South Africa To Produce 10,000 Gigawatt-Hours of Wind & Solar Energy Using Feed-In Tariffs

South Africa's National Energy Regulator (NERSA) in late March 2009 introduced a system of Feed-in Tariffs (FITs) intended to produce 10 (ten) Terawatt-hours (TWh) = 10,000 (ten thousand) Gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity generated from wind, solar, small hydro, and landfill gas for the country by 2013.

"Feed-In Tariffs - Boosting Energy For Our Future" Report Front Cover, World Future Council, Hamburg, Germany, 2008.

Feed-In Tariffs For South Africa:

A March 31, 2009 Media Announcement briefs the NERSA Decision on Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariff (REFIT).

The 40-page report, South Africa Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariff (REFIT) - Regulatory Guidelines 26 March, 2009, states in its introduction:

"Grid connected renewable energy is currently the fastest growing sector in the global energy market. Installed global wind capacity at the start of 2008 is in the order of 90GW, with total world installed capacity having doubled since 2004. India, China, the United States, Spain and Germany together added over 20GW of wind power in 2007. China and India each are currently installing wind electricity in excess of 1GW per annum and both have targets of achieving over 10GW by 2015. The capacity of grid connected solar PV has also quadrupled from an installed capacity of 2GW in 2004 to approaching 8GW at the end of 2007. Commercial-scale solar thermal power plants are also under construction in countries such as the US and Spain. Targets for the promotion of renewable energy now exist in more than 58 countries, of which 13 are developing countries."

'The renewable energy industry is now a major economic player, with the industry employing over 2.5 million people worldwide. Renewable energy companies have grown significantly in size in recent years, with the market capitalisation of publicly traded renewables companies doubling from $50 billion to $100 billion in just two years (2005-7)."

"South Africa has a high level of renewable energy potential and presently has in place targets of 10,000 GWh of renewable energy by 2013. To contribute towards this target and towards socio-economic and environmentally sustainable growth, and kick start and stimulate the renewable energy industry in South Africa, there is a need to establish an appropriate market mechanism."

"Feed-in Tariffs (FIT) are, in essence, guaranteed prices for electricity supply rather than conventional consumer tariffs. The basic economic principle underpinning the FITs is the establishment of a tariff (price) that covers the cost of generation plus a "reasonable profit" to induce developers to invest. This is quite similar to the concept of cost recovery used in utility rate regulation based on the costs of capital."

"Under this approach it becomes economically appropriate to award different tariffs for different technologies. The price for the electricity produced should be set at a level and for a period that provides a reasonable return on investment for a specific technology. The tariff should also be certain and long term enough to allow for project financing to be raised by the project."

"Feed-in tariffs to promote renewable energy have now been adopted in over 36 countries around the world, including Spain and Germany and a number of states in the US, and also including developing nations such as Turkey, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Ecuador, China, Brazil, Argentina and most recently Kenya."

"The establishment of the Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariff (REFIT) in South Africa will provide an excellent opportunity for South Africa to increase the deployment of renewable energy in the country and contribute towards the sustained growth of the sector in the country, the region and internationally."






"Feed-In Tariffs - Boosting Energy For Our Future" Report Back Cover, World Future Council, Hamburg, Germany, 2008.

Climate Masters Program Comes To New Mexico In May 2009

The New Mexico Environment Department is offering the Climate Masters program at the Santa Fe Community College, Santa Fe, NM beginning May 26 and ending July 28, 2009.

The Climate Masters program is a free series of classes focused on climate change, what you can do to reduce greenhouse gases emissions in your daily life, and strategies for motivating others to do the same. In exchange for the 30 hours of course training, you will be asked to donate 30 hours of volunteer options in your communities.

For resources information, see "Resources for Climate Masters" at the University of Oregon's Climate Leadership Initiative, and the "Climate Master Handbook -- A Guide to Shrinking Your Climate Footprint and Motivating Others to do the Same".

Tesla Unveils Model S Electric Sedan

Tesla Motors, Inc. of San Carlos, California on March 26, 2009 announced that it is taking orders for an all-electric family sedan that carries up to seven people and travels up to 300 miles per electric charge.


















