Tom Rooney is President and CEO of SPG Solar, in Novato, California, one of the larger solar integrators in the country.

I am working on yet another project, due at the end of this week. Therefore, I haven’t had a chance to work much on my next essay, which will be about the potential for E85 to push Iowa much closer to energy self-sufficiency. Meanwhile, I have been sent a guest editorial on solar power by Tom Rooney, and this seems like a timely occasion to put it out for readers to chew on.

Tom is the president and CEO of SPG Solar, in Novato, California, one of the larger solar integrators in the country. His commentaries have been in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald and “hundreds of papers in between.” He has also appeared on C-SPAN and Fox Business News.

Tom chose a provocative title for this essay. I say provocative because I personally consider both liberals and conservatives bad on energy in specific ways, and good in others. I think conservatives tend to overweight the role that domestic drilling can play in pushing the U.S. toward energy independence, and liberals overweight the impact that renewables can play in displacing oil.

While each has its part to play, I think each side broadly tends not to recognize just how deeply dependent we are on petroleum, and in particular imported petroleum. I think both sides would like to tell the Middle East to get lost while we either drill our way to independence if the government would get out of the way (pro-Big Oil), or make a painless switch to renewable energy if Big Oil would just get out of the way (anti-Big Oil). I have criticized both points of view, which is why conservatives have criticized me for being liberal, and liberals have criticized me for being conservative.

I don’t think my energy views are conservative or liberal, but rather I think they are reality-based. If I say that I think coal will become a much more important component of the liquid fuel mix in the future, that isn’t a hope or a wish. It is what I think will realistically happen — we will build coal-to-liquids plants to deal with declining petroleum supplies. Those on the right might hope to see it happen (pro-business, especially pro-U.S. business), but the left would adamantly oppose it on environmental grounds (unless one happens to be the governor of Montana which has lots of coal reserves). Me? I just think it’s likely to happen as petroleum depletes, so I think we have to be ready to deal with it.

With that intro (to specifically clarify that I don’t think that conservatives are all bad or all good on energy), here is the guest essay on solar energy by Tom Rooney.

———————————————-

Why Conservatives Are Bad on Energy: It’s All About the Costs

By: Tom Rooney

For the R-Squared Energy Blog

Conservatives, let’s talk about energy. And why so many conservatives are so wrong — so liberal, even — on wind and solar energy.

Let’s start with a recent editorial from the home of ‘free markets and free people,” the Wall Street Journal. Photovoltaic solar energy, quoth the mavens, is a “speculative and immature technology that costs far more than ordinary power.”

So few words, so many misconceptions. It pains me to say that because, like many business leaders, I grew up on the Wall Street Journal and still depend on it.

But I cannot figure out why people who call themselves “conservatives” would say solar or wind power is “speculative.” Conservatives know that word is usually reserved to criticize free-market activity that is not approved by well, you know who.

Today, around the world, more than a million people work in the wind and solar business. Many more receive their power from solar.

Solar is not a cause, it is a business with real benefits for its customers.

Just ask anyone who installed their solar systems five years ago. Today, many of their systems are paid off and they are getting free energy. Better still, ask the owners of one of the oldest and most respected companies in America who recently announced plans to build one of the largest solar facilities in the country.

That would be Dow Jones, owners of the Wall Street Journal.

Now we come to “immature.” Again, the meaning is fuzzy. But in Germany, a country 1/3 our size in area and population, they have more solar than the United States. This year, Germans will build enough solar to equal the output of three nuclear power plants.

What they call immaturity our clients call profit-making leadership.

But let’s get to the real boogie man: The one that “costs far more than ordinary power.”

I’ve been working in energy infrastructure for 25 years and I have no idea what the WSJ means by the words “ordinary power.” But, after spending some time with Milton Friedman whom I met on many occasions while studying for an MBA at the University of Chicago, I did learn about costs.

And here is what every freshman at the University of Chicago knows: There is a difference between cost and price.

Solar relies on price supports from the government. Fair enough — though its price is falling even faster than fossil fuels are rising.

