Last week news hit the blogosphere of the latest hiccup facing the development of wind power in the United States - a sudden concern over how wind power projects may affect military radar installations. This week, RenewableEnergyAccess.com (REA) reports that an interesting back-story is starting to emerge, leading to accusations that politics have played at least some part in bringing as many as 15 wind power installations in the Midwest to a temporary halt. And the ripples being felt in the farm belt may have originated over a thousand miles away in the waters off Massachusetts...
According to REA, the current radar issue stems from The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, signed into law January 6, 2006 (PL 109-163). That act contained a last-minute amendment inserted by Senator John Warner (R-VA) that required the Department of Defense (DOD) to study and report on the effects of wind projects on military readiness.
By all accounts, the original Congressional language was aimed at one project, Cape Wind, a 420 MW offshore wind project proposed off the coast of Massachusetts [see previous post on the Cape Wind controversy]. However, DOD and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have apparently decided to expand upon the original study directive and apply it to all proposed wind power installations in the United States.
REA reporsts that Warner has been associated previously with legislation that would be harmful to wind power - particularly the Cape Wind project.
The REA article continues: "Senator Warner says he's for wind power, but his actions betray that," said Michael Vickerman, Executive Director of RENEW Wisconsin, a nonprofit group that promotes renewable energy in the state. Wisconsin is among the Midwest states where the radar issue has put some projects on hold.
"It's not just a military matter, that's what's really bothering us," said Vickerman, who reflects an opinion bubbling up in wind power circles that radar issues have been used to put the brakes on wind power development.
Since the proposed Cape Wind project falls within local radar view, it too may be put on hold at least until the DOD study is complete. But if political motivations were behind Warner's amendment, this entire issue may prove to be a case of unintended consequences because the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) actions stalling wind projects have mostly occurred in the Midwest.
In light of the required study, regional FAA officials issued notices of "Perceived Hazard" to approximately 15 wind projects, putting the brakes on, at least temporarily, to well over 1000 MW of wind power. Vickerman says the stalled projects include 950 MW in Illinois, 570 MW in Wisconsin, and 200 MW each in Minnesota and the Dakotas.
Why FAA officials in regional offices in the Midwest, not the Northeast, have been putting the most projects on hold is being chalked up to a simple lack of consistent interpretation of the law by these FAA offices.
Some wind power developers like Dave Luck, head of business development for EnXco, can see how people in the wind power industry came to the conclusion that politics have played a role in the radar issue.
"It's hard to dismiss that, given one of the sponsors of the bill," said Luck, referring to Warner. But Luck admits it would be impossible to prove the move was politically motivated. Furthermore, he doubts the FAA actions in the Midwest had anything to do with local, or NIMBY (not in my backyard) opposition because wind power faces relatively less local opposition in the Midwest than in the Northeast and coastal communities.
"I just don't see the rationale for this being a cloaked NIMBY issue," said Luck, in an interview at a recent wind power conference. "If that was the case, you'd have farmers up in arms. There would literally be a backlash."
Luck says farmers have been some of wind power's greatest supporters. Wind power, he said, is a curious new form of rural development that's being welcomed with open arms in much of America's heartland.
When asked if Luck would expand his operations into offshore wind power, where attitudes in the U.S. have been downright caustic, his face visibly changed as he said, "I'm not going to fight that battle, it's not worth it."
Someone who has been fighting that battle is Mark Rodgers, Communications Director for Cape Wind. He recently circulated some gumshoe reporting from a local Cape Cod publication, the Cape Cod Voice, that he says offers documentary substantiation on the political point many in the wind power business have been making with respect to the origins and motivations behind Warner's radar study amendment.
The article (link provided below) reports that a registered lobbyist for the organization that formed to oppose Cape Wind, The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, basically claimed credit for the Warner Amendment of last year on air navigation.
"It is truly unfortunate that Cape Wind opponents are having such a harmful effect on the entire wind industry," Rodgers said in an e-mail.
But while many in the wind power industry are busy trying to uncover, and prove, if any political motivations are behind radar concerns stalling wind power, politicians themselves are starting to feel the pressure from their local constituents.
Most recently, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), representing one of the states where the FAA notices has put projects on hold, succeeded in getting the Bush Administration to remove the hold on a North Dakota Project. Dorgan said many projects, including those that are unlikely to interfere with air navigation, have received the FAA notices.
