Not All Superheroes Wear a Cape:

Energy Wonks in Seattle for NWEC’s Fall Conference

Thirty years ago a group of intrepid energy wonks realized the solution to our energy needs was not building a bunch of expensive nuclear power plants, but to aggressively capture the cost effective energy-efficiency measures available at a fraction of the cost, risk and environmental impact. These champions of truth, justice and the Northwest way continue their struggle. Few know them: they do their work in the meeting spaces of government commissions, utility boardrooms and wherever sound energy policy is being made. Sometimes they even do their work in the meeting rooms of a downtown Seattle Red Lion Inn. This band of super-wonks is known as The NW Energy Coalition, and I attended their meeting last week. Here are some of my thoughts.

A view from inside the regulatory process

The first panel of the conference consisted of members of the regulatory commissions for Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana. In addition, there were enough members of the Montana commission in the crowd to meet quorum as well as many other present and past regulators. These commissions are very reactive organizations; they review the plans of the utilities and the comments by groups like the Northwest Energy Coalition and give thumbs up or down. The primary question before them is whether a cost (like investing in energy efficiency or building a new power plant) can be included in rate calculations and what rates a utility can charge its customers. They spoke about their goal to keep costs low and how energy efficiency is the best way for utilities to meet the demands of their customers.

I asked them whether they could internalize the impact of carbon emissions by requiring the utilities to include a high carbon cost for the purpose of planning, since the federal government hasn’t acted. This would change the behavior of the utilities without imposing a politically difficult tax or cap-and-trade system. They all agreed that it was proper for the utilities to include a carbon cost based on expected federal action, but not to internalize environmental costs. In other words, as the probability of federal action decreases so will the assumed cost by northwest utilities. All of the regulators felt that dealing with climate change was someone else’s problem.

Commissioner Jeffery Gotz read the law that governs the Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) and it clearly allows them to factor in environmental concerns. And they commonly do. For instance, an Integrated Resource Plan that didn’t consider salmon habitat in dam operations would be rejected.  For some reason the continued survival of salmon is an appropriate concern for the UTC (as it should be), but the survival of human civilization is Someone Else’s Problem.

This discussion also made it clear that continued pressure in DC to create a carbon cost is important, even if it fails. The higher the probability (even if we’re moving from 0 to 20% likelihood) impacts the decisions of organizations across the country.

Transmission 

Both of the regular readers of my blog know that I’d be interested in a panel titled “West by Northwest Energy, transmission and ecosystem challenges”. I’m still convinced that any serious effort in shutting down significant numbers of coal plants will require a modern (i.e. HVDC) grid that is planned and paid for at the federal level. The discussion of the panel focused almost entirely on projects inside the northwest, with a brief mention of upgrading our connection to southern California and the Tres Amigos project, which allows power to be exchanged between the 3 US grids (East, West, Texas). Without more transmission that connects the Northwest to the rest of the country we’ll be seeing more occasions where wind turbines are turned off  to keep us from producing more power than the region can use. If we don’t figure out a way to take advantage of the wind farms we’ve built, it’s unlikely that more will be constructed.

I asked the panel about building a national green superhighway for electricity. The response by Tom Darin of the American Wind Energy Association was interesting. He said that there had been discussions of this idea, but it didn’t go anywhere. Instead the focus was on energy efficiency (which should be a higher priority) and local/regional renewable production and transmission planning. AWEA did not oppose a national grid and no arguments were put forward against it. It is just that inertia ways heavily against tackling this problem at a national level.

If our goal is to continue operating our existing fleet of coal plants while meeting increased electricity demand due to population increases and everyone having more gadgets (aka load growth) then this is a good plan. In other words, we’re following a path that’s bad (i.e. efficiency and local renewables), because it’s a lot better than the alternative (i.e. build more coal plants). Unfortunately, this plan still leads to unacceptable emissions of carbon dioxide. We need a plan that allows us to meet our energy needs while decommissioning all of the nation’s coal powered plants. As I’ve written about already, this is possible with current technology as long as we take a national view, rather than a local one. Unfortunately, national transmission planning is also “Someone Else’s Problem”.

