Author

CleanTechies.com Contributor

Are You in a Toxic Relationship With Your Gadgets?

Most people don’t realize they’re in a toxic relationship with their gadgets. Studies show the average American discards 65 pounds of e-waste every year. Every gadget that ends up in the landfill sends heavy metals and other health-threatening toxins into our air, soil and water.

But here’s the good news: Recycling devices,especially our beloved mobile phones, is on the rise.

Responsible e-waste recycler eCycle Best helped keep 34,000 American gadgets out of the landfill since Earth Day 2013. Of these, 21,000 were smartphones, 11,000 laptops, and 2,000 tablets were recycled.

Recycling just one cell phone saves enough energy to power a laptop for 44 hours, keeps harmful toxins out of the environment, and closes the loop by putting gently used smartphones back on the market for someone else to enjoy.

To highlight the pros (and cons) of our tech obsession, eCycle Best created this handy infographic

Dave Kruchinin, CEO of eCycle Best, is hopeful that American consumers are getting wiser when it comes to throwing away their phones, tablets and laptops. “Although the numbers are relatively small when compared to overall amount of e-waste the country has generated,” he explains, “I believe that these numbers prove the increasing green awareness among American electronic consumers.”

Kruchinin encourages tech lovers to remember that much e-waste is not actually waste at all, but rather equipment and electronic parts that can be marketable for reuse or recycled for materials recovery. If one million consumers recycle laptops and other devices, they could save energy equivalent to electricity used by 3,657 homes annually.

Article by eCycle Best CEO Dave Kruchinin

04/21/2014 0 comment

Energy Efficiency Renewable Energy

Building-Integrated Solar Air Heating Systems Proving Popular

written by CleanTechies.com Contributor

For some parts of the United States, such as Upper Michigan, the winter of 2013-14 was the coldest in recorded history. In Marquette, for example, the average temperature was a tundra-like 7.5 degrees.

Well, what if I told you that it’s possible to cut your building’s energy use (in some cases by up to half), while protecting the environment, too? Sign me up, right? Simply put, innovative solar heating and cooling systems (SHC), which are growing in popularity nationwide, could be the winning ticket for you.

According to new industry data, a growing sector of the U.S. solar energy industry has reached a major new milestone, with 5 million square feet of building-integrated solar air heating collectors now installed in North America. These systems represent 250 megawatts (MW) of thermal energy and displace nearly 100,000 tons of CO2 each year from the atmosphere.

Unfortunately, building-integrated solar air heating systems are often overlooked in the discussion about renewable energy. It’s time to change that mindset. These cost-effective, energy-efficient systems can reduce by 20 to 50 percent the amount of conventional energy used for heating buildings – or for agricultural or process drying applications. That can represent a huge savings to companies, business owners and farmers nationwide.

Solar air heating systems work by heating incoming ventilation air before it is brought into a building’s heating, ventilation and air conditioning system (HVAC), using wall-mounted collectors that are typically made of metal and have 30-plus year lifespans.

By our estimates, we can create more than 50,000 new American jobs and save $60 billion in energy costs over the next 30 years by expanding the use of SHC systems across the United States. Today, approximately 44 percent of all American energy consumption is attributable to heating and cooling. As a nation, it’s time to re-think our strategy for generating energy for our homes, businesses, schools and government buildings.

According to BEAM Engineering, a Boston-based energy consulting firm, SHC is the most efficient renewable technology for generating thermal heat and costs are as low as 6 cents per kilowatt (kWh) hour. Last year, SEIA’s Solar Heating and Cooling Alliance released a comprehensive report, detailing how SHC technologies can help to power the U.S. economy, while significantly reducing pollution. So the next time your electricity meter is spinning like a dog chasing its tail, think about how nice it’d be to spend less money for energy – and more money on yourself!

About the Author: Rhone Resch is the President and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), the national trade association for the solar energy industry representing over 1,000 companies that manufacture, develop and install solar systems of all sizes and technologies.

04/18/2014 0 comment

Renewable Energy

Local Energy Rules Episode 20 – The Power of Collective Energy Purchasing

written by CleanTechies.com Contributor

“We can’t do it as an individual, But four hundred communities aggregating and asking for local wind power and solar power – that’s really powerful.”

Oak Park, IL, is one of hundreds of Illinois towns using their authority to buy electricity in bulk on behalf of its residential and small business customers. So far, most communities have used the policy – known as community choice aggregation – to negotiate for less expensive electricity compared to the default electric utility, Commonwealth Edison. Many have also purchased renewable energy credits with their power, but it’s not clear if the practice is greening or green-washing the power supply.

Learn more about the incremental steps forward with community choice aggregation in Illinois and the potential for much greater collaboration between cities in this interview with outgoing Sustainability Manager K.C. Doyle of Oak Park, recorded via Skype on Mar. 28, 2014.

K.C. is also the founder of the Prairie State Local Government Sustainability Network, providing peer-to-peer networking of municipal officials around sustainability and climate planning.

Starting an Avalanche of Local Control in Illinois
The Illinois state legislature authorized “community choice aggregation” in 2009, allowing cities in this already deregulated electricity market to buy energy in bulk for their customers. It’s a 20-year-old policy, and such local city (or county) aggregations serve about 5% of utility customers in Illinois, Ohio, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and California. Most states

Uptake of local aggregation was slow at first. Only a couple other communities had tried it when Oak Park city staff brought the issue to their town board in December 2010. The city held its referendum in April 2011, and two-thirds of voters approved of the city taking more control over electricity purchases.

By the end of 2012, dozens of Illinois communities had held votes approving local electricity purchase aggregation.

Cheap, Clean, or Both?
Once the town board had voter approval for aggregation, it began discussing options. The city could simply bid for cheaper electricity, or it could focus on more energy efficiency and renewable energy.

One of the city’s goals was to use a small fraction of the potential energy savings to set up an energy efficiency fund to offer energy audits or upgrade city lighting. That concept was dropped because of concerns that, amidst what was already a somewhat complex discussion for a small city, residents might perceive this fund as some sort of energy tax.

On clean energy, the decision was easier, although the outcome remains murky. Doyle notes that citizens were very clear in their interest in renewable energy:

“The answer was overwhelmingly…yes, we want the best price possible and yes, we want renewable energy as our power mix. In fact, we want it all renewable energy.”

In fall of 2011, the city went out to bid for green energy, with 100% of it covered by renewable energy credits (RECs) from wind power.

RECs – Renewable Energy Credits
ILSR and others have explained the concept of RECs elsewhere, but what’s important to understand is that buying RECs didn’t change the actual source of electricity flowing to Oak Park homes and businesses, nor did it mean the construction of new renewable energy facilities.

“We are not getting wind power through our electric socket…we’re getting the same mix everyone in northern Illinois is getting from ComEd…but we can say we offset that purchase with the purchase of wind RECs,” says Doyle, by “buying the environmental benefit of an already built wind farm in our energy market area (PJM),” which spans five states and part of Canada.

