JBS News

It's your right to be informed!

Canada’s First Off-Shore Wind Farm Set for British Columbia

| Leave a comment

By Adam Johnston — Cleantechnica.com

Canada’s first off-shore wind farm is taking shape, which is set to boost British Columbia’s renewable energy image.

The multiphase project, owned by the NaiKun Wind Energy Group, will consist of 550 square feet kilometres, with a total of 396 megawatts (MW) of energy is set for phase one.

A total of 110 wind turbines are planned, providing British Columbian residents a cleaner alternative, according to the website. This will cut 450,000 tonnes of carbon emissions each year rather than using natural gas, and power 200,000 homes.

Located in Hecate Strait, between Prince Rupert and Haida Gwaii, the NaiKun wind project is giving a much-needed boost to the province’s energy plan of having no carbon emissions come from new energy projects. Meanwhile clean energy, according to the province, accounts for 90% of all energy produced in B.C., which will certainly be given a boost by this new offshore wind farm.

If wind projects continue to sprout up across Canada like this one, wind energy will no doubt continue it’s upward trend as a real choice to power Canada’s energy needs. In 2012 new Canadian wind projects were expected to increase by 20%, or 1,200 MW and a total of C$2.5 billion in new investments. However, British Columbia was not one of the three top provinces in new wind capacity in 2012. Ontario (2,000MW), Quebec (1,600MW) and Nova Scotia (1,000MW) led the way.

Will B.C.’s new offshore wind farm help catapult a province that is known more for hydro energy than wind? NaiKun Wind Energy Group certainly thinks it can’t hurt.

Main Source: NaiKun Wind Energy Group

Repost.Us - Republish This Article
This article, Canada’s First Off-Shore Wind Farm Set for B.C., is syndicated from Clean Technica and is posted here with permission.

This gallery contains 0 photos

The Big Energy Story of 2012

| 1 Comment

cooltext866704151

by John Brian Shannon

The world energy industry is suddenly transforming into something very different from the industry we have grown accustomed to over the past decades. In those previous decades, it was pump and burn more oil, mine and burn more coal and build more coal-fired burners to produce electricity. More, more and more smokethat is!

Anti-nuclear protesters were a constant feature in the press anywhere a reactor was considered, built or commissioned into use. Urban residents held irregular anti-smog protests outside of City Hall in large cities like LA and Tokyo.

Small-scale and large wars, were fought over control of the world’s oil and gas fields — sometimes affecting the very economic health of those nations.

Welcome to 2013. The world is still reeling from President Barack Obama’s decision to wean America completely off of foreign oil, he also ordered oil and gas production to be dramatically ramped up in the U.S.A. – and he decided to make his country a net oil exporter of oil and gas. Not just any-old net exporter mind you, but the world’s number one exporter of both oil and gas by 2017! That’s in four years.

Heady stuff for a normally ambivalent world.

Remember back in February of 2006, when then-President George W. Bush famously stated in his State of the Union speech that “America is addicted to oil.” That of course, is true. The U.S.A. and the other industrialized nations wouldn’t survive without oil as the entire Western economy is based on petroleum and the products made from it. From transportation and energy fuels, to plastics, medicines, agricultural fertilizers, residential and commercial buildings – virtually everything we live in, drive, wear, buy or use, is a product or by-product of petroleum.

Both Presidents — Obama and Bush, foresaw the importance of lowering overall energy use to improve the health and quality of life for American citizens, to lower international tensions by sourcing oil and gas domestically and to invest in clean technology to improve conservation and efficiency.

It turns out that conservation, green energy and domestic energy extraction is not a Democrat or Republican thing — it’s a leadership thing. And all over the world, it is catching on. Welcome to 2013, indeed!

Related Articles:

cooltext866704151

This gallery contains 0 photos

Green Buildings: A great step in the right direction!

| Leave a comment

cooltext866704151

 

by John Brian Shannon

Of all of the energy produced and used by humans worldwide, approximately one-third is used for all forms of transportation. This kind of energy is the ‘dirtiest-third’ contributing substantially to total atmospheric emissions when compared to other kinds of energy usage.

