Comments View as Flat

1. 

   GRLCowan Posted 3:00 am
   16 Jun 2008

   As yet no states with nuclear portfolio standards

   But if any power source deserves this privilege, it does. Unlike wind turbines it hasn't had several fatal accidents in the last three years; indeed, none. And the mines have not been making their workers or neighbours sick.

   A few things I haven't seen any remark of in this blog: Angela Merkel's recent remark that Germany's plan to phase out nuclear energy is "absolutely wrong", Italy's similar proclamation, my province's determination, today, to go forward with new nuclear plant. Suck on that, Astro Boy.

   --- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996
   http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html

   Permalink

2. 

   Sean Casten Posted 3:06 am
   16 Jun 2008

   Actually...

   I think it tells you more about where renewable resources are concentrated.  Traditional renewable potential is overwhelming concentrated west of the Mississippi, be it of the wind, hydro or solar variety.  It's why we have such a political problem getting a national RPS passed, because it is inevitably a wealth-transfer from the east to the west and - for those with an eye towards counting electoral districts - impossible to put through either house of congress.

   Unless we expand the definition of renewability to include technologies beyond the traditional set, it's always going to be consigned to a state-level phenomena.  

   Permalink

3. 

   Nucbuddy Posted 3:46 am
   16 Jun 2008

   Are wind/solar portfolio-standards advantageous?

   Sean Caston wrote: we have such a political problem getting a national [epithet deleted]PS passed

   Why would a state, or a nation, adopt a wind/solar portfolio standard? Is it supposed to confer some competitive-advantage upon the adopting entity?
   

   Permalink

4. 

   Laurence Aurbach Posted 5:29 am
   16 Jun 2008

   Political playing field

   Speaking of the political playing field, the states with renewable standards or goals on the map represent 304 electoral votes (270 needed to elect) and 175.7 million population (57.4% of the U.S. total).

   Ped Shed Blog

   Permalink

5. 

   Sean Casten Posted 5:43 am
   16 Jun 2008

   Laurence

   But only 24 states, if I've counted right, which means that a national standard can't pass the Senate, much less get the 60 votes needed (30 states) to get around a filibuster.

   Permalink

6. 

   David Roberts Posted 6:16 am
   16 Jun 2008

   Sean,

   Would including CHP be enough to get Southern senators on board?

   grist.org

   Permalink

7. 

   Sean Casten Posted 6:22 am
   16 Jun 2008

   David,

   Yes.  Or even just waste-heat recovery, if one wants to limit it to the purest, zero-marginal fuel technologies.  We actually got an amendment back in 2003 for what ultimately became the 2005 EPACT, sponsored by Senator Landrieux (LA) that would have done precisely that, and the logic for her was that her state would suddenly become a net cash recipient.  I personally think it's the only way you ever get one passed at the national level.

   Permalink

8. 

   hapa Posted 6:42 am
   16 Jun 2008

   it's early

   too early to dismiss offshore wind and biomass/gas for the north atlantic coast. too early to assume revenue sharing deals couldn't be arranged, since it's an emergency and local economics are going to be disrupted no matter how things are done.

   not too early to talk about local reliability, redundancy, conservation, efficiency.

   Permalink

9. 

   hapa Posted 7:15 am
   16 Jun 2008

   and...

   densely-populated states stand to gain much in absolute terms from demand reduction. this negaproject would be a big offset of plant closures, non-construction, and imported micropower equipment.

   and, um, 25% by 2025, ha ha, like that's all it will be.

   Permalink

10. 

    JMG Posted 12:08 pm
    16 Jun 2008

    Backlash building against RPS in AZ

    
    http://www.wind-watch.org/news/?p=14221

    Candidates target renewable-energy quotas; 4 want utilities panel to toss out surcharge

    The future of a surcharge on state customers' electricity bills could hinge on the outcome of the Republican primary battle for the Arizona Corporation Commission.

    Half the eight contenders for the three open seats on the commission want to scrap the "renewable energy standard" that state utility regulators approved three years ago. The rule mandates that 15 percent of all electricity sold in Arizona by 2025 come from renewable sources like wind, solar and geothermal instead of the current heavy reliance on coal, nuclear and natural gas.

    The possibility of a rollback has alarmed Republican incumbent Kris Mayes, who is not up for re-election this year. She has been a prime proponent of not just renewable energy, but solar in particular.

    "It boggles the mind," she said, calling the idea of rescinding the requirement "a ridiculous notion."

    But the political reality could put her and Gary Pierce, the other incumbent also not on the ballot this year, in the minority on the five-member panel.

    Former state Rep. John Allen, R-Scottsdale, one of the GOP contenders, said he is no fan of the mandate.

    "I think that it's ahead of its time," he said, saying Arizona regulators decided to enact the rules ahead of most other states "so we can have the bragging rights."

    Buckeye resident Keith Swapp, another candidate, said there is nothing wrong with suggesting that utilities look at alternatives and even in encouraging their customers to use more of it.

    But he said that should be strictly voluntary rather than "pulling money out of the taxpayers' pockets."

    That's a view shared by Rick Fowlkes of Mesa and Joseph Hobbs of Avondale, who are running together as a ticket for the three open seats.

    There also are four Democrats vying for the three open seats. But the outcome of that race may have little bearing on the issue.

    All the commissioners, including the two not up this year and the three not running for re-election, have been Republicans since Renz Jennings left after the 1998 election. And Democrats have not had a majority on the panel in more than a decade.