Safeco Field

Now here is a counter example. We were given a tour of Safeco Field and their green initiatives by Scott Jenkins, VP Ballpark Operations. Here is someone who looked at the problem of energy and resource consumption at Safeco and said “This is my problem”. Since 2005 recycling rates have gone from 12 to 81%.  Energy Use Intensity (EUI) has dropped 25% over the same period. This was not done by any heroic effort, but just by someone accepting that it was his problem and working with everyone throughout the organization to make lots of little changes.  The improvements at Safeco weren’t expensive: to the contrary they’ve saved the Mariners about $300,000 per year, or almost enough for a relief pitcher.

In addition to the work greening Safeco, the Mariners are part of the Green Sports Alliance, which works to repeat the successes there at other sports venues. By raising awareness of how easy recycling and energy conservation are to sports fans, these issues move more into the mainstream, aiding adoption of these efforts everywhere.

I believe that what has happened, and is still happening, at Safeco is the model we need to stop the climate catastrophe; everyone saying “This is my problem” and doing whatever they can to solve it.  I don’t mean to be hard on the regulators who aren’t requiring utilities to consider climate change in their planning or renewable energy advocates who focus on local concerns rather than global ones. These jobs are hard enough without taking on the burden of the whole world. But we all need to ask ourselves, “If not me, who. If not now, when”.

By Andy Silber

There are two proposals to build coal-export terminals in Washington: one in Longview and the other just north of Bellingham. Building these terminals is akin to building a road through a wilderness area to a bridge you just torn down. Washingtonians didn’t pass I-937 (the initiative that requires utilities to increase their use of renewable resources) so that we could export more coal to China. Our state legislature didn’t pass SB6001 (a law that prevents the building of new coal plants in Washington) so that we could keep the price of coal low for export. We enacted these laws so that the coal stays in the ground. As far as our atmosphere is concerned it doesn’t matter where the coal is burned. The idea of increasing our electricity rates (because coal is cheap, if you don’t count that it’s killing us) so that we can export coal to China so that they can sell more cheap stuff to us is totally nuts.

The world has been unable to pass a climate treaty that limits the emissions of greenhouse gases. The US never even ratified Kyoto. And that sucks. Despite that, we’ve made significant progress domestically:

• Seattle and hundreds of other cities of signed on to the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, committing those cities to meeting the Kyoto targets.
• Most proposals to build new coal plants have died
• Some older, dirtier and less efficient coal plants have been shuttered rather than being brought into compliance with clean air regulations
• We’ve gotten commitments to switch some power plants away from coal in the future, including Washington’s only coal-fired power plant in Centralia
• The wind and solar industries have seen remarkable growth
• 2008 and 2009 both saw significant decreases in CO2 emission for the US. This was certainly partially due to the recession, but some of the changes are likely to be permanent (e.g. shuttering old coal plants)

We’re starting to get our own house in order, slower than we need to but the direction is good. The problem is that China is building a huge number of coal plants. Even though China has enormous deposits of coal, they can’t mine it fast enough. So they’ve gone shopping. Since the largest reserves of coal are found in the US (30% of proven coal reserves) it’s our coal that they want to buy. So if the US stops mining coal that limits how much damage can be caused by China burning coal. They’ll run out a lot sooner. Also, if China doesn’t have access to enough coal, they’ll have to stop building new plants.

If the US stays out of the international coal market the price of coal will go up (simple supply and demand). This will discourage the building of new plants and encourage the upgrading of existing plants to make them as efficient as possible. It will also encourage the construction of renewables and conservation/efficiency. We can’t force the Chinese to restrict their emissions of CO2, but we sure as hell don’t have to help them cook the world by selling them coal.

Some make the case for building these ports by talking about the jobs created. That argument makes no sense to me. No one talks about how the war on drugs hurts farmers in Columbia just trying to make a living selling coca. When we limit where strip clubs are located, what about the living-wage jobs that are killed? Should we encourage kids to drink more soda, since it will create jobs treating their diabetes and obesity? Jobs created doing a damaging activity are no boon to society. And exporting coal is certainly more damaging than a strip club.

So what can we do about it?

First off, don’t build the ports. We work with our federal, state and local elected officials to stop the construction of these exporter centers of death. We pursue every possible legal angle to tie these projects up for as many years as possible. We fight to include the climate impact of these ports in the environmental impact statements (EIS). Since coal burned in China is a significant source of air pollution in the US that should also be included in the EIS.

Secondly, we hit the rail lines. These enormous trains will be carrying toxic material through our neighborhoods. If a pickup carrying leaves needs to cover its load, it’s pretty obvious that a train carrying toxic dust needs to be covered. We work to pass legislation that requires the trains carrying coal to cover their loads.  There are legitimate health and environmental reasons to require this, but it also increases costs, and everything we do that increases costs makes it less likely that these projects will move forward.

Most importantly we organize. The Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal: Washington project is now working on coal exports. There’s a meeting at the UW campus on November 16^th that isn’t a bad place to start.

You are invited to help build Community Solar today!

How can one person help build a sustainable energy future? Seattle City Light is inviting you to make that difference today — by becoming a Founding Member of Seattle’s first Community Solar project.

Community Solar is an innovative, shared resource approach for using clean, renewable solar energy for power.

As a Founding Member of Seattle Community Solar, you will help fund a landmark solar project this fall — a series of three new solar picnic shelters at Jefferson Park in the Beacon Hill neighborhood of Seattle. The picnic shelters will feature roofs constructed of Washington-made solar panels, supporting local green jobs.

How much does it cost?

The Community Solar project is made up of 500 solar units. Each unit has a one-time, upfront cost of $600. Customers may purchase a maximum of two units. Each solar unit is estimated to produce 50 kWh of electricity per year through the June 2020 program end date.

What benefits will I receive as a Founding Member?

• A credit on your electric bill every year through 2020, for both the electricity generated and the Washington State Renewable Energy Production Incentive. See reverse for details.
• Your name or the name of a friend or family member permanently displayed at the Community Solar site at Jefferson Park.

Who can participate?

Everyone! All Seattle City Light customers may participate.  Enrollment is easy. Simply complete and return the linked two page application form with a check or credit card information (you do not need your City Light number, we can look it up). If you have questions, check the FAQ at www.seattle.gov/communitysolar or give our expert a call directly at 206-684-3954.

Take a deep breath. How clean is the air you just inhaled? It all depends on where you call home.

The Sierra Club Beyond Coal campaign has launched an online air pollution map that shows how much air pollution there is where you live, how many people are at risk for health problems from coal pollution, and how many asthma attacks and premature deaths are caused by coal-fired power plants.

Want to know how clean (or dirty) your air is? Check it out the link.

How big is your footprint and what can you do to make a difference?

• King County EcoConsumer Waste Calculator – assess your consumer impact on the county and state
• Seattle Business Carbon Footprint Calculator – assess your business impact using an Excel spreadsheet tool
• ZeroFootprint Youth Calculator – useful for students and teachers to assess impact of personal choices
• Paper Calculator – assess your impact based on paper purchases for towels, tissues, and the like
• Household Savings Calculator – useful tools for helping save the planet starting at home
• Greenhouse Gas Calculator – convert CO and CO2 into other units including Kilowatts of power
• Water Footprint Calculator – determine your impact on the Earth’s water supply
• Low Carbon Diet Calculator – determine if your food is also contributing to CO loading
• Eco-Cool Remodel Tool – King County tool to help envision greener domaciles and what to consider
• EnergyStar Home Energy Yardstick – take the Energy Star home assessment and see how you rate

You can also help reduce your use of paper and therefore save in the conversion of trees into pulp and the attendant issues associated with that process.  Here’s some ways you can reduce your use of paper.

You have a choice when it comes to how much junk mail, credit card offers, catalogs and phone books arrive at your home and workplace.

Help your recycling reduce bulk by opting-out of phone books and taking your name off catalog and junk mail distribution lists.  Here’s links to ways to do this:

• YellowPagesOptOut
• Catalog Choice
• Credit Card Opt-outKing County Office Paper Reduction Tips

Reduce, Reuse what you can, and then Recycle.  It’s pretty easy. Do you have a question about recycling, composting or reducing waste? Ask Charlie, CleenScapes online inquiry and question form.

Seattle ecycling stations are open from 8:00 am to 5:30 pm seven days a week except major holidays.

• North Station: 1350 North 34th Street (located in the Fremont/Wallingford area at North 34th Street, near Carr Place North)
• South Station: 8105 5th Avenue South (located south of the First Avenue South Bridge)

You can even see the waiting lines on-line at this link: http://www.seattle.gov/util/Services/Garbage/Recycling_&_Disposal_Stations/index.asp

For other recycling options in the Puget Sound area, visit the Take It Back Network.

Too Much of a Good Thing?

The Challenges of Wind Development in the Northwest

It was recently reported that the Northwest power grid operators (primarily the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)) plan to instruct wind farm operators to turn their turbines off occasionally this spring, because our grid can’t handle all of the power. Why are we turning off wind farms now and not shutting down Washington’s only coal power plant until 2025?

