The nation most identified with its massive oil reserves is turning to wind and solar to generate power at home and help extend the life of its crucial crude franchise. BLOOMBERG — Starting this year, Saudi Arabia plans to develop almost 10 gigawatts of renewable energy by 2023, starting with wind and solar plants in its vast northwestern desert. The effort could replace the equivalent of 80,000 barrels of oil a day now burned for power. Add in natural gas projects set to start later this decade, and the Saudis could quadruple that number, according to consultant Wood MacKenzie Ltd. That could supplant all the crude burned in the kingdom during its winter months. The effort goes hand-in-hand with a drive by the royal family to broaden the economy following two years of budget deficits tied to low oil prices. More industry, though, means more energy, with the amount of power used at peak times growing by 10 percent in the last year alone. “Renewable energy is not a luxury anymore,” said Mario Maratheftis, chief economist at Standard Chartered Plc., in an interview. "If domestic use continues like this, eventually the Saudis won’t have spare oil to export.’’ In all, Saudi Arabia is seeking $30 billion to $50 billion worth of investment in renewables, Energy Minister Khalid Al-Falih said this month. The ministry will set up a division to handle the tenders until the country establishes a new independent buyer for all power supplies. “The terms on renewable contracts will be motivating so that the cost of generating power from these renewable sources will be the lowest in the world,” Al-Falih said at a news conference in Riyadh. The kingdom will award its first tenders to build 700 megawatts of solar and wind energy in September, Al-Falih said. Energy Pricing The government has already raised domestic energy prices to slow demand growth and called for greater efficiency, according to the Riyadh-based King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center. Failing to tap more sources, including renewable energy, natural gas or even nuclear reactors could erode the oil exports still vital to the economy, the center wrote in an October report. Improving the country’s energy efficiency by just 4 percent a year could save the equivalent of 1 million barrels a day of crude by 2030, according to the report. The cornerstone of an economic transformation plan championed by Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, a son of the king, is the sale of as much as 5 percent of Saudi Arabian Oil Co. With the company worth about $2 trillion, according to estimates from the prince, the share sale would be the worlds’ largest initial public offering. The kingdom, OPEC’s biggest member, is the linchpin of the group’s effort to prop up crude prices by cutting output to reduce a global supply glut. Saudi Arabia said it pared production by 717,600 barrels a day last month, its biggest cut in more than eight years, to 9.748 million a day, according to a monthly report from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The cut was significantly larger than what the country pledged -- 486,000 barrels a day -- under the agreement OPEC reached in November. Aramco Plants Saudi Aramco, as the state energy producer is known, already earns most of the Persian Gulf kingdom’s income by pumping 1 in every 10 barrels sold every day. It’s also driving the country’s first steps toward a renewable energy industry. At its sprawling campus of office buildings, control rooms and suburban-style residential compounds in Dhahran in the country’s east, Saudi Aramco runs the country’s biggest solar plant, a 10 megawatt facility mounted on a parking lot roof. In January, it started the kingdom’s first commercial wind turbine to power a facility in the northwest. The solar panels atop the parking facility cut the need for the equivalent of about 30,000 barrels of oil and the wind turbines will eliminate demand for about 19,000 barrels, according to Aramco. As the kingdom strives to build industries and spread jobs, other state companies are expanding projects. The Saudi Arabian Mining Co. operates a phosphate plant and is building a new industrial city in the northwest. Power for sections of the vast area where those projects are located will partly come from renewables and new gas projects. “Small projects are very important in helping diversify the country’s energy sources,” Stewart Williams, Wood Mackenzie’s vice president for Middle East research said in a telephone interview. “These are steps toward building up the country’s energy base.” Without alternative power sources, including gas and renewables, the kingdom would be forced to increase its crude burn. That can reach as high as 900,000 barrels a day during the kingdom’s summer months, according to data from the Joint Organisations Data Initiative.
Saudi Arabia has already taken steps to substitute natural gas for oil in power plants, a change that’s had “immense” impact on the crude burn, