The Wedge Game – Solving the Climate Problem By 2055

Targets For Legislative Proposals In The USA Congress Of Mandatory Cap And Trade Programs For Greenhouse Gases Emissions, courtesy of World Resources Institute (WRI) – December 8, 2008.

The top (red) line shows historical and projected carbon emissions for the USA for 1990-2050 under conditions of "business as usual." The other lines show estimated carbon emissions reductions trends for 2010-2050 under different legislative proposals.

WRI offers a high resolution image of this graph plus details about the methodology, assumptions and references that went into creating it. WRI updates the graph each year.


A World In Transition

In the brief span of about two years – between the end of 2006 and the beginning of 2009 – our global society has greatly accelerated its transformation towards a new energy economy. Considering where we were just two short years ago, those of us in the business of climate change and economic improvement solutions should be very encouraged by this progress. In late 2006, global warming and climate change science and solutions were barely on the radar of our general public and the popular media.

As we begin 2009, concrete measures to better understand our Earth’s systems together with actions to manage climate change dominate global news, global politics, and the thinking of people at all levels of our global societies. Two years ago, I would have told people that such an expansive level of activity was a decade or more away.

By about the middle of 2007, my correspondents and audiences were demanding a story far more comprehensive than scientific accounts of global warming and its impacts. People were demanding solutions. And like people everywhere, they were demanding (and offering) straightforward solutions. And most were (and remain) convinced that somehow there would be an easy-to-understand and easily implemented single solution. How do we fix this quickly? What is the single most important thing we can do? What technology do we need? How much will it cost?

Unfortunately, there is no “silver bullet” solution to drastically eliminating the bulk of our polluting greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions in a reasonably short time. However, we can solve a major part of our emissions problems beginning now and using currently available technologies.

Often described as “silver shotgun” approaches, there are solutions scenarios that comprise several concurrent actions. These are actions that make sense physically, economically, and politically – actions that might be understandable and palatable across a broad spectrum of political, economic, cultural, spiritual and other viewpoints.

In 2004, prominent carbon management researchers Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow of Princeton University introduced the “stabilization wedges” concept for solving our climate problem for the next 50 years using current technologies. This work continues to advance, and now is a joint project of Princeton University, BP, and Ford Motor Company. The project is called the Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI), and it seeks practical solutions to the greenhouse gases emissions problem.



The “stabilization wedges” concept is based upon using a suite of seven low-carbon energy technologies and enhancing natural carbon sinks. The concept name comes from the “wedge” or cut in emissions depicted on a graph of carbon emissions projected for 2005 – 2055. Each “wedge” represents a carbon-cutting strategy that can grow from zero in 2005 to one billion tons of carbon emissions by 2055.

Thus, pursuing seven “wedge” strategies would cut carbon emissions by seven billion tons, keeping global carbon emissions flat for the next 50 years. Pursuing more than seven strategies would reduce our carbon emissions below today’s levels by 2055. The CMI demonstrates that at least 15 “wedge” strategies are available now, showing there is already a more than adequate portfolio of tools available today to control carbon emissions for the next 50 years.



The CMI shows opportunities for cutting carbon emissions using current technologies in combinations of actions under these headings:

Efficiency & Conservation

Increased transport efficiency
Reducing miles traveled
Increased heating efficiency
Increased efficiency of electricity production

Fossil-Fuel-Based Strategies

Fuel switching (coal to gas)
Fossil-based electricity with carbon capture & storage (CCS)
Coal synfuels with CCS
Fossil-based hydrogen fuel with CCS

Nuclear Energy

Nuclear electricity

Renewables and Biostorage

Wind-generated electricity
Solar electricity
Wind-generated hydrogen fuel
Biofuels
Forest storage
Soil storage

The CMI provides briefs showing how GHG emissions reductions are calculated for each opportunity in this list. The briefs include commentaries on the pros and cons of each technology and how they interact with each other. The numbers in these commentaries should be useful to those wishing to understand the dimensions of combatting GHG emissions.

The CMI has produced a “Teachers Guide to the Stabilization Wedge Game.” This is a team-based exercise in which players build a portfolio of stabilization strategies and assess their impacts and costs. Those interested in explanations of our climate and carbon problem – and the relative contributions and costs of solutions using the strategies above – might want to examine this guide and its associated resources.

A significant feature of the “wedge” concept and game is that people may choose their preferred combinations of strategies from the above list, and reject strategies that might be less palatable for various political, economic or other reasons. For example, if you do not like current-technology nuclear or coal-fired electricity as a part of the suite of solutions, you can select a balancing alternative from the list of 15 opportunities. You might also consider the extra costs and benefits of substitututing compensating amounts of current-technology wind- and solar-generated electricity, for example.

New USA Greenhouse Gases Emissions Report Now Available

Sunflower Electric Power Corporation Holcomb 1 360-Megawatt Coal-Fired Power Plant, Holcomb, Kansas -- Associated Press Photo in The Santa Fe New Mexican, May 14, 2007.

The USA Energy Information Administration (EIA) in December 2008 published its annual update, “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2007,” by the EIA Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, U.S. Department of Energy.

This important 54-page document answers a wide variety of questions about fuel and sector roles in emissions of such greenhouse gases (GHG) as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.

Page 4 provides an excellent diagram of the flow of greenhouse gases from sources to emissions throughout the USA economy.

The report breaks down GHG emissions by fuel source, showing, for example, that burning petroleum, coal and natural gas is responsible for about 99 percent of the USA’s carbon dioxide emissions. Burning fossil fuels is also responsible for the bulk of methane, nitrous oxide, and other gases that together constitute about 17 percent of the USA’s total GHG emissions.

The report contains historical information and shows a variety of trends, especially for the years 1990 – 2007. For example, the USA has steadily increased its anthropogenic GHG emissions by slightly less than one percent per year since 1990, from about 6,242 million metric tons CO2 equivalent in 1990 to about 7,282 million metric tons CO2 equivalent in 2007.

The report also has a section on land use, land-use change, and forestry activities in the USA and how these result in sequestration and/or emissions of carbon dioxide.

The report encapsulates “Recent U.S. and International Developments in Global Climate Change,” including California S.B. 375, the Thirteenth Conference of the Parties to the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-13) and the Third Meeting of the Parties of the Kyoto Protocol (CMP-3). [Now available are results of COP-14 and CMP-4 in Poznan´, Poland December 1-12, 2008 that were not available at the time of publication of the the EIA report.]

The EIA provides briefs on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions at other web sites, including “Frequently Asked Questions – Environment,” and “Energy in Brief – What Everyone Should Know About Energy.”

These pages answer such questions as:

How much carbon dioxide (CO2) is produced when different fuels are burned?

How much CO2 does the United States emit? Is it more than other countries?

[The USA emits about 20 metric tons of carbon dioxide per capita, about 5 times the global per capita average. The USA (21% of world total), China (19% of world total) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Europe (16% of world total) together are responsible for 56 percent of anthropogenic global carbon dioxide emissions.]

What are the largest sources of total greenhouse gas emissions by sector?

[The residential sector is responsible for about 17 percent of the USA’s GHG emissions. The commercial sector is responsible for about 19 percent of the USA’s GHG emissions. The industrial sector is responsible for about 36 percent of the USA’s GHG emissions. The transportation sector is responsible for about 28 percent of the USA’s GHG emissions.]

How much greenhouse gas is emitted to produce and transmit electricity?

What are the largest sources of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by fuel?

[Petroleum is responsible for about 44 percent of the USA’s GHG emissions. Coal is responsible for about 36 percent of the USA’s GHG emissions, and natural gas is responsible for about 20 percent of the USA’s GHG emissions.]

What are greenhouse gases and how do they affect the climate?

Why do carbon dioxide emissions weigh more than the original fuel?

Does EIA report water vapor emissions data?

How does the hole in the ozone layer affect global warming?

I plan to add information to this article during the next few weeks on the basis of requests from some of my colleagues. Please revisit this post from time to time if you have further interest in greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions information.

New Mexico Energy Efficiency Strategy: Policy Options

Albuquerque, New Mexico, seen from the Northeast with Intersection of I-25 and I-40 in the foreground and Rio Grande in the background, Wikipedia, December 1, 2006.

The State of New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department (NMEMNRD) has just released a new 152-page report, "New Mexico Energy Efficiency Strategy: Policy Options" and Summary.

The report was prepared for the NMEMNRD, Ken Hughes, Project Coordinator, by the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, ETC Group, LLC, and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

Those working at the state and local levels might want to obtain this document for reference in anticipation of rapid upgrades of the New Mexico statewide building code and upgrades in other states as well. For example, the Buildings and Appliances Policies options in the report include a recommendation to upgrade the New Mexico statewide building code toward greater energy efficiency in 2009 and every three years after that.

"The New Mexico Energy Efficiency Strategy contains 25 major policies, programs, or initiatives that could be implemented in order to accelerate energy efficiency improvements in the state and achieve the goals where possible. The policies save electricity, natural gas, or gasoline. These energy sources account for 77 percent of primary energy consumption in the state and 65 percent of energy consumption on a secondary (site) basis."

The 10 highest priorities in the report are these:

"Among the 25 options developed in this report, we suggest that 10 be viewed as high priority by the Governor, the Legislature, the Public Regulation Commission, and other key decision makers. These options provide the greatest energy savings and consequently the bulk of the economic and environmental benefits."

Expand Electric Utility Demand-Side Management Programs

Adopt Decoupling or Shareholder Incentives to Stimulate Greater Utility Support for Energy Efficiency Improvements

Expand Natural Gas Utility Energy Efficiency Programs

Upgrade Building Energy Codes and Fund Code Training and Enforcement

Expand Retrofit of Homes Occupied by Low-Income Families

Undertake an Industry Challenge and Recognition Program

Increase Energy Efficiency in the Oil and Gas Sector

Adopt Energy Efficiency Requirements for Public Colleges and Universities and Extend the Requirements for State Agencies

Reduce Per Capita Vehicle Use

Implement a Broad-Based Public Education Campaign

The report – unlike many proposals that miss or downplay the connection between energy generation and water use -- considers impacts on limited and declining water supply in New Mexico and the American Southwest:

“There also will be significant water savings, particularly from options that result in reduced operation of fossil-fuel based power plants because these plants consume sizable amounts of water in their cooling systems. We estimate that the options taken together will lower water consumption in power plants by approximately 3.65 billion gallons per year in 2020. This is equivalent to the annual water use of 60,000 typical Albuquerque [New Mexico] citizens. There will be additional water savings from increased adoption of energy and water-conserving devices such as resource-efficient clothes washers and dishwashers.”

The report concludes:

“By 2020, electricity use [in New Mexico] could be reduced by 24 percent, natural gas use by nearly 20 percent, and gasoline use by 26 percent, all in comparison to otherwise forecasted levels of per capita energy use that year.”

Geothermal Energy In The USA

Mammoth Pacific, LP Geothermal Power Facilities near Mammoth Lakes, Mono County, California with Sierra Nevada Mountains Forming the Horizon.

I call your attention to a status report on USA geothermal energy by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology originally released to the public on January 22, 2007.

More interesting is the impact of the report considered below by Professor Margot Gerritsen of the Department of Energy Resources Engineering at Stanford University. The report illuminates Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) that might be constructed in many USA locations. This technology depends upon large amounts of water or another fluid plus rock fracturing at depth among other major issues in EGS power plant siting and construction.

See a video on the status and future of USA geothermal energy produced by KQED Public Media for Northern California. The video focuses on The Geysers geothermal power plant operated by Calpine and vividly illustrates the infrastructure, energy generation processes, associated environmental problems, and other features of a geothermal power facility.

Dr. Gerritsen together with an Advisory Board provide an outstanding web site called "Smart Energy" containing abundant information to answer practical questions about our energy future.


The Future of Geothermal Energy in the US: what a little report can do...

Wed, 11/19/2008 - 03:35 — Margot Gerritsen

Two years ago, the future of geothermal energy in the USA did not look all that exciting. Although geothermal heat pumps (used for heating and cooling buildings) and natural geothermal energy were certainly not uncommon, very large scale geothermal, which draws heat energy from deep down in the earth's crust, seemed far in the future.

