-- Scotts Contracting - StLouis Renewable Energy

Search This Blog

9.10.2010

Stop Global Warming's Evil Twin




Build Green
Scotty, Scotts Contracting
www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com






you have 280 butterfly credits
care2 petitionsite actionAlert

Hi Buz,

If the Earth's oceans didn't absorb one quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions, we'd see even higher greenhouse gas levels and a much hotter global climate. But what's the price to the oceans?

Save our oceans from devastating acidification. »

The acidity of ocean water has risen by 30 percent over the last 250 years, and it's getting worse by the day. Higher acidity means less carbonate in the water, and less carbonate in the water means organisms like shellfish and coral can't develop sturdy skeletons. If dramatic measures aren't taken to stabilize ocean pH levels, high enough acidity could actually cause shellfish and coral to dissolve.

Some people call it "The Other Carbon Problem" or "Global Warming's Evil Twin." Others simply call it one of the gravest threats to marine diversity. No matter what you call it, it's exacting a price from our oceans that neither ecology nor humanity can afford to pay.

We can't wait any longer -- ask the EPA to regulate and decrease greenhouse gas emissions today. »

Thanks for taking action!

Samer
ThePetitionSite


The Earth's Oceans
Turning to Acid
Greenhouse gas emmissions are making our oceans acidic.
Take Action!
  
Take action link: http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/AF2Ar/zKhB/blMjq


Become a fan of Care2 on Facebook Follow Care2 Action Alerts on Twitter

Electric Car Charging Station News

Special Report: Power struggles: charging tomorrow's cars

A Tesla Roadster is electrically charged at Tesla Motors Inc in San Carlos, California Reuters – A Tesla Roadster is electrically charged at Tesla Motors Inc in San Carlos, California July 22, 2009. …





LONDON (Reuters) – Imagine driving across America using a fuel so new you have to carry your own supply wherever you go.

At the start of the 20th century, before the era of ubiquitous gas stations, drivers did just that as they tested the limits of cars like the Ford Model T, which ran on gasoline, kerosene or ethanol and could, if driven carefully, travel more than 150 miles on a full tank.

Now a new generation of drivers is set to embark on a similar kind of experiment. Until recently, most electric vehicles, or EVs as they are often known, have had a range of just a few dozen miles, limiting their usefulness and appeal. That's a big reason the long-talked-about era of electric vehicles has been, well, talked and talked about for so long with little real-world progress.

Over the next couple of years, though, tens of thousands of electric cars will hit the laneways of Europe, the streets of the United States and the gleaming highways of Asia. These new battery-powered vehicles have much longer ranges than their predecessors -- up to 250 miles in the case of the Tesla Roadster, but mostly about 100 miles -- and are likely to be the first to sell in large numbers.

By 2020, says J.D.Power Automotive Forecasting, annual sales of EVs will reach 2 million. Banking giant HSBC is even more optimistic and puts the figure at 9 million. That's still some way short of the 61 million petrol- and diesel-driven vehicles sold around the world in 2009 but a huge leap from the 5,000 or so EVs sold last year.

But even as these shiny new vehicles take to the road, serious questions remain about the infrastructure -- or rather, the lack of infrastructure -- to charge them. In an echo of last century's battle over the best fuel source, the way in which the coming fleet of electric vehicles will be recharged has yet to be settled -- and all the proposed models have flaws.

Some experts believe EVs should plug in at a driver's home or workplace. Others back a global network of roadside recharging stations. One prominent company is pushing the idea of petrol station-like outlets where you can zip in and quickly switch your almost-dead battery for a fully charged one. Another group advocates avoiding "pure" EVs and the problem of charging infrastructure altogether, focusing on cars which use both electricity and gasoline.

The stakes are huge: the pace of the shift to electric vehicles, progress in the fight against climate change, and a market which HSBC bullishly forecast this week would grow 20-fold by 2020 to $473 billion -- a fifth of the entire low-carbon economy.

Despite the hype, it's almost impossible to predict the format or formats most likely to win the great electric vehicle infrastructure battle. Model T owners adopted petrol as their fuel of choice for reasons both obvious -- the falling price of petrol -- and unpredictable: prohibition in 1919 forced ethanol off the market.

The variables today -- technology, political interference, the psychology of car-lovers -- are similarly hard to pin down. "The introduction of electric vehicles is more than a financial matter," says U.S. analyst Sam Jaffe, research manager at IDC Energy Insights. "It's a big anthropological experiment. There's no question that there are drawbacks, but there are also advantages. It requires a re-setting of mindsets and how that unfolds will decide who wins the race."

ON YOUR MARKS, PLUG IN

The starting grid for the coming EV race is filling up quickly. Mitsubishi Motors Corp's jelly bean-shaped i-MiEV has been on sale in Japan since April and will launch in the United States and Europe over the coming few months. The Japanese automaker is also making two versions of the car for French automaker PSA Peugeot Citroen.

Nissan is set to roll out its edgy-looking Leaf in December, while corporate partner Renault will start selling its mid-sized Fluence ZE (for zero emissions) in the first half of next year.