At a recent Senate Commerce Committee hearing, Dorgan called on the Administration to work with wind turbine developers to address concerns in the future, saying he would offer legislation to fix the problem if officials continue to "needlessly delay" important renewable energy projects.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Unintended Consequences: Opposition to Cape Wind Likely Results in Widespread Impact on U.S. Wind Power Development
No Quick Fixes
The following is an op-ed piece written by Jim DiPeso, REP America Policy Director, and published online at RenewableEnergyAccess.com:
Step right up, ladies and gentlemen, for quick fix solutions that will cure all our energy ills. We'll suspend the federal gas tax. We can plant oil wells in the Arctic wilderness and off our coasts, assuring us years of worry-free guzzling. Did we mention the $100 rebate? Like a traveling medicine show, members of Congress are scurrying from press conference to press conference to show the folks back home that they're doing something about high gasoline prices, and by gum, they really mean it this time.
What a farce. The time that lawmakers spend promoting showy gimmicks is time that should be used on a long-range strategy for moving our country off its dangerous addiction to oil.
Time is not in our favor. Rising gasoline prices are not a transitory market hiccup but an ominous sign that the energy system on which we depend is dangerously unstable.
Our economy and security are at risk. If nothing is done, warns House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert, the New York Republican, "We are going to lurch from oil crisis to oil crisis, and each one is going to get worse."
This should not come as a surprise. The risks of betting our future on endless supplies of cheap oil have been known for decades. Every day of denial and delay brought the reckoning closer, like a balloon payment on a cut-rate mortgage.
Why now? It boils down to supply and demand in the oil market, which is global. Supplies are tight and demand is rising, which has made the market twitchy and prone to price spikes.
Any disruption anywhere that spooks the market sends prices upward. Last year, it was hurricanes. This year, it's been civil unrest in Nigeria, violence in Iraq and tension around Iran's nuclear dabbling.
Tomorrow, it could be worse. Earlier this year, security forces thwarted terrorists attempting to bomb an oil processing plant in Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil producer. Had the bombers succeeded, the result would have been economic calamity. As terrorists like to say, they only have to be lucky once.
Even if every oil-producing region were as stable as Sweden, however, oil is a finite commodity. Experts disagree on the timing, but global oil production will peak in the near future and begin an inexorable decline.
The biggest gorilla in the closet is climate change. Continuing with an energy system based on inefficient use of carbon-based fuels is a crapshoot with dangerous odds.
Meanwhile, fuel demand keeps rising. American demand alone consumes 25 percent of global production. China, India, and other big developing nations that want the high-energy lifestyle are using more oil.
Add more oil supply, some politicians insist. Drill the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Drill off the coasts. Drill the Rocky Mountains. Just drill, damn it.
We're chasing our tails if we try to drill our way out of this mess.
American wells already supply 8 percent of world oil production. Since America holds only 2 percent of world oil reserves, we are, in effect, draining domestic oil reserves four times faster than the rest of the world.
Once the domestic barrel is depleted, we'd be worse off - still addicted to oil, still vulnerable to dangerous forces beyond our control.
What we can control is demand. Greater fuel efficiency is the essential first step that will buy time to phase in oil substitutes, put some air into the oil market, and loosen dependence on petro-regimes. Fuel efficiency is the American weapon that overseas oil barons fear most.
Raising fuel economy standards to 40 miles per gallon would save more than 4 million barrels per day by 2020 - far more than anything an Arctic refuge oil field could ever produce.
The most promising mid-term oil alternative is biofuels produced from farm residues, urban wastes, and fast-growing crops such as switchgrass. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles running on a mixture of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline could achieve 500 miles per gallon of gas.
Changing our unhealthy energy ways will take time and investment. Our focus must not be on quick fixes, but on speeding up a transition to clean and renewable fuels and energy technologies.
We must start now, to assure our country of a clean, safe and prosperous 21st century.
This op-ed was first published in the Albuquerque Tribune on May 9, 2006.
About the Author...
Jim DiPeso is the policy director of Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP America), a grass-roots organization that seeks to restore the Republican conservation tradition.
Normally, when posting (or reposting) an op-ed like this, I'd say something like, "the views expressed in this editorial do not necessarily represent the views of the propreiter(s) of this website" ... but in this case, I find little in Mr DiPeso's editorial that I disagree with.
It's time to expect more from our politicians than quick-fix schemes. Its time to start demanding that they implement long-term solutions that will set this country back on course towards a viable (and sustainable) energy future!
The time of cheap oil is over and we have to start transitioning towards a sustainable energy future, especially in the transportation sector. As my thesis research concluded (keep your eye out for my thesis, to be posted soon), and Mr. DiPeso called attention to, the options are available:
fuel-efficient technologies are available that could help us double the average fleet fuel economy to over 40 mpg (simply banning large SUVs would go a long way towards this goal) while ethanol from switchgrass, miscanthus, hybrid poplars, urban, agricultural and forestry wastes could contribute a large portion of the remaining oil demand. Plug-in hybrid vehicles could further slash oil demand in the transport sector while creating economies of scale and research incentives for high capacity batteries that could enable all-electric vehicles in the not-to-distant future.
The options are waiting ... we now need to chart the road ahead and put ourselves on the path towards a sustainable energy future (both environmentally and economically).
So 'just say no' to snake oil and empty quick fix promises!
I Graduated!
Well, I did it. I graduated from the Robert D. Clark Honors College at the University of Oregon this past weekend with a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer and Information Science and Philosophy (magna cum laude).
In order to earn my honors degree from the honors college, I completed a hefty Masters-level thesis entitled On the Road to Replacing Oil: A Well-to-Wheels Study Exploring Alternative Transportation Fuels and Vehicle Systems. I will post it to this blog soon (I have to format it as a pdf and split it up into some smaller sections).
I will be starting work at the Renewable Northwest Project in Portland, OR after the Fourth of July. I will also be doing research and developing web-accessible computer simulations for energy and climate change-related subjects for Prof. Greg Bothun at the University of Oregon.
Until work starts, I'm enjoying a couple weeks of much needed vacation...
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
U.S. Ethanol Consumption Now Consumes Over 1/5th of Total Corn Production
Slightly more than 20% of the forecasted 10.55 billion bushels of corn to be produced in the US this year (about 2.15 billion bushels) will go toward the production of fuel ethanol, according to the US Department of Agriculture’s most recent World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE). The use of corn for ethanol production is growing quickly with the 2006 forecasts representing a 34% increase over the previous year.
At 2.15 billion bushels, corn use for ethanol now matches for the first time projected exports of corn from the U.S., also forecast to be approximately 2.15 billion bushels in 2006, a 6% increase over 2005.
The USDA corn crop forecast of 10.55 billion bushels is 5% lower than last year’s production, Green Car Congress reports. Total corn supply, at 12.8 billion bushels, is down 3% as the smaller corn crop is only partially offset by higher beginning stocks.
Projected 2006/07 corn use is forcasted to expand 6% to a record 11.6 billion bushels. The increase in exports is due, according to the USDA, to reduced foreign competition and lower global feed-quality wheat supplies:The 2006/07 global coarse grains outlook includes slightly lower production, increased consumption, and lower ending stocks. Smaller coarse grain crops in the United States more than offset higher foreign production. Production increases are significant for Argentina and EU-25. Global coarse grain trade is up slightly while consumption is up 2.7 percent. China’s corn stocks continue to fall; global corn ending stocks drop 29 percent to 92 million tons, the lowest in more than 20 years.
We seem to be nearing the maximum point for ethanol production from corn. I'm not a market economist, nor an agricultural expert (and feel free to comment if you are), but it doesn't seem like ethanol productionc an consume too much more of our corn crop. Maybe the share of corn used for ethanol will climb upwards of 40-50%, but even then, with the glut of new ethanol production plants in the pipeline, it won't take long before that happens. How much of our corn are we willing to divert to ethanol production?
[A hat tip to Green Car Congress]
Biofuel Boom Leads Some to Caution: "Let Investors Beware"
[The following is an interview with Thee Rivers Biofuels CEO Forrest "Bud" Stacy with a word of caution on the current biofuels boom posted at EnergyPulse. The interviewer happens to be my uncle, Alan Jenkins...]
With every boom market comes the potential for excess, and the current biofuels market is no exception -- to paraphrase an old adage: “Let the investor beware!”
