September 18, 2008
Below are a few letters we received on topics that appeared in the past few weeks. They capture the essence of how many readers say they feel.
________________________________________
California's Laws - September 05, 2008
Thanks for your article summarizing California's efforts to transition to renewable energy sources. I would like to respectfully point out that, like many other commentators, you only highlighted the costs and risks of striving to achieve meaningful renewable energy goals, while ignoring the costs and risks of not doing so. First, you ignore the fact that the cost of fossil fueled sources of energy are increasing dramatically and certainly would increase even faster if efforts to reduce their consumption such as those implemented by California and the 25 other states with renewable portfolio standards (RPS) were not in place. Second, you ignore the fact that as the external costs of utilizing fossil fuels are internalized (at least partially), something that appears inevitable in the near future, the costs of fossil fuel use will accelerate faster. Lastly, and most importantly, you ignore the cost of unabated climate change. These costs are huge for most places on earth, but especially obvious to arid western states that depend so greatly on winter snowfall for their water and to eastern coastal states that stand to lose large areas of valuable real estate and infrastructure to rising sea levels caused by global warming.
Joe Schiller
The California Air Resources Board has a record of promulgating self-styled "technology forcing" regulations. There are no checks and balances holding this Board back.
Their most costly action was the 10% zero-emission vehicles by 2005 regulation. This cost the US automakers the ability to go for hybrid cars and Toyota swamped them. The Board's edict dissolved, but this experience has not stopped them from trying again and again to put their whims into laws.
Dave Rossin
Using Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) in the states, as well at the Federal level, is one of the easiest and most cost-effective policy options to help reach mandatory greenhouse gas emission reductions in the near term; and California has taken their place at the forefront of environmental regulations by leveraging this relationship. The ability to achieve aggressive RPS standards such as 33% by 2020, however, should certainly not be "a problem" due to wind and solar resource availability, or cost of compliance, as suggested in the September 5th article California's Laws of EnergyBiz Insider.
The technical potential in the West for wind alone exceeds 2,200,000 MW.[2] The upfront cost of investing in the transmission necessary to access this wind potential will generate offsetting benefits in the form of access to stably priced and clean electricity and system benefits from network upgrades. For example, an investment of $1.8 billion in the Tehachapi transmission project will allow 4,500 MW of wind to come online[2]-- the avoided carbon value alone of this project, at $20 to 25 per ton of CO2, would exceed the cost of the transmission investment.
Achieving greenhouse gas reduction goals will require a heavy investment in electricity infrastructure and clean generation, and wind energy is the least-cost, zero-emitting, readily available option on the market today . RPS programs offer states and the nation a policy tool to quickly deploy currently available and cost-effective clean technology in the next 10 to 15 years--the most critical time period under any comprehensive greenhouse gas reduction strategy.
Elizabeth Salerno
Manager of Policy Analysis
American Wind Energy Association
TVA's Rates - September 10, 2008
A note about this article:
TVA does not buy or import any coal from China. All of the coal it buys is domestic (mined in the U.S.). CEO Tom Kilgore was making the point China is not exporting as much coal now because demand is up in Asian markets, which reduces the overall supply of coal available and drives up the cost.
Thank you.
Ken Silverstein
Storing Green Energy - September 12, 2008
Energy Storage is not needed to integrate wind power into the nation's power grid -- we forwarded you the "20% Wind Energy by 2030" report earlier this year and we had hoped you would use it to better inform articles like this one -- because Energy Storage does have a bright future -- as a "system resource" -- just like any other generator or demand-side resource.
But pairing Energy Storage with wind or solar serves only to raise the costs of that delivered energy and sub-optimizes the contribution of the energy storage technology. Wind and solar are best integrated with the existing grid at much, much less cost to consumers -- energy storage is sub-optimized when paired with any specific plant or technology (be it wind, solar or nuclear or coal) -- energy storage is of the most use when it is viewed as a grid resource -- to be used to balance wind's variable output or the intermittent output of nuclear or coal. (Please note the most accurate use of variable to apply to wind and solar, which change their output slowly over time in a predictable fashion -- versus nuclear or coal plants, which trip off line unexpectedly in a matter of seconds).
Energy storage has a bright future, if costs can be brought down -- but to constantly associated energy storage with wind and solar does a disservice to both technologies, Ken -- I am disappointed you fell into this trap and are, as a result, propagating myths and misunderstandings on energy storage and renewables, again.
Most disappointing.
Jeff Anthony
Manager - Utility Programs and Policy
American Wind Energy Association
I agree that energy storage is critical for reaching high levels of intermittent renewable energy in the grid.
There are 2 basic approaches:
1. Large-scale, centralized storage (compressed air, flow batteries, pumped hydro)
2. Small-scale, end-use, distribut ed storage (ice, hot water, vehicles batteries)
Each approach has its own economy of scale.
In general, with large-scale storage, the larger the facility the lower the cost per megawatt and per megawatt-hour. With small-scale, end-use, distributed storage the economies of scale are in manufacturing a large number of units. This lowers the cost per unit manufactured and lowers the cost per kilowatt and per kilowatt-hour.
An example of small-scale storage is the ice storage air-conditioning system from Ice Energy Corporation.
One advantage of end-use storage is the possibility of reduced grid load. If the energy is going to be used where it is stored, the energy can be stored during times of low grid load reducing peak grid load.
Both centralized and distributed storage have important roles to play in increasing the amount of "green" energy in the grid and reducing the environmental impact of energy use.
Michael Winkler
Schatz Energy Research Center
Humboldt State University
Respond to the editor.