Another third of the energy consumed by our civilization is used by industry, which also contributes to atmospheric emission levels — and depending on where you live in the world, the environmental effects of that pollution can range from negligible to toxic.

The last third of energy consumption on the Earth is used for residential and commercial uses. When you turn on the heat, the lights, or look at illuminated signs and streetlights on your way to the air-conditioned shopping mall, these are all examples of residential and commercial energy use.

When we talk about the emissions from the three main kinds of energy users, the question arises; Which of the three can lower emissions at reasonable cost?

Another related question; Is green energy the answer, or is conservation?

It turns out that conservation beats anything else, hands down. No matter how clean your car operates for each mile you drive it — for each mile that you don’t drive it, the car produces zero emissions. The same holds true for cities that shut-off or power-down their streetlights after midnight. No matter how energy-efficient streetlights are these days, they still use less power turned OFF, when compared to turned ON.

Of course, we need energy to live in our modern world – that is a given. But it seems right to reduce wasted energy and one of the most cost-effective ways to do this is to employ conservation AND green energy in our buildings.

Until recent decades, energy wastage for commercial buildings and residential buildings was truly mind-boggling (sometimes much more than 50%) but great progress has been made and continues to be made in the fields of energy conservation and energy-efficient buildings.

Buildings which employ such technologies can become LEED certified if their architects apply for that certification — and the buildings meet the strict criteria, which confers a high level of efficient design and engineering technologies on a building, resulting in low emissions and low energy use. We call this having a Low Environmental Footprint here in North America, while in the UK such buildings have a Zero Net Building status.

Under the leadership of Mayor Vincent C. Gray, Washington, DC, is setting a great example for other cities by rapidly becoming a world leader in clean and green buildings.

The Living Building Challenge is part of numerous efforts by the city to reach Mayor Gray’s “Sustainable D.C.” initiative, which includes 11 key categories for environmental/fiscal improvement. The categories include goals such as cutting the energy consumption [of] the entire city by half, being able to bring in locally grown food within a quarter mile of the city and have it consumed by 75 percent of D.C. residents, as well as triple the number of small businesses within the city. — Carl Pierre, InTheCapital.com

cooltext866704151

This gallery contains 0 photos

To Be… or not to Be… Green!

| Leave a comment

Graphic courtesy of: Perez & Perez 2009a

Comparing finite and renewable planetary energy reserves.

Total reserves are shown for the finite resources.

Yearly potential is shown for renewable resources.

by John Brian Shannon

What energy shall we use between now and 2050? That’s the real question, isn’t it? Our choices are laid out before us just like at the shoe store – all we have to do is choose! So, lets see what’s available.

It turns out that there are two kinds of energy. Non-renewable and renewable.

Non-renewable energy:

Our worldwide 2009 energy consumption including all forms of transportation, was 16 Terawatt-years. We can see from the Perez & Perez graphic that the finite,  non-renewable energy sources are estimated to total 1445 – 1655 Terawatts. The total energy available from those sources is equal to 90.3 – 103.44 years of energy usage at 2009 consumption.

Once consumed, this kind of energy will be gone forever.

Renewable energy:

Keeping in mind the 2009 energy consumption total of 16 Terawatts per year, we see that renewable energy sources total 23,034.2 – 23095.7 Terawatts per year. That’s 1439 – 1443 times more energy than we required in 2009 – including all forms of transportation.

This kind of energy will be available every year until the sun burns out, the ocean’s freeze and the wind stops blowing.

What’s the difference some might ask, why worry? Even in the worst-case scenario we’re covered for 90 years of fossil fuel use if we keep our energy consumption at 2009 levels.

One, the difference in the actual cost per energy unit. Costs for renewable energy have been falling dramatically and it looks set to continue. Some kinds of renewable energy are already reaching price parity with coal and nuclear power.

Two, sustainable energy per-kilowatt-hour cost savings are becoming apparent when compared to conventional energy, because of something called “Merit Order” ranking, which is a program designed to help utility companies choose from the different kinds of energy available at different times of the day.

Three, the costs associated with certain kinds of energy use must be factored in as China’s leaders (for just one example) are now realizing that  410,000 people per year die from pollution of the air, water, soil and locally-grown food in that country.

Energy usage will continue to increase in developed nations with their 1-billion citizens. In developing nations, energy requirements will continue to increase exponentially along with their 6-billion citizens. Almost 3-billion more developing world citizens are expected by 2050.

To be… or not to be… Green? Isn’t the answer obvious?

Please see: “A FUNDAMENTAL LOOK AT ENERGY RESERVES FOR THE PLANET” — by Richard Perez and Marc Perez

 

ABOUT JOHN BRIAN SHANNON

I write about green energy, sustainable development and economics. My blogs appear in the Arabian Gazette, EcoPoint, EnergyBoom, Huffington Post, United Nations Development Programme, WACSI — and other quality publications.

“It is important to assist all levels of government and the business community to find sustainable ways forward for industry and consumers.”

Green Energy blog: http://johnbrianshannon.com
Economics blog: http://jbsnews.wordpress.com
Twitter: @JBSCanada

This gallery contains 0 photos

Clean Energy: How To Get There From Here!

| Leave a comment

by John Brian Shannon

Everyone knows more electricity is needed in developed nations and electrical needs in developing nations are skyrocketing. No problem there — everyone deserves to live a good lifestyle and enjoy our modern technology to the fullest.

The problem occurs in the means used to generate that electricity. Some kinds of electrical power generation cause huge billowing clouds of pollution 24-hours per day, every day of the year.

All of this adds up to astronomically high costs for electrical power producers and users, which can be measured in several different ways.

For instance, new conventional nuclear  power plants can cost up to $20 billion dollars each. Added to that cost, is the cost incurred to store thousands of tons of (so-called) spent nuclear fuel. Some spent fuels must be stored in air-conditioned bunkers for up to 20,000 years, with never more than 36 hours of A/C interruption. The costs of that are so high, they can’t even be calculated.

New coal plants cost about $250 million dollars/per hundred megawatts. A hundred megawatts isn’t much, by the way – enough to power 16,000 power-hungry A/C homes in the U.S. or about 29,000 homes in China. Some coal-fired power plants cost upwards of $1 billion dollars. The cost of the coal must be added to the equation from day one – the price of which rises and falls typically between $80.00 and $160.00 per ton, plus the significant transportation costs. It may interest you to know that China burned 3 billion tons of coal last year, emitting 7.2 billion tons of CO2 and other toxic gasses. Approximately 410,000 Chinese people die every year as a result of pollution-related deaths.

Natural gas power plants are clean, they cost a little more than comparable coal plants and the only real drawback is they emit huge volumes of CO2. Unlike coal, they emit little in the way of other toxic gasses or soot. Again, a costly and continuous and supply of natural gas must be available every day of the year.

No matter which choice is made, the construction of electrical generation power plants incurs high costs to nations — and the cheapest options come with the highest fuel and health-care costs.

In the United States, nuclear power receives significant subsidies on the order of $3.50 billion per year on average and oil and gas receive $4.86 billion subsidy dollars per year on average.

fossil-fuel-subsidies-490x407

We can see from the chart above that in the United States most forms of electrical power generation are heavily subsidized. Who could afford electricity otherwise?

If solar, wind and geothermal energy were subsidized at the same per kilowatt rate as Oil & Gas, Coal, or Nuclear — total U.S. emission levels would drop dramatically and Americans would be breathing much cleaner air.

National health-care costs would drop, acid rain damage would decrease to near zero, crop damage from power plants would become a thing of the past and meeting international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol would become boringly simple.

To have the enjoyment of breathing clean air and the other benefits listed above, all governments should calculate the highest subsidy they pay per kilowatt hour and then begin paying ALL electricity providers that same per kilowatt hour subsidy.