Europe's biggest automaker Volkswagen, a late entrant in the competition, plans to launch all-electric vehicles in 2013, though it says zero-emission vehicles will account for 3 percent of sales by 2018.

These "pure" electric vehicles face competition from dual gasoline-electric cars. Sometimes called extended range cars, these vehicles can charge at a plug-in socket or switch over to gasoline, and include General Motors' Chevrolet Volt, which goes on sale in the United States from this year for $41,000, and in Britain a year later.

Will the charging infrastructure be able to keep up with all those new cars? The question is critical. "If it's too difficult to charge an electric vehicle, too inconvenient, the customers will not buy them," says Christian Feisst, managing director of business development for smart grid at U.S. networking giant Cisco Systems. "Today a lot of the work is around battery technology and the behavior of customers. There is not a lot of work done around the charging technology, or the charging process itself, nor how to manage charging."

A BATTERY PROPHET

One company that is sinking millions into technology is Better Place, a three-year-old California-based firm that has raised about $700 million from investors and imagines a vast global network of "switch stations": gas station-like outlets where drivers can swap a spent battery with a fully charged one in a few minutes.

Led by soft-spoken Israeli-born founder Shai Agassi, a former executive at SAP, the company boasts of having built "the largest cleantech investment in history". Last January, HSBC bought a 10 percent stake which valued Better Place at $1.25 billion.

Since earlier this year, the eco firm has been running a trial in Tokyo using three taxi cabs and will soon start testing a small network of stations in Israel, where it says it has deals with 92 corporate fleet owners. It expects a commercial launch in Israel and in Denmark in late 2011, and has plans in five other countries, including Australia, China and the United States.

The swap station model's main selling point is speed. Charging an EV battery can take up to eight hours. By switching batteries instead, that wait is reduced to three to four minutes. The company says its business model -- a subscription plan which covers the use of switch stations, the lease of a battery and the electricity used -- cuts a large cost item, the battery, out of the upfront price tag for the car.

"The underlying assumption that we're working by is that this is too big a market to do half solutions," says Jason Wolf, head of Better Place North America. "You're not going to get to mass adoption by people paying a premium because they want to be green or any other reason."

Early adopters, he says, will always buy cars like the Nissan Leaf and the Tesla Roadster, which retail at about $33,000 and $109,000 respectively. Better Place will reach beyond that niche to the drivers -- commuters, salespeople, small business owners -- who put tens and even hundreds of thousands of miles a year on the clock. "There's not a problem getting early adopters. That's great, we need them and we support those types of vehicles, but really where the heart of the market lies is the third of drivers who are burning two thirds of the gasoline."

CAN SWITCHING GET HIP?

But questions remain. In Israel, industry heavyweights including two of the country's biggest car fleets have adopted a wait-and-see approach to Better Place's trial. Eldan, a major leasing company whose cars are ubiquitous on Israeli roads, says it is in close contact with Better Place, but will not sign on until the electric-powered vehicles arrive and the technology is in place. "At that time we can determine its quality and will positively consider a relationship with the company," Eldan said in a statement.

There's also little sign that major automakers are ready to start producing cars with "switchable" batteries. The Israel and Denmark schemes both benefit from generous local tax breaks for non-polluting cars, and will use Renault's Fluence ZE model. So far, Renault is the only carmaker to announce a switchable car. Renault's decision was helped by Better Place guaranteeing a production run of 100,000.

With 57,000 soft orders for the car by July -- most of them from fleet companies -- interest in the Fluence ZE has been greater than expected, insists Better Place. Still, prospective customers have paid no deposit nor made any financial commitment to buy.

"Better Place was a catalyst for Renault to go mass market with the electric version of Fluence," says a Renault spokeswoman, adding that it was "hard to say" whether the model would have seen daylight without that guarantee.

Wolf concedes that Better Place will have problems if it can't convince other automakers to join the French carmaker in embracing "switchable" batteries. But "given where we are in discussions (with automakers) and the logic behind it that all of them see, I don't see it as a major concern," he says.

Perhaps. But even if Better Place can convince other automakers of the logic of its model, there's still the question of what sort of batteries they would use. The electric vehicles on the road or in the works all use batteries of different types -- nickel sodium chloride, lithium-ion, lithium-metal-polymer -- and sizes.

Better Place says it expects to cater for about three different battery types -- more would impose greater warehousing demands at its switch stations -- and predicts other carmakers will eventually settle on one of those types.

"You may hold an inventory of two, three types at first and over time what's going to happen is that pressures for OEMs (carmakers) to differentiate on batteries goes away, because you're manufacturer number three, four, five and you haven't already developed your own battery. At that point you're just going to take the least-cost, or best product for the overall vehicle," argues Wolf.

POWER-SHARING

Automakers, though, say standardized batteries are far from inevitable. The world's biggest carmaker Toyota says it will continue to prioritize building cars for safety and performance, not to make it easy to get a battery in and out. There's also the fact that auto owners and manufacturers will be unable to track a battery -- where it's been, the conditions it faced -- which might make it difficult to diagnose problems in a car.