But then, MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) published an exciting report titled "The Future of Geothermal Energy" with subtitle "Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century". This changed the scene. The report got the attention of policy makers as well as investors, EGS received enough capital to start several new projects, and suddenly it became a potentially important future energy source. I wished that more scientific reports had such a positive outcome!

To date there are 18 natural geothermal facilities in the United States in California, Nevada, Hawaii and Utah. In total, they supply around 2,700 megawatts (MW) of electricity. A decent amount when viewed by itself. One (1) MW can be seen to supply electricity to about 1000 homes, so 2,700 MW delivers enough energy for 2.7 million households. It is not that much as compared to the total geothermal capacity of the US which is around 1.1 million (1,100,000) MW. However, in California, geothermal energy supplies 5% of total electricity demand and 7% of that in Northern California, which boasts the site of The Geysers, at 620 MW the largest geothermal powerplant in the world. Apart from these 18 geothermal plants, the USA has more than 1 million geothermal heatpumps, supplying an additional 3700 MW for heating and cooling.


Geothermal energy is not completely clean. Subsurface water, which is brought to the surface, can contain some carbon dioxide, for example, but it is a minor problem. It is estimated that a geothermal plants emits about 1/200 of the carbon dioxide of an equivalent coal-fired power plant.

The geothermal story gets much more interesting when we look at geothermal heat contained between 3 and 10 kilometer depth, which EGS taps into. The total energy in this layer is staggering. Just producing 1% of this energy would supply 1400 times the total energy that the USA needs per year! So, how can we tap into this resource? The idea is simple: we drill down to a depth at which the rocks are sufficiently hot (say 150-250 degrees centigrade). It is not a simple task to drill through hard granite to a depth of 20,000 feet, say, but in the oil industry we do this on a regular basis and so the technology exists. Then, we fracture the rock over a reasonably large area. We drill another well a bit removed from the first. This second well will serve as our production well. The first is used to pump water, or another liquid, into the rocks under high pressure. It will start moving through the fractures to the producing well under a pressure gradient. As it moves, it picks up heat from the surrounding rock. We then pump it back to the surface, extract the heat, and reinject the new cool liquid again. Sounds easy enough, and it certainly sounds like a great idea to tap into that huge heat reservoir down below.

EGS is not without its complications, of course. It is not trivial to create a good fracture system down below. We need to have a very large network of fractures so that the water that flows through this network touches a lot of the rock for better and prolonged heat transfer. Also, to make this economic, an EGS well must pump through at a rate of, say, 80 liters per second, the equivalent of 50,000 barrels per day. This has not yet been achieved in pilot tests.

However, EGS is certainly a promising technique. Estimates are that if it can be done at the high rate mentioned, then within 5-10 years a typical EGS project can be cost competitive in the current energy market of around 5 US cents per kilowatthour of energy. Not bad, huh! With sufficient investments, experts claim that we could produce around 30 times as much geothermal energy by 2030 as we do now, supplying around 5-10% of the electricity needs of the US in 2030. A substantial contribution. I think we should go for it. And I'm delighted that this MIT report established so much. It has pushed this energy technology forward at a much faster rate than I thought possible.

Signet Solar Plans Large Solar Panel Facility In New Mexico

SunPower/Johnson & Johnson Ground-Mounted 739-kilowatt Solar Power System, New Jersey, USA.

Signet Solar, an international company with USA corporate headquarters in Menlo Park, California, will open a solar panel production facility in New Mexico in 2010. The company will produce large area, thin-film silicon photovoltaic modules for commercial rooftop and ground-mounted solar power systems.

Ground-mounted solar power systems are an important and growing contribution to distributed generation (DG). Ground-mounted systems are much more economical to install than rooftop systems, and can be integrated into communities and/or the existing power grid everywhere. A video by Applied Materials, a global company with corporate headquarters in Santa Clara, California, illustrates installation of a 10-megawatt (MW) ground-mounted solar power system in Germany.

Signet Solar plans an initial annual production of 65 megawatts (MW) growing to 300 MW per year, and creating 200 high-wage jobs growing to 600 as the New Mexico facility expands.


Renewable Energy World/Signet Solar/New Mexico

December 18, 2008

Signet Solar to Build 300-MW Production Facility in New Mexico

New Mexico, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson announced that Signet Solar will build the company's first North American solar panel production facility in Belen, New Mexico. The first phase of the plant will bring 200 high-wage jobs to the state and is scheduled to begin operations in 2010. Signet's long-term plans call for expansion and the creation of a total of 600 jobs.

“As Governor, I’ve been dedicated to making New Mexico a national leader of renewable energy and the creation of green jobs,” Richardson said. “At a time of economic uncertainty, this project will create hundreds of jobs and reaffirm New Mexico as a clean energy state and major player in our nation’s effort build a new clean energy economy.”



The Signet Solar facility will produce large area thin-film silicon photovoltaic modules for commercial rooftop and ground mounted solar power systems. The first phase of the plant will have an annual production capacity of 65 megawatts (MW). Long-term plans call to increase production capacity to 300 MW per year with a 600,000 square foot production facility.



“New Mexico was an obvious starting point for Signet Solar’s expansion into the growing US renewable energy market,” said Rajeeva Lahri, Signet Solar’s Co-Founder and CEO. “Under Governor Richardson’s leadership, New Mexico has demonstrated commitment to renewable energy through public-private partnerships, leveraging its skilled workforce and world class research institutions.”

RenewableEnergyWorld.com's Stephen Lacey talked with Dr. Keshav Prasad, vice president of business development for Signet Solar about the Applied Materials' SunFab line it uses for production and the company's growth plans at Solar Power International in October.

Applied Materials, Inc. (Nasdaq:AMAT) is the global leader in Nanomanufacturing Technology™ solutions with a broad portfolio of innovative equipment, service and software products for the fabrication of semiconductor chips, flat panel displays, solar photovoltaic cells, flexible electronics and energy efficient glass.

New Mexico: The Land Of Windchantment

Windpower Turbines and Pawnee Grasslands, Eastern Colorado, Flickr, August 24, 2008.