Solar power, wind power and geothermal would then become ultra-competitive with coal, N-power and Oil & Gas. Every large rooftop area, such as big box retail outlets like IKEA stores for one good example, could assist national power production and air-quality goals by lowering demand on the grid and potentially adding power to it, while helping to enhance the health of citizens.

One nation has already begun such a program and is right on schedule. Denmark has decided that all energy, including transportation energy(!) will come from renewable sources by 2050 and they have made substantial progress in only a few short years.

Even with the patchwork and grossly unlevel subsidy regimes in place in the United States, this transition is already occurring. Organizations from the U.S. Navy, to IKEA and WalMart, some cities and towns, the Big Three auto manufacturers and many more businesses and organizations, are converting their unused rooftop spaces and vacant land into clean power stations — thereby tapering the need for behemoth, pollution-spewing power plants.

If governments standardized the subsidies they already pay for Oil & Gas, Coal and Nuclear power (instead of paying billions of dollars to some power providers — whilst paying pennies to others) we would all breathe a lot easier.

We need oil & gas, coal, natural gas and conventional nuclear power to feed our grids, what I’m  advocating for is directly comparable subsidies for all electricity providers, including green energy — and there are no real reasons why such subsidy levelization couldn’t soon happen in every country.

ABOUT JOHN BRIAN SHANNON

I write about green energy, sustainable development and economics. My blogs appear in the Arabian Gazette, EcoPoint, EnergyBoom, Huffington Post, United Nations Development Programme, WACSI — and other quality publications.

“It is important to assist all levels of government and the business community to find sustainable ways forward for industry and consumers.”

Green Energy blog: http://johnbrianshannon.com
Economics blog: http://jbsnews.wordpress.com
Twitter: @JBSCanada

This gallery contains 0 photos

Excerpts from the Center for American Progress Fact Sheet/Regional Energy, National Solutions

| Leave a comment

by John Brian Shannon

“Developing just 54 gigawatts of offshore wind in Atlantic waters would generate $200 billion in economic activity and create 43,000 permanent, well-paid technical jobs, in addition to displacing the annual output of 52 coal-fired power plants.” — Center for American Progress – Fact Sheet/Regional Energy, National Solutions

I have selected excerpts from this report, which you can read below. I suggest you read or download the entire report in PDF form, click here:

Excerpts from the Southeast: Energy efficiency and smart grid

The Southeast, a region historically dependent on fossil fuels, has become a leader in the emerging field of smart-grid technology—which is at the center of the impending wholesale modernization of our electric infrastructure. An enhanced commitment to regional smart-grid innovation, manufacturing, and deployment, coupled with a robust plan to address the region’s traditional energy efficiency shortfall, point to an economic and environmental boon. — Center for American Progress – Fact Sheet/Regional Energy, National Solutions

• The Southeast boasts more firms across the high-tech smart-grid value chain than any other region. Continuing to lead this transition offers the opportunity to create jobs across a range of skill-levels and fields; to diversify existing companies and to build new ones; to improve quality of life by connecting home, utility, renewable, and vehicle technology; and to reap the environmental and cost-saving benefits of using our resources more efficiently. — Center for American Progress – Fact Sheet/Regional Energy, National Solutions

• At the same time, addressing the region’s serious shortfall in implementing conventional energy efficiency policies provides a tremendous and complementary economic and environmental opportunity. A study by Georgia Tech and Duke University showed the potential to cut energy use across the region by 16 percent in 2030. This would result in annual consumer savings of $71 billion and lead to the creation of 520,000 jobs by 2030. — Center for American Progress – Fact Sheet/Regional Energy, National Solutions

Excerpts from the Midwest: Advanced Vehicles

The auto industry revival that is taking place in the Midwest is proof that states and the nation prosper when we make energy choices that take the American people, our economy, and our outdoor heritage forward together. Having recovered from near bankruptcy less than three years ago, the auto industry is now profitable, sales are rebounding, and fuel-economy projections have exceeded expectations. — Center for American Progress – Fact Sheet/Regional Energy, National Solutions