We often hear that the problem with wind power is that it is an “intermittent” source: the turbines generate electricity when the wind blows, not when the demand is high. This is also true of solar, but it’s less of a problem because it is more predictable (they tend to generate more electricity during the day than at night) and that power generation is high when demand is high. This is especially true in areas where solar energy is plentiful and the peak demand is caused by air conditioning, like LA and Phoenix.

What we don’t often hear about is the intermittency of hydro. Most of us imagine a dam holding back water, waiting until we need it. The truth is a bit more complicated. I’ll take Seattle City Light’s (SCL) situation as an example. SCL has 4 main dams, 3 on the Skagit River (Gorge, Diablo and Ross) and the Boundary project on the Pend Oreille River in Northeast Washington. For 3 of these dams, the amount of water flowing into the “lake” behind the dam in a given day is about equal to the amount of water flowing out of the lake that day: there is very little storage. SCL does turn most of the generators down at night, saving the water for the time of day when demand is highest. The other complication is the salmon in the Skagit River. The salmon runs are very healthy on the Skagit, in part because of SCL’s salmon first policy in running the hydro facilities. The output of the most downstream dam (Gorge) is relatively constant when the salmon are in the river, because that leads to healthy salmon runs. Ross Dam and Lake are the exception. Ross can hold enough water to run for months. So the level of Ross Lake is lowered during the late winter, waiting for the spring run-off. When that happens Ross Dam is turned way down. There’s still enough water from the melting snow nearby to keep Diablo and Gorge producing a lot power.  Meanwhile on the Pend Oreille, the Boundary dam is producing huge amounts of electricity. Even with Ross producing much less energy that it can, our other dams produce more than we need during the spring melt.

The same thing is happening with all of the dams and rivers across the region, including the big federal dams that make up the BPA. There are very few big lakes like Ross that can store much water. In a wet year, like we’re having right now, the wholesale price of electricity plummets for months. We can export some of that power to California via the Pacific DC intertie (which was built as a federal project, not a state or private one), but not all of it. The key to operating the Northwest Grid during the spring run-off is to reduce generation. One way to do that is “spill” water over the dams (i.e. pass water over the top of the dam, rather than through the turbine/generators). This does happen, but it mixes air into the water, which is bad for the fish. Another way is to take a few big plants off-line for awhile. For instance, at the moment the only nuclear plant in Washington State is down for re-fueling.

So when the wind starts blowing in the spring, the grid operators get nervous. The amount of electricity being put into the grid must exactly equal the amount being used. If the dams are already as low as they can go given the constraints of flood control and fish habitat and the Pacific Intertie is at capacity and everything else that can be turned down already has been, they’re in a pickle. Wind operators have an extra inducement to sell their power; they only get their federal production tax credits if they sell the power. They can sell the power at a negative price and still make some money. That actually happens; the wholesale price of electricity can go negative. If you have a power plant that you can’t turn down you need a place for that electricity to go and if needed, you’ll pay someone to take it.

If you’ve been reading my blog much, you know what the solution is: a National HVDC Grid. If we had a larger market to sell into, those wind turbines could be replacing power produced with natural gas or coal outside of our region. Basically there is no transmission capacity heading east from Seattle that connects to the big loads in Chicago and points east. We could also be buying wind power from the plains during our peak winter loads.

For Seattleites this would have another advantage. Our electricity rates our subsidized by selling excess power on the wholesale market: high wholesale prices are actually good for Seattle. A big part of the reason our rates have gone up recently is that the recession has depressed electricity demand and prices, so we aren’t making as much as we usually do selling power. Since our costs are fixed, ratepayers make up the difference. If during the spring, when we have the most excess power, we could sell power at $60/Mhr, rather than the $20/Mhr that is currently typical, the result would be lower rates. Also our dams could help smooth the ups and downs of wind power across the country, if we had the transmission capacity.

The Pacific Intertie lowers the cost of electricity both here and in California. We just need to build a network of transmission lines so that we can keep the wind turbines generating electricity here and turn off the coal plants across the country.

What does Earth Day mean?

Pardon my rambling; I just have some thoughts on the environmental movement on the 41^st anniversary of Earth Day that I want to share with you. There’s a homework assignment at the end. Don’t worry, only the fate of our civilization depends on the answers. You will be graded.

