of starving people or homeless people or people without insurance.  Often they are advocates of something just as World Wildlife Fund is, among other things, a creator of lots of  global warming “facts”. There is a comment that follows the posting in the Energy Tribune that makes some pretty good sense too, about why you might want to question the total numbers of people that could have used the corn for food.

However,  the concept that the supported price of ethanol fuel can outbid food uses for the available corn seems very logical; thus it seems likely to have some effect on the amount of corn that was not available for food use. I expect the various interest groups will begin to battle this out and we will learn more in time. Some excerpts from the Energy Tribune blog follows:

The US, says the think tank:

is far and away the world’s leading grain exporter, exporting more than Argentina, Australia, Canada, and Russia combined. In a globalized food economy, increased demand for food to fuel American vehicles puts additional pressure on world food supplies.

From an agricultural vantage point, the automotive hunger for crop-based fuels is insatiable. The Earth Policy Institute has noted that even if the entire US grain crop were converted to ethanol (leaving no domestic crop to make bread, rice, pasta, or feed the animals from which we get meat, milk, and eggs), it would satisfy at most 18 percent of US automotive fuel needs.

When the growing demand for corn for ethanol helped to push world grain prices to record highs between late 2006 and 2008, people in low-income grain-importing countries were hit the hardest. The unprecedented spike in food prices drove up the number of hungry people in the world to over 1 billion for the first time in 2009. Though the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression has recently brought food prices down from their peak, they still remain well above their long-term average levels.

The full posting, including graphs can be read by clicking here.  Be sure to read the interesting comment (probably  by an etoh fuel advocate) at the end of the posting.

Cbdakota

3 Comments

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, Electric Vehicles, Environment