    Surcharge in question

    Central to the fight is the question of cost: Electricity from renewable sources generally costs more than nuclear and coal, which are the cheapest and, for the moment, largest sources of power for Arizona.

    To account for that, the commission is allowing utilities to tack additional charges onto customers' bills.

    Tucson Electric Power, for example, can add up to $2 a month onto what their residential customers pay. That brings bills to $39 a month for small and medium-size businesses, and up to $500 for the largest industrial users.

    For Arizona Public Service, residential bills can contain an extra $1.85 a month. Businesses can be charged an additional $68.78 a month, with that figure increasing to $206.33 for the largest customers.

    Fowlkes, who ran for the commission before as a Libertarian, said renewable energy might be an answer in the future to help utility companies meet demand and hold down costs.

    "But in the short run, it costs more to generate power this way than the conventional means of generating power," he said. And Fowlkes said the mandate "is just another example of government telling business how to operate."

    But outright repeal of the mandate does not have support from three current legislators, who also are running as a ticket. One of them, Rep. Bob Stump, R-Peoria, said he wants it to remain in place, at least for the time being.

    "We are open to looking at that should the economy go south" and the costs to consumers grows too large, he said. But he called it "shortsighted" for any candidate to say up front that the mandate should be repealed outright.

    Plans in place

    Rep. Bob Robson, R-Chandler, part of that same ticket, said that, if nothing else, the mandate serves as a goal.

    "Goals have to be flexible, as well," he said. "But if they didn't put the goal in place, would we have a $1 billion investment that's currently being made?"

    That refers to plans by APS to buy power produced by a Spanish company that announced earlier this year that it would build a solar thermal plant near Gila Bend that could generate enough power to serve 70,000 households.

    Rep. Marian McClure, R-Tucson, the third member of the ticket, said she might not have supported the renewable-energy mandate at the time it was first approved. But McClure said now that it is in place, she doubts she would vote to change it.

    Also running as a Republican, but not part of any ticket, is former state lawmaker Barry Wong, who served on the commission for six months to fill a vacancy. He said he supports renewable energy.

    Mayes acknowledged the current cost differentials, especially for solar. But she said these could soon disappear as coal in particular becomes more expensive.

    She pointed out that Congress is discussing "cap and trade" regulations designed to limit the greenhouse gases that coal-fired plants produce. There also is some discussion of a "carbon tax," which would make coal-generated power more costly.

    Once renewables cost no more than traditional sources, Mayes said, the need for the surcharge on utility customers disappears.

    But Robson has another idea altering the mandate: He wants to see the definition of what constitutes renewable energy expanded to include nuclear.

    If nothing else, he said, there has to be recognition that there is a role for nuclear power. The only question, he said, is whether plants will be built in Arizona, under the purview of the Corporation Commission and federal authorities, or potentially just across the border by a private company in Mexico.

    The Democratic contenders include Sandra Kennedy, a former state lawmaker from Phoenix who has made an unsuccessful bid for the commission before; Paul Newman, another former legislator and Bisbee resident who now is a Cochise County supervisor; Phoenix resident Sam George, who describes himself as active in Democratic causes; and Kara Kelty, a member of the Flagstaff City Council.

    by Howard Fischer
    Capitol Media Services

    azcentral.com

    12 June 2008

    The 5% Project

    Permalink

11. 

    Pangolin Posted 2:06 pm
    16 Jun 2008

    The reality impaired.

    I would think that the Southeast would benefit from some kind of geo-exchange mass conversion as there is about a weekend between the heating season and the air conditioning season. The typical high humidity in modern houses almost requires forced ventilation.

    States like Arizona and Idaho are pretty much reality impaired as a rule as their economies are dependent upon long commutes to workplaces and importations of practically everything. Pheonix in particular is a place utterly dependent upon imported water, fuel, food and power to make the place survivable for even a week. It's a vast monument to wasteful practices.

    At the current rate of crisis acceleration I believe the reality impaired shall receive the metaphorical 'boot to the head' by November in the form of fuel and food prices. Anybody voting for the free pony party by November probably can't tie their shoes.

    Put the Carbon Back

    Permalink

12. 

    stopgreenpath Posted 3:30 am
    18 Jun 2008

    point of use isn't counted, though...

    at least in CA, the utilities do not count renewable power generated by US at our homes and businesses as "renewable power," but rather as "losses."  oh, and these are the same utilities which are in charge of the PR, the implementation, the inspections and the interconnections for all our grid-tied renewables.  oh, and they are also the only "agencies" in charge of "conservation" programs in CA, which they also write off as, yep "losses" on their books.  

    the government does not manage any of the programs which might actually change the way we produce, conserve and pay for/get paid for renewable power on our own properties, and there is a glaring conflict of interest for utilities to run them well.  the only incentive for utilities to implement renewable energy is the insane "giveaway" program known as "net metering," where they get all our excess power for FREE.

    the best, fastest, cheapest, fairest and most environmentally sound way to manage this phase of renewable energy is to RAMP UP point of use systems, oversize them in prime resource areas, contract for fair market value for 100% of power, including the extremely valuable "peaker power" produced by US (like Germany, which pays 62 cents/kWh for peaker solar power), and allow utilities to count it against their RPS (since they will be buying it).  no million acres of wilderness obliterated, no homes lost to eminent domain, no hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on power plants/lines which is charged back to ratepayers, a welcome income boost to people who do the right thing, and a large green collar jobs boost to PEOPLE rather than Big Energy, and we have a WINNER.
    

    the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.

    Permalink