"It is hard to imagine," says Toyota's Managing Director in Europe Graham Smith, of standardized batteries. "What if a manufacturer feels like they can move faster?"

For now, Toyota and General Motors have both chosen a dual, plug-in electric-gasoline approach which by-passes the need for charging away from home.

Even carmakers focused on pure EVs are hesitant to sign up. "Every manufacturer has a different battery type, battery size, method for removing the battery," says Andy Wertheim, general manager of environmental affairs at Mitsubishi in Britain. "Certainly at the moment we see that battery swapping is not relevant for us and for the foreseeable future."

Nissan, which shares a CEO in its alliance with Renault, also has doubts, citing its own research that shows that people prefer to own rather than lease a battery. "There are different battery layouts, batteries are shaped differently. That means even between Nissan and Renault already there are two types of battery. So I just think: how do you store those?" asks Jerry Hardcastle, vice president of vehicle design and development at Nissan Motor Co's technical center Europe. Nevertheless, he concedes the Better Place model might eventually work. "We're watching very closely what's going on in Israel."

THE COMING NETWORK?

Better Place's main competition will come from extended range cars or the myriad companies building and promoting charge spots or stations: parking meter-like posts on a street, in a car park or elsewhere into which you plug your car to top up its battery.

One such is California-based ECOtality, which has won $130 million funding from the U.S. Department of Energy to install and trial charge spots across the United States. The company expects to install 20,000 stations by May next year.

Other big players in the fast-growing market are U.S.-based Coulomb Technologies, which has about 850 vehicle charge spots installed, Britain's Elektromotive, which has about 1,000, and AeroVironment, which has some 14,000 industrial chargers for the likes of fork lift trucks. Better Place also plans to install charge spots alongside its switch station hubs.

"We view this as like cellphone coverage: the person with the largest network is ultimately going to win," says Jonathan Read, chief executive and president of ECOtality. "Better Place is going to take a long time and a lot of money to roll it out. We're able to hit the ground and have a greater network distribution before they even start putting their first chargers in the ground."

The Better Place battery swap model, he says, "is egregiously flawed - the concept of vehicle manufacturers agreeing to any sort of common battery is like herding cats."

Office buildings, utilities, local governments and car park operators are all likely customers for EV charging stations. ECOtality will soon announce a deal to install charge points in gas stations, whose owners are keen to entice EV drivers into their convenience stores.

Other retailers see the logic in the schemes. "Demand is not very high at the moment," says Jack Cunningham, environmental affairs manager at British retailer Sainsbury, which offers free charging to customers. "We take a fairly long-term view that will increase."

But building the huge networks of charge posts that many envisage as the future will not be cheap -- and some experts question the economics of such schemes. In the UK, a single street-side charge post can cost up to 5,000 pounds ($7,700) to install. But with electricity providers making less than 2 pounds per charge, few see the business case for deploying them. "We calculated that the payback was more than 50 years at the current electricity cost in Spain," says Jorge Sanchez Cifuentes, EV project manager at Endesa, a Spanish utility. British power providers voice similar concerns.

"Getting the capex back is a bit of a stumbling block," concedes Calvey Taylor-Haw, founder of UK-based charge spot firm Elektromotive. "You've got to have lots of money from central government."

Cisco's Feisst says state subsidies are the only way to get the infrastructure in place. "If you want to make long-distance drives then you need a public charging infrastructure," he says. "Utilities don't make a lot of money with public charging infrastructure so there must be government support to develop that, especially in the initial years when penetration of EVs is not high."

As governments cut spending in this age of austerity, though, such subsidies are likely to dry up, making a distant dream of plans for a network of systems that offer drivers universal charging with the cost billed back to a single provider.

CHARGE ME, QUICK

Then there's the time factor. Recharging an EV can take up to eight hours, though that is coming down fast.

AeroVironment says it has devised a 50 kilowatt electric charger based on DC electricity which can power a Nissan Leaf in just 26 minutes, though each unit would cost $30-40,000. ECOtality says it can charge a Nissan Leaf to 80 percent full in 15 minutes using its 60 amp fast charger, which will cost $20-25,000 apiece. Better Place switch station hubs will cost about $500,000 to build.

"In my opinion we're talking five to 10 years to have the right battery technology available that can make longer distances and allow faster charging," says Cisco's Feisst. "It's critical to have a fast charging process at public charging stations, and then we don't need to replace the batteries."

Fast chargers have their own problems, according to IDC Energy Insights' Sam Jaffe, potentially damaging batteries and creating intolerable power surges on the grid. "We are extremely skeptical about very-quick charge stations. It's technically feasible but on a large scale it would be very damaging for the grid."

ECOtotality calls that argument "fallacious". But Better Place spokeswoman Julie Mullins agrees and says that's why the swappable battery model will win out: "Our mission is to break dependence on oil and we can't wait 10 years for a better battery."

LESS MAY BE MORE

With all the uncertainty about battery-swap stations and recharging posts, it's not surprising that a growing number of EV backers see a minimalist approach -- charging at home or at the office -- as the best way ahead.