But if Friedman were going to compare the costs of competing forms of energy, he also would have wanted to know the cost of “ordinary energy.” Figured on the same basis. This is something the self-proclaimed conservative opponents of solar refuse to do.

But huge companies including Wall Mart, IBM, Target and Los Gatos Tomatoes figured it out. And last year so did the National Academy of Sciences. It produced a report on the Hidden Costs of Energy that documented how coal was making people sick to the tune of $63 billion a year.

And that oil and natural gas had so many tax breaks and subsidies that were so interwoven for so long, it was hard to say exactly how many tens of billions these energy producers received courtesy of the U.S. Taxpayer.

Just a few weeks ago, the International Energy Agency said worldwide, fossil fuels receive $550 billion in subsidies a year — 12 times what alternatives such as wind and solar get.

Neither report factored in Global Warming or the cost of sending our best and bravest into harm’s way to protect our energy supply lines.

Whatever that costs, you know it starts with a T.

All this without hockey stick graphs, purloined emails or junk science.

When you compare the real costs of solar with the fully loaded real costs of coal and oil and natural gas and nuclear power, apples to apples, solar is cheaper.

That’s not conservative. Or liberal. That comes from an ideology older and more reliable than both of those put together: Arithmetic.

Abengoa Solar plans to build the largest concentrating solar plants in the world in Arizona.

Two solar energy companies are looking to expand with the help of nearly $2 billion in new financing through the US Recovery Act, President Barack Obama announced over the weekend.

During his weekly address, Obama said the Department of Energy would provide $1.45 billion in conditional commitment funds to Abengoa Solar, as well as additional funding to Abound Solar Manufacturing for three massive construction projects.

Abengoa Solar plans to build the largest concentrating solar plants in the world in Arizona. When completed, the 250-megawatt facility known as Solana is expected to provide enough clean energy to power 70,000 homes.

“After years of watching companies build things and create jobs overseas, it’s good news that we’ve attracted a company to our shores to build a plant and create jobs right here in America,” Obama said of Abengoa. “In the short term, construction will create approximately 1,600 jobs in Arizona. What’s more, over 70 per cent of the components and products used in construction will be manufactured in the USA, boosting jobs and communities in states up and down the supply chain. Once completed, this plant will be the first large-scale solar plant in the US to actually store the energy it generates for later use — even at night.”

The Solana project will be able to store up to six hours of energy by using molten salt. The strategy will allow the facility to provide power even during cloudy weather and after sunset, enabling it to help meet the summer peak demand.

Meanwhile, Obama continued, Abound Solar “will manufacture advanced solar panels at two new plants, creating more than 2,000 construction jobs and 1,500 permanent jobs. A Colorado plant is already underway, and an Indiana plant will be built in what’s now an empty Chrysler factory. When fully operational, these plants will produce millions of state-of-the-art solar panels each year.”

While acknowledging the severe economic conditions facing many citizens, Obama said such projects can gradually help replace many of the jobs that have been lost in this recession.

“These are just two of the many clean energy investments in the Recovery Act,” he said. “Already, I’ve seen the payoff from these investments. I’ve seen once-shuttered factories humming with new workers who are building solar panels and wind turbines; rolling up their sleeves to help America win the race for the clean energy economy.”

Reproduced with permission from Greenbang.

A landmark solar power bill pending in the New York State legislature would create thousands of green jobs and billions of dollars in economic output for the state, according to a new report released today by Vote Solar with contributing support from NRDC. It will create 22,000 new jobs and more than $20 billion in new economic activity by 2025 for less than the cost of one postage stamp (39 cents) on an average residential electricity bill.

A coalition of organizations – including Vote Solar, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Solar Alliance, the Apollo Alliance, and the Alliance for Clean Energy New York – urged state legislators to pass the Solar Industry Development and Jobs Act and make New York a leader in the nation’s growing solar economy.