In addition to revitalizing American manufacturing, the deep oil savings from vehicles being built now under strong new fuel-economy standards will mean net savings to consumers of more than $54 billion a year in 2030 and will add 570,000 jobs to the economy. — Center for American Progress – Fact Sheet/Regional Energy, National Solutions

Excerpts from Mountain West: Wind and solar development and distribution

The Mountain West is experiencing firsthand the economic and environmental benefits of transitioning to low-carbon energy sources. Continuing this shift will be critical—the West is already experiencing serious damage from climate change and would face an even grimmer future if the nation turns its back on clean renewable energy in favor of a continued reliance on dirty fuels. — Center for American Progress – Fact Sheet/Regional Energy, National Solutions

• The West boasts nearly unlimited renewable energy resources—particularly wind, solar, and geothermal—that promise a brighter economic future than is possible with fossil fuels. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory identified 11,788 megawatts of nonhydro renewable energy projects either under construction or in advanced development in the region. Using the Electric Power Research Institute’s estimates of jobs per megawatt, these projects represent 71,872 jobs. — Center for American Progress – Fact Sheet/Regional Energy, National Solutions

Excerpt from the Pacific Coast: Solar power innovation and installation

The Pacific Coast and the adjoining western states are referred to as the “sun belt” for a reason. Capitalizing on that abundant solar resource is paying huge dividends for the region—providing jobs, spurring new industries, and spawning new innovative technologies. Abundant resources and aggressive renewable energy standards, including incentives for both utility-scale and small-scale rooftop solar, position the region to build on its current status as a national leader in solar energy installation and generation. — Center for American Progress – Fact Sheet/Regional Energy, National Solutions

• The solar industry in California has experienced significant growth over the past 15 years. Since 1995 the number of solar businesses grew by 171 percent, and total employment jumped by 166 percent. As a point of comparison, the total number of California businesses has grown by 70 percent, and employment has increased by 12 percent. — Center for American Progress – Fact Sheet/Regional Energy, National Solutions

To read or download the entire report in PDF form, click here.

This gallery contains 0 photos

An Assessment Just Waiting to Happen

| 2 Comments

by John Brian Shannon

What is the matter with energy? A scientist might say, what is the energy with matter?

There are really only two things in the universe. One is matter and the other is energy. All matter can be turned into energy if you have a large enough or sophisticated enough machine available.

Take the Sun for example. It is a big, hot ball of nuclear fusion taking place somewhere in space not too far away from us, thankfully. If it were too far away, we wouldn’t receive enough energy (mostly in the form of heat and visible, infrared and UV light) to support the many life forms on this planet.

So is the Sun matter, or energy? Our Sun is made up of matter which produces energy using the nuclear fusion process which takes place there on a huge scale.

Our Sun produces energy from its mass using fusion while today’s nuclear reactors produce energy from matter using a highly-efficient process — nuclear fission. Nuclear physics is used to enhance energy production from matter and this process requires certain metallic elements for maximum efficiency.

When we discuss electrical power generation using nuclear power, there are really only a few downsides. All of which cost you a lot of money, unfortunately, as some costs are paid by taxpayers (government-funded R&D and national security, to name just two) while other costs are in the form of electrical bills, paid by electricity users.

One of the highest costs has been the research and development of nuclear materials and nuclear power plant design/engineering to provide electrical power for cities and towns, which began in the cold War era. The United States has borne much of the cost of nuclear power research in the Western nations over the past decades. Such R&D is very costly and continues.

The various fuels used in nuclear reactors are (like many things) hazardous if misused. A crude nuclear bomb, one that a domestic or foreign terrorist could make from a new or ‘spent’ nuclear fuel rod requires a full-blanket approach to security of nuclear plants, processing facilities, transportation of nuclear materials and even uranium mines, which translates to high costs.

Another high cost are the power plants themselves, which must first of all be constructed with very high security in mind, have locations near waterways and the very high levels of design and engineering required for dealing with nuclear materials combine to add to the costs involved.

