Latest Articles

International energy group criticized for congenital ignorance and pessimism about renewables

Finally, someone is calling out the International Energy Agency for its absurd negativity about renewables:

The international body that advises most major governments across the world on energy policy is obstructing a global switch to renewable power because of its ties to the oil, gas and nuclear sectors, a group of politicians and scientists claims today.

The experts, from the Energy Watch group, say the International Energy Agency (IEA) publishes misleading data on renewables, and that it has consistently underestimated the amount of electricity generated by wind power in its advice to governments. They say the IEA shows "ignorance and contempt" towards wind energy, while promoting oil, coal and nuclear as "irreplaceable" technologies. In a report to be published today, the Energy Watch experts say wind-power capacity has rocketed since the early 90s and that if current trends continue, wind and solar power-generation combined are on track to match conventional generation by 2025.

This is important -- people wield those IEA reports like they're gospel. They do immense harm to green efforts.

Here's the full report on wind power [PDF] from Energy Watch.

Small solar needs long-distance transmission as much as big wind

Average cost for new wind capacity in 2007 was per $1,710 per KW, according to the Annual Report on Wind Power 2007 [PDF]. Some of the largest new wind farms had costs as low as $1,240 per KW, while the smallest ones tallied costs as high as $2,600 per KW.

Further, large new wind farms got more use from each KW than small ones -- as much 40 percent capacity utilization for big farms on the best sites vs. a 33 percent to 35 percent average. Since capital costs and capacity utilization overwhelmingly determine wind costs, big wind is simply less expensive than small wind.

Ricoh puts wind-powered billboard in Times Square

Just what every clean-energy advocate has always dreamed of:

(thanks LL!)

Massive Greenland meltdown? Not so fast, say scientists

The recent acceleration of glacier melt-off in Greenland, which some scientists fear could dramatically raise sea levels, may only be a temporary phenomenon, according to a study published Sunday. Researchers in Britain and the United States devised computer models to test three scenarios that could account for rapid — by the standards applied to glaciers […]

Lands bill clears first Senate hurdle

The Senate approved a motion to move forward with the omnibus lands bill on Sunday, a bill that would protect more than 2 million acres of wilderness in nine states.

The bill combines more than 150 separate pieces of legislation on wilderness areas and other federal lands, and was put together last Congress. It has been repeatedly held up by procedural stalling from several Republican senators, most notably Oklahoma's Tom Coburn. The cloture motion, which passed 66-12, allows the Senate to proceed to debate.

Coburn was nonplussed. "I'm disappointed the Senate majority leader has refused to allow senators the opportunity to improve, amend or eliminate any of the questionable provisions in his omnibus lands bill," said Coburn in a statement.

The Democratic leader, Harry Reid (Nev.), has said he would like this and another pieces of legislation passed before the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday and the inauguration next week. "I'm gratified by the impressive bipartisan support my colleagues showed today in voting to advance this bill," said bill sponsor Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) in a statement on Sunday. "I look forward to proceeding to the legislation next week."

Wilderness advocates were pleased as well. "By voting to protect mountains and pristine wildlands, Congress is starting out on the right foot," said Environment America Preservation Advocate Christy Goldfuss. "This Congress is serious about protecting the environment and the outstanding lands that Americans treasure."

Alaska Dem. kicks off Congress with call for ANWR drilling

Newly sworn-in Alaska Sen. Mark Begich (D) on Friday kicked off the 111th Congress by attacking Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) for reintroducing a bill to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Begich has been bullish on opening the reserve for drilling. In a press release he accused Lieberman of "knee-jerk reaction" to please greens:

"Sen. Lieberman's ANWR legislation is another misguided attempt at locking up ANWR to appease environmentalists across the country," he said. "What this country needs is a comprehensive energy plan dealing with oil and gas development, as well as renewable energy resources, to ease our dependence on foreign oil. Domestic production including the enormous oil and gas reserves believed to lie beneath the Arctic Refuge must be a part of that policy."

Hmmm, sound like anyone else we know from Alaska?

Most importantly, this is further proof that an increased Democratic majority in the Senate doesn't mean it will be all rainbows and sunshine when it comes to environmental policy. Major differences exist within the caucus and are already flaring up.

(Via Politico.)

Push continues for more green infrastructure funding in the economic-stimulus package

Senate Democrats on Sunday convinced President-elect Barack Obama to add more money for clean-energy tax credits to his economic-stimulus plan, doubling available funds to at least $20 billion.

Horse-trading is sure to continue as the Obama team and congressional leaders try to agree on what should be included in a package that could cost more than $775 billion. The initial Obama plan didn't include details on how much would go toward infrastructure and didn't specifically mention mass-transit funding, though it called for doubling the production of renewable energy and retrofitting the majority of federal buildings. Some enviros and transit advocates are concerned that the stimulus plan could put massive amounts of money into traditional infrastructure without taking into account the long-term environmental impacts.

And in his Saturday radio/YouTube address, Obama said the plan would create nearly half a million jobs through clean energy investments, including doubling the amount of renenwable energy used in the country and retrofitting the majority of federal buildings. "These made-in-America jobs building solar panels and wind turbines, developing fuel-efficient cars and new energy technologies pay well, and they can’t be outsourced," said Obama (who still hasn't explained exactly why wind turbines and solar panels can't be constructed elsewhere).

More evidence that burden sharing is the same up and down stream

We can auction carbon permits or levy carbon fees/taxes upstream (at the mine mouth or well head, or on import or refining) or downstream, where fuel is actually burned. The main argument for levying downstream is that it will distribute the burden of who pays differently than levying upstream, because the fossil fuel industry won't be able to pass all of the fee or tax along. Most other arguments for downstream emissions pricing depend on that as a premise.

In my last post I pointed out that a gasoline tax, which is levied about as far upstream as possible, still ends up with about half the cost pushed back (PDF) to the producers. Since that thread has grown very long, I want to point out that general economic theory holds that where a consumption tax is levied generally does not affect tax incidence. To translate that from economic jargon: even if the store writes the check to the government, the customer still pays a lot of the cost. If the customer had to write the check to the government, the store would have to lower prices to make up for some (but not all) of the payment by the customer.

Green as in money

Wow -- somebody spent a lot of time taking notes at Grist, then found some deep, deep pockets and spent a lot of money putting up a slick corporate environmentalism-lite site called "Mother Nature Network."

It's a gagger.

The only blessing is that, given the cost structure required to keep all those beautiful people going, it's either going to be a vanity enterprise (like the Washington Times) or short-lived.

Florida PSC votes to establish a state renewable portfolio standard

My colleague Gwen Rose has spent a large part of the last two years working -- with a coalition of allies -- on a solar program for Florida. One would think solar in the sunshine state would be an easy sell, but it's been a rather tough slog.

Which is why we are pleased to report some good news. On Friday night, the Florida Public Service Commission voted unanimously to support a 20% by 2020 renewable portfolio standard.

We anticipate the program would establish about $300 million a year for solar. That's a big deal.

The fight now moves to the legislature, but for the moment, congrats to the many people who worked long and hard to put the sun in the sunshine state.