This comprehensive bill sets firm goals, lays out the necessary framework to attract solar investment, and ensures development of diverse market segments, from small residential installations to large utility-scale solar farms. The structure is based on successful models in other states, yet allows for the flexibility necessary to fit New York’s regulatory structure. The combination of long-term market certainty and competitive pressures means that it will enable the most solar development at the least cost to the ratepayer. The New York Solar Industry Development and Jobs Act is a fair roadmap for jumpstarting a real solar future for the Empire State.  For a more detailed description of the Solar Program please go here.

States leading the way in the solar industry, such as California, New Jersey and Colorado (see comparison chart below), have recognized the strategic importance and lasting benefits of solar development for their state economies — helping to bolster private investment and industry growth, enhance electric system reliability, lower transmission and distribution costs, increase energy security and improve local and regional air quality while lowering greenhouse gases.

Data Source: SEIA 2010

In the ever expanding clean energy economy, this bill will help make New York become an industry leader in solar power.

Recently, New York City has been employing low-flying twin engine planes equipped with light detection and ranging (LIDAR) capability in order to determine which areas are best suited for solar energy as well as empowering the city to better prepare its emergency response system.

LIDAR will enable NYC to prepare a 21st century version of Robert Moses' "Panorama" to optimize solar panel installation.

“The purpose is to try to give people the tools they need to understand how to adapt solar technology,” Tricia Case, City University of New York (CUNY) director of sustainability told the New York Times. “With the Lidar data, we’ll estimate the solar potential for every building in the city.” CUNY is assisting in the venture.

The objective is to map structures, elevations, sun and shade, amongst assorted nooks and crannies unique to the city.

According to Rohit T. Aggarwala, director of NYC Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, the project will result in a picture of New York’s physical space “in far more detail than what we had before.”

Part of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s environmental agenda entitled PlaNYC, the project will cost approximately $450,000.00. The venture is financed in part with $205,470 from the federal Energy Department.

Among the many uses for the data, in addition to providing information for the most efficient placement of solar panels, is to create updated maps of the areas most prone to flooding.

New York City’s most recent flood plain maps date back to the 1980s and were made using contemporary aerial photography and ground surveys.  Aggarwala claims that these new maps will be far more accurate and comprehensive.

LIDAR uses a "small footprint" to measure topography. Each laser pulse usually measures a range from 6 inches to 3 feet in diameter at ground level.

Federal Emergency Management Agency officials claim that other cities such as San Francisco have already developed solar maps, using LIDAR. Images of surface terrain and structures are captured by shooting 100,000 laser pulses per second from an aircraft and measuring the time it take the pulses to bounce back, producing representations of what it hits.

LIDAR differs from conventional radar primarily in its use of shorter wavelengths.  In general, features of an object can only be imaged at the same size as the wavelength or larger.  LIDAR’s relatively smaller wavelengths enable finer imagery. However, LIDAR tends to be more susceptible to errors from aerosols or cloud particles.  Thus, the need for low flying aircraft to ensure accurate data collection.

The rooftop data accumulated through LIDAR can be used to create an online “solar map” that will help assess the city’s capacity for solar power and even enable New York to verify which buildings are suitable for solar panels.

For the 1964 World’s Fair, Robert Moses created the Panorama, an architectural model of the City over 9,000 square feet large depicting over 900,000 buildings, bridges and topography.

“It’s going to be that,” Mr. Aggarwala said, “but more accurate and digital.”

New York hopes that the solar and flood maps will be completed by the end of 2010.

Postdoc Bryce Sadtler, grad student James McKone, and grad student Jillian Dempsey give a lunchtime presentation at John Muir High School in Pasadena.

Caltech researchers, determined to unearth an inexpensive method for sunlight-energy conversion, have added an underutilized asset in that endeavor – high school students.

While there is an abundance of sunlight, the required minerals needed to harness that resource as energy is far more limited.

Finding an abundant  and viable conversion alternative requires countless hours of research. That is where Caltech’s newest resource comes in.

“We’re just one high school trying to solve the energy crisis,” Simone Sasse, a senior at Polytechnic School in Pasadena told the Whittier Daily News.