So far, so good. Because thus far, nuclear power plants in the U.S. and the rest of the Western world have thrived and produced profit for their investors. Whether government or privately-owned, nuclear power is so efficient and has such a small carbon footprint, that it would be almost unimaginable to not have had them adding baseline load to Western power grids all along. Yes, they have been that good, and, for that long!

There is one unsolved externality with regards to nuclear power; What to do with the spent rods? This is one kind of cost which could turn out to become larger than all the other costs put together – IF this part of the nuclear equation isn’t handled properly.

Or, if handled properly, and recognized for the true resource it really is, it could spark a renewed interest in nuclear energy AND could become the greater part of a solution to the entire spent fuel problem!

For decades people have been rightly concerned about the thousands of tons of so-called spent nuclear fuel stockpiles just sitting around in astronomically expensive storage facilities in many Western nations. Which is where some of it must stay for up to 20,000 years or longer, in massive air-conditioned underground bunkers. Were the A/C shut down for more than 36 hours — even once, a catastrophic event of national proportions could occur.

The amount of energy which could be extracted from this spent fuel is truly mind-boggling. With careful usage, these presently useless and costly-to-store materials could power much of North America for decades.

Yes, some government subsidy money would be required in order to ‘burn’ these partially-spent fuel rods and produce plenty of power from them until they are only slightly radioactive and infinitely safer to dispose of – but that will pale in comparison to the amount of subsidy money the U.S. government already spends to securely store, monitor and keep cool, spent nuclear fuel rods for up to 20,000 years!

There are tons of very expensive and toxic matter that is presently sitting around, costing uncountable billions to store and becoming ever more unstable as time goes by. It can become one of the nation’s prime sources of energy by re-processing it and ‘burning it’ as nuclear power generation fuel, and doing so will dramatically increase America’s energy and environmental security.

Which is why I respectfully call on President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden to call for an assessment of all spent, otherwise unused, or unusable, processed nuclear materials of any kind, in the U.S. – much of which could be re-processed or used ‘as is’ for electrical power generation by a new generation of American SMR nuclear reactors, thereby solving the ‘thus far unsolved’ externalities of nuclear power.

John Brian Shannon

ABOUT JOHN BRIAN SHANNON

I write about green energy, sustainable development and economics. My blogs appear in the Arabian Gazette, EcoPoint, EnergyBoom, Huffington Post, United Nations Development Programme, WACSI — and other quality publications.

“It is important to assist all levels of government and the business community to find sustainable ways forward for industry and consumers.”

Green Energy blog: http://johnbrianshannon.com
Economics blog: http://jbsnews.wordpress.com
Twitter: @JBSCanada

This gallery contains 0 photos

Cited in a United Nations Development Programme Report

| 3 Comments

by John Brian Shannon

United Nations

In July of this year, the UN asked me to contribute an article to the United Nations Development Programme — and it is now published in a 60-page report.

I’m in the credits on page 2 and my article is published in full starting on page 26. The full report is downloadable as a PDF. Click here to download — you may need to click again when a new window opens.

GREEN ECONOMY IN ACTION: Articles and Excerpts that Illustrate Green Economy and Sustainable Development Efforts
August 2012

I would like to thank Hussein Abaza, who is the former Chief of the Economics and Trade Branch of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and a person who has contributed unstintingly in the service of our civilization in several UN organizations for over 30 years.

I would be remiss if I did not express my appreciation to Veerle Vandeweerd, Director, Environment and Energy Group Bureau for Development Policy, United Nations Development Programme.

Grateful thanks also to Marjolaine Côté, Special Assistant to the Director Environment and Energy Group Bureau for Development Policy, United Nations Development Programme.

Thanks due to Serena Bedwal, Environment and Energy Group Bureau for Development Policy United Nations Development Programme

Many thanks to Danielle Crittenden my Managing Editor at Huffington Post Canada who was the first editor to approve and publish the first version of this article which was titled As China Goes Green What Is Canada Waiting For?