Tesla Model S Electric Sedan at the SpaceX rocket factory, Hawthorne, California, March 26, 2009. See "Up To Speed" in the Los Angeles Times for an associated article and more photos.

The Tesla Model S carries an onboard charger that can recharge the battery packs in as little as 45 minutes. The battery pack also is designed to be changed out in less time than it takes to fill a fuel tank on a similar gasoline-powered vehicle. As battery-pack swap and charging stations become more widespread in the new energy economy, drivers can expect to travel as far and as fast in electric vehicles as they can in gasoline-powered vehicles.


















Tesla Model S Prototype

The standard Tesla Model S goes from zero to sixty miles per hour in under six seconds and will have an electronically limited top speed of 130 miles per hour. The Model S will not require routine oil changes, and has fewer moving and breakable parts than cars powered with internal combustion engines. The Model S operating cost is about five dollars for each 230 miles traveled.

The anticipated base price of the Tesla Model S is $49,900 after a federal tax credit of $7,500. The company has not released options pricing. Three battery pack choices will offer a range of 160, 230 or 300 miles per charge. This pricing is consistent with Tesla's long-term plans to produce highway-capable electric vehicles at increasingly lower prices as the EV technology develops. Tesla's efforts are focused on accelerating the electric car revolution, according to Tesla Chairman and Chief Executive Elon Musk. Tesla was selected in January 2009 to make batteries and chargers for Daimler's Smart EV.


Daimler Smart ForTwo Electric Vehicles























The Tesla Roadster

Tesla is the only production automaker already selling highway-capable electric vehicles (EVs) in North America or Europe. With 0-60 mph in 3.9 seconds, the Tesla Roadster outperforms almost all sports cars in its class yet is six times as energy efficient as similar gasoline-powered cars and delivers 244 miles per charge. The Roadster, Tesla's first model, has a base price of $101,500. Tesla has delivered Roadsters to about 300 customers, and has nearly 1,000 additional customers on its wait list.

Hybrid CSTP/Natural Gas Power Plant Under Construction In Florida

The following information supplements the post of December 7, 2008 on a co-located solar/natural gas-fired power plant in Indiantown, Florida.

Co-locating industrial-scale solar power plants with existing fossil-fuel fired power plants can be an economical solution to power transmission and other problems. Co-location allows clean energy to be phased in as fossil-fuel energy is phased out, with the fossil-fuel energy plant becoming a backup, then eventually becoming unnecessary as solar heat storage technology improves.

Solar radiation is available onsite, whereas fossil fuels must be continually mined and transported to the old-technology plant. Co-locating solar power on the existing plant site takes advantage of transmission infrastructure already in place, avoiding costs of building extensive new transmission lines. Solar power plants avoid many of the water-use and land- and water-pollution problems of old-technology power plants. Thus, opportunities for land and water systems restoration after abandoning fossil-fuel power plants will increase substantially.

Lauren Engineers & Constructors and Florida Power & Light Company Building Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center in Indiantown, Florida.

Lauren Engineers & Constructors is working with NextEra Energy Resources, a Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) Group Company on a new 75-megawatt (MW) concentrating solar thermal power (CSTP or CSP) facility.

The CSTP part of the facility will employ parabolic trough mirror technology and include approximately 180,000 parabolic mirrors on 500 acres of land. Solar power output is expected to be 155,000 megawatt-hours (MWhr) annually.

Artist's Conception of the FPL Martin Concentrating Solar Thermal/Natural Gas-Fired Power Plant, Indiantown, Florida.

Lauren Engineers & Constructors also worked with ACCIONA to build the Nevada Solar One Power Plant, a 64 MW parabolic mirror facility located in Boulder City, Nevada. This plant went online in June, 2007.








Nevada Solar One Concentrating Solar Thermal Power (CSTP) Plant, Boulder City, Nevada. This facility uses parabolic mirror technology and 182,000 curved mirrors, occupies 400 acres of land, and generates 64 megawatts (MW) of power. The plant began operating in June, 2007. Photograph: CNET News, March 12, 2007.


