The “solar army” of researchers consists of Pasadena high school students, mentored by Caltech graduate and undergraduate researchers working with the University of Washington and funded by the National Science Foundation.  Bruce Parkinson from UW is recognized as the “general” of the “army” which has recruits from institutions across the country and in Germany.

In addition to students from Polytechnic School, Pasadena’s Blair High School and John Muir High School have contributed research assistants as well.

The young researchers have spent the better part of the past school year testing different formulas of readily available compounds from the periodic table to see which ones show the most promise.

Compound testing is a three week process.

First, the students mix solutions that they put on a glass slide. The slides are taken to Caltech and fired up in a furnace.

The next week, the students run tests on the glass slides. A computer, hooked up to a laser, measures the solutions’ efficiency in converting light from the laser into energy.

During the third week, the students analyze the results and attempt to dissect their solutions and determine why some worked better than others.  Based upon their findings, they try new formulas during the next three week cycle.

The relationship between the collegiate and high school researchers is mutually beneficial.  While the junior scientists donate time and insight toward the venture, they are blessed with an opportunity that few of their adolescent peers enjoy.

Laboratory experiments for high school students typically consist of studying compounds in manners that the anticipated results are well established.

These students are venturing into the unknown.

“They’re learning to negotiate through disappointments,” said Patty Tsai, a Caltech alumna who teaches AP chemistry at Polytechnic. “That’s a good skill to have as a human being.”

Many roofers and construction workers are finding work fitting residential and commercial properties with solar panels.

The Solar Energy Industries Association annual report indicates that the market for solar power nearly doubled last year.  The increased demand created thousands of new jobs and enabled the industry to buck the declining employment trend that many other sectors sustained.

“The solar industry added 17,000 new jobs coast to coast,” Rhone Resch, president and CEO of SEIA told the Mercury News. “Residential installations grew from 78 megawatts in 2008 to 156 megawatts in 2009.”

The report gave a great deal of credit to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) for stimulating the job market and nationwide trend toward solar power. Features of ARRA that were noted in the report include:

• the Treasury Grant Program that allows the commercial tax credit to be taken as a cash grant for a limited time and lifted the $2,000 cap on the residential investment tax credit for solar thermal installations;
• elimination of penalties for subsidized energy financing, encouraging state and local programs that subsidize solar installations without penalizing the customer,
• creation of a 30-percent manufacturing investment tax credit (MITC) for equipment that makes renewable energy components.
• DOE’s funding allotments under the ARRA, including$115 million from the Solar Energy Technologies Program, $1.6 billion from Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs), $2.7 billion went to fund Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants and $3.1 billion was provided for State Energy Program (SEP) grants.

The SEP grants were specifically noted for helping support the deployment of solar energy equipment around the country.

The solar boon had a particular impact on SolarCity, a California based corporation specializing in designing and installing solar panels. They nearly doubled their work force to 600 last year, according to spokesman Jonathan Bass.  In 2010, they expect to add another 250 jobs to help service solar enthusiasts in California, Arizona, Texas, Oregon and Colorado.

“About half of the jobs are installing jobs, and we’ve hired people from the construction and roofing industries. The balance of the jobs are in sales and marketing and engineers. These are full-time jobs with full benefits and 401(k)s.”

Unsurprisingly, California led the way in shifting toward solar power, installing 220 megawatts last year, compared to New Jersey which was a distant second at 57 MW.  The surge pushed California to a cumulative total of 1,102 MW of solar power, nearly nine times as great a capacity as second place New Jersey’s 128 MW.

Welcome to the new R-Squared! Our goals here are to provide a place to engage in respectful and thoughtful debate about the very important issue of energy.

I thought it might be a good idea to summarize my positions on a wide variety of energy issues. Here I will attempt to briefly cover my views on oil, coal, ethanol (cellulosic, corn, and sugarcane), renewable diesel (green and biodiesel), nuclear power, solar power, wind power, and then climate change. I don’t intend to cover a lot of ground explaining my positions in detail; I will save that for future essays.

The most important thing to note is that I try to let the data determine my position. But that also means that as new data come in, my position may shift. Therefore, my positions shouldn’t be viewed as being etched in stone.