Because of safety concerns around the long, continuous load required to power an EV, carmakers are expected to mandate a home-charging device with every vehicle they sell. Little wonder that companies like Elektromotive, one of Britain's biggest manufacturers of public charging devices, have moved into home-charging stations.

Bethan Carver, Manager of Product Development at EDF Energy, the UK arm of French utility EDF, says the modest initial uptake of electric cars almost ensures most charging will be done at home. "It's more important to develop charging solutions at home or at work. Our view is that only a small fraction of charging demand will take place on the street, a couple of percent ongoing."

HELPING THE ANXIOUS

Of course home-charging won't work for people who live in apartments and have no designated parking space. And there may be another, more curious reason why at least some roadside charge spots will be needed: to alleviate the "range anxiety" that many drivers of electric cars seem to suffer.

"People were really apprehensive to drive because there was nowhere to charge," says Mitsubish's Andy Wertheim, of a pilot project in Kanagawa, Japan. But with the addition of a GPS system and even a single quick charging post "it was amazing what happened with how much further people drove."

Nissan has found similar results. People who charged their cars at home at first "go to the areas of Tokyo where there are quick charging points. But because we can track where they're going, as a research activity, bizarrely when they get there they don't charge their cars up. They go back home and recharge at home," says Nissan's Hardcastle.

A SPLIT SOLUTION

In the end, it may be that the electric car market splits in two: urban drivers and fleet operators happy with limited range at low cost in one group, and motorists who want to go further and buy an extended range car in the other. "For the next 20 years I think that will see us through," says Paul Nieuwenhuis from Cardiff's Center for Automotive Industry Research. "I don't know if battery swap is the answer."

"The fundamental problem of Better Place is it's going to cost so much. Can they raise that amount of capital?" asks Jaffe, adding that he still sees "a lot of intelligence" in the model.

"For me it's a question of timing," says EDF Energy's Bethan Carver. "A lot of the debate so far is on future possibilities."

(With additional reporting by Ari Rabinovitch in Tel Aviv and Chang-Ran Kim in Tokyo; editing by Simon Robinson and Sara Ledwith)



--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

9.09.2010

Xcel wind-to-battery test and Hawaii Wind Project




Dear States Advancing Wind Members,

 

A couple wind deployment-storage items that may be of interest to you from DOE's State News Monthly Report.

 

Best,

Anne

 

Xcel Energy's Wind-to-Battery Test Shows Promise

August 11, 2010

In its quest to store wind energy and move it to the grid, Xcel Energy has reached a milestone in its preliminary tests of a one-megawatt (MW) battery-storage technology system, the company announced on August 3. The Wind-to-Battery Project showed it was possible to reduce the need to compensate for the variability of wind generation, Xcel Energy said. It is the first U.S. use of the sodium sulfur battery-storage technology as direct energy storage, according to Xcel Energy. The small demonstration project was part of the company's research into how to integrate unpredictable renewable energy into the grid. Begun in October 2008, the research is being conducted with a battery installation in Luverne, Minnesota, that is connected to a nearby 11-MW wind farm. Twenty 50-kilowatt battery modules in the demonstration weigh approximately 80 tons and are able to store about 7.2 megawatt-hours of electricity, with a charge/discharge capacity of one megawatt. Fully charged, the battery could power 500 homes for more than seven hours.

The preliminary test results indicate this technology can shift wind energy from off-peak to on-peak availability, and can support the regional electricity market by responding to real-time imbalances between generation and load. The system could provide voltage to the transmission grid, which would contribute to system reliability, according to Xcel Energy. Testing will continue to see how the battery system handles larger amounts of wind energy transfers to the grid. The next phase of the project will determine the potential cost effectiveness of the technology. A final report for the project, which received a $1 million grant from Xcel Energy's Renewable Development Fund, is expected in summer 2011. See the Xcel press release and the Wind-to-Battery report (PDF 2.94 MB). Download Adobe Reader.

 

DOE Closes $117 Million Loan Guarantee for Hawaii Wind Project

August 04, 2010

DOE announced on July 27 that it finalized a $117 million loan guarantee for Kahuku Wind Power, LLC, and its 30-megawatt (MW) Kahuku Wind Power project in Hawaii. The project includes the development of an innovative wind power plant that will supply electricity to approximately 7,700 households per year. According to company estimates, the project, located on Oahu's North Shore, will create more than 200 jobs on the island. The project will be the first to meet reliability requirements for wind and solar energy set by Hawaiian Electric Company, the only electric utility operating on Oahu.

The Kahuku project, which began construction in July, uses 12 2.5-MW Liberty wind turbine generators manufactured by Clipper Windpower and a 10-MW battery energy storage system that will modulate and smooth fluctuations in power output caused by changes in wind levels. First Wind Holdings, LLC, the project sponsor and an independent U.S.-based wind energy developer, successfully built and currently operates Hawaii's largest wind energy facility, the 30-MW Kaheawa Wind project on Maui, which generates 9% of the island's annual electricity needs. See press releases from DOE and First Wind, and the DOE Loan Guarantee Program Web site.