Robert Foster, Program Manager for the Institute for Energy and Environment and an Associate Director in the College of Agriculture at New Mexico State University, offers an overview of wind power projects and plans for the State of New Mexico. The article is heavily referenced with major players in the wind power industry including wind energy providers, real estate and investment companies, New Mexico State University and New Mexico government. International and out-of-state heavy hitters include Edison International, Shell, FPL Energy, Babcock & Brown, Acciona, and Texas Wind Power.

Although the bulk of wind farm development to date in the USA is occurring on privately owned lands, the article emphasizes the potential role of public lands in New Mexico, especially with respect to transmission line routing. Private landowners are collaborating to gain stronger negotiating positions with wind power developers.

As in virtually all overviews of this type, power transmission is posed as a major issue for wind farm development. Note also the emphasis on New Mexico's role as a renewable energy provider for California and Arizona to assist those states in meeting their Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPSs).

New Mexico created the Renewable Energy Transmission Authority to facilitate expansion of the transmission grid in the state. "There are two large-scale transmission proposals under consideration: SunZia Southwest Transmission and the High Plains Express Transmission; both of which are designed to bring power to the large urban markets in Phoenix and Los Angeles."

New Mexico ranks 12th among USA states in wind power potential with about 50,000 megawatts [MW] of identified wind energy resources.


Renewable Energy World/New Mexico State University

December 11, 2008

New Mexico, Land of Windchantment

by Robert Foster, NMSU

New Mexico, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

New Mexico, nicknamed the Land of Enchantment, is rapidly becoming the "Land of Windchantment." There is a veritable wind land rush taking place in the state, with a plethora of wind developers signing wind power leases with ranchers across the eastern plains.

New Mexico is ranked 12th nationally in terms of wind energy potential, with about 50,000 megawatts (MW) of identified resource according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). By coincidence, the state is also ranked 12th in the U.S. for wind farm installations, with a total of 497 MW of installed capacity. Edison Mission Group (EMG) is now in the process of developing the 100-MW High Lonesome Mesa Wind Farm in eastern New Mexico using Clipper turbines.

New Mexico has the highest per capita wind energy usage of any state in the country, and Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) has one of the highest percentages of wind grid penetration of any utility, with about four percent of its annual energy production coming from wind. And at times, as much as 20 percent of the load is carried by wind when it's really blowing.

Besides the clean power benefits, the other big advantage of wind power is that it does not require water for power generation, which for the arid Southwest is always a critical issue.

There are more than two dozen active wind developers in New Mexico. The existing windfarms were developed by Cielo Wind Power, a subsidiary of Texas Wind Power, FPL Energy, Babcock and Brown and Padoma Wind Power, with power from wind being sold to Xcel Energy, Arizona Public Service and Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM).

Windy land in New Mexico is becoming a highly sought after commodity as wind developers sign leases with hundreds of landowners. Shell Wind Energy and First Wind have already signed agreements with landowners in central New Mexico near Corona.

Energy Resources has purchased large tracts of land near Santa Rosa. GreenHunter Wind Energy and Penn Real Estate have also signed wind leases. Other companies active with New Mexico wind energy exploration and development include Acciona, Clipper, enXco, DKRW/Carbon Neutral, GEC, Gold Pact Power, Iberdrola, Invenergy, Horizon Wind Energy and Taos Wind Power

The New Mexico State University Institute for Energy and the Environment is monitoring the wind resource on lands owned by the University, as well as NASA and Fort Bliss.

New Mexicans have, so far, looked favorably on wind power development as it is clean power, provides local jobs and increases the tax base. New Mexico ranchers already receive about US $1.8 million/year for leasing their lands to existing wind farms. In general, ranchers have had very few issues with placing wind turbines on their land because the footprint of the wind farm including roads takes up only about 10 percent of the total land area leaving most of the ranch available for livestock or crops.

The main concern that ranchers have expressed relates to the restoration of any land that is disturbed during the construction of the wind farm and the request that service roads and noxious weeds be kept to a minimum.

Apparently, New Mexico cows like wind turbines as they can often be found lining up for the only shade available on the plains from the wind turbine towers to escape the summer heat.

Some New Mexico landowners have grouped together for a stronger negotiating position with wind developers, an example being the Corona Landowners Association (South and North groups), which hold together hundreds of thousands of acres. Most New Mexicans realize the importance of developing clean renewable energy resources and the need for energy independence.

Transmission Stands in the Way

Electric transmission is the greatest challenge for wind farm development in the Southwest and major transmission development will be required in order to fully tap New Mexico's wind power potential.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has been very supportive of new wind farm development and in building new transmission to serve the power markets. To this end, last year the state created the Renewable Energy Transmission Authority (NMRETA) to help facilitate expansion of the transmission grid in the state for development of wind and other renewable resources.

RETA has begun to explore several opportunities and specific proposals. There are two large-scale transmission proposals under consideration: SunZia Southwest Transmission and the High Plains Express Transmission; both of which are designed to bring power to the large urban markets in Phoenix and Los Angeles.

Since about half of New Mexican land is owned by the federal government, agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) often play a key role when it comes to wind farm and transmission development.

There are over 8,000 MW of proposed wind projects in New Mexico that have been submitted for transmission planning to PNM. Of course, not all of these proposals will bear fruit, but if only a quarter are successful, that represents over 2,000 MW of new wind generation the will be coming online during the next decade.

To put this in perspective, PNM currently has about 2,300 MW of total electric generation capacity. The amount of wind and other renewable generation needed to meet New Mexico's Renewable Portfolio Standard is modest, as there are only 2 million New Mexicans. Most of New Mexico wind power is destined for the California and Arizona markets to help these states meet their Renewable Portfolio requirements.

The Argonne Mesa windfarm near Vaughn, New Mexico already sells its power to Arizona. The proposed High Lonesome Mesa will do the same. Presently, New Mexico exports about half of its coal-powered electricity out of state, so exporting wind power is the next logical step.

New Mexico, the "Land of Windchantment," will see thousands of MW of new windfarms built over the next couple of decades, but the rate of development will be dependent on how fast new transmission is constructed.

Robert Foster is a Program Manager for the Institute for Energy and Environment and an Associate Director in the College of Agriculture at New Mexico State University, where he has worked for 20 years. He has worked in over 30 countries with USAID, World Bank, DOE, NREL, NSF, NASA, Sandia Labs, and others. He has contributed to the development of wind energy projects in Brazil, Chile, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Mexico and the U.S. Mr. Foster is a Mechanical Engineering graduate from the University of Texas at Austin, and also holds a MBA from NMSU. He enjoys harnessing wind power with his sailboat.