I try to take a scientific approach in which data have to constantly be sifted through, categorized according to level of credibility, and incorporated into the position as appropriate. Of course the categorization step is important, because there are studies that are funded by interest groups that I put into a vastly different category than independent, peer-reviewed research.

To put my positions into perspective, let me explain how I see the world. First, I view energy as one of the most critical underpinnings of our society. Without energy, modern society falls apart. Thus, I think energy policy is a critically important – and very underrated – issue.

I believe renewable energy is critical to our future. Development of renewable energy is what I do for a living. But I am also an advocate of responsible use of taxpayer money. But what I see a lot of in the world today is taxpayer money flowing to companies that are just out hyping their technologies. I don’t want to see energy policy influenced by gross exaggerations, and yet that is the situation I see today. That is what motivates me to write.

Here is a rundown, with the briefest of explanations, on where I see the world of energy today. I will break this up in transportation fuels, electricity, and then a word on climate change. This list is by no means comprehensive, but I have tried to include the major contenders/pretenders.

Transportation Fuels

Corn ethanol – My position on corn ethanol is often distorted by supporters of U.S. ethanol policy. I am not against corn ethanol. What I am against are some of the policies that we have put in place, such as subsidies on top of mandates. The benefits of corn ethanol are typically exaggerated by various interest groups, and what I try to do is sift the real from the hype to understand what corn ethanol is actually delivering for the taxpayer investments we are making. That usually runs afoul of the hype, and thus I am painted as anti-ethanol. What I would like to see corn ethanol do is get the fossil fuels out of their operations.

Sugarcane ethanol – Has some distinct advantages over corn ethanol. Two of the key challenges for producing ethanol are logistics of getting low-energy-density biomass in, and the energy required to convert to ethanol and purify. These issues aren’t much of a factor for sugarcane ethanol, because clean waste biomass is already at the plant as a result of the sugarcane processing. So they essentially have free boiler fuel, which minimizes the fossil fuel inputs into the process. That enables ethanol production that is relatively cheap, and that is largely decoupled from the impact of volatile fossil fuel prices.

Cellulosic ethanol – More hype than substance. This was the topic of my graduate school research in the early 90’s, and even then there was a very long history. In fact, cellulosic ethanol has been commercialized multiple times around the world, beginning in 1898 in Germany. The U.S. built two plants during World War I and shut them both down after the war due to poor economics. Another was built in the U.S. during WWII in Oregon, never produced ethanol during the war, and was closed down after the war. During the past decade there has been a race to reinvent the wheel and become the “first” to commercialize cellulosic ethanol. Worse, groups doing gasification to mixed alcohols started calling their product cellulosic ethanol. But there are very fundamental differences.

Renewable diesels – There are two major types, biodiesel and green diesel. There are two different ways to make green diesel; gasification and subsequent Fischer-Tropsch or hydrocracking vegetable oils or animal fats. Biodiesel relies heavily on methanol, almost exclusively fossil-fuel derived, and will never in my opinion be viable without subsidies. The green diesels are expensive to produce, but have more long-term promise in being able to make a real contribution to the energy mix.

Algal fuel – A subset of renewable diesel. As with cellulosic ethanol, more hype than substance here. There are a couple of possible routes that could work, but right now algal fuel is a very long ways from the market. Beware of those who promise $2 or $3 fuel from algae.

Petroleum – While I have a background in the oil industry, I don’t wish to see the world continue to rely on petroleum. There are many reasons that I will detail in a future post, but I think we have built a society that is far too dependent on oil. The consequences of oil shortages in a petroleum-dependent world are severe, and that is a risk that I don’t believe we can afford in the long run. On the other hand, I recognize the reality that the world has long run on cheap petroleum, and we will need petroleum for many years to come. Thus, I don’t favor punitive legislation that causes artificial shortages while demand is still high.