I also owe thanks to Emma Ellwood-Russell, my editor at EcoPoint™ who published a later version of this article titled China Goes Green and to EnergyBoom.com which also published the last variant of this article China Motivated to Adopt Sustainable Energy Solutions.

The UNDP elected to generously provide a link to the EcoPoint™ website in the United Nations Development Programme report.

Please take a few moments to look over this 60 page report. I would be very interested to hear your comments about any part of it. Thank you.

John Brian Shannon

Related articles
ABOUT JOHN BRIAN SHANNON

I write about green energy, sustainable development and economics. My blogs appear in the Arabian Gazette, EcoPoint, EnergyBoom, Huffington Post, United Nations Development Programme, WACSI — and other quality publications.

“It is important to assist all levels of government and the business community to find sustainable ways forward for industry and consumers.”

Green Energy blog: http://johnbrianshannon.com
Economics blog: http://jbsnews.wordpress.com
Twitter: @JBSCanada

This gallery contains 1 photo.

Utility-scale Solar Power — Now Cost-effective!

| 1 Comment

by John Brian Shannon

New, utility-scale photo-voltaic solar power is now competitive with new, utility-scale coal. (When neither is subsidized)

Timing is everything it is said. Which makes now a great time to be alive for green energy advocates.

Quite under the radar of the mainstream, the costs to build utility-scale solar photovoltaic installations have fallen dramatically over the past 24 months with solar (PV) panel prices expected to bottom out in June or July of 2013.

Not only have PV solar panel prices plunged in the past months — due to U.S. EPA emission regulations which went into effect January 1, 2012, the costs to build (new and cleaner-burning) coal power plants or to retrofit existing ones to burn natural gas, have risen dramatically.

These two developments have ushered in a profound shift to utility-scale power generation in the United States which are just now beginning to be recognized.

solar vs coal price 2011-2020

Separate from build or retrofit cost comparisons, are the actual day-to-day costs of producing power and transmitting it to numerous end-users.

To maximize efficiency, electrical utilities employ the Merit Order ranking system whereby the lowest-priced electrical generation is brought online first, then once that capacity is fully-enabled, even more power is added to the grid by using the second-lowest priced electrical generation – and so on. During times of peak usage several different kinds of electrical power may be brought online to meet demand.

You may be surprised to know that Germany, which also employs Merit Order ranking, has over one-million solar panels installed throughout the countryside with plans for another million to be installed within six years. Utility companies there are able to pass on significant savings to users between the hours of 10:00 am and 6:00 pm when solar panels produce power most efficiently.

With only 4% of it’s electrical power coming from green energy sources, German utilities are able to pass along 10% to 40% savings on their customer’s electricity bills. Imagine the (daylight-hours only) cost savings there six years from now when fully 8% of Germany’s energy grid will be powered by sustainable energy.

The ‘golden age’ of U.S. low-subsidy sustainable energy infrastructure will begin in earnest in 2013, because it makes economic sense to do so.

Here is a nice chart which shows (up to year 2009) the average yearly energy subsidy for different kinds of energy used in the United States.

Biofuels compare favorably to the other (primarily dedicated to) transportation fuels Oil and Gas. While Renewable electrical energy compares favorably to conventional Nuclear electrical energy.

fossil-fuel-subsidies-490x407

John Brian Shannon

ABOUT JOHN BRIAN SHANNON

I write about green energy, sustainable development and economics. My blogs appear in the Arabian Gazette, EcoPoint, EnergyBoom, Huffington Post, United Nations Development Programme, WACSI — and other quality publications.

“It is important to assist all levels of government and the business community to find sustainable ways forward for industry and consumers.”

Green Energy blog: http://johnbrianshannon.com
Economics blog: http://jbsnews.wordpress.com
Twitter: @JBSCanada

This gallery contains 2 photos

The Economics of Green Energy

| Leave a comment

by John Brian Shannon

Back in the old days of sustainable energy, circa 2000, the cost of switching to solar or wind was so expensive that only the well-intentioned considered it — and only the wealthy could afford it.