California Greenhouse Gases Emissions Targets For Entire USA?

"Overheated Planet," New York Times, December 11, 2006.


California regulators on December 11, 2008 voted to adopt the USA's most comprehensive plan to cut greenhouse gases emissions. President-elect Barack Obama expressed hope that the USA Congress would adopt California's targets for the entire nation.

Yahoo News/Associated Press

December 11, 2008

California adopts tough greenhouse gas restrictions

By SAMANTHA YOUNG, Associated Press Writer

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – California air regulators adopted a sweeping new climate plan Thursday that would require the state's utilities, refineries and large factories to transform their operations to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The California Air Resources Board voted unanimously to adopt the nation's most comprehensive global warming plan, outlining for the first time how individuals and businesses would meet a landmark 2006 law that made the state a leader on global climate change.

The plan would hold California's worst polluters accountable for the heat-trapping emissions they produce — transforming how people travel, how utilities generate power and how businesses use electricity.

At the heart of the plan is the creation of a carbon-credit market designed to give the state's major polluters cheaper ways to cut the amount of their emissions. That market and the many other strategies referenced in the plan will be fleshed out and adopted over the next few years.

California's plan comes at a time when governments around the world are struggling with a financial crisis that threatens to undermine efforts to fight climate change. California itself is facing a forecast budget gap of $41.8 billion through June 2010.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has said the state's climate law will stimulate the economy, said Thursday that California was providing a roadmap for the rest of the country.

"Today is the day we help unleash the full force of California's innovation and technology for a healthier planet, a stronger and more robust economy and a safer and more secure energy future," Schwarzenegger said in a statement released after the board's vote.

His sentiments echo those of President-elect Barack Obama, who also has promoted investments in energy efficiency and green technology to help spur the country out of recession. Last month, Obama said he hoped Congress would adopt California's targets for the entire country, essentially reversing eight years of U.S. policy against mandated emission cuts.

California's 2006 law, called the Global Warming Solutions Act but commonly referred to as AB32, mandates the state cut emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

The strategy chosen by air regulators relies on 31 new rules affecting all facets of life, from the fuels Californians put in their vehicles to the air conditioners businesses install in their buildings.

The average Californian, for example, could see more fuel-efficient cars at dealerships, better public transportation, housing near schools and businesses and utility rebates to equip their homes to be more energy efficient.

But there will also be costs.

California drivers will see more expensive cars on showroom floors and should expect to pay higher power bills as utilities increase their use of renewable energy.

Republicans, small businesses and major industries that will be forced to transform operations beginning in 2012 say jobs will be lost, companies might leave the state and energy prices will skyrocket. Many demanded the board perform more economic analysis before committing to policies they warned could worsen the economy.

"The deepening recession has affected businesses throughout the state," Amisha Patel, a policy advocate at the California Chamber of Commerce, told the board. "The reality of climate regulation is there will be costs."

The air board's background work has been criticized in reviews by California's nonpartisan legislative analyst and independent scientists, with both groups saying the costs to the state could be greater than projected.

Republican state lawmaker Roger Niello of Fair Oaks has asked the board to postpone its vote and complete a more thorough economic review.

An air board analysis published in September projected California's economy would grow at a faster rate by cutting emissions. It also estimated 100,000 more jobs would be created and the average California household would save $400 a year by driving more fuel-efficient vehicles and living in more energy-efficient homes.

Nichols said her board had done a thorough job of assessing the plan but vowed Thursday the board would conduct more studies as the regulations are developed over the next few years.

Most of the reductions in California's emissions will come from more detailed regulations that will be written over the next few years, including rules governing a cap-and-trade program that launches in 2012 to help the largest polluters achieve emission cuts.

But allowing businesses to buy their way out of the problem is another contentious part of the plan. Representatives of California's poor communities say the polluting power plants, refineries and factories in their neighborhoods could write a check rather than cut emissions.

Wind, Water & Sun Are Superior Energy Solutions

Vestas Horn Reef wind power facility off the coast of Denmark.

Stanford University on December 10, 2008 announces the results of the "...first quantitative, scientific evaluation of the proposed, major energy-related solutions..." and their respective impacts on "...global warming, human health, energy security, water supply, space requirements, wildlife, water pollution, reliability and sustainability."

This significant work debunks many of the myths surrounding our progress towards a new energy economy, notably the "clean coal" myth, the "nuclear power solution" myth, and the myths challenging the reliability and variability of wind, solar and wave power.

"Coal with carbon sequestration emits 60- to 110-times more carbon and air pollution than wind energy, and nuclear emits about 25-times more carbon and air pollution than wind energy..."

[Despite significant technological progress and applications of interconnected wind farms, stored solar energy, etc., that I have reported during the past two years, politicians, mass media, special interest groups, and others continue to dismiss wind and solar power potential for supplying baseline power. The potential is there, and we only must develop that potential while ignoring false claims that baseline wind, solar and wave power systems are not possible.]

See the reference links at the end of the article for supporting information and Professor Jacobson's 2007 work on interconnected wind systems for supplying baseline power. That study focused on interconnected wind system potential for an array of wind farms that have been growing for the past few years across eastern New Mexico, northern Texas, western Oklahoma, southwestern Kansas, and southeastern Colorado.

Note the priority lists of best to worst power and vehicle options near the end of the article.

Importantly, Mark Jacobson's work represents a high level of integrity inasmuch as the research "...received no funding from any interest group, company or government agency."


Stanford University News Service

Energy & Environmental Science

Stanford Report, December 10, 2008

Wind, water and sun beat other energy alternatives, study finds

BY LOUIS BERGERON

The best ways to improve energy security, mitigate global warming and reduce the number of deaths caused by air pollution are blowing in the wind and rippling in the water, not growing on prairies or glowing inside nuclear power plants, says Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford.

And "clean coal," which involves capturing carbon emissions and sequestering them in the earth, is not clean at all, he asserts.