What follows is an interview with Forrest “Bud” Stacy, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Three Rivers Biofuels LLC, a company that is currently developing a 30 million gallon per year biodiesel production plant in Northeast Mississippi. Mr. Stacy was previously President and Chief Executive Officer of Oglethorpe Power Corporation, a Fortune Top 50 Utility with annual revenues of $1 billion. He also has experience developing merchant power plants and biomass electric generation.
What is your appraisal of the current biofuels market?
As I think everyone is aware, the biofuels market, including ethanol, biodiesel, and biomass conversion, is red hot. Every day it seems we have one or two new announcements of projects.
Do you have any concern with this booming market?
Yes, it reminds me of the market a few years back for new natural gas-fired electric generation plants. While a legitimate market opportunity existed that attracted significant investment, as the dollars flowed in so did developers with more general sales experience than electric generation experience.
What was the end result?
As may be expected from such a frothy market, too many plants were built. The increased demand caused natural gas prices to soar and many gas-fired generation projects were no longer economically viable. Investors were left high and dry.
So you think the same might occur in the biofuels market?
Unfortunately, yes and unwary investors may again get caught. Significant government credits and soaring energy prices have provided a wonderful opportunity to develop sound biofuels projects. However, many of the proposed projects that I see advertised in press releases are little more than hopes of projects with little substance. The developers have not yet even applied for the permits that are necessary to construct and operate the plants. This has led state permitting officials to be wary of potential developers that try to secure tax incentives from state agencies without having a project ready to go. Nevertheless, investors are pouring hard-earned dollars into these potential projects.
Do you have any examples?
Yes, without naming names, I saw just last week a large, publicly traded company announce a huge ethanol production facility just days after releasing disappointing earnings. The project announcement drove the stock price back up, but we understand the proposed project has not applied for or secured any of the necessary permits. Therefore, I wonder if it will ever be built. We have also seen developers coming into rural areas and raising funds from local farmers and other members of the community for biofuels projects. Unfortunately, some investors have been emptying their 401Ks to invest in projects where the only thing that is guaranteed is the upfront development payment to the developers. In my mind, these are very troubling developments.
I understand one of the companies you are involved with is developing a biodiesel project. Is that project any different from the others you have cited?
First of all, I don’t mean to imply that all current investment opportunities in the biofuels market are fly-by-night. That’s simply not true. There are many very sound projects out there and sound investment opportunities. I think the recent strong earnings report of Archer Daniels Midland based largely on its biofuels feedstock business is only one such example. That being said, there are a lot of projects out there in name only. Three Rivers Biofuels LLC is currently developing a 30 million gallon per day biodiesel project in Northeast Mississippi for which we expect to achieve financial closing in June 2006.
Has Three Rivers issued any press releases for this project?
No. We have focused on securing our environmental permits, negotiating our project development and finance documents, and getting all our ducks in a row before we get anyone’s hopes up by issuing press releases and the like.
How is Three Rivers financing this project?
We are currently finalizing the project and finance documents necessary for bond financing whereby project revenues and assets secure and are pledged to cover bonds that will be issued to finance the costs of acquiring, constructing, and operating the facility. Our project site is located on one of the inland waterways that connects to the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico through Mobile. As such, transportation costs for the feedstock material and biodiesel produced will be greatly reduced.
Do you have any other future development plans?
Yes. We are considering additional projects in a number of locations but will be cautious about the project sites we select and the potential investors and project partners that may be involved.
Do you have anything further to add?
Yes. I would really caution investors to do their homework. As I said before, there are many legitimate investment opportunities in this market, and there is money to be made. However, I get heartsick when I see good-hearted investors taking unnecessary risks based simply on the untested promises of project developers. Unfortunately, there are several people around the country inviting prospective investors to an investment dinner and making a presentation that sounds like there is no way the proposed project can lose money. In many of the cases, however, no independent market study, independent technical review, or independent economic analysis has been performed, and the feasibility study was done by the equipment manufacturers - who have an obvious bias - or by a less than qualified party. As mentioned above, all too often, no permits have been received and so all the risk is on the investor. The presentations are usually closed with a statement disclaiming what was said during the meeting and the investor must rely only on the Offering Statement. Of course, most of the people present at such an investment dinner are not qualified to understand the complexity of an Offering Statement.