 

 

The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) publishes this summary of news stories posted the past month on the EERE State Activities & Partnerships Web site. EERE collects news stories dealing with state involvement in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects from EERE technology program Web sites, the State Energy Program, and EERE Network News.


_______________________________________________
WindPower mailing list
WindPower@cleanenergystates.org
http://eight.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/windpower
If you will to be removed from this list, please contact anne@cleanegroup.org. Thank you.



--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Rick Scotts Florida Nuclear Plans

Rick Scott owes Floridians answers on Nuclear

Scott calls for nuclear, but at what cost?

By Mike Antheil

West Palm Beach, FL

Yesterday the Rick Scott campaign attacked a group of businessmen and farmers who believe that renewable energy is the path to creating new jobs and growing Florida's economy. His response - more nuclear.

"widespread renewable energy, at a fraction of the cost of nuclear, will create the tens of thousands of jobs and attract billions of dollars in private investments that the state desperately needs."

We have three simple questions of the Rick Scott campaign:

  1. How much extra nuclear will Florida need?
  2. How much extra is Rick Scott willing to tax ratepayers to pay for it?
  3. Isn't the Scott campaign really just advocating taxing ratepayers to create profit for the one or two companies that are actually capable of building additional nuclear reactors?  

Rick Scott owes Floridians answers, and he owes the small businesses in Florida a chance to explain how widespread renewable energy, at a fraction of the cost of nuclear, will create the tens of thousands of jobs and attract billions of dollars in private investments that the state desperately needs.



--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Floridas Renewable Energy Projects and Politics

RENEWABLE ENERGY BUSINESS SECTOR RESPONDS TO RICK SCOTT ATTACK

With his trademark attacks, Scott bashes a group of businessmen and farmers who support renewable energy.

By FARE Staff

Delray Beach, FL

A group of businessmen, farmers and renewable energy advocates who met today to support Alex Sink for Governor, were abruptly met with an attack from the Rick Scott campaign.

"Nuclear reactors create electricity, they do not create jobs and manufacturing."

According to Mike Antheil, Executive Director of the Florida Alliance for Renewable Energy (FARE):

It is sad that Rick Scott will not publicly or even in writing say anything at all about encouraging a renewable energy industry in Florida as Alex Sink has done. We are not left-leaning, we are business people, many of whom are Republicans. Instead of dispatching his attack dogs whose only solution is to attack Alex Sink on issues that have nothing to do with renewable energy, we suggest Rick Scott stand up in public and allow the business community of the renewable energy industry to ask him what he intends to do to create jobs and manufacturing in our business sector. As Floridians, we should demand to know how much is Rick Scott willing to tax every ratepayer for the development of nuclear power. The bottom line is that at a fraction of the cost of nuclear development, widespread renewable energy through disrtubuted generation will create tens of thousands of jobs and attract billions of dollars to our state, in addition to long term growth and manufacturing. Nuclear reactors create electricity, they do not create jobs or manufacturing.

Rick Scott's off the cuff remarks will hit home with the farm to fuel and biomass industry, who among other interests at todays event were called "leftist" by the Scott campaign. Today it become clear as ever that Rick Scott does not know what he is talking about, or in this case "attacking about", which is why the renewable enegry industry business folks are endorsing Alex Sink. We have studied both campaigns, and besides todays attack Rick Scott has been notably silent on the renewable energy platform. Rick Scott needs to say something of substance or stop attacking small business people.



--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Colorado – A Leader in Wind Energy- Promotes Renewable Energy