How times have changed!

Nowadays, utility-scale solar power and wind power are cost-competitive with utility-scale coal-fired and nuclear electrical power generation.

And obviously, solar and wind are much better for the environment.

solar-coal-power_thumb[3]

That’s not to knock coal, which has provided reliable power for decades and still has a great future in Coal to Liquid fuels — that is, coal processed into extremely pure transportation fuels. Gasoline for your car, diesel for cars, trucks and ships and jet fuel are all created from coal using CTL technology.

South Africa’s SASOL have been using CTL technology successfully since 1955 and 30% of all the transportation fuels in that country are made from domestically-sourced coal. No alterations to vehicle engines or aircraft turbine engines are required to use fuels which are made from coal — as the CTL technology produces almost laboratory-quality fuels when using the Fisher-Tropsch catalytic process.

However, electrical power generation which burns raw coal releases billions of tons of CO2 and carbon monoxide, along with huge amounts of hydrogen sulfide, arsenic, lead, cyanide, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide and other toxins into the atmosphere every year — all of which easily cross state lines, national boundaries and even the oceans before settling in both populated areas and farmland.

One brand new coal-fired plant per week is completed and goes into service in China these days and this has been the case since late 2008.

In 2010 for example, China operated 620 coal-fired power plants which burned over 3 billion tons of coal per year. Just the CO2 emissions alone from coal-fired electrical generation in China surpassed 7.2 billion tons in 2010.

Which leads to higher health care costs in both the developing world and the developed world. According to CLPmag.org -

“China faces a number of serious environmental issues caused by overpopulation and rapid industrial growth. Water pollution and a resulting shortage of drinking water is one such issue, as is air pollution caused by an over-reliance on coal as fuel. It has been estimated that 410,000 Chinese die as a result of pollution each year.”

In addition to being cost-competitive with coal, solar and wind are also cost-competitive with nuclear. In the case of solar and wind power there is no need for very costly nuclear spent-fuel storage — as some types of nuclear fuel rods must be stored in terrorist-proof bunkers and be constantly-cooled 24 hours per day/365 days per year for up to 20,000 years — without any interruption lasting longer than 36 hours. The cost of just one failure here would be catastrophic.

solar-less-expensive-nuclear_thumb[3]

Nuclear power has been statistically safe – with only one serious incident about every ten years on average. However, we have seen deaths caused by exposure to radioactive emissions from nuclear power plant accidents and indirect adverse health effects on population centres near nuclear disaster sites. Some particles remain radioactive at toxic levels for many decades.

Which leads to higher health care costs in many nations as the wind can carry radioactive particulate thousands of miles — just as it can carry toxic gasses and soot from coal-fired power generation for thousands of miles.

For the most recent example of the cost to clean up nuclear accidents, the Fukushima disaster had been estimated at between $15 – 45 billion dollars, but more recently a $50 – 100 billion dollar price-tag has appeared and full decommissioning may take until 2030 to complete. The Japanese government is covering all the costs of decommissioning the Fukushima nuclear site — which means Japanese citizens will end up paying the full cost through taxation.

From the perspective of taxpayers everywhere who bear the brunt of health care costs and disaster mitigation, the full cost of a given kind of fuel must include the costs of all adverse health effects, deaths, damages and lost productivity caused by each kind of fuel.

Which is why solar, wind and biomass are still the better deal by far – even at the same per-gigawatt price.

John Brian Shannon writes about green energy, sustainable development and economics from British Columbia, Canada. His articles appear in the Arabian Gazette, EcoPoint Asia, EnergyBoom, the Huffington Post, the United Nations Development Programme – and other quality publications.

John believes it is important to assist all levels of government and the business community to find sustainable ways forward for industry and consumers.

Check out his green energy blog at: http://johnbrianshannon.com

Check out his economics blog at: http://jbsnews.wordpress.com

Follow John on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/#!/JBSCanada

This gallery contains 4 photos

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 202 other followers