Detail views of Nevada Solar One CSTP Plant showing parabolic mirror arrangement. The parabolic mirrors are aligned on north-south axes, and rotate from east to west throughout the day to track the sun. The mirrors focus sunlight on an oil-filled pipe that carries the heated oil to a heat exchanger. The heat exchanger creates steam that powers an electricity-generating turbine. Photographs: Acciona U.S. Projects.

USA Installs 1,265 Megawatts (MW) Of Solar Power In 2008

New Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) Report Details Solar Power Growth In The USA.

Xcel/SunEdison solar photovoltaic heliostats, 8.24 Megawatt (MW) Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Powerplant, San Luis Valley near Mosca, Colorado. This powerplant was activated in December 2007. View is eastward towards Sangre de Cristo Mountains.
Photograph by L.A. Brown, March 18, 2009.

The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) released its 12-page summary report, 2008 U.S. Solar Industry Year in Review.

The report states 1,265 megawatts (MW) of solar power of all varieties were installed in the USA in 2008. These include 342 MW of solar photovoltaic (PV) installations, 139 MWTh (megawatts thermal equivalent) of solar water heating, 762 MWTh of pool heating, and an estimated 21 MW of solar space heating and cooling.

Surface detail of Xcel/SunEdison solar PV heliostat, Mosca, Colorado, showing reflective metal triangular ridges that focus solar radiation on solar PV receptors. Photograph by L.A. Brown, March 18, 2009.

California was the leader among state grid-tied PV installations with 178.6 MW, New Jersey followed with 22.5 MW installed, Colorado was next at 21.6 MW, Nevada installed 13.9 MW and Hawaii with 11.3 MW. For solar water heating systems, Hawaii led states, installing 37 percent of the total U.S. systems in 2008, followed by Florida at 20 percent, California with 7 percent and both Colorado and Arizona with 5 percent. The Mid-Atlantic States, an important emerging region for solar, installed 7 percent of solar water heating systems.

Close-up of solar PV receptors and reflective metal triangular ridges, Xcel/SunEdison heliostat, Mosca, Colorado. Note dirt on panel surfaces and dents in metal reflectors caused by hail. Photograph by L.A. Brown, March 18, 2009.

The SEIA report indicates solar PV manufacturing capacity in the USA increased by 65 percent in 2008. this created many new jobs in California, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon and Tennessee. Total solar power production capacity in those five states now stands at approximately 685 megawatts (MW).


















Solar panels, Xcel/SunEdison 8.24 MW Solar Photovoltaic Power Plant, Mosca, Colorado. These panels are supported by north-south aligned axles that rotate the panels from east to west throughout the day to track the sun. View is northeastward in the afternoon towards the Sangre de Cristo Mountains that form the eastern border of the San Luis Valley. Photograph by L.A. Brown, March 18, 2009.

The SEIA report notes that no new concentrating solar power (CSP) plants came online in the USA in 2008. However, CSP projects in the planning or construction stages currently total more than six gigawatts (GW; 6 GW = 6,000 megawatts). Among these are projects planned for California's Mojave Desert, Arizona and Florida.

Tracking The Sun

Solar Panels On Rooftops, Ohta, Japan, Focus Solar, 2008

Solar Photovoltaic Power Costs In USA Drop 30 Percent Over Past Decade

The Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California released a new report, “Tracking the Sun,” that documents the installed costs of solar photovoltaic (PV) power in the USA from 1998-2007.

The February 27, 2009 revision of the 42-page document indicates a positive outlook for the future of customer economics of solar PV. Primary indicators include an oversupply of solar PV modules in the near future together with lifting the cap on the Federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for residential PV will reduce costs for residential installations. Large commercial solar PV promises to be the dominant growth market because of economies of scale, but both large and small solar PV systems stand to make major gains in reduced costs per unit of energy generated.

The report examines 37,000 grid-connected solar PV systems installed in 12 USA states from 1998-2007. Among these, average costs before financial incentives or tax credits declined from $10.50 per watt in 1998 to $7.6 per watt in 2007 – roughly a 35 percent cost reduction over ten years.