Colorado – A Leader in Wind Energy

The state that ranks 11th in the U.S. for wind energy potential is getting serious about promoting renewables.
Published: September 2, 2010
Colorado, United States -- Colorado, with its high mountains and broad plains, has expansive wind resources. With an estimated six million acres of windy lands in Colorado, most of which are located on the eastern plains, Colorado ranks 11th in the United States in wind energy potential. To take advantage of its substantial renewable energy resources, Colorado has created a regulatory environment that makes it attractive to develop wind farms and other renewable energy projects within its borders.
In the past several years, Colorado has developed and implemented numerous policies that promote the development of wind and other renewable energy resources, including an aggressive Renewable Energy Standard and an ambitious Energy Efficiency Resource Standard.  Colorado House Bill 1001 was signed into law by Governor Bill Ritter in March of 2010 establishing a new Renewable Energy Standard for Colorado, obligating retail electric service providers to generate a portion of their electricity from renewable energy sources, including wind, solar, geothermal and biomass. In 2015, the Renewable Energy Standard in Colorado moves to 20 percent, and in 2020, the Renewable Energy Standard in Colorado jumps to 30 percent.
As a counterpart to the Renewable Energy Standard, the Energy Efficiency Resource Standard, implemented in 2009, sets a quantitative long-term energy savings target for utilities mandating that by 2020, investor-owned utilities increase their energy efficiency, resulting in a 11.5 percent decrease in energy use by 2020.  Working in tandem, the Renewable Energy Standard and Energy Efficiency Resource Standard will certainly promote the development of wind and other renewable energy resources in Colorado over the next ten years.
To promote a clean energy economy, Colorado's governors have demonstrated an interest in wind projects and other clean energy projects making a concerted effort to reach out to developers and manufacturers of clean energy and energy efficient technologies.  These efforts have begun to reap rewards.  Colorado has nearly quadrupled the amount of wind power on the grid since Governor Ritter took office in 2006, with the opening of several new large wind farms in southwest and northeast Colorado, which have the capacities of more than 800 MW.
Further, legislation passed over the last ten years has helped to create various financial benefits to wind developers and other clean energy companies.  This legislation has resulted in a variety of tax credits, tax incentives, rebates, loans and grants becoming available at both the state and local level for renewable energy projects.  The most significant programs for the wind industry include a state property tax incentive, a state sales tax incentive, and a state grant program.
In Colorado, property tax for utility-scale electric-generating facilities has traditionally been based on the installed cost.  However, in order to provide a more competitive environment for wind energy, which has higher construction costs than other utility production facilities, Colorado has adopted a law that assesses property taxes for wind energy facilities using a calculation method based on cost, revenue generated from electricity sales and a tax factor multiplier, all of which is intended to result in property tax assessments that are competitive with other non-renewable utility production facilities.
Colorado also exempts from its state sales and use tax, sales and use of components used in the production of electricity from renewable energy sources.  In addition, the legislature has established a Clean Energy Fund for the purpose of advancing energy efficiency and renewable energy throughout the state.  Grants are awarded from the Clean Energy Fund on a competitive basis.
Not only has Colorado created the financial incentives discussed above, but it has done an outstanding job in attracting both venture capital and federal stimulus grants for renewable energy projects.  Colorado ranked 5th among all states for venture capital invested in renewable energy projects between 2006 and 2008, and 15th in competitively awarded federal stimulus grants for renewable energy projects.
Wind farm developers in the Rocky Mountain West in need of a highly skilled work force will likely find Colorado to be an appealing location with its highly educated and skilled workforce.  In particular, Colorado has more than 100,000 employees working in engineering, computing and scientific research related businesses.  The state also boasts the fourth highest concentration in the nation of clean energy jobs, with 17,000 jobs in clean energy and clean energy research.
Although Colorado has worked hard to create a business environment that should continue to attract private and public investment and innovative renewable energy companies, its biggest challenge will be to commit the time, energy and resources necessary to update and improve an outdated, overstressed electrical grid, and to build the network of transmission lines that will be critical to the long term success Colorado hopes to achieve with respect to large scale wind development within the state.
Colorado is leading the way in supporting renewable energy resources by creating a regulatory and business environment that is supportive of wind development. Without the measures that Colorado has purposely put into place to facilitate the development of wind energy in Colorado, wind energy would not be as prevalent here as it is.
It takes a concerted effort by political and business leaders to implement policy and provide financial incentives to encourage the development of wind energy resources.  According to an article in the Denver Post, U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Gary Locke, commented during a recent visit to Denver, that the United States could miss a key opportunity for growing the economy if it fails to take Colorado's lead in pursuing the new-energy economy, which has helped Colorado attract thousands of jobs in renewable energy technologies.
Greg Vallin is a shareholder in the law firm of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck's Denver office and member of its Real Estate Group. He represents national, regional and local clients in real estate development, acquisitions and dispositions, leasing and financing.


--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Fossil Fuel Pollution vs Wind Energy Emissions

With the Energy Sectors Competing for our Energy Dollars many Un-truths are being levied by the Fossil Fuel Organizations.  In the Following Article the Author explains that Wind Energy Emissions is Truly Green Energy Production with no Harmful Emissions. Build Green, Scotty


The Facts About Wind Energy and Emissions

Anti-wind groups are attempting to defy the laws of physics with their claims.
Published: September 1, 2010
Washington, DC, United States -- Recent data and analyses have made it clear that the emissions savings from adding wind energy to the grid are even larger than had been commonly thought. In addition to each kilowatt-hour (kWh) of wind energy directly offsetting a kWh that would have been produced by a fossil-fired power plant, new analyses show that wind plants further reduce emissions by forcing the most polluting and inflexible power plants offline and causing them to be replaced by more efficient and flexible types of generation.
At the same time, and in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the fossil fuel industry has launched an increasingly desperate misinformation campaign to convince the American public that wind energy does not actually reduce carbon dioxide emissions. As a result, we feel compelled to set the record straight on the matter, once and for all.
Fossil Fuel's Desperate War against Facts
Not to be deterred by indisputable data, numerous refutations, or the laws of physics, the fossil fuel lobby has doubled down on their desperate effort to muddy the waters about one of the universally recognized and uncontestable benefits of wind energy: that it reduces the use of fossil fuels as well as the emissions and other environmental damage associated with producing and using these fuels.
For those who have not been following this misinformation campaign by the fossil fuel industry, here is a brief synopsis. Back in March 2010, AWEA heard public reports that the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States (IPAMS), a lobby group representing the oil and natural gas industry, was working on a report that would attempt to claim that adding wind energy to the grid had somehow increased power plant emissions in Colorado.