Natural gas – Much cleaner than coal for the production of electricity, and the U.S. is in a pretty good position with respect to supply. Can be used to produce electricity, heat homes, or even fuel cars. A key question for me in the corn ethanol debate is whether it makes more sense to directly fuel cars with natural gas instead of converting the natural gas into fertilizer for the corn and then steam for the distillation of the ethanol.

Electricity

Wind power – Cost effective in some locations, but hindered by the intermittent nature of the source. Some issues with bird kills and noise, but my overall impression of wind has always been favorable.

Solar power – I love the idea of solar power, but costs and intermittency are a problem at present for solar PV. Solar thermal may be a more cost-effective option, and it also has the advantage of being able to produce power after the sun sets (up until the temperature of the thermal mass gets too low).

Geothermal – One of my favorite clean electricity technologies. In the right location, geothermal can be a very cost effective and clean producer of electricity. Deep geothermal is another matter, as it has been linked to triggering earthquakes.

Hydropower – Same class as geothermal for me. While there are some issues, this is the case with all energy sources, and hydropower’s issues are mild compared to some other energy sources. Comparatively, hydropower ranks very high on my list.

Coal – Very similar situation to oil. We have created a society that is very dependent on coal, and there are numerous environmental issues associated with coal. On the other hand, it is easy to see why we are so coal-dependent: It is very cheap relative to other fuel sources, and it provides reliable power. In the minds of consumers, cheap and reliable has historically won out over environmental concerns.

Nuclear – If you look at the projections for the growth of electricity demand – combined with the desires of many to see coal plants phased out – there is no other option than nuclear that can deliver the desired amounts of electricity. So I think we are going to need to expand nuclear power in the years ahead.

Climate Change

This is really too complex to summarize briefly, and in doing so I am afraid my position may be misunderstood. Whether you accept the idea that man is contributing to climate change, I don’t believe it is a good idea to conduct such a grand experiment on the atmosphere because the ultimate consequences can’t be predicted. However, I can’t see any trajectory that will result in a global decline in CO2 emissions. Despite all of the best efforts (e.g., Kyoto Protocol), global CO2 concentrations continue to increase. As China and India continue to industrialize and improve their standards of living, they will demand cheap power. Any way I look at it, global CO2 concentrations will continue to head up until we start to run short of fossil fuels.

None of that is to imply that I don’t think it is very serious issue. My position has long been that I am not an expert in the field, and so I defer to the experts. The consensus has always seemed to me that atmospheric scientists believe that the activities of mankind are contributing to climate change.

On the other hand, I also believe that the issue should continue to be debated. There is far too much rancor over climate change, with each side hurling accusations and insults. Let the debate take place in a respectful manner, and let’s not try to shout down the other side, or suppress information. But at the end of the day, it just seems to me that our efforts to stop rising carbon emissions are futile.

I have certainly left out a lot, and major details are missing. Most of the energy options I mentioned above will be expounded upon in future essays. Or, if you don’t want to wait, feel free to start that conversation yourself.

• Rising gas prices
• Renewable portfolio standards that make renewable energy credits (RECs) more valuable
• The passage of carbon legislation that would force gas power producers to buy carbon credits, thus forcing an increase in price for natural gas.

On the long plane ride back to Hawaii, I read Power of the People: America’s New Electricity Choices. I picked this book up at the 2009 Solar Tour – Pikes Peak Region, which I visited on my trip to Colorado. My new job has me getting more involved in the electricity sector, and I thought this would be a book that would help push me up the learning curve. A short description of the book:

America is as addicted to electricity as it is to oil. Our electricity usage increases every year, yet we still use the same transmission grid that was constructed in the middle of the last century. The grid is stretched to the limit, creating the potential of future black-outs like the one that brought the Northeast to its knees in 2003. Meanwhile, some of our most abundant and affordable generating fuels have become major culprits in global warming.

Power of the People explores in a nontechnical, conversational way some of the clean, green, 21st-century technologies that are available and how and why we should plug them into our national grid. This important essay explores our failure as a country to adopt these “no regrets” technologies and policies as swiftly as the rest of the world, and why it matters for the future of every American.