In many ways the movement has come a long way: rivers don’t catch on fire; the manufacture of ozone depleting chemicals have been stopped; coal plants are often required to use the “Best available control technology” to reduce air pollution; CAFE standards were implemented to improve gas millage. Most companies at least pretend to be “Green” and some actually take it seriously. Google is investing in renewable energy and GM and Nissan are building electric powered cars. Teaching about the environment is now part of most schools’ curriculum and recycling is common in many places. So we have accomplished much. Give yourselves a pat on the back.

The early days were about collective action such as the Clean Water Act (passed in 1972) and the Clean Air Act (passed in 1970). The last major new law passed was ratification of the Montreal Protocol to deal with Ozone depleting gases, which was negotiated and signed by George Herbert Walker Bush. There have been updates to the Clean Air and Water Acts and tightening of CAFE standards and other tweaks, but no new major initiatives. This would be acceptable if there were no big environmental challenges remaining. Obviously that is not the case. So far Congress has taken no action to deal with climate change. To the contrary, the moderate first steps the Obama administration is taking under the authority of the Clean Air Act are under constant threat by Congress.

The environmental movement is now all about choice:

• I chose to buy green tags that support renewable energy.
• I chose to buy local, organic produce.
• I chose to buy an efficient car.
• I chose to take the bus.

When the government gets involved, it’s about creating incentives for positive choices:

• We’ll subsidize renewable energy
• We’ll subsidize electric cars
• We’ll subsidize home weatherization.

At the local level there are occasionally good signs, like passing tighter energy codes or renewable portfolio standards, but sometimes even those get rolled back.

There have been efforts at collective action to address climate change in the US, but they have all died in Congress. So, might individual and industrial action work with the federal government playing little or no role? That’s what Amory Lovins thinks. As I wrote in my previous post, I think he’s right in the transportation sector, since oil is getting scarcer and more expensive without any government action. But I think he’s only partially right in the electricity sector. As long as burning coal is cheaper than wind farms and solar panels, that’s what the utilities will do. Even if half of us are willing to buy green tags to support renewable energy, not a single coal plant will shut down. We’ll change the mix of new plants to be more wind and less natural gas.

So why do we seem unable to get anything done on climate change? I believe that it was Ronald Reagan’s “Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.” meme. In the past we looked to government to play a role in solving big problems: the depression, fascism, rivers catching on fire and toxic air. Both Republicans and Democrats saw protecting our environment as a proper role of government. Everyone understood the tragedy of the commons. The two presidents who accomplished the most in protecting the environment were both Republicans: Teddy Roosevelt (started the National Parks) and Richard Nixon (EPA, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act). But once you start to believe that “Government is the problem”, then how do you protect the environment. As economists understood in 1832, the market won’t do it. Individuals tend to be good stewards of their own land, but that doesn’t stop the dumping of pollution into rivers and the air.

Once you have accepted that your political philosophy has no tools to solve a problem, you have two choices: live with a paradox or deny there’s a problem. There are certainly lots of examples of both on the right. My favorite “living with a paradox” example is a Tea Party activist saying “Keep your government hands off my Medicare”. Who did she think ran Medicare? An insurance company that never asked for her to pay any premiums? The examples of “deny there’s a problem” are too numerous to list. When someone thinks the findings of the National Academies of Science are rigged by vested interests, but a single scientist funded by Exxon is an important authority to quote, you know there isn’t a lot of deep thinking going on. Someone once said that you can’t use logic to convince someone to change their mind, if they didn’t reach that place through logic.

The US now has a huge number of people who trust the Koch Brothers and Exxon more than NASA and the National Academies on climate change. Without logic and science tying them to reality, they are easily manipulated. They wander the countryside like zombies looking for brains to eat, muttering under their breath one phrase, “Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.” They say this while breathing clean air, paying their bills with unemployment insurance payments, their kids going to public schools, their parents are protected from abject poverty by Social Security and Medicare, and they drive to Grandma’s house on the Federal Interstate Highway System. They use the internet (invented as part of a government project) to find a job funded by the stimulus project, and complain that Obama isn’t releasing oil from the strategic reserves since gas has gotten so expensive.

Remember that this is not about protecting the Earth. It will do fine with or without us. This is about maintaining an ecosystem on Earth that is the kind of place where humanity can thrive.

How do we wake up these zombies and once again work together as a country on protecting the world we leave to our children? That is your Earth Day assignment. Please put any ideas in the comments section. Your grandchildren will be grading your response.