My advice then to any potential investor is to proceed with great care if the developer does not have in hand the above information. In today’s biofuels market, I certainly think the adage “let the buyer beware” is appropriate.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Two Ag Giants Differ on Agriculture's Priorities and Priority of Biofuels
Agricultural giants, Archer Daniels Midland, Co. (ADM) and Cargill Inc. have different philosophies on the proper priorities for the United States' agricultural land, according to a recent Associated Press article in the Central Illinois newspaper, the Pantagraph. ADM is reportedly enthusiastic about using farmland to produce fuel, the article reports, while Cargill says growing food should be the top priority for those fields.
ADM is by far the country’s largest ethanol producer and has taken an aggressive approach to biofuels including ethanol and biodiesel. In contrast, Cargill has been more restrained, though it’s hardly sitting on the sidelines of the biofuels game.
The article discusses recent comments by the chairmen of both companies that mirror a larger debate taking place on how large a contribution ethanol can make toward reducing America’s need for oil imports, as well as the 'consumption-versus-combustion' debate - or whether using more corn to make more fuel will lead to higher food prices.
Minnetonka-based Cargill reportedly raised the food-versus-fuel issue earlier this month. As he laid out a broad vision of Cargill’s business on a changing global playing field, Warren Staley, the company's chairman and CEO, told a gathering of business writers in Minneapolis that he saw producing food as the most important task for agriculture, AP reports. Noting that a number of countries are looking at ethanol and biodiesel to lessen their dependence on Mideast oil, Staley said, "We have to look at the hierarchy of value for agricultural land use: food first, then feed and last fuel."
Staley reporteldy questioned whether subsidies for using land to produce fuel were good long-term policy and questioned the idea that ethanol could put a big dent in America’s dependence on foreign oil. Even if the entire U.S. corn crop were used for ethanol, it would replace only about 20 percent of domestic gasoline consumption, he said.
The next day, the chairman of ADM, G. Allen Andreas, responded by insisting the world has plenty of capacity to grow food. "There is no consumption versus combustion debate, except for those who really don’t recognize the realities of the way this business functions," he said in a conference call with analysts. Malnutrition and hunger, he said, come from "a lack of infrastructure and a lack of capital" around the world, not from diverting some food to fuel uses.
The article, by Steve Karnowski of the Associated Press, continues: Neither company made their executives available to elaborate on the comments. Bill Brady, a Cargill spokesman, said one of Staley’s main points is that the company sees itself first as a food company.
ADM has seen a sharp run-up in its stock price, partly due to investors looking for ways to get in on the ethanol boom. In his speech, Staley said Cargill’s sales revenues have increased from $48 billion in 2001 to $71 billion in 2005 and will rise again in the fiscal year that ends Wednesday, but did not break out how much of that growth came from ethanol.
Ethanol plays a much bigger role for Decatur-based ADM, which claims about one-fourth of U.S. ethanol capacity. About 5 percent of its revenue comes from ethanol, and it’s aiming to boost annual production to 1.5 billion gallons, up from its current 1 billion.
And in what’s been widely seen as a sign of the importance of ethanol in ADM’s future, ADM went to the oil industry for its newest leader. Last month it hired Patricia Woertz, a former executive vice president at Chevron Corp., as its CEO and president.
Steve Suppan, director of research for the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, a Minneapolis-based think-tank, said ADM has reaped big dividends from lobbying the government over ethanol subsidies and mandates for its increased use in gasoline.
Since Cargill is larger and more diversified, it doesn’t need to place as big of a bet on ethanol as ADM, Suppan said. Cargill’s non-food businesses include marketing electricity, making and trading steel, and offering financial risk-management products to companies.
"ADM is famous for their willingness to spend lots of money on lobbying," agreed Hank Williams, vice president for fuels with Jim Jordan & Associates, a Houston-based consulting company. "... They may very well have plans to further those efforts and help themselves to larger markets in the future."
But Cargill, despite Staley’s comments, is making its own substantial investments in biofuels — $1 billion worth.
Currently No. 4 in U.S. ethanol production, it plans new plants that would push its annual capacity to 230 million gallons, which would put it close to the No. 2 spot.
And it has a joint venture with Monsanto Co. that’s developing new production technologies. Both Cargill and ADM also have significant biodiesel expansions under way, mostly in Europe.