Non-module costs such as inverters, mounting hardware, labor, permitting and fees, shipping, overhead, taxes and profit were responsible for the bulk of cost reductions.

Systems less than 5 kilowatts in size exhibited the largest cost reductions; however, data are lacking for larger solar PV systems with output greater than 100 kilowatts.

Average costs for all systems flattened and remained almost unchanged from 2005-2007.

Installed costs of solar PV show economies of scale. Systems less than 2 kilowatts averaged about $9.00 per watt in 2006-2007, and systems greater than 750 kilowatts averaged about $6.80 per watt during the same period.

State and utility cash incentives for solar PV installations declined from 2002 through 2007.

The increase in the Federal ITC in 2006 tended to stimulate commercial-scale solar PV from 2007-2009; however, residential solar PV should gain cost advantages in 2009 with changes in the Federal residential ITC.

In its introduction, the report says: “Despite the significant year-on-year growth, however, the share of global and U.S. electricity supply met with PV remains small, and annual PV additions are currently modest in the context of the overall electric system.”

Nonetheless, the growth of solar PV is encouraging. The data on its declining costs with time offer a promise of even more accelerated growth in the next few years.

A February 25, 2009 brief at WorldChanging expands upon the following:

Business Green reported on February 23, 2009 that the price of solar PV panels could fall by as much as 40 percent by the end of this year. Other analysts have been predicting this price drop that is based on huge increases in polysilicon supplies leading to a drop in production costs.

New Energy Finance also predicts a fall in solar PV module prices because of recent global investments in increasing silicon production.

China-based solar PV panel manufacturer Suntech Power Holdings estimates that demand from the USA could reach 700 megawatts (MW) during 2009 as a result of President Obama’s new stimulus package.

Climate Progress suggests if the dramatic price drop for solar PV panels materializes, solar PV will become "...one of the largest job-creating industries of the century, projected to grow from $20 billion two years ago to a $74 billion industry by 2017."

Solar Electric Power And Renewable Energy Futures For Colorado

SES Stirling Energy Systems Solar One Power Plant in the Mojave Desert near Barstow, CA will develop 500 megawatts (MW) of electricity generating capacity with an expansion option to 850 MW. The plant will use 20,000 to 34,000 solar Dish/Stirling concentrators like the ones shown here.

A recent report on the renewable energy future of Colorado assesses the state’s potential to meet its own renewable energy standards (RESs) while also producing renewable energy for export to other markets.

The report is entitled, “Connecting Colorado’s Renewable Resources to the Markets -- Report of the Colorado Senate Bill 07-091 Renewable Resource Generation Development Areas Task Force Revised Edition July 2008”

The 64-page document treats wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal power generation, and biomass, ethanol, and biodiesel fuels. The report sets these energies in the context of policy, economics, power transmission, land-use, and related elements. Importantly, the Task Force assesses electricity generation costs for different carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions penalty scenarios.

For wind and solar power, the Task Force identified “Generation Development Areas” or GDAs indicating power generation potential from specific regions of the state.

For wind power, the GDAs lie on the High Plains east of the Rocky Mountain Front and within which the Task Force found a potential for ninety-six (96) gigawatts (GW) of wind power generation. I will treat the implications of wind power development for Colorado and other regions in a future post.

For solar power, the Task Force defined two GDAs in the southern part of the state together having a potential to generate as much as thirteen hundred (1,300) gigawatts (GW) of electricity.

One "Central Solar Power" GDA is the San Luis Valley of south-central Colorado. The other, larger GDA includes a region extending from the eastern base of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains well into the High Plains of southeastern Colorado along the Colorado-New Mexico border.

The Task Force acknowledges the impracticality of the 1,300-GW scale of generation, saying that all the land in the GDAs would need to be covered with solar generation equipment. Further, the 1,300-GW output would be more than one hundred (100) times the current peak energy demand for the state.

The Task Force makes no specific recommendation for the level of solar power generation, but says about two (2) percent of the total land area of the two GDAs would allow production of about twenty-six (26) gigawatts (GW) of electrical generation capacity.