Jacobson has conducted the first quantitative, scientific evaluation of the proposed, major, energy-related solutions by assessing not only their potential for delivering energy for electricity and vehicles, but also their impacts on global warming, human health, energy security, water supply, space requirements, wildlife, water pollution, reliability and sustainability. His findings indicate that the options that are getting the most attention are between 25 to 1,000 times more polluting than the best available options. The paper with his findings will be published in the next issue of Energy and Environmental Science but is available online now. Jacobson is also director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford.

"The energy alternatives that are good are not the ones that people have been talking about the most. And some options that have been proposed are just downright awful," Jacobson said. "Ethanol-based biofuels will actually cause more harm to human health, wildlife, water supply and land use than current fossil fuels." He added that ethanol may also emit more global-warming pollutants than fossil fuels, according to the latest scientific studies.

The raw energy sources that Jacobson found to be the most promising are, in order, wind, concentrated solar (the use of mirrors to heat a fluid), geothermal, tidal, solar photovoltaics (rooftop solar panels), wave and hydroelectric. He recommends against nuclear, coal with carbon capture and sequestration, corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol, which is made of prairie grass. In fact, he found cellulosic ethanol was worse than corn ethanol because it results in more air pollution, requires more land to produce and causes more damage to wildlife.

To place the various alternatives on an equal footing, Jacobson first made his comparisons among the energy sources by calculating the impacts as if each alternative alone were used to power all the vehicles in the United States, assuming only "new-technology" vehicles were being used. Such vehicles include battery electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and "flex-fuel" vehicles that could run on a high blend of ethanol called E85.

Wind was by far the most promising, Jacobson said, owing to a better-than 99 percent reduction in carbon and air pollution emissions; the consumption of less than 3 square kilometers of land for the turbine footprints to run the entire U.S. vehicle fleet (given the fleet is composed of battery-electric vehicles); the saving of about 15,000 lives per year from premature air-pollution-related deaths from vehicle exhaust in the United States; and virtually no water consumption. By contrast, corn and cellulosic ethanol will continue to cause more than 15,000 air pollution-related deaths in the country per year, Jacobson asserted.

Because the wind turbines would require a modest amount of spacing between them to allow room for the blades to spin, wind farms would occupy about 0.5 percent of all U.S. land, but this amount is more than 30 times less than that required for growing corn or grasses for ethanol. Land between turbines on wind farms would be simultaneously available as farmland or pasture or could be left as open space.

Indeed, a battery-powered U.S. vehicle fleet could be charged by 73,000 to 144,000 5-megawatt wind turbines, fewer than the 300,000 airplanes the U.S. produced during World War II and far easier to build. Additional turbines could provide electricity for other energy needs.

"There is a lot of talk among politicians that we need a massive jobs program to pull the economy out of the current recession," Jacobson said. "Well, putting people to work building wind turbines, solar plants, geothermal plants, electric vehicles and transmission lines would not only create jobs but would also reduce costs due to health care, crop damage and climate damage from current vehicle and electric power pollution, as well as provide the world with a truly unlimited supply of clean power."

Jacobson said that while some people are under the impression that wind and wave power are too variable to provide steady amounts of electricity, his research group has already shown in previous research that by properly coordinating the energy output from wind farms in different locations, the potential problem with variability can be overcome and a steady supply of baseline power delivered to users.

Jacobson's research is particularly timely in light of the growing push to develop biofuels, which he calculated to be the worst of the available alternatives. In their effort to obtain a federal bailout, the Big Three Detroit automakers are increasingly touting their efforts and programs in the biofuels realm, and federal research dollars have been supporting a growing number of biofuel-research efforts.

"That is exactly the wrong place to be spending our money. Biofuels are the most damaging choice we could make in our efforts to move away from using fossil fuels," Jacobson said. "We should be spending to promote energy technologies that cause significant reductions in carbon emissions and air-pollution mortality, not technologies that have either marginal benefits or no benefits at all".

"Obviously, wind alone isn't the solution," Jacobson said. "It's got to be a package deal, with energy also being produced by other sources such as solar, tidal, wave and geothermal power."

During the recent presidential campaign, nuclear power and clean coal were often touted as energy solutions that should be pursued, but nuclear power and coal with carbon capture and sequestration were Jacobson's lowest-ranked choices after biofuels. "Coal with carbon sequestration emits 60- to 110-times more carbon and air pollution than wind energy, and nuclear emits about 25-times more carbon and air pollution than wind energy," Jacobson said.

Although carbon-capture equipment reduces 85-90 percent of the carbon exhaust from a coal-fired power plant, it has no impact on the carbon resulting from the mining or transport of the coal or on the exhaust of other air pollutants. In fact, because carbon capture requires a roughly 25-percent increase in energy from the coal plant, about 25 percent more coal is needed, increasing mountaintop removal and increasing non-carbon air pollution from power plants, he said.

Nuclear power poses other risks. Jacobson said it is likely that if the United States were to move more heavily into nuclear power, then other nations would demand to be able to use that option.

"Once you have a nuclear energy facility, it's straightforward to start refining uranium in that facility, which is what Iran is doing and Venezuela is planning to do," Jacobson said. "The potential for terrorists to obtain a nuclear weapon or for states to develop nuclear weapons that could be used in limited regional wars will certainly increase with an increase in the number of nuclear energy facilities worldwide." Jacobson calculated that if one small nuclear bomb exploded, the carbon emissions from the burning of a large city would be modest, but the death rate for one such event would be twice as large as the current vehicle air pollution death rate summed over 30 years.

Finally, both coal and nuclear energy plants take much longer to plan, permit and construct than do most of the other new energy sources that Jacobson's study recommends. The result would be even more emissions from existing nuclear and coal power sources as people continue to use comparatively "dirty" electricity while waiting for the new energy sources to come online, Jacobson said.

Jacobson received no funding from any interest group, company or government agency.


Energy and vehicle options, from best to worst, according to Jacobson's calculations:

Best to worst electric power sources:

1. Wind power
2. Concentrated solar power (CSP)
3. Geothermal power
4. Tidal power
5. Solar photovoltaics (PV)
6. Wave power
7. Hydroelectric power
8. A tie between nuclear power and coal with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).