One reason for Cargill’s relative restraint is that it generally views subsidized industries with caution because subsidies can change over time, Brady said.
Congress passed the Energy Policy Act last July that mandates doubling the use of ethanol in gasoline to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012, and President Bush gave the industry a strong endorsement in his State of the Union speech in January.
The United States now has 97 ethanol plants with an annual capacity of nearly 4.5 billion gallons, according to the
Renewable Fuels Association. About 39 percent of that capacity is farmer-owned. Another 35 plants and nine expansions with a combined capacity of more than 2.2 billion gallons are under construction, the trade group says.
Daniel Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley, said the food-versus-fuel debate is "a big red herring" because the U.S. "by any measure is an overproducer of food."
"A richer farm sector is going to make us more secure, it’s going to make more food available," Kammen said.
But Williams, the consultant, said concerns about food versus fuel are valid. About 15 percent of the U.S. corn crop is currently used for ethanol, and new and expanded plants easily could raise that to 45 to 50 percent, he said.
"Which is probably not sustainable," he added. "We have people to feed, animals to feed, and exports of corn that need to be made."
It's interesting to see how the 'food-versus-fuel' debate plays out at the level of these two ag giants. Cargill and ADM both must know that corn ethanol can only contribute a small portion of total U.S. transportation fuel - Cargill's CEO cites 20% but I find that a bit optimistic and that number is assuming 100% of corn produciton going to ethanol, a figure that will never be reached.
But despite this fundamental limitation to the scale of the ethanol industry, ADM has been keen to take as large a share of the ethanol market as they can. While Cargill may be less enthusiastic about ethanol's future prospects, both companies know that there is plenty of money to be made in this industry and are investing accordingly.
Finally, this article makes it clear that the corn ethanol business is overwhelmingly dominated by a select few agricultural corportations. While ramping up ethanol production may lessen the power of Big Oil (slightly!), it does so by handing that power to Big Corn or Big Ag.
I imagine the cellulosic ethanol industry will begin explode in three to five years - i.e. when corn ethanol starts to reach its max and cellulosic ethanol production techniques get refined and commercialized. This may offer a chance to further diversify the companies involved in the fuel industry as the companies developing cellulosic ethanol - i.e., Iogen, BRI, and others - are (currently, at least) outside the Big Ag and Big Oil complexes. What remains to be seen is if these companies get bought out and incorporated within either of these two established industries or if they are able to successfuly remain independent and grown a whole new fuel industry.
Whatever the outcome, cellulosic ethanol has far greater potential than corn ethanol and can ultimately make a significant (maybe up to 50%) impact on our oil use. In contrast, corn ethanol, I'm sad to say, will never be much more than a fuel additive...
[A tip o' the hat to RenewableEnergyAccess.com]
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Thinking Big: Pan-European Wind Energy 'Supergrid' Proposed
As more wind energy projects go online in Europe, concerns remain that additional wind generation will require backup generation from other electricity production to balance out times when the wind isn't blowing. RenewableEnergyAccess reports that one of the world's leading wind energy developers is thinking big and thinks it has a solution to avoid concerns over backing-up intermittent wind power while also offering a more efficient, dynamic electric grid.
Ireland-based Airtricity unveiled plans in May to create a pan-European energy grid, or so-called 'Supergrid.' Much of this Supergrid would be undersea linking the growing number of European offshore wind farms and would link a series of wind farms from as far ranging locations as the Mediterranean, up to the Bay of Biscay in the Atlantic and all the way up to the North Sea and Baltic Sea.
"The scale of this undertaking means that when fully operational Europe will have access to wind energy at all times because the wind will always be blowing somewhere on the grid," said Airtricity's Chief Executive, Eddie O'Connor.
The company will formally introduce the ambitious plan at a Parliamentary reception for MPs in Westminster today. In conjunction, the wind energy developer will also outline a proposal to build a Euro 22 billion, 10 gigawatt (GW) offshore wind energy project that would cover a wind expanse in the North Sea between the UK, Germany and the Netherlands. [Clearly, these guys are thinking big!]
The company's Supergrid concept will play an important complementary role for the project that would greatly eclipse by size any current wind project, offshore or on. As many as eight million European homes could be powered by a project this size. Obviously, in the absense of something like the Supergrid, a wind project that large would require sizable amount of backup generating capacity for times when the giant wind farm is becalmed.