What’s clear is that the competitive energy market doesn’t offer small cities like Oak Park much choice.

“If you’re a large enough aggregation (e.g. Chicago), you can go right to the source” and get wind energy from a specific wind power provider in Illinois or even sign a long-term supply contract. With just 20,000 electric accounts, Oak Park doesn’t have the market leverage. Using long term contracts wasn’t of interest to the city board, either, since the board didn’t want to sign contracts longer than their terms of office (6 years).

Organizing to Move Beyond RECs
But cities like Oak Park do have a choice to increase their market power: join with their neighbors.

The North Shore Electricity Aggregation, for example, serves eight municipalities north of Chicago and bids on behalf of the entire group. The Metropolitan Mayor’s Caucus also established a “reverse auction platform” allowing cities to solicit bids simultaneously from energy supply companies. But that platform still only helps communities with similar energy use profiles. “The more alike you are,” says Doyle, “the easier time [suppliers] have bidding on your aggregation.”

The move toward larger aggregations may also help promote local renewable energy. While their first bid was limited to wind RECs in the larger PJM market area, the 2014 bid from Oak Park will ask for RECs from Illinois-only wind farms. Perhaps in future years they’ll shift toward procuring renewable energy locally, as Marin Clean Energy has done in northern California.

The focus on clean energy is tricky, though. The city remains “very price sensitive” as ComEd’s rates come down, says Doyle. They “want to remain competitive.”

What’s Next for Local Energy Aggregation?
Early aggregations in Illinois were able to take advantage of a unique situation to obtain much lower energy prices, but that situation has changed. They’ll need strategies beyond price to keep aggregation a “value add” for their residents.

Cities can take up and invest in energy efficiency. They can solicit bids for electricity contracts that include real-time pricing or demand response. And they should always ask for a price for local renewable energy, says Doyle:

“Every single community should ask the question…you are showing the suppliers that you have a very, very interested community in supporting the local renewable energy industry. It’s powerful information for decision makers, legislators, Illinois Power Agency…four hundred communities aggregating and asking for local wind power and solar power – that’s really powerful.”

Ultimately, communities should build on the success of collective action.

“We do this really great thing together, we banded together, we went out for a cheaper price and we saved a ton of money. $5 million in 2 years…there’s a lot of [community] pride around that.”

Article by John Farrell, appearing courtesy Institute for Local Self-Reliance.

04/17/2014 0 comment

Energy Efficiency

California’s Energy Future: An Interview With CPUC Chairman Robert Weisenmiller

written by CleanTechies.com Contributor

Before its retirement in 2012, the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) represented about 16 percent of the local electricity generation supply covering an average of 1.4 million homes serviced by Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric and the City of Riverside in southern California. The plant was especially important because of its location on a critical transmission path between Orange County and San Diego. As a result, its closure created a shortage of electricity, and a shortage of voltage support that is necessary to move power between Los Angeles and southern Orange County/San Diego.

Energy Efficiency Markets interviews Robert Weisenmiller, chairman at the California Energy Commission, about what the retirement means to energy efficiency markets in California.

EEMarkets: Earlier this month, the CPUC decided to replace much of the energy from the retired SONGS with new energy efficiency capacity. Can you give me some background about how and why this decision came about?

Robert: Following SCE’s announcement of its intentions to retire San Onofre, the California energy agencies examined Southern California reliability issues exacerbated by the short-term closure and permanent retirement of San Onofre. A preliminary plan was prepared by the staff of the member organizations and discussed at a public workshop conducted by the energy commission in September 2013. The plan relies upon a mix of resource additions and transmission system upgrades in the appropriate Southern California regions.

Resource additions can help mitigate against reliability threats as a result of growing loads. These include pursuit of additional capacity with a goal of 50 percent preferred resources and 50 percent conventional generation with triggers and contingency plans if any of these resources do not come to fruition. The 50 percent level was an increase over what was approved for SCE in December of 2012.

The recommended reliance upon 50 percent preferred resources is acknowledged to require changes from business as usual, and current EE and DR programs will need to be reformed and expanded to meet the targets. The CPUC decision is the next step forward toward the 50 percent preferred resources as outlined in the Joint Southern California Reliability Plan.

EEMarkets: What does this decision mean for the energy efficiency market in California?

Robert: This decision reinforces California’s historic and ongoing commitment to invest in energy efficiency. It will enhance that market by increasing opportunities for energy efficiency providers and ratepayers when it comes to energy efficiency upgrades that save energy and money. This is especially critical in the Southern California area that was served by SONGS. For the first time, California is trying to pursue these preferred resources in very specific geographical areas.

EEMarkets: Specifically, the CPUC decision requires SCE and SDG&E to procure capacity from preferred resources or energy storage. What are these preferred resources and why are they preferred over other resources?

Robert: The collaborating agencies worked with SCE and SDG&E to develop a comprehensive blueprint to ensure reliability while balancing carbon-reduction strategies to help fight climate change. One of the recommendations included targeting 3,250 MW of preferred resources – including local energy efficiency, demand response, renewable generation and storage – to meet approximately 50 percent of needs. The only way to meet energy needs of a growing population and recovering economy in the face of climate change and loss of power plants is to create a balanced portfolio of preferred and conventional resources. These recommendations were then refined in the CPUC proceeding.

EEMarkets: Does this decision differ from decisions in the past about how to replace retired generation capacity? How so?

Robert: California’s energy resource loading order policy that provides a higher priority to investment in energy efficiency, demand response, renewable energy and distributed generation (preferred resources – localized solar PV, fuel cells, energy storage, combined heat and power systems etc.) than investing in natural gas power plants (conventional resources) and electricity system upgrades to meet California’s growing electricity demand. The state is committed to investing in cost-effective low-environmental impact preferred energy resources. Electricity reliability is of the utmost importance and with the closure of SONGS, a combination of preferred and conventional energy resources are necessary. This is a unique opportunity to fundamentally transform the electricity system in southern California as we work to meet our energy and environmental goals.

EEMarkets: Will energy efficiency capacity procurement be more common in California and across the country as a way to meet energy demand in the future?

Robert: Yes. Preferred resources will play an increasing role in California’s energy future.

EEMarkets: The energy commission released a report in January 2014 that looked at how to replace energy from SONGS with energy efficiency resources. Did this report influence the CPUC decision in March? How closely did the Energy Commission and CPUC work together?

Robert: The energy commission and CPUC worked closely over the last year. The partnership encompassed several agencies and solicited public input. However, the CPUC decision was based upon the evidentiary record in their proceeding.

EEMarkets: Who came together, in addition to the energy commission and CPUC, in order to make this decision? Utility partners, policy-makers, business owners, etc.?

Robert: The energy commission, the CPUC, Air Resources Board, the California Independent System Operator, State Water Resources Control Board and Southern California Air Quality Management District collaborated as a cross-agency working group. Public input was also important and the group spent months gathering and analyzing information. As discussed above, the CPUC commissioners unanimously adopted their decision based upon their evidentiary record.

EE Markets: Is there anything you would have liked to have seen in the CPUC decision? Any improvements in future years?

Robert: The agencies will track progress in acquiring the portfolio of preferred and conventional resources, and may further refine these programs in future years.

EEMarkets: In the next year, what are you most excited about for the energy efficiency industry in California?

Robert: In early 2014, the energy commission released its Integrated Energy Policy Report that focused on strategies and actions to increase the energy efficiency of new and existing buildings. We are excited about:

The roll out of the Prop 39 programs to retrofit California schools so dollars can be shifted from paying energy bills to funding education.
Implementing new building efficiency standards (Title 24) in July.
Continuing the public dialogue under AB 758 on the best ways to achieve deep retrofits to existing buildings.
Developing and approving new appliance standards to conserve both energy and water.

Article by Reid Smith, appearing courtesy Energy Efficiency Markets.

04/16/2014 0 comment

Renewable Energy

Fossil Fuel Industry’s Tired Battle Against Clean Energy Is Also A Losing One

written by CleanTechies.com Contributor

The assault on successful renewable energy legislation continues, long after the facts have proven that state renewable policies deliver clean, affordable, and reliable energy solutions that the majority of Americans support. Apparently, the fossil fuel industry and its so-called “free market” allies didn’t get the memo.

There’s a great line in the opening scene of Ridley Scott’s 2000 blockbuster Gladiator where a soldier says to his general, as they are about to slaughter an overmatched foe, “People should know when they’re conquered.” The general replies, “Would you? Would I?”

So I can’t really blame the fossil fuel industry for fighting old battles in an effort to undo approaches that have increased investment in renewable energy in states around the country, created thousands of jobs, and continue to lower energy costs with each passing day.

The usual targets of their attacks are state laws that require a certain percentage of the state’s total energy generation to come from renewable sources like solar, wind, or hydropower. Ohio is the most recent battleground, where state legislators began hearing testimony last week on S.B. 310, a law that would freeze Ohio’s energy efficiency and renewable energy standards at their 2014 levels. Sometimes called renewable portfolio standards (RPS) or renewable energy standards (RES), these laws are in place in 30 states. They have not only proven economically successful across the country, but they are popular in both red and blue states alike.

Just last month, for example, a scientific poll found that Kansas’ 2009 renewable energy law enjoys overwhelming support across political lines: 73% of Republicans, 75% of Independents, and 82% of Democrats support the law. In fact, two-thirds of those polled said they would support increasing the state’s renewable energy law, even if it increased their energy bills.

This is Kansas, mind you – not California – whose State Legislature is virtually 100% conservative Republican.

In Texas, which is the largest generator of wind energy in the country, the Republican comptroller has touted the state RPS as an economic driver: “After the RPS was implemented, Texas wind corporations and utilities invested $1 billion in wind power, creating jobs…and increasing the rural tax base.”

Everyone knows that Texas’ history is deeply rooted in oil and gas. But the state RPS is popular among elected officials that have witnessed the remarkable economic boom it sparked. Texas has already surpassed the RPS goal set for 2015. More than 1,300 companies employ more than 100,000 Texans in industries directly and indirectly related to renewable energy.

The state’s Public Utilities Commission concluded that mass deployment of wind reduces the price of electricity for the entire market – each 1,000 MW of wind lowers the wholesale price of electricity by $2.38/MWh.

Colorado’s program has also been a success. The American Wind Energy Association estimates that the state’s RPS is supporting nearly 4,000 direct and indirect jobs and generating a billion dollars in capital investment along with millions in leasing revenue for landowners who benefit from the policy.

There are other analyses, too, that show that RPS laws actually reduce energy prices, and the overall cost of renewable energy continues to fall. Solar panel prices dropped 60% between 2011 and mid-2012 – and they continue to plummet. Austin Energy is in talks to purchase half a billion dollars of solar energy from SunEdison at an astoundingly cheap $50/MWh (for comparison, natural gas is currently priced at more than $65/MWh).

But still, the attacks keep coming, full of questionable studies from fossil fuel-funded think tanks.

I can’t blame them. I’ve been fighting for what I believe in for decades, and I’ve had more defeats than wins. But I never gave up, and neither will the fossil fuel companies. What’s different now, however, is that the evidence against them is so convincing that voters, energy customers, and most everyone else recognize that opposition to renewable energy is based on lost corporate profits. Cries of “higher energy costs” and “lost jobs” are no longer credible arguments against the clean energy revolution. They may never know they’ve been conquered, but everyone else will.

About the author:
James D. Marston, Vice President, US Climate and Energy, Environmental Defense Fund
Jim Marston is the founding director of the Texas office of Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), located in Austin, where he has served since its beginning in 1988.

Original Article available here

04/15/2014 0 comment

Renewable Energy

Greening or Greenwashing? Illinois Cities’ Use of RECs Shows Challenges with Local Aggregation

written by CleanTechies.com Contributor

A recent report from the World Wildlife Fund (and others) touts how city energy aggregation is “unleashing” renewable energy in Illinois. Buying electricity on behalf of their residential and small business customers, nearly 100 Midwestern cities have purchased renewable energy credits (RECs) along with their energy supply, giving their electrons a questionable aura of green energy.

These communities aren’t intentionally greenwashing, but those touting 100% green power may be disappointed by the reality: their purchases are padding the pocketbooks of existing wind and solar producers (good people), but they’re not likely to displace any additional fossil fuel power generation.

Let’s tackle why this kind of “unbundled” RECs are a problem, and also why this shows the largely untapped potential of community choice aggregation.

What’s a REC?

A renewable energy credit is a legal document that certifies that one megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity was generated from a (state-law-defined) renewable energy resource. To comply with a state’s renewable energy mandate (e.g. 25% by 2025), a utility typically generates or purchases RECs equal to the percentage of energy sales required to meet the standard. E.g. IllinoisState Utility has 100 MWh in annual energy sales and owns 25 RECs, (each worth 1 MWh), making its electricity 25% renewable.

Often, a utility purchases the REC “bundled” with the energy produced by a wind, solar, or other renewable energy generator. For example, Illinois State Utility could meet its 25% renewable energy standard by buying 25 MWh of electricity (and its corresponding 25 RECs) from a wind power plant.

How Can RECs Make Rascals?

In other cases (where permitted by state law), a renewable energy producer can “unbundle” the REC from the actual energy. In this case, Illinois State Utility can buy 1 MWh of power from a wind turbine, but the REC could be sold to the California State Utility. Even though the power comes from a wind turbine, it can’t be counted as renewable when the Illinois State Utility files to comply with its state renewable energy standard. On the other hand, California State Utility could be producing electricity from coal, but could use the REC to meet the renewable energy standard or to simply suggest that its energy supply is more renewable than it actually is.