Best to worst vehicle options:

1. Wind-BEVs (battery electric vehicles)
2. Wind-HFCVs (hydrogen fuel cell vehicles)
3. CSP-BEVs
4. Geothermal-BEVs
5. Tidal-BEVs
6. Solar PV-BEVs
7. Wave-BEVs
8. Hydroelectric-BEVs
9. A tie between nuclear-BEVs and coal-CCS-BEVs
11. Corn-E85
12. Cellulosic-E85.

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles were examined only when powered by wind energy, but they could be combined with other electric power sources. Although HFCVs require about three times more energy than do BEVs (BEVs are very efficient), HFCVs are still very clean and more efficient than pure gasoline, and wind-HFCVs still resulted in the second-highest overall ranking. HFCVs have an advantage in that they can be refueled faster than can BEVs (although BEV charging is getting faster). Thus, HFCVs may be useful for long trips (more than 250 miles) while BEVs more useful for trips less than 250 miles. An ideal combination may be a BEV-HFCV hybrid.


Related Information

Professor Mark Jacobson discusses alternative energy sources

Jacobson's paper in Energy & Environmental Science

Jacobson's Stanford web page

Stanford December 2007 press release on interconnecting wind farms to smooth power delivery

Jacobson's interconnecting windfarms paper in J. Applied Meteorology and Climatology

European Union's 20:20:20 Renewable Energy Plan Agreement

The European Union reached an agreement that more than one-third of EU electricity must come from renewables by the year 2020. Each state of the EU must have drawn up an action plan by June 2010 to meet the 20:20:20 targets.

Renewable Energy World/European Union

December 10, 2008

EU Passes New Climate Directive

Brussels, Belgium [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

Agreement on the European Union Renewable Energy Directive has paved the way for the economic bloc to achieve its plans for a 20% renewables contribution to total energy demand and a 20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, the so-called 20:20:20 plan. The deal, between the European Parliament, the French Presidency on behalf of the Council and the European Commission, means that more than one third of EU electricity must come from renewables by 2020.

A move welcomed by the renewable energy and environmental sector, European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) president Arthouros Zervos noted, "This European Directive will be the most important piece of legislation on renewable energy in the world," adding that the legislation will provide for much-needed investor confidence in the renewable energy sector, and thereby enable the European Union to achieve in the most cost-efficient way the binding 20% renewable energy target.

Under the terms of the Directive, for the first time each Member State has a legally binding renewables target for 2020 and by June 2010 each state will have drawn up a National Action Plan (NAP) detailing plans to meet their 2020 targets. Member states will report on progress every two years.

"At a time when international climate negotiations are ongoing, the European Union gives a strong signal to other countries worldwide. I am confident that this piece of legislation will inspire other parts of the world to help us achieve a sustainable energy future," Zervos said.

The European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) further noted that the Directive confirms Europe as the leader of the energy revolution the world needs. "Moreover, the directive addresses existing barriers that prevent Europe from fully exploiting its largest domestic energy resource," said a statement from EWEA.

Christian Kjaer, EWEA's chief executive said, "The grid and administrative barriers whose shadows loom long over wind energy project developers will finally be tackled throughout Europe thanks to the directive."

Ahead of the agreement, which had been in doubt following calls for a 2014 review from Italy and France, Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said that the climate change and energy package was one of the most significant pieces of work the EU had carried out over recent years. He added that a low carbon economy would boost Europe's competitiveness and encourage innovation.

British Government & Giant USA Utilities Announce Feed-In-Tariffs For Clean Enegy Development

Two momentous events in the evolution of policy for a new energy economy for the planet occurred in late November 2008.

The Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, the largest municipal utility district in North America, announced on November 24, 2008 that it is prepared to launch one of the continent's largest solar power programs, also making use of a feed-in tariff by 2016. Los Angeles joins Gainesville Regional Utilities in Florida, Toronto Hydro (Canada's largest municipal utility, and second largest to LAWPD in North America), and a few other smaller cities in using FITs as a centerpiece for encouraging rapid clean energy development.

"Regardless of how or even whether it follows through, Los Angeles, as one of North America's largest cities, has put feed-in tariffs, at least for solar, on the continent's public policy map."

Two days later, The British Government on November 26, 2008 approved its Energy Bill that includes implementing a system of feed-in tariffs (FITs) for small renewable energy producers by 2010. The feed-in tariff provisions until recently were unthinkable in the British political landscape.

"The move by the British government has far reaching ramifications. The English speaking world has been more resistant to feed-in tariffs than non-English speaking countries, sometimes on ideological grounds, sometimes simply out of ignorance. Many North Americans, for example, attribute continental Europe's success with renewable energy to renewable portfolio standards, which is not the case.
 Now that the British have clearly moved toward the camp favoring feed-in tariffs, there may be less reticence to do so elsewhere in the Anglophone world."

See full details in the second article below, and note that FITs are the basis for accelerated clean energy development in Germany, Spain, France, and Denmark, for example.

For a primer on FITs, see the easily readable and well illustrated 16-page 2008 report from the World Future Council: "Feed-In Tariffs -- Boosting Energy for our Future: A guide to one of the world's best environmental policies," by the World Future Council, 2008

It looks like a very promising 2009 awaits us in moving rapidly from a obsolescent fossil fuel/dirty energy economy to a modern clean energy economy.


Renewable Energy World/Los Angeles Department of Water & Power

December 3, 2008

North America's Largest Municipal Utility Proposes Solar Feed-in Tariff

by Paul Gipe, Contributing Writer

Los Angeles, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced to much fanfare on November 24 that the city's municipal utility would launch one of the continent's largest solar power programs. The mayor's plan would direct the city's municipal utility, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), to build or purchase 1,300 MW of solar energy by 2020.

Among provisions of the plan is a feed-in tariff for 150 MW of solar photovoltaics by 2016. This is the first official announcement of a feed-in tariff proposal by a California city, but it is not the first in the United States. Gainesville, Florida previously announced that it was formally considering a feed-in tariff to replace its solar rebate program.

Recently, the Palm Springs Desert Sun reported that Palm Desert, California was also considering solar feed-in tariffs after city officials toured Spain, one of the world's leading developers of solar energy. Spain uses feed-in tariffs.

LADWP is the continent's largest municipal utility. It was briefly at the forefront of solar energy development in California from 1999 to 2003, before inexplicably abandoning its program.