A Tale of Two Talks: Smart Grid and Reinventing Fire

In the last week I’ve attended two talks: a breakfast meeting hosted by the Washington Green Tech Alliance on the Smart Grid and a talk by Amory Lovins founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute on their Reinventing Fire plan. These talks reminded me of the opening of one of Dickens great novels (great as in big), not because one of them was bad, but because they had very different approaches. The smart grid talk got into the weeds and details and challenges in rolling out new technology covering a small part of the electrical system with a timescale of about 5 years. The Reinventing Fire talk was a grand plan covering how the entire electrical and transportation systems could change over the next 40 years. They did have some things in common:

• The both lasted about 90 minutes, with time for questions
• They were well attended by an interested audience that asked good questions
• They left one feeling hopefully about the exciting things that are happening and what’s possible if we only try

Smart Grid

A group crowded into the conference room of a downtown investment firm, sharing coffee and pastries. For $25 I thought we might get something other than baked goods, but I wasn’t there for the food, but the topic. The panel included a manager for a big firm working on the all aspects of the grid to the CEO of a start-up only working on a Smart Grid application.

• Randy Berry, VP-Power System Consultants & board member of the Gridwise Alliance;
• JD Hammerly, CEO-The Glarus Group (a consultant to electric utilities)
• Michael Atkinson, Managing Director-Alstom Grid Americas and China;
• Jim Holbery, Founder and CEO-GridMobility

One nice thing about the panel is that they are all local.

When considering the challenges of a Smart Grid, it’s good to start with a definition. If you get 3 people in a room who are working on Smart Grid, you’ll probably get 3 definitions, but there are a few things everyone agrees with:

• It is not JUST a Smart Meter or Advanced Metering Infrastructure. Randy Berry said “The dumbest thing you can do is just install a Smart Meter”.
• Communication is a key component
• It enables customers to use less power during peak times and more power when the system can easily delivery it (e.g. at night when a wind farm is producing and the demand is otherwise low)
• It also provides value to the utility that is not obvious to the customer (e.g. monitoring the voltage at the house, allowing the utility to more efficiently deliver energy)

Some people are just talking about the grid from the customer to the utility. Others include HVDC power lines connecting windfarms to distant cities.

Some applications are very obvious, but aren’t happening yet, because the utility and your appliances don’t communicate.

• Only defrost your freezer in the middle of the night
• Electric hot water heaters setting the thermostat high (e.g. 160° F) in the middle of the night, changing to standard heating (120° F) during times of higher demand.

These applications require the kind of communications that has been standard in the IT industry for decades. But with a few exceptions, the technology used in distributing electricity would all look familiar to Tesla. So the challenge of the Smart Grid is to apply already commercialized technology and concepts in a very conservative field.

One interesting thing that the panel agreed about is the standard tech-startup model of

1. start a company
2. develop a technology
3. build a customer base
4. go IPO
5. get rich

doesn’t work because the customer is usually the utilities, which won’t buy from a small guy. They’re too risk adverse and don’t trust something that hasn’t been proven. So the model in this space is

1. start a company
2. develop a technology
3. get bought by a big player (e.g. GE/Alstom/Siemens)
4. don’t get rich, but you do OK

And the big boys are buying. Michael from Alstom talked about several recent acquisitions that Alston has made, where they figured it was faster to buy a company that helped them compete than develop the technology in-house.

Jim Holbery represented the only startup on the panel. He’s working on applying IT concepts to the grid, attaching data along with the electricity. Currently if you want to buy “Green Power”, your only option is to buy Renewable Energy Certificates (aka Green Tags) which perform accounting magic to separate the greenness from the power and sell them to different people. GridMobility’s idea is to actually track where the power came from and sell you real green power. To be honest, given the mixed up nature of the grid, it’s like mixing organic and non-organic berries in a bucket and trying to separate out the organic ones at the store and just sell you those. His hope is to partner with the big players like Alstom.

The one thing that I found disappointing about the panel (and the field) is that it was all about the retail/local grid. If you’ve been reading my posts, it’s pretty obvious that I think the most important element that we need to develop is long-distance transmission that can efficiently bring in utility scale renewables to the distant customers who live where there isn’t nearby renewable resources. This was not a topic that any of the panelists are working on. The Smart Grid that we discussed saves little energy, but does help shift consumption to better times. This helps reduce blackouts and effectively integrate intermittent renewables like wind power, which are good and important, but insufficient on their own. Integrating renewables isn’t very valuable if you live where there aren’t renewable resources.