Illustration of Bundled v. Unbundled RECs (credit: Dan Pinkel and Al Weinrub)

The theory is that proper verification means that only one entity is using one REC. Even though California State Utility owns zero wind turbines, it helps finance renewable energy by buying RECs in addition to purchasing electricity from dirty fuel sources. The Illinois State Utility, having not bought the RECs with its wind electricity, would have to buy additional renewable energy or RECs to meet its own legal requirements.

But there are some major problems with this system and its assumptions.

It’s not new renewable energy. Most of the unbundled RECs being purchased for Illinois and other city aggregators around the country are on short-term (e.g. 2 year) contracts. In other words, they aren’t likely to be used to finance new renewable energy, but rather represent additional revenue for wind or solar projects that were financed (often years ago) on the basis of federal or state renewable energy incentives. Great for those energy producers, but not great for the climate or environment because it’s not offsetting more fossil fuel power generation.
It’s not economic development. Because these RECs are likely to come from existing renewable energy projects, buying the RECs isn’t generating any new economic benefit associated with constructing new wind and solar projects, often a major selling point of being green.
It’s not local. Money used for RECs could instead finance rebates, incentives, or feed-in tariffs (or loan loss reserve programs to backstop financing for local energy investment) that would have a meaningful impact on local energy generation and the local economy.
It may not be green at all. Many states have laws that label dirty power generation like burning tires or trash as renewable. If these facilities are awarded RECs and can sell them across state lines, a city’s purchase of “green” power may not be green at all.

For more on the issues with RECs, read our source, What the Heck is a REC?

How are City Aggregators Falling Short?

In the case of local energy aggregation, the REC issue is magnified. Local aggregation gives local governments remarkable authority over their energy system, including energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy development. They can wield energy policy in the name of economic development, preserving more of the community energy dollar.

But the vast majority of aggregation cities have merely shifted fossil fuel energy suppliers, from the incumbent monopoly utility to the subsidiary of another large corporate utility. A plurality have done so and also purchased unbundled RECs, selling their customers electricity and the promise that somewhere, somehow the same amount of power is also being generated from a renewable resource. But it’s unlikely that these purchases are actually increasing renewable energy production. Instead, they are likely rewarding existing renewable energy producers with a bit more short-term revenue.

In other words, aggregation laws give cities the authority to pursue an energy moonshot, and most have settled for low-earth orbit.

Sadly, there aren’t a lot of powerful examples of communities exercising their potential local aggregation authority. Marin Clean Energy in the Bay Area of California is probably the best (listen to our podcast interview with Dawn Weisz from MCE), with several local renewable energy procurement programs and a priority on energy efficiency. But even Marin has short-term contracts with large energy suppliers (with unbundled RECs) to deliver energy to its 100,000 or so customers.

Hopefully, this is a short-term problem, with city aggregators using RECs while they develop more robust programs to lower energy costs and increase local clean energy production. The California RPS is structured this way, allowing more use of unbundled RECs in early years and a smaller portion of the total in the later years.

But to say that local city aggregations are “unleashing” renewable energy with RECs? Let’s say instead that we’re waiting on the launchpad.

Article by John Farrell, appearing courtesy Institute for Local Self-Reliance.

04/08/2014 1 comment

Renewable Energy

What’s the Dark Side of Microgrids?

written by CleanTechies.com Contributor

Marc Lopata says his job is to uncover the dark side of microgrids.

And that’s just what the president and principal engineer for Microgrid Solar is doing in a project that combines energy storage and solar energy at Missouri University of Science and Technology (Missouri S&T).

The project is located at the “Solar Village,” which consists of multiple houses built by the university’s students, between 2002 to 2009, for competition in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Solar Decathlon.

Missouri S&T students, faculty and staff, along with members of the university’s microgrid advisory board (Ameren, City Utilities of Springfield, Rolla Municipal Utilities and Electric Power Research Institute), several Missouri manufacturers (Milbank and Ford) and the Army Corps of Engineers, have worked together for two years to design and implement an advanced microgrid testing facility at the village that aims to uncover solutions to common microgrid solar challenges.

While the facility, with its solar installations and energy storage units, has the ability to be completely independent of the grid, the project will also investigate the benefits of a number of on- and off-grid scenarios, he said.

For example, the project will look into when it makes sense to take advantage of time-of-use cost structures–a goal that will likely keep math-loving students busy.

“If the utility has a time-of-use tariff, we might use grid electricity during off-peak and during peak use the solar and battery power,” Lopata explained.

The project will also look at the challenges of microgrids.

“Part of my job is to look at the dark side of projects–what happens when things don’t go right,” he says.

For example, the project will seek to educate firefighters about what to do when there’s a fire at a microgrid facility.

“Firefighters don’t have an understanding of renewable energy systems and how they can affect their firefighting abilities,” says Lopata. “We see problems happening in various places with ordinary rooftop fire arrays. Firefighters don’t understand the risk, and sometimes refuse to respond to a fire where there’s a solar array. Microgrids don’t make that easier. Not only do they have to cut off the electricity, but they don’t know where the electricity sources are,” he explains.

For example, a firefighter might turn the power off in a building by removing the utility meter, but that might not turn off all the electrical systems. There could be storage or fuel cells that provide electricity. Not understanding those possibilities poses a risk to firefighters–a risk they need to understand.

Another microgrid challenge is maintaining reliability. “If you look at a utility coal-fired plant, they have a reliability of 80 percent. On the other hand, a solar array when the sun is shining has 99 percent reliability. It’s a lot more reliable. But when you put extra equipment and batteries and controls, it makes it more complicated,” he said.

As part of the project, a number of companies are testing the reliability of their equipment and refining it, he said. They include the battery manufacturer and a fuel cell manufacturer.

Lopata’s goals of looking at the dark side of microgrids is likely to uncover important information likely to help keep the lights on–at this solar village and elsewhere.

“The research that Missouri S&T and the university’s industry partners do with this versatile testing facility will help to pave the way for significant progress toward energy security and independence,” he said.

Article by Lisa Cohn, appearing courtesy Energy Efficiency Markets.

04/07/2014 0 comment

Renewable Energy

Local Energy Rules Episode 19 – The Leading Community Energy Aggregator

written by CleanTechies.com Contributor

Community choice aggregation describes a situation where a town can become the bulk buyer of electricity on behalf of its residential and small business customers. Such local aggregations serve about 5% of utility customers in Illinois, Ohio, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and California, but it’s Marin Clean Energy in California that stands above the crowd for their commitment to renewable energy and their nearly decade-long fight to offer service.

Learn more about the struggle for local control of the energy system and its numerous advantages in this interview with Marin Clean Energy Executive Director Dawn Wiesz, recorded via Skype on Feb. 13, 2014.

Why is Local Aggregation Worthwhile?

I began by asking Dawn if the effort to form an aggregation in Marin County, almost 10 years in the making, was worthwhile.

Definitely, she said: “We’ve been able to achieve many of the goals we set out…purchasing more than double the amount of renewable energy…offering rates that are competitive and in many cases lower.” Marin Clean Energy has prices that are competitive with incumbent Pacific Gas & Electric, and also advertises power that is 50 or 100% renewable.