The city and LADWP provided no details on the solar feed-in tariff or on the other renewable energy proposals that were part of the mayor's press release. There were no further details on LADWP's web site. Photos of wind turbines on the web site were standard stock photos and all were of wind turbines outside the utility's service area.

LADWP claims that 8.5% of its electricity currently comes from renewables and that the utility is on track to meet its 20% target by 2010. The last report on the utility's web site about its renewable energy program, however, is dated 2003, the year the utility canceled its successful solar program.

Los Angeles' 120 MW Pine Tree wind project is slated to come on line in 2009. The project also is outside of the Los Angeles Basin, just north of the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area.

Interestingly, it was a municipal utility that launched the modern version of Germany's famed feed-in tariffs. Aachen introduced the first solar-specific feed-in tariff in the mid-1990s. Subsequently other German cities followed suit. In 2000 Germany's parliament incorporated the concept behind Aachen's policy in its groundbreaking system of Advanced Renewable Tariffs.

Municipal utilities in the Americas may be able to emulate Aachen and be the first to launch true feed-in tariffs. Because municipal utilities are governed by city officials, they can be more responsive to public demands for action on renewable energy than the often more distant state or provincial legislatures.

Toronto Hydro, North America's second largest and Canada's largest municipal utility, briefly considered a solar PV feed-in tariff in 2007, but took no action. The proposal before Toronto Hydro employed a differentiated feed-in tariff that was intended to work with the province of Ontario's Standard Offer Contract Program.

The proposal of Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) is the most advanced in the United States.
GRU's commission has ordered preparation of a tariff.


In contrast to Gainesville's approach, LADWP made public little or no information on the details of its proposal. GRU prepared a detailed report which it presented to Gainesville's utility commission when the utility went public with its proposal.

Los Angeles incorporates Hollywood within its city boundaries and there's always an element of showmanship in its pronouncements. The city's proposal is aggressive, more than one-third of the California Solar Initiative's 3,000 MW of solar PV, if it is more than simply aspirational.



The portion of the plan devoted to a feed-in tariff is about one-tenth of the entire program. Countries that have been the most successful at rapidly developing renewable energy (Germany, France, and Spain) use feed-in tariffs as the principal if not only policy mechanism.

Despite the uncritical media accounts of the "world's most ambitious solar plan," attention has focused not only on the targets, but also on the various mechanisms that may be used to reach those targets, including feed-in tariffs.

Regardless of how or even whether it follows through, Los Angeles, as one of North America's largest cities, has put feed-in tariffs, at least for solar, on the continent's public policy map.


Renewable Energy World/Britain’s Energy Bill

December 1, 2008

British Feed-in Tariff Policy Becomes Law - Was Once Unthinkable

by Paul Gipe, Contributing Writer

London, UK [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

The Queen gave her "royal assent" to Britain's long-debated Energy Bill on November 26, 2008, putting into law Britain's commitment to dramatically cut its greenhouse gas emissions. The Energy Bill also contained provisions calling on Gordon Brown's Labour government to implement a system of feed-in tariffs for small renewable energy producers by 2010.

The feed-in tariff provisions were once unthinkable in the British political landscape. They said it "couldn't be done" is how British campaigners described the remarkable success.



Since Margaret Thatcher, Britain has relied on a series of call for tenders and eventually a complex quota system to build a modest wind energy industry dominated by the word's largest electric utilities. There was little more than token support for small-scale renewables through traditional subsidy programs under successive Conservative and Labour governments.



Meanwhile on the continent, renewables were booming, first in Denmark, then in Germany, France, and Spain through the use of innovative systems of feed-in tariffs. These systems of Advanced Renewable Tariffs spurred growth of a variety of renewable energy technologies at all scales. In Germany, a large percentage of solar and wind energy are being developed by homeowners, farmers, and small investors.



The feed-in tariff provisions of Britain's Energy Bill are modest in comparison to those in other countries. In contrast to continental European policies, projects are limited to no more than 5 MW. There are no project size limits in Germany, for example. Nor does the Energy Bill contain the specific provisions or prices that are part of such acts in France and Germany. Specific provisions will be determined administratively in 2009.

The Energy Bill leaves in place Britain's existing Renewable Obligation Certificate trading program for larger projects. The two programs, the Renewable Obligation and the feed-in tariff system, will operate in parallel.



There was cross party agreement on amendments to the bill that included the essential elements of any successful feed-in tariff policy. For example, there was an amendment that called for different tariffs for different renewable energy technologies a key feature of the policies in Germany, France, and Spain. The cross party agreement included both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.



The campaign for the Energy Bill was led by Friends of the Earth UK (FOE) and Britain's Renewable Energy Association.

According to FOE campaigner David Timm, the Labour government now appears committed to introducing a true system of feed-in tariffs by the end of 2010.



Alan Simpson, Labour MP, led debate in the House of Commons, taking issue not only with expected opposition to feed-in tariffs from electric utilities but also from the renewable energy industry itself.

"On the record, many of the big energy suppliers have been fighting tooth and claw to prevent us from doing anything as bold and imaginative as we are doing. The Association of Electricity Producers had lobbied for a threshold of 50 kW. The British Wind Energy Association lobbied, until the last moment, for a threshold of 500 kW. Such demands would preclude the opportunity to develop genuine, transformational renewable energy systems on a community, town or city scale. The Secretary of State should be praised for his determination and willingness to push the boat out much further than many of those vested interests would have felt comfortable with," he said.

Observers noted that no one rose in Commons to oppose final passage. Conservative Party leaders put the ruling Labour Party on notice that if the feed-in tariff provisions didn't pass, they would support the policy in a subsequent Conservative Government. Previously, Gordon Brown suffered an embarrassing back-bench revolt over the issue from his own party members.



The move by the British government has far reaching ramifications. The English speaking world has been more resistant to feed-in tariffs than non-English speaking countries, sometimes on ideological grounds, sometimes simply out of ignorance. Many North Americans, for example, attribute continental Europe's success with renewable energy to renewable portfolio standards, which is not the case.



Now that the British have clearly moved toward the camp favoring feed-in tariffs, there may be less reticence to do so elsewhere in the Anglophone world.