The Task Force then describes three utility-scale solar technologies currently available and operating elsewhere in the USA and the world. These technologies are grouped under the heading of Concentrating Solar Thermal Power (CTSP), frequently referred to in other reports and the media as Concentrating or Concentrated Solar Power (CSP).

The three technologies are Parabolic Trough Systems, Dish/Stirling Systems, and Solar Tower Systems. In each of these systems, large mirrors focus reflected solar radiation onto receivers that transform the intense heat into energy.

Parabolic Trough Systems focus solar radiation onto oil-filled pipes, and the heated oil is used to boil water, creating steam to drive electricity-generating turbines.



Sandia National Laboratories Researcher Rich Diver poses with a Parabolic Trough solar power concentrator, Albuquerque, NM, May 15, 2007. The parabolic mirrors focus sunlight on the oil filled pipe running above his head. The oil then flows though a heat exchanger to generate steam to power a turbine to generate electricity.

As illustrated by SES Stirling Energy Systems, Dish/Stirling Systems use large, mirrored, lens-shaped dishes to focus solar radiation on a Stirling engine mounted at the focal point of the lens. The heated fluid in the Stirling engine expands, creating pressure to drive pistons or turbines for electrical power generation.



The SES Stirling Energy Systems SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt (kW) Solar Power System consisting of a 38-foot diameter dish structure that supports 82 curved glass mirrors. The system is also called a heliostat because it tracks the movement of the sun throughout the day. The device labeled "Power Conversion Unit (PCU)" is the Stirling engine and its housing.

Solar Tower Systems use a mirror array to concentrate and focus solar heat on a tower containing molten salt. The heated salt is used to produce steam to drive electricity-generating turbines.



Solar Tower System at Sandia National Laboratories National Solar Thermal Test Facility, Albuquerque, NM. In this 2006 view the nine-acre test facility at Sandia consists of a 200-foot-high solar tower, 212 computer-controlled mirrors called heliostats, and a separate five-story control tower. The heliostats focus sunlight on the tower to generate heat that produces steam to drive electricity-generating turbines.

Each of these three industrial-sale systems has different land-use and water-use requirements plus heat storage potential across a broad range of existing and evolving technologies. Despite many references to steam, the Task Force does not assess water use for different industrial-scale solar power systems in the July 2008 revision of its report.

In fact, Parabolic Trough and Solar Tower Systems can either consume significant quantities of water through evaporation as steam, or they can minimize water consumption using closed-loop and other dry-cooling systems. Dish/Stirling Systems operate at high temperatures, and require essentially no water other than what is needed to wash the mirrors from time to time.

The U.S. Department of Energy, Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) in 2006 published comparative water uses for coal, coal IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle), other fossil fuels, biomass, nuclear, geothermal steam, solar trough, solar tower, natural gas, and hydroelectric power. This report for the USA Congress is entitled “Energy Demands on Water Resources,” and the water demand tables are on pages 17 and 38.

I will devote a future post to land- and water-use requirements for specific renewable energy technologies. I will also devote a separate post to rapidly developing opportunities and technologies for storing solar and other forms of renewable energy.

In concluding the section on solar power generation potential for Colorado, the Task Force discusses solar photovoltaic systems (Solar PV), distributed solar photovoltaics (DG), and current and necessary future policy for Colorado regarding solar power development.

Solar Power Milestones In 2009

Capturing The Energy Of The Sun, iStockphoto image in Science Daily, August 25, 2008.

The solar power industry continues its rapid evolution as evidenced by important milestones reached within the past few weeks. Progress in the solar power sector is being driven by practical economic, energy security, and environmental protection factors.

Guinness Atkinson Funds on December 31, 2008 for example argues that the long term prospects for solar power and other clean energies remain sound, in fact showing the potential to be one of the first sectors to emerge from the current financial downturn.

Guinness Atkinson invests in a wide variety of companies engaged in the production, exploration and discovery or distribution of energy, whether derived from fossil fuels or an “Alternative Energy” suite of solar, wind, hydro, efficiency, geothermal, biomass and biofuel.