When Did You Know You’d Beat the Utility?

Dawn said that it wasn’t clear they’d made it until they finally offered electricity service on May 7, 2010. “It was a down to the wire development.” The incumbent utility, Pacific Gas & Electric, had financed a ballot campaign to kill community choice aggregation by increasing the vote threshold from a majority to two-thirds, fought them at the Public Utilities Commission, and set up phone banks to dissuade potential customers from signing up.

“There’s really not a level playing field,” says Weisz. The incumbent monopoly provider has “brand recognition, an army of lawyers” and other resources that it deployed to stop the locals. Ultimately, Marin Clean Energy won, and about 75% of customers in their service territory now take electricity from Marin Clean Energy.

What Makes Local Aggregation Competitive?

Dawn notes that the local aggregation has several factors in their favor in offering competitive energy service to, and more renewable energy than, the incumbent utility. As she says, “we have low operating costs – we are a small and nimble shop – we procure in a very prudent way, maximizing renewables within our portfolio, and we don’t have shareholder profits.”

More Local Energy?

Marin Clean Energy only has about 1 megawatt of local renewable energy, a solar array at a local airport, but they have big plans for more. The mechanism for more local energy is a Deep Green fund, money from customers who have opted for 100% renewable electricity. Half the revenue from that fund will help finance pre-development for renewable energy built within the utility service area.

The utility also offers a feed-in tariff program, long-term contracts for buying solar or other renewable energy projects 1 megawatt or smaller that are built locally.

Dawn says they also have plans to support community solar or “syndicated solar,” allowing customers to buy energy from solar arrays built locally.

Advice for Other Aggregators?

Dawn has two pieces of sage advice for communities jumping into local aggregation:

Walk before you run
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good

In particular, the first piece of advice refers to the desire of Marin Clean Energy organizers to offer a high renewable energy share to everyone right away, but that they phased it in slowly in order to make it work. Also, she notes that it’s really essential to get community buy-in with lots of local conversation and that taking the time to do so is what ensures all the pieces fall into place.

What’s Next?

Dawn says they’re seeing a real change with the utilities in California that may indicate a smoother road for future community choice aggregation efforts. Sonoma Clean Power is planning to launch in the next year, and many other communities in California are moving forward, offering customers “the only real choice they have” over their energy future.

You can learn more about community choice aggregation from our 2009 report or from the Local Energy Aggregation Network, a nonprofit based in California that provides information and technical assistance to states and communities considering local aggregation.

Article by John Farrell, appearing courtesy Institute for Local Self-Reliance.

04/07/2014 2 comments

Renewable Energy

Revealing Facts About How Energy is Used at Home in the UK

written by CleanTechies.com Contributor

The UK government has recently released the UK Housing Energy Fact File 2013 and there are a fair few interesting points to come out of it, as the following infographic shows, with an analysis below.

One point that caught our eye was that we are now keeping our homes 5⁰C warmer on average now than we were in 1970. It seems we’re getting more and more used to living in warm homes; temperatures in UK homes 40 years ago would feel cold by today’s standard. So what’s the reason for this?

Well, simply, the standard of living has improved for many in terms of heating and more people have access to new technologies and home improvements. For example, in 1970 far fewer homes had central heating, light bulbs were few and far between, and fewer houses were insulated in the same way they are today. There are also tighter building standards nowadays, meaning heat is much less likely to escape and is contained within the home.

In terms of how much energy we use, as individuals we use 1% more than in 1970, largely due to the influx of electronic devices, but households actually use 18% less energy thanks to dramatic improvements in the efficiency of space and water heating.

Another intriguing snippet of information brought up by the report was that coal-fired electricity generation accounted for 44% of total electricity production in 2012. In 1970 this figure was 70% but this fell to 33% in 2012, largely due to the rise of natural gas as an energy source. However, as the price of natural gas goes up, its use as an energy source has begun to diminish, hence the increase in coal-fired electricity generation.

As coal-fired electricity generation produces, more CO2 than natural gas, the UK’s CO2 output is actually increasing, despite what many other reports may insist.

What’s also worrying is that since 2003 there has been around a 9% increase in the number of UK households vulnerable to ‘fuel poverty’. It was also revealed that illnesses caused by cold homes costs the NHS nearly £1 billion every year, whilst 7,800 people die annually from living in cold homes.

In related news, it was recently announced that energy regulator Ofgem will be conducting an investigation into the ‘big six’ gas and electricity providers, which could lead to a major overhaul of the UK’s energy sector. It will see the companies come under intense scrutiny following further rises in energy costs, despite the companies making massive profits year on year, and is the first investigation of its kind to be carried out.

Labour leader Ed Miliband has stated that should his party win the next general election, he will freeze tariffs in 2015.

Article by Brett Janes, appearing courtesy 2GreenEnergy.

04/04/2014 0 comment

Renewable Energy

In Fracking Fight, a Worry About How Best to Measure Health Threats

written by CleanTechies.com Contributor

There are more than 6,000 active gas wells in Pennsylvania. And every week, those drilling sites generate scores of complaints from the state’s residents, including many about terrible odors and contaminated water.

How the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection handles those complaints has worsened the already raw and angry divide between fearful residents and the state regulators charged with overseeing the burgeoning gas drilling industry.

For instance, the agency’s own manual for dealing with complaints is explicit about what to do if someone reports concerns about a noxious odor, but is not at that very moment experiencing the smell: “DO NOT REGISTER THE COMPLAINT.”

When a resident does report a real-time alarm about the air quality in or around their home, the agency typically has two weeks to conduct an investigation. If no odor is detected when investigators arrive on the scene, the case is closed.

“The time that it takes them to respond is something people are concerned about,” said Matt Walker, a community outreach director for the Clean Air Council in Pennsylvania, an environmental advocacy organization. Waiting a few days to two weeks to respond to odor complaints, he said, is “way too long.”

George Jugovic, who served as a regional director for the DEP until 2012, agrees. Jugovic said the department is only set up to respond quickly to potential emergencies.

“It’s a problem,” said Jugovic, who since leaving the department has served as counsel to a local environmental group.

Rebecca Roter said she experienced the problem first hand last year. On a cool April evening in 2013, Roter said she was cooking dinner in her Susquehanna County home when a “nauseating” smell overwhelmed her. Roter said she walked out to her front porch, pulled her gray hoodie over her nose and mouth and quickly drove her car to the site of a nearby gas well being fracked.

Roter said she saw plumes of dust rising into the air. That evening, Roter said she wrote to the DEP, recounting the events of the day and requesting that they send out a field agent to follow up. Four days later, the agency sent out an investigator.

The DEP later notified Roter in writing that the investigator had found “nothing out of line” and that it had concluded that “the operation appeared to be conducted as per standard procedure.”