Reinventing Fire: A Talk by Amory Lovins

First off, if you don’t know who Amory Lovins is, shame on you. He may look like Frank Oz,

but he’s a superhero to me. He basically invented the idea was energy efficiency with the publication of Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken?” in Foreign Affairs, 1976. He founded the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), which he calls a “Think and Do Tank” and does amazing work. Maybe I just like him because he’s also a physicist. Maybe because his most famous quote involves beer, “All people want is cold beer and hot showers.”

His talk covered the RMI’s Reinventing Fire concept. This program has the modest goal of driving the consumption of oil and coal to zero by 2050. They believe that this is possible while reducing the consumption of natural gas and building no new nuclear plants. He claims that this can happen driven by corporations trying to maximize their profits with only small actions by the government. He assumes that there will not be a carbon tax or cap and trade or any other effort by the government to internalize the cost of carbon.

As always, Amory’s focus is on using energy more efficiently. One example he talked about was the Hyper Car concept. By making cars out of advanced materials the weight of a car can be reduced by more than half, reducing the fuel consumption. A lighter car needs a smaller engine, saving more weight and more fuel. This also makes electric cars cheaper, since the largest cost is the battery and a light car won’t need as many to go a given distance. This allows electric cars to go mainstream sooner, encouraging more research on advanced batteries that further reduce costs and increase range. By 2050 cars can be using so little liquid fuel it’s fairly easy to supply that with biofuels (not corn ethanol, which received applause from the audience). The interesting thing was he gave lots of examples where car companies are currently working on bringing these concepts to the market in the next few years, including a factory in Moses Lake that will be building material for BMW.

He also talked about using roads more efficiently, more efficient pumps and motors, and lots of other topics. The basic story was repeated over and over. We waste a lot of energy. Once we cut out the waste, it’s easy to clean up what remains. And we can do this while improving the economy and everyone still gets cold beer and hot showers.

The presentation was only about 30 minutes, followed by some questions from Seattle’s Denis Hayes and the audience. In true Lovins style he covered a lot of territory and it was basically whetting our appetite for when it comes out in book form or to go to their web site and read more. His view is optimistic, but it’s backed up with real analysis and the assumptions he’s making are not unreasonable.

While the case he made for drastic increases in efficiency was fairly persuasive, he didn’t explain how renewable energy would replace existing coal plants without significant government action. Personally, I think that unless we institute some kind of preference for renewable energy (e.g. carbon tax, cap and trade, renewable energy standard), coal plants built in 1980 will still be operating in 2050. He also made reference to how abundant wind energy is, but I don’t believe that we’ll capture that without significant government investments in a national HVDC grid.

Lot’s of reasons to hope. Now get out their and conserve energy!!!

Meaningful Solar Idea o’ the Day

Because Good Ideas Should Be Freed

I am so tired of having these huge ideas floating around my head and no one to share them with….so here we go. I’m opening my book to you, the sustainable community. Let’s see what happens when I turn on the idea faucet! Who’s got a bucket?

Idea 1:
Non-profit, Community Owned Photovoltaic Factory

Don’t you dare scoff! Read on! The gist is this; you can’t compete with China when it comes to manufacturing anything unless…..you’re not competing. What if you weren’t in business to make money but rather to make a difference?  Enter the Non-Profit Community Owned Solar Factory. By being organized as a nonprofit, grant money and tax benefits can offset the cost of solar to a point where it could be on par with the imported goods. A solar factory in West Seattle wouldn’t need to necessarily produce goods at a comparable price anyway. Washington State subsidizes local solar goods with some really good incentives that allow higher prices to be charged.

Ok, so it’s theoretically possibly produce lower-than-market-cost solar panels, great. A solar factory must cost 10’s of millions of dollars to create. Not so much. I’ve done the research, and have a quote, for all of the equipment necessary to produce 60,000, 200W solar panels a year. Enough for 4,000 average sized systems. How much is this equipment? $1.8 M. OMG, Gee whiz, holy smokes that’s a lot of money. Not really. Consider the community owned aspect of this idea. 1.8M may be a great deal for an individual to come up with, but a community such as ours….not so farfetched. Do some simple math and you can see 1.8M/$5000 = 360 people putting up $5k. I got 5k on it.

So 360 people putting up $5k gets us the equipment, what about the building? Well, it just so happens that WS has an industrial area in need of some serious rehab. The Duwamish Corridor is an EPA Superfund site. Tell me a better place to plant a cleantech seed! A nonprofit could lease a space for low cost instead of buying. You only need 6,000 square feet for the equipment and maybe another $30k for the electrical and plumbing build out. Not too bad so far.

The biggest cost of manufacturing solar modules comes from procuring the solar cells, solder, framing, glass and backsheets. If you were going to go all out and procure the entire 60,000 panels worth of materials you’d be looking at another $20M or so. Granted, that’s an intimidating amount but you don’t have to get a year’s worth of materials all at once, start smaller. Or, add in some Department of Energy grant money, maybe some Bill and Melinda money, oh heck, how about some Costco, Boeing, and Amazon money while we’re at it (after all, they will be customers of this new entity, right?). Pretty soon, our little $22M dollar community solar factory is accomplishable, likely even. We have the human resources right here in town to make this happen. Toss in some local grant writers, Sustainability group volunteers, a couple politicians, a solar expert or two, and viola! Homegrown solar factory.

The nonprofit can then train solar educators and sponsor events where the community learns about the benefits of having solar, how it works, the incentives, etc. They are introduced to the “new cost” of going solar, the one with the nonprofit profit margin.

The nonprofit can also train solar installers to install and maintain the modules that are being produced. You want to talk about job creation!! Educators, trades people, grant writers, nonprofit leaders…all of the jobs that are in jeopardy in the present day will have useful places in this arena.

Bottom line: The only thing in recession is the old way of making money. A nonprofit can provide meaningful work, health care, and living wages for all those involved instead of just a few on top. It just takes us getting together to make it happen. I’m all for this one, that’s why I’m sharing it. If you are interested in chatting it up, just shoot a call or email.

As always, take care.

Eric Thomas is the proprietor of Solar Epiphany, a West Seattle business specializing in Solar Education, Installation and Advocacy. Find Solar Epiphany online at solarepiphany.com and at 6016 B California Ave SW, in the Morgan Junction area.

The Poorest County in the Country is in the middle of the Saudi Arabia of Wind

The latest rankings show that the poorest county in the Country is Ziebach County, South Dakota. Two Indian Reservations make up this very rural county with a population density of 1.3 people per square mile (as compared to  816 people per square mile for King County). This is a place where more than 60% of the people live at or below the poverty line (a family of four making less than $22,000 a year).

Dealing with generations of poverty is difficult.  It’s hard to imagine what the people of Ziebach County could do to bring prosperity to this windy spot in the middle of nowhere. Wait, did you say windy? There’s power in the wind. There’s money in the wind. There are jobs in the wind. Maybe the Reservation could raise capital and build a windfarm.

Looking at the wind resource map for South Dakota shows that Ziebach County is in the middle of some of the best wind resources in the world. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that South Dakota alone could be home to over 800,000 MegaWatts (MWs) of wind turbines. This could replace about 300 plants the size of Washington’s only coal-fired power plant in Centralia. By comparison, Washington State’s wind potential is less than 10,000 MWs.

South Dakota could support 800,000 MW, but only has 412 MW of installed capacity. By comparison Washington, which has relatively meager wind potential, has 1964 MW of installed wind turbines. The difference is access to markets. Washington’s wind farms are located near existing long distance transmission power lines that can transmit the power generated to Seattle or elsewhere. The windfarm developers didn’t need to build the transmission capacity, they just connected to what was already there. In South Dakota there just isn’t much in the way of transmission lines to connect to. Without the transmission, that wind power is stranded. Looking again at the map of the grid, we see that North Dakota has significant connections to the Minneapolis area and 1222 MW of installed wind power, despite having slightly less potential than its neighbor to the south. It’s clear that the most important element leading to the development of wind power is not wind, but transmission.

In the 1950’s we started to build the interstate highway system, which changed the landscape of this country, allowing goods and commerce to flow more easily. We had state highways that served local needs, but if you wanted to drive from sea to shining sea you needed to cobble together a route from a series of highways.

The federal system eased the trip. Today we need to build a similar system for the flow of renewable energy. The current electrical grid was built to move power short distances, not move wind power from Ziebach County to Chicago, Detroit or Miami. Building such a system would allow us to decommission our fleet of coal-fired power plants, while bringing prosperity to places like Ziebach County.