The author, Carol Sue Tombari, works for the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL). Despite trying, I can’t find out what her exact position or qualifications are. Here biography says:

Carol Sue Tombari has specialized in energy and environmental policy and programs for more than 25 years. She directed the State of Texas’s energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, served as natural resources advisor to the lieutenant governor, and helped found the National Association of State Energy Officials.

In addition, she was appointed to federal advisory posts by two Federal Secretaries of Energy, chairing a Congressional advisory committee on the subject of renewable energy joint ventures and serving on the U.S. Department of Energy’s (USDOE) State Energy Advisory Board. Tombari is employed at the USDOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, where she works on local and rural economic development. Ultimately, it is her love for the next generation that continues to drive her work to protect the future of our planet and the lives of those yet to come.

While I found myself learning more about the sector, many things she said left me puzzled. For instance, she claimed that the U.S. uses more energy per GDP than anyone else in the world. This is exactly the opposite of Jeff Rubin’s claim in Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller. Rubin claimed that countries like China use a lot more energy per GDP, which was the basis of his argument that carbon tariffs could work in favor of countries like the U.S., who are more energy efficient at producing GDP. In fact, if you look at the EIA data on energy usage per dollar of GDP, you can see that the U.S. is on the low end of the scale. According to the EIA data, China, compared to the U.S., uses about four times the amount of energy per dollar of GDP. (Thanks to reader Clee for that reference).

The book is pretty anti-nuclear, and makes the claim that renewables are “considerably more affordable” than nuclear power. She seems to rely on Amory Lovins and Tom Friedman for these sorts of claims. The book is pretty realistic about coal, however, concluding that we will be relying on coal for a good many years. She did claim, though, that there have been no major technological innovations in coal-fired central station power plants since the 1950’s. I don’t consider that accurate, as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) seems like a dramatic improvement in the efficiency of the usage of coal for power production. Several of these IGCC plants will be coming online in the U.S. over the next decade, and a number have already been built in China. (You can see some of the plants that have been completed or are in progress around the world here).

There were some things I found annoying about the book. For instance, it had no graphs. However, on a number of occasions the author said “picture a graph in which the Y axis represents one variable, and the X axis another variable.” Why not just show a graph? Or if for some reason you are limited to no graphics, find another way to make the point.

There were some calculations that just didn’t make sense to me. For instance, she once calculated the required size of a PV system to run a household in Phoenix “if PV cells were 100% efficient.” Why not just do the actual calculation with typical PV efficiencies? She also commented that NREL had done a calculation in which they concluded that “100 square miles that constitute the Nevada Test Site” covered in PV arrays could meet the needs of the entire U.S. (without addressing storage). I did a similar calculation in which I tentatively came up with an area of about 100 miles by 100 miles. So I wonder if she didn’t mean that the NREL calculation concluded that a 100 mile square (10,000 square miles) would suffice.

She also spent a good deal of time talking about how a terrorist could bring down the transportation system or the electrical grid. I don’t think those are the kinds of ideas we want to plant in people’s heads.

One thing that isn’t clear to me is just how utilities benefit from efficiency improvements of their customers. She spent some time discussing various utility programs to improve the efficiency of the end user so they don’t have to construct new power plants. But utilities make their money selling electricity, don’t they? If customers improve efficiency, they just means they are selling less electricity to that customer. But there is apparently something to this model that I don’t fully understand, because I know that utilities are always pushing for – and even subsidizing – these sorts of programs. In Hawaii, the utility will pay for part of a solar hot water installation. So how do they benefit? Perhaps the utilities are compensated by various governments for pushing these efficiency programs. Otherwise, it seems that as consumers become more efficient, the utilities would have to charge more money for the electricity.

One other thing that was discussed – but that has always puzzled me – is the economic multiplier theory. She gave one example about how the benefits of a local Midwestern project ended up contributing three times the income generation to the local economy. Now I can see how a multiplier should work in theory. Pay a guy $100 in salary, and then he pays his taxes and turns around and spends that $100 in the local economy. That merchant then pays his taxes and spends some of it in the local economy, such that the initial $100 supports more than $100 in taxes and spending. In practice, it seems like if it really worked that way, we would subsidize everything. Why would we want to get any autos from Japan? Subsidize U.S. consumers for 50% of the cost of a domestic car, and then let the local multiplier give back 3-4 times that amount to the local community. But in reality, I don’t quite think it works out that way.

In summary, while it seems like I found a lot to nit-pick in the book, I did find a lot of useful information in there. Even the things I found puzzling caused me to think and to do additional research, which was helpful. The author spends a lot of time laying out the present situation with respect to electricity, and talking about the changes that need to happen. The author is peak oil aware, citing Matt Simmons and Tom Whipple (among others) with respect to a projected future energy crunch. I think the anti-nuclear stance was misguided, and I think she overestimates the ability of renewables to fill in for growing demand and the phase-out of older coal-fired power plants. In my view, it is hard to imagine how we are going to get by without building more nukes in the next few decades.

U.S. Biofuel Boom Running on Empty

It is taking longer than anticipated, but hopefully I will have something up tonight or early tomorrow. Until then, I thought I would share a couple of odd energy stories this Sunday. The first, courtesy of Solar Roadways’ press page:

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AWARDS $100,000 RESEARCH CONTRACT TO SOLAR ROADWAYS

Funds intelligent roads and parking lots

SOLAR ROADWAYS, SAGLE, IDAHO (August 25, 2009)- Solar Roadways today announced that it has been awarded a DOT contract that will enable them to prototype the first ever Solar Road Panel.

The Solar Roadways will collect solar energy to power businesses and homes via structurally-engineered solar panels that are driven upon, to be placed in parking lots and roadways in lieu of petroleum-based asphalt surfaces.

The Solar Road Panels will contain embedded LEDs which “paint” the road lines from beneath to provide safer nighttime driving, as well as to give up to the minute instructions (via the road) to drivers (i.e. “detour ahead”). The road will be able to sense wildlife on the road and can warn drivers to “slow down”. There will also be embedded heating elements in the surface to prevent snow and ice buildup, providing for safer winter driving. This feature packed system will become an intelligent highway that will double as a secure, intelligent, decentralized, self-healing power grid which will enable a gradual weaning from fossil fuels.

Replacing asphalt roads and parking lots with Solar Roadway panels will be a major step toward halting climate change. Fully electric vehicles will be able to recharge along the roadway and in parking lots, finally making electric cars practical for long trips.

It is estimated that is will take roughly five billion (a stimulus package in itself) 12′ by 12′ Solar Road Panels to cover the asphalt surfaces in the U.S. alone, allowing us to produce three times more power than we’ve ever used as a nation – almost enough to power the entire world.

I like the idea of converting roads into energy producers, but it seems like a real long-shot. A number of questions immediately spring to mind, but their FAQ attempts to take many of them on. I call it to your attention not because I think it will work (I haven’t had time to study it), but simply because of the novelty of the idea.

The second story is about a highly integrated variation of the algal fuel concept in Arizona:

Farmer turns waste into electricity

How it works

• Farm waste (straw, wood chips, cattle manure) heated in “gasification” unit.

• Gasification produces hydrogen and carbon monoxide, and creates a charcoal-like fertilizer called “biochar.”

• Gases are burned to make electricity, producing carbon dioxide.

• Carbon dioxide is pumped into ponds to nourish algae.

• Small crustaceans called daphnia eat the algae.

• Daphnia are harvested, pressed and cooked to process oil.

• Oil is refined to biodiesel; daphnia waste can feed animals.

• The biochar, electricity, biodiesel and daphnia waste is sold.

I was asked to comment on the scheme, and did so near the end of the article – following comments from Professor Mark Edwards, whose book I reviewed here. As I said, it is pretty complicated and interconnected, which provides more technology risks. Water usage in the desert will also be high, unless they are using some kind of waste water.

On the other hand, I think algal fuel can only work as part of an integrated scheme that provides other products/benefits (unless of course there is a breakthrough in which algae can be made to excrete their oil without having to harvest them).