Perplexed at how anyone would attempt to make that claim, AWEA decided to take a look at the relevant data, namely the U.S. Department of Energy's data tracking emissions from Colorado's power plants over time. The government's data, reproduced in the table below, show that as wind energy jumped from providing 2.5% of Colorado's electricity in 2007 to 6.1% of the state's electricity in 2008, carbon dioxide emissions fell by 4.4%, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions fell by 6%, coal use fell by 3% (571,000 tons), and electric-sector natural gas use fell by 14%. (Thorough DOE citations for each data point are listed here (PDF).) Two conclusions were apparent from looking at this data: 1. the claim the fossil fuel industry was planning to make had no basis in fact, and 2. the fossil industry was understandably frustrated that they were losing market share to wind energy.

Change in Colorado Power Plant Fossil Fuel Use and Emissions from 2007-2008, as Wind Jumped from Providing 2.5% to 6.1% of Colorado Electricity

In early April, AWEA publicly presented this government data, and when the fossil fuel lobbyists released their report later that month it was greeted with the skepticism it deserved and largely ignored. Case closed, right? We thought so, too.


After the initial release of the report fell flat, the fossil fuel industry tried again a month later. John Andrews, founder of the Independence Institute, a group that has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding from the fossil fuel industry, penned an opinion article in the Denver Post parroting the claims of the original report. Fortunately, Frank Prager, a vice president with Xcel Energy, the owner of the Colorado power plants in question, responded with an article entitled "Setting the record straight on wind energy" that pointed out the flaws in the fossil industry's study and reconfirmed that wind in fact has significantly reduced fossil fuel use and emissions on their power system. Having been shot down twice, we thought that the fossil industry would surely put their report out to pasture.

Yet just a month later the report resurfaced, this time in Congressional testimony by the Institute for Energy Research, a DC-based group that receives a large amount of funding from many of the same fossil fuel companies that fund the Independence Institute. The group has continued trumpeting the report's myths at public events around the country and on their website, and these myths are now beginning to spread through the pro-fossil fuel blogosphere. In recent days, these myths have re-appeared in columns by Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the fossil-funded Manhattan Institute.

The fossil fuel industry's desperate persistence and deep pockets make for a dangerous combination when it comes to distorting reality, so we'd like to once and for all clarify the facts about how wind energy reduces fossil fuel use and emissions.

The Truth about Wind and Emissions

The electricity produced by a wind plant must be matched by an equivalent decrease in electricity production at another power plant, as the laws of physics dictate that utility system operators must balance the total supply of electricity with the total demand for electricity at all times. Adding wind energy to the grid typically displaces output from the power plant with the highest marginal operating cost that is online at that time, which is almost always a fossil-fired plant because of their high fuel costs. Wind energy is also occasionally used to reduce the output of hydroelectric dams, which can store water to be used later to replace more expensive fossil fuel generation.

Let's call this direct reduction in fossil fuel use and emissions Factor A. Factor A is by far the largest impact of adding wind energy to the power system, and the emissions reductions associated with Factor A are indisputable because they are dictated by the laws of physics.

In some instances, there may also be two other factors at play: a smaller one that can slightly increase emissions (let's call it Factor B), and a counteracting much larger one that, when netted with B, will further add to the emissions reductions achieved under Factor A (let's call this third one Factor C).

Factor B was discussed at length in an AWEA fact sheet (PDF) published several years ago. This factor accounts for the fact that, in some instances, reducing the output of a fossil-powered plant to respond to the addition of wind energy to the grid can cause a very small reduction in the efficiency of that fossil-fueled power plant. It is important to note that this reduction in efficiency is on a per-unit-of-output basis, so because total output from the fossil plant has decreased the net effect is to decrease emissions.

As a conservative hypothetical example, adding 100 MW of wind energy output to the grid might cause a fossil plant to go from producing 500 MW at 1000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour (MWh) (250 tons of CO2 per hour) to producing 400 MW at 1010 pounds of CO2/MWh (202 tons of CO2 per hour), so the net impact on emissions from adding 100 MW of wind would be CO2 emissions reductions of 48 tons per hour. Unfortunately, fossil-funded groups have focused nearly all of their attention on Factor B, which in this example accounts for 2 tons, while completely ignoring the 50 tons of initial emissions reductions associated with Factor A. (See Footnote 1.) A conservative estimate is that the impact of Factor B is at most a few percent of the emissions reductions achieved through factor A.

Factor C is rarely included in discussions of wind's impact on the power system and emissions, but the impact of Factor C is far larger than that of Factor B, so that it completely negates any emissions increase associated with Factor B. Factor C is the decrease in emissions that occurs as utilities and grid operators respond to the addition of wind energy by decreasing their reliance on inflexible coal power plants and instead increase their use of more flexible – and less polluting – natural gas power plants. This occurs because coal plants are poorly suited for accommodating the incremental increase in overall power system variability associated with adding wind energy to the grid, while natural gas plants tend to be far more flexible. (Footnote 2)

To summarize, the net effect of Factors A, B, and C is to reduce emissions by even more than is directly offset from wind generation displacing fossil generation (Factor A).