The Swedish transnational company ABB Ltd. will be the project partner on the transmission side of the Supergrid. ABB is the world's leader in the development of high voltage direct current transmission lines. Trevor Gregory, Managing Director of ABB said they have established an advanced transmission technology called 'HVDC Light' which, among a number of applications, is used for demanding offshore applications. HVDC Light not only feeds electricity to platforms but it also connects and supports the integration of electrical networks. [This sounds just like a normal HVDC system to me, so I'm not sure what is so special about 'HVDC Light', but oh well...]
Since the project will require the approval of the EU, and involves multiple countries across almost the entire span of the European continent, Airtricity pitched the plan as an energy proposal for the wider European Union, not to specific nations.
"The Supergrid offers a unique opportunity to Member States to improve their security of energy supply," said the company, in a statement. "The power generated will be a common European rather than a national asset. Wind energy is a continental resource and thanks to the Supergrid it will be the common property of all the Member States.
Airtricity has plenty of wind energy experience, operating, among others, the Arklow Bank wind farm, the first real-world test of GE Energy's large 3.6 MW offshore wind turbines. The company is currently expanding operations into Scotland, England, and parts of the U.S. It currently has several thousands of megawatts of capacity in the planning and construction stages.
Well, clearly someone at least has the capacity to think big! If Europe can succesfully execute a project on this magnitude, I think it would go a long way towards changing the way we think about energy projects.
There are a variety of renewable energy megaprojects that could be constructued in the U.S. that would rival Airtricity's plan in scale: I'm thinking here in particular of a series of gigawatt-scale wind farms in the Dakotas with electricity transmitted via HVDC or hydrogen pipeline to demand centers like Denver, Chicago, Minneapolis, etc. [if this idea intriuges you, I'd check out these two reports here and here]. Other potential renewable megaprojects that would require the vision and national (or transnation) committment that Aitricity's plans would take include:
Those are the kind of megaprojects that immediately come to mind. Each one could provide a major contribution to the national energy mix and could even come to dominate regional energy mixes. They would all however require varying degrees of 'think big' vision that hasn't been demonstrated in recent memory.
However, lest you think such megaprojects are impossible, we need only look in our history books for the counterproof: the massive federal hydropower projects constructed beginning during the Great Depression/WPA era and extending on through the 1950s and 60s.
If we dare to think big, big things can happen!
The World Bank Pushing for Renewable Energy Development
For the past year, the World Bank has been researching what it would take for the world to substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere, according to World Bank Energy Economist Gary Stuggins.
According to a RenewableEnergyAccess.com report, the World Bank's analysis is finding that renewable energy technology may be able to take the place of fossil fuels more quickly than previously believed as higher energy prices make these technologies more attractive.
The research was requested by G-8 leaders after the Gleneagles Summit last July and has primarily focused on the potential to reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired plants in China, India. To a lesser extent, the World Bank has also explored the potential for energy efficiency potential in Russia. These three countries were reportedly selected because they are among the world's major producers of carbon dioxide emissions [I guess they figured the U.S. has no excuse for not cutting emissions!].
Already some renewable technologies, such as wind power, are economically viable, Stuggins said. "We feel that there are enough technologies already available, so that if there's the political will to do it, we can make substantial differences." [Aye, and therein lies the rub, Mr. Stuggins ... "if there's the political will to do it." Now if only we could find some of that political will lying about...]
The World Bank is apparently one of the biggest promoters of renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in the world, financing about $9 billion in these projects since 1990, according to RenewableEnergyAccess. Hydropower is still the biggest component of Bank's renewable energy portfolio, Stuggins said, but support for other renewable energy projects has accelerated since 2000.
The Bank's energy portfolio in China includes the China Renewable Energy Development Project, which is intended to "set the tone" for future renewable energy projects in the country, he added. The project provides grants to companies that produce photovoltaic (PV) solar cells. The companies market, sell and maintain their products in rural areas that do not have access to an electricity grid. Grants cover an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 PV systems in households and institutions to power lights, radios and TVs in isolated communities in Qinghai, Gansu, Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Xizang and Sichuan.
In an effort to revive research and development in renewables, the Bank has also proposed a venture capital fund be set up to fund R&D for low carbon energy technologies.