Roter said she is convinced the investigator simply didn’t detect any smell when he responded 96 hours after her report. The odor has recurred repeatedly in the months since, she said, and she has no idea how alarmed to be.

The concerns of residents like Roter are not likely to be eased by a study published today in Reviews on Environmental Health, a peer reviewed journal. The study, researchers say, confirms what they have long suspected about natural gas operations — that emission levels from these sites spike drastically over short periods of time, making it hard to assess the true threat to people’s health.

Researchers at the Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project collected real-time readings of particulate matter — soot, dust and chemicals — in 14 homes in Washington County, a heavily drilled part of the state. They found repeated episodes during which measures of contaminated dust rose sharply, to dangerous levels in the course of a day.

David Brown, the lead researcher on the study, said that a person in such circumstances could get what amounted to a full day’s exposure in half an hour.

The American Petroleum Institute did not respond to repeated requests for comment. The Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association declined to comment on the Environmental Health Project’s study but said that the oil and gas industry is “heavily regulated” and that the association’s member companies “strive to comply with numerous federal and state air quality related rules, regulations, and reporting requirements.”

Still, residents like Roter, who has over 20 gas wells within a mile of her house, fear that the exposure to contaminants could quickly add up. It’s one of the reasons, she says, she is frustrated by the DEP’s response to her complaints.

DEP spokeswoman Lisa Kasianowitz defended the department’s performance on complaint investigations.

“DEP has been prompt and responsive in regards to air quality concerns surrounding the natural gas industry,” she said in response to questions from ProPublica. She added that the department had recently toughened oversight of the industry, and that oil and gas companies were no longer exempt from complying with basic permitting requirements.

Kasianowitz provided ProPublica with some recent statistics on complaints and inspections, and she promised to make department’s officials available to be interviewed. Later, after ProPublica filed a freedom of information request seeking more detailed information on dozens of the department’s investigations, Kasianowitz said the officials could not be interviewed.

The information provided by the DEP shows that between 2011 and 2014, the department received over 2,000 complaints about oil and natural gas operations. Water quality issues featured prominently in the list of complaints. The DEP also registered 110 of the complaints as odor issues.

In Southwestern Pennsylvania, a corner of the state that has seen extensive fracking operations, there were 617 registered complaints over those years, including 47 involving troubling odors.

In one-third of the cases that were investigated, inspectors reported that no odors were detected at the time of inspection and closed the case. Inspectors typically visited residents within a week of filing the complaint.

In only a handful of cases did the inspectors detect odors during their visit and follow up by citing the company involved. The citations, known as a Notice of Violation, required the operators to correct the problem, but did not carry fines.

ProPublica’s request for more details on the investigations and violations is still pending.

John Quigley, a former director of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said the need for greater transparency in the oversight of the fracking industry was real and urgent.

***

In 2007, Pennsylvania produced close to 10 billion cubic feet of gas from the Marcellus formation. By 2012, that number had grown to over two trillion cubic feet. With this dramatic increase in gas production, concerns about environmental pollution and public health have risen sharply and the DEP has become a target for anger among worried residents.

Activists and environmental groups have accused the agency of being overly deferential to the gas industry, and defensive and slow moving in its dealings with the public.

“It was very top down, very secretive and paranoid about who the enemies were,” said Jugovic, the former agency official, who left the department when Corbett succeeded Rendell as governor. “The control on information was significant.”

Earlier this month, Chris Abruzzo, the current head of the DEP, publicly acknowledged criticism about the agency’s transparency issues and said he wanted to change public perception of the agency.

Critics of the state’s dealings with the gas industry have long highlighted the history of financial ties between the industry and state officials, including former Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell and current Republican Gov. Tom Corbett.

Last year the Public Accountability Initiative, a nonprofit watchdog organization focused on the intersection of government and business, released a report on what it called Pennsylvania’s revolving door between the government and the gas industry. It concluded that at least 20 DEP employees have also held energy industry jobs either before or after their agency jobs.

Gov. Corbett’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

ProPublica obtained an internal complaints manual used by the DEP to maintain a consistent approach in dealing with environmental complaints. The manual directs staff to assign routine air quality issues a priority level of 2. The category comprises complaints that are “serious but not likely to escalate within 7-10 days but pose an existing or potential adverse impact on the environment or public health.”

According to the internal complaint manual, DEP complaint coordinators, who answer calls on regional complaint hotlines, are responsible for assigning response priority levels.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection follows this decision flowchart after receiving environmental complaints from residents. (Courtesy of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection)

In 2012, the Clean Air Council, which has been tracking the DEP’s enforcement of regulations related to air quality, sent a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, complaining about the alleged shortcomings of Pennsylvania’s oversight.

The council said it had been contacted by many residents who asserted that complaints they had filed with the DEP had never been fully investigated. In some cases, the council claimed, residents had said the DEP’s complaint hotline had not been working when they called.

“People have been told things like ‘stop calling’ and ‘if you’re air is bad, then maybe you shouldn’t go outside,’” said Walker, the council’s community outreach director.

Kasianowitz did not respond to ProPublica’s questions about allegations of inadequate or unprofessional behavior by agency staff.

***

Gas drilling operations include several processes that release toxic chemicals into the air. The type and level of chemicals released varies from hour to hour depending on the type of activity taking place on the well pad.

Despite this, researchers and regulators seeking to assess the health threat of fracking operations have typically used measurement devices that capture air emissions over longer periods of time, often 24 hours.

These levels are then, in many cases, compared to the EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which were created over 40 years ago at a time when large, 24-hour-a-day sources of pollution such as coal fire plants and steel mills were dominant.

“You can’t use 24-hour standards if the health effect occurs within a few minutes,” said Brown, the lead author of the study released Friday.

The question of whether episodic bursts of contaminated air from fracking could pose an unappreciated but real health menace was first explored in West Virginia in 2010.

West Virginia’s Department of Environmental Protection asked Michael McCawley, then a professor at West Virginia University’s Health Sciences Center, to study air emissions from fracking operations in the state. McCawley found the contaminants he detected at fracking sites fluctuated over a wide range.

Those findings mirror those in the Pennsylvania study published on Tuesday.

Research has shown that fracking operations can release an array of toxic chemicals — some carcinogenic, others capable, at significant enough levels, of causing serious neurological and respiratory damage. The worry, Brown says, is that these chemicals are attached to the microscopic dust particles that he detected and can reach the bloodstream after being inhaled.

McCawley and Brown say that the wide fluctuations that they’re picking up on are also attributable to operators not using the best available technology to limit possibly harmful emissions.

State and federal regulations, for instance, do not require operators to use equipment that would capture all emissions during drilling. Often, gases are vented or flared into the air. The regulations also don’t consider activities, like diesel truck traffic, that degrade air quality at the fracking site.

“The law requires best technology,” said McCawley, and the data, he says, is telling us that the gas drilling industry is “not working according to the strict definition of the law.”

Article by Naveena Sadasivam, appearing courtesy ProPublica.