Study after Study

Unsurprisingly, government studies and grid operator data show that this is exactly what has happened to the power system as wind energy has been added. A study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) released in January 2010 found drastic reductions in both fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions as wind energy is added to the grid. The Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study (EWITS) used in-depth power system modeling to examine the impacts of integrating 20% or 30% wind power into the Eastern U.S. power grid.

The EWITS study found that carbon dioxide emissions would decrease by more than 25% in the 20% wind energy scenario and 37% in the 30% wind energy scenario, compared to a scenario in which our current generation mix was used to meet increasing electricity demand. The study also found that wind energy will drastically reduce coal generation, which declined by around 23% from the business-as-usual case to the 20% wind cases, and by 35% in the 30% wind case.

These results were corroborated by the DOE's 2008 technical report, "20% Wind Energy by 2030," which also found that obtaining 20% of the nation's electricity from wind energy would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 25%.The fact that this study found emissions savings to be even larger than the amount directly offset by adding wind energy is a powerful testament to the role of Factor C in producing bonus emissions savings. By running scenarios in which wind energy's variability and uncertainty were removed, NREL's EWITS study was able to determine that it was in fact these attributes of wind energy that were causing coal plants to be replaced by more flexible natural gas plants. (See page 174 of the study.)

As further evidence, four of the seven major independent grid operators in the U.S. have studied the emissions impact of adding wind energy to their power grids, and all four have found that adding wind energy drastically reduces emissions of carbon dioxide and other harmful pollutants. While the emissions savings depend somewhat on the existing share of coal-fired versus gas-fired generation in the region, as one would expect, it is impossible to dispute the findings of these four independent grid operators that adding wind energy to their grids has significantly reduced emissions. The results of these studies are summarized below.

Independent Grid Operators' Calculations of Wind's Emissions Savings

It is even more difficult to argue with empirical Department of Energy data showing that emissions have decreased in lockstep as various states have added wind energy to their grids. In addition and in almost perfect parallel to the Colorado data presented earlier, DOE data for the state of Texas show the same lockstep decrease when wind was added to its grid. This directly contradicts the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States report when it attempts to claim that wind has not in fact decreased emissions in Texas.

Specifically, DOE data show that wind and other renewables' share of Texas's electric mix increased from 1.3% in 2005 to 4.4% in 2008, an increase in share of 3.1 percentage points. During that period, electric sector carbon dioxide emissions declined by 3.3%, even though electricity use actually increased by 2% during that time. Because of wind energy, the state of Texas was able to turn what would have been a carbon emissions increase into a decrease of 8,690,000 metric tons per year, equal to the emissions savings of taking around 1.5 million cars off the road.

A Time for Change
The fossil fuel industry's latest misinformation campaign is reminiscent of scenes that played out in Washington in previous decades, as tobacco company lobbyists and their paid "experts" stubbornly stood before Congress and insisted that there was no causal link between tobacco use and cancer, despite reams of government data and peer-reviewed studies to the contrary. It's time we enacted the strong policies we need to put our country's tremendous wind energy resources to use, creating jobs, protecting our environment, savings consumers money, and improving our energy security, even if it means leaving a few fossil fuel lobbyists behind.

Michael Goggin is electrical industry analyst at AWEA.

Footnotes:
Mr. Bryce's recent Wall Street Journal article is the most creative in its effort to exaggerate Factor B and downplay factor A. In his article, Bryce exclaims about the "94,000 more pounds of carbon dioxide" that the IPAMS study claimed were emitted in Colorado due to Factor B. To be clear, 94,000 pounds is equivalent to the far less impressive-sounding 47 tons of carbon dioxide, or the amount emitted annually on average by two U.S. citizens. Yet just a few paragraphs later, Mr. Bryce speaks dismissively when noting a DOE report that found that, on net, wind energy would "only" reduce carbon dioxide by 306 million tons (enough to offset the emissions of about 15 million U.S. citizens).

2 It is important to keep in mind that the supply of and demand for electricity on the power system have always been highly variable and uncertain, and that adding wind energy only marginally adds to that variability and uncertainty. Electric demand already varies greatly according to the weather and major fluctuations in power use at factories, while electricity supply can drop by 1000 MW or more in a fraction of a second when a large coal or nuclear plant experiences a "forced outage" and goes offline unexpectedly, as they all do from time to time. In contrast, wind output changes slowly and often predictably.

[Editor's note: Footnotes 3-11 are embedded as links into the text above.]

Chart Footnotes:
12 Texas ERCOT Study (PDF)
13 Transmission Expansion Plan, Vision Exploratory Study, Midwest ISO (2006)
14 Mid-Atlantic Study (PDF)
15 New England Study (PDF)

This article first appeared in the August 2010 issue of Windletter and was republished with permission from the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).
The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.


--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Connect with Scotts Contracting

FB FB Twitter LinkedIn Blog Blog Blog Blog Pinterest

Featured Post

How Two Friends Turned Abandoned CASTLE into a 4☆HOTEL | by @chateaudut...

Join us on an extraordinary journey as two lifelong friends, Francis and Benoit, turn a crumbling, centuries-old castle into a stunning 4-st...