Consistent with this appraisal, Suntech Power Holdings Co. Ltd. announced on January 9, 2009 that it has reached 1 gigawatt (GW) of solar photovoltaic (PV) cell and module production capacity in Wuxi, China. Suntech is the first solar photovoltaic company in the world to achieve 1 GW of solar cell and module production.

Suntech’s announcement comes in contrast to other companies that are scaling back production estimates for 2009 because of global credit and stock market declines. Suntech is headquartered in Jiangsu Province, People’s Republic of China, with offices in Schaffhausen, Switzerland; San Francisco, California; New South Wales, Australia; Munich, Germany; Madrid, Spain; Gangnam-gu, South Korea; and Tokyo, Japan.

In the United States, SunEdison on January 9, 2009 announced one of the largest solar distributed generation (DG) programs ever conceived. SunEdison is partnering in the venture with Developers Diversified Realty, a Cleveland-based real estate investment trust (REIT) engaged in the development and management of shopping centers.

Under the terms of the deal, SunEdison “…has the rights to deploy solar energy systems at more than 200 shopping centers, covering up to an estimated 30 million square feet. Potential capacity of the program is up to 259 MW and the centers are located in 24 states and in Puerto Rico.”

“Once a particular system is operational, Developers Diversified will be able to purchase energy from SunEdison. In addition, shopping center tenants can benefit and realize energy savings by opting to purchase the power generated through the program at rates lower than retail energy rates.” SunEdison spokesman Brian Jacolick stated, “…a typical sized solar energy system in the program will avoid an estimated 10 million pounds of carbon dioxide pollution.”

Also in the USA, the Solar Electric Power Association (SEPA) on January 7, 2009 released a new research report, “Facilitating Utility Use and Integration of Solar Electric Power.”

This report is based on work supported by the
US Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy through the Solar America Initiative.

The report contains two informative summary tables. One documents large-scale USA utility solar photovoltaic projects [those projects of more than 20 megawatts (MW)] either completed or in development as of September 2008. The second documents large-scale USA concentrating solar thermal power (CSP) projects either completed or announced as of July 2008.

The report says, “This year has seen an unprecedented number of utility-scale photovoltaic and concentrating solar thermal project announcements – some 3,000 to 5,000 megawatts over the next five years.

“However, SEPA believes this is only the cornerstone of what’s to come. The effect of the long-term extension of the federal investment tax credit—which includes eligibility for utilities—combined with the expansion of global solar manufacturing, rapidly declining cost and price curves, and federal and state environmental policies, is laying a foundation for utility solar innovation at unprecedented scales.”

The SEPA/DOE research offers critical insights into policy and procurement innovations that are possible with the solar power industry, but not possible with old technology power production and distribution. Because solar power is available everywhere the sun shines - albeit in greater or lesser degrees - utility companies are not limited to solar power solutions based on a central-station power generation, long-distance power transmission construct.

The SEPA/DOE report lists several benefits for utility companies to find ways to increase their portfolio of renewable energy in general and solar power in particular.

"Utilities need to compare solar costs with peak generation costs [and/or new plant acquisition] rather than base load [or avoided cost] electricity generation;

"The distributed nature of PV adds to grid reliability;

"The distributed generation of PV has limited transmission and distribution costs;

"Solar project developers actively pursuing residential and commercial customers to install their own solar generation are taking business away from utilities and driving utilities to acquire solar resources to remain competitive;

"In a carbon-regulated world, solar will offer utilities credits rather than costs that will be incurred for their carbon polluting generation;

"Increasing solar integration will be aided by and will in turn aid adoption of 'smart grid' technologies;

"Utilities improve their image to the public by taking voluntary environmental measures;

"Solar 'fuel' will remain free while costs of coal and natural gas continue to fluctuate in volatile markets.

"Although, historically, utilities outside of the Southwest have played a lesser role in the direct growth of solar power, within a decade solar power is expected to be cost-competitive in most regions of the U.S. on both a wholesale and retail basis.

"As utilities and others scale up their solar efforts, they are reaching economies of scale unlike anything seen in the past."

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.