04/02/2014 0 comment

Clean Transportation

GigaFactory Proves that Tesla is Ahead of the Clean Energy Curve, But Does Texas Stand to Benefit?

written by CleanTechies.com Contributor

Disruptive technologies tend to follow a certain trajectory. First, they are outliers, often ignored, and typically on the cusp of never entering the market. But, for the successful ones, a tipping point is ultimately reached, after which the technology goes viral and changes the status quo it was designed to replace. In the new energy revolution, Tesla is one such company that has surpassed the tipping point and threatens to change the way we produce, distribute, and consume electricity.

It isn’t just Tesla’s sleek and beautiful electric vehicles that will be key to disrupting the status quo. At a current price point of around $80,000, most people en masse won’t be able to afford a Tesla, even though the company has plans to develop more affordable models. But what makes Tesla unique, besides the strange genius of CEO Elon Musk, is the potential diversification of its offerings, highlighted recently by the company’s announcement to build the GigaFactory, a $5-billion battery factory that will employ 6,500 workers.

Set to open in about three years, the new GigaFactory will be large enough to manufacture more lithium-ion batteries than the entire industry produces now, and due to its sheer scale, is expected to reduce the cost of batteries by almost one-third.

Tesla batteries and renewables

Tesla’s move to build the largest battery factory in the world is significant for the electricity market – and not solely for the large-scale adoption of electric vehicles.

Energy storage is the missing link for realizing the full potential of renewable energy. Storage guarantees that the energy produced by renewables is available at all times, even when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. For example, storage can capture West Texas wind power at night when wind energy is most abundant and release that stored energy during the afternoon hours when demand for electricity is high.

But, to date, storage has been lagging in its availability and cost-competitiveness.

Worldwide, there were only 420 storage projects at the end of 2013 and only 34 megawatt hours’ worth of lithium ion battery projects built for the grid by the end of 2012. For comparison’s sake, there were 23 gigawatt hours’ worth of lithium ion batteries made for consumer electronics, like cell phones, over the same period (1 gigawatt is equal to 1,000 megawatts).

Tesla’s current costs for lithium ion batteries (supplied by Panasonic) are around $200 – $300 per kwh. If the factory could reduce those battery costs by 30 percent, prices could drop to $140 – $210 per kWh. Navigant analyst, Sam Jaffe estimates that battery packs will end up at around $180 per kWh. “They are definitely setting the bar for battery costs,” Jaffe said. “By 2020 every other battery manufacturer will have to get close to or beat the sub-$200 per kwh number that Tesla will be able to accomplish if they meet their goals.”

This is not to say that lithium ion batteries are the only option for energy storage- especially when it comes to renewables. A diverse portfolio of choices, including technologies like compressed air caverns and hydro pumping to sodium-sulfur batteries, will play an important role in the application of storage for both utility-scale and distributed generation energy storage.

Location, location, location

Tesla has not yet decided on a location for the GigaFactory, and many states are vying for the economic benefits of this development. The automaker is looking in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas, but at least two of these states (Texas and Arizona) are at odds with the company over its direct-to-customer selling strategy.

Because of long-standing state laws protecting and regulating auto dealerships (and the lobbying power of the Automobile Dealers Association), Tesla cannot sell directly to consumers in these states, or New Jersey, the latest state to effectively ban Tesla under their current business model.

Instead, Tesla can only showcase vehicles at “galleries” and state law prohibits employees from discussing the price or any logistical aspect of acquiring the car. Prospective buyers must order the cars from California, which are “delivered in a truck with no company markings, per Texas law, and customers even have to unwrap their new automobiles themselves, because the law prohibits Tesla’s in-state representatives from doing, saying or touching anything related to selling or delivering cars.”

Ironically in a letter attempting to woo Tesla to the Lone Star State, Rep. Jason Villalba stated, “I can attest to you that there is no better state in the Union to begin, grow and expand a new and thriving business such as Tesla Motors.” Tesla begs to differ.

According to Diarmuid O’Connell, Tesla’s Vice President of Business Development, “The issue of where we do business is in some ways inextricably linked to where we sell our cars. If Texas wants to reconsider its position on Tesla selling directly in Texas, it certainly couldn’t hurt. In an interview in April with The Texas Tribune, Tesla CEO Elon Musk went as far to call the state’s auto franchise laws “very un-Texan.”

Too late for a Texas GigaFactory?

During the last Texas legislative session, House Bill 3351 introduced rules to allow manufacturers of 100 percent electric cars to sell directly to consumers, but it did not pass. Arizona is also lobbying aggressively for the factory and lawmakers are pushing legislation that would allow Tesla to sell direct. And automakers in Ohio just struck a deal with Tesla easing the battle over its direct-to-consumer retailing model. Governor Perry has voiced support for HB 3351 and went so far as to admit in a recent Fox Business Today interview that Texas needs to revisit its “antiquated rules” prohibiting Tesla from selling electric vehicles in the state.

Perhaps Texas legislators should reevaluate their principles for the upcoming legislative session. Waiting till next year may be too late to sweeten the deal for a Texas GigaFactory, although it does appear that Texas leaders are making moves behind closed doors to secure this project.

The Texas Tribune reported that a secret meeting took place on Wednesday, where Tesla executives met with leaders in San Antonio, causing further speculation about the lone star state’s chance of landing this coveted project. Either way, Texas leaders should act fast or risk losing the opportunity for thousands of jobs in Texas. As Tesla breaks down many barriers with its innovative products and business models, it will be met with resistance. But the agility of the company to overcome the odds has already been proven.

Article by Marita Mirzatuny, appearing courtesy EDF Blog.

03/31/2014 0 comment

Energy Efficiency

The One Thing We All Forget To Do During Earth Hour

written by CleanTechies.com Contributor

What would happen if we all, just for one hour, actually shut off our idling gadgets and pulled our unused chargers out of the socket? Answering that question was the motivation for a new study conducted by leading mobile refurbishment website eCycle Best, leading up to Saturday’s worldwide Earth Hour (EarthHour.org).

Depending on the exact device type and charger technology, an idling gadget or an unused charger can use up to 0.1 to 0.5 watt per hour, resulting in a yearly power drain equivalent to more than $200 per device. “This is money directly out the window for American consumers, but also a welcome and easy opportunity to save the climate without a lot of effort. It is really eye-opening when you add up the number of chargers in an average American home,” notes David Kruchinin, CEO of eCycle Best.

So just how much are we wasting with idling gadgets and bad charging habits? eCycle Best did the math. In one year, the energy wasted by US households is equivalent to the total output of three coal power plants, 56 wind turbines and a nuclear reactor. Adding a dollar amount is tricky due to varying energy prices, but an average household should be able to save more than $500 yearly just by introducing better charging and device using habits such as:

Turning off unused chargers around the house.

Turning off mobile devices when not in use, especially laptops

Investing in smartphones and other mobile gadgets with newer battery and charger technology.

Earth Hour is a great time to make a commitment to ending vampire energy consumption in your home or office, but that’s only the beginning. eCycle Best hopes that Americans will soon realize the huge financial and environmental impact of these bad habits, and be more mindful of their devices, when they’re in use and when it comes time to dispose of them . As David Kruchinin notes “these changes do not substantially alter our lifestyles, but they have a massive impact on several larger levels”.

Article by Beth Buczynski, author of Sharing is Good.

03/28/2014 0 comment

Renewable Energy

Solar Supporters: It’s Open Season on the Utilities’ Duck

written by CleanTechies.com Contributor

The rapid changes to the electricity system being wrought by distributed solar have utilities crying out, and they’ve poured much of their distributed solar angst into a chart being shared throughout the energy nerdocracy – the duck.

The Duck Chart, Showing Net Supply/Demand on the California Grid in 2012-13, Forecast through 2020

Until 2012, daily energy demand looked like a two-humped “camel,” with peaks mid-morning and early evening. Utility operated power plants supplied most of the needed energy. But the substitution of local solar power to meet local energy needs affects the demand for mid-day energy from the grid. The daily demand curve transforms, from a camel (orange line) to a (forecast) “duck” (bottom green line).

The duck is the perfect vehicle for utility complaints because it casts the growth of distributed solar as a major technical problem (an area where most policy makers defer to utilities) rather than an economic one, where utility complaints can be contrasted with their customer’s desires for more local control over their energy use and costs.

The utility companies crying “fowl” highlight a particular part of the duck chart: the dramatic ramp up in power generation on the light-green 2020 curve that happens in the late afternoon, as energy produced from solar wanes but energy demand rises. In the traditional grid operating model, accommodating this ramp-up in energy use requires a lot of standby power from expensive to operate, rapid-response power plants.

Evidence suggests utilities are crying “wolf,” with several experts poking large holes in the utility argument. The Clean Coalition and Regulatory Assistance Project have both offered numerous strategies utilities can use to “flatten the duck” or “teach it to fly:”

Target energy efficiency measures for the “ramp up” period
Orient solar panels to the west to catch more late evening sun
Substitute some solar thermal with storage for solar PV [I’d suggest adding storage to PV also works]
Allow the grid operator more demand management via electric water heating [already done extensively by rural cooperatives in Minnesota]
Require large new air conditioners to have two hours of thermal storage accessible to the utility
Retire inflexible generating plants (read: coal and nuclear) that need to run constantly in off-peak periods
Concentrate utility demand charges on the ramp up period.
Deploy electricity storage into targeted areas, including electric vehicle-to-grid
Implement aggressive demand response programs (subscribing more businesses and homes into programs to shed their energy demand at key periods)
Use inter-regional power transactions
Selectively curtail a small portion of solar power generation

In other words, the technical challenges of the duck are manageable, largely with existing technology.

The economic problems for utilities – stemming from an outdated business model – may not be so manageable.

More solar generation serving peak afternoon loads will out-bid competitors – utility-owned peaking gas power plants – because solar has zero fuel cost, so utilities will lose money even as customers save money. By 2020 in the California example, solar production at noon will also be sufficient to cut into power usually provided by so-called “baseload” power plants (e.g. coal) that are only economic when operated round-the-clock. The problem for utilities is that they’ve continued to pour money into a twentieth century grid system (inflexible, centralized power plants with long-distance transmission lines) even as the grid has been transformed by distributed, local renewable energy.

Utilities point to the duck chart as evidence that renewable energy development should be stopped on technical grounds. But it’s in the belly of the beast we find the real utility problem: energy demand displaced by solar represents lost market share for utilities as their customers switch to sunshine.

To paraphrase Mark Ferron, recently retired from the California Public Utilities Commission: it’s open season on the utility’s duck.

Article by John Farrell, appearing courtesy Institute for Local Self-Reliance.

03/27/2014 0 comment

Clean Transportation

Top 5 Most Fuel-Efficient SUVs

written by CleanTechies.com Contributor

Car buyers looking for great fuel efficiency don’t need to sacrifice cargo room, performance or high-riding road manners. Here are five reasons why:

Toyota RAV4 EV (76 MPGe)
Tesla Motors, maker of the outrageously cool Model S electric sedan, developed the powertrain and battery pack for the Toyota RAV4 EV (pictured above). Its position as the only electric SUV on the market makes it an intriguing vehicle. The popular EV, based on the popular Toyota crossover, carries an equivalent efficiency of 76 MPGe. When fully charged, the RAV4 EV has an official range of 103 miles, a significant increase over popular smaller electric cars like the Nissan Leaf. When dropped into Sport mode, the RAV4 EV reveals its Tesla origins with a serious jolt of power. The RAV4 EV has a starting MSRP of $49,800 though some dealers have offered lease prices as low as $299 per month. It’s only sold in California.

Subaru XV Crosstrek (31 MPG)
New for 2014, the Subaru XV Crosstrek is Subaru’s first hybrid offering—much to the delight of Subi brand’s dedicated fan base, many of whom had been clamoring for a high-mileage gas-electric for years. Subaru didn’t disappoint, bringing to market a crossover SUV with the best gas mileage of any non-electric vehicle in that category. The Crosstrek is available in all 50 states. Typical of a Subaru, the Crosstrek earns high marks for its handling and received a perfect safety rating from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. With standard all-wheel drive and excellent ground clearance, the crossover can handle its own in the city, on the highway (where the EPA gives it a 33-mpg rating) or off-road. The Crosstrek starts at just under $22,000.

Lexus RX 450h (30 MPG)
The Lexus RX line is the longest-running and best-selling hybrid SUV. Last year, the RX 450h again sold more units than any other hybrid SUV in the United States. As a midsize SUV, the RX 450h offers superior cargo and passenger space to other vehicles in this category. The RX’s V6 engine and twin electric motors combine for a meaty 295-horsepower—not bad considering that the car gets 28 mpg in the city and 32 mpg on the highway. The RX 450h starts at $46,410 and comes with a range of standard features typical of a Lexus, including a nine-speaker audio system and dual-zone climate control.

Nissan Juke (29 MPG)
Starting at just $18,990, the Nissan Juke provides an outstanding combination of affordability and fuel economy of any crossover. The compact SUV offers distinct styling and responsive handling, and its 188-horsepower turbocharged engine provides plenty of oomph. Inside, the crossover employs bold color accents and panel design to create a youthful urban feel. The main tradeoff for consumers with the Juke is its limited cargo and passenger space, which trail behind other more expensive but less efficient SUVs.

Mazda CX-5 (29 MPG)

The CX-5 isn’t roomiest, most powerful or most efficient SUV, but it may offer the best balance of all three. With more cargo space than the Juke and a much more “grown-up” interior feel, the CX-5 makes a good affordable, efficient vehicle for families. Starting at $21,395, the CX-5 may set you back a few thousand dollars more than the Juke, but its versatility is worth the price.

Article by Brad Berman, appearing courtesy ebay Green Driving.

Photo by mariordo59

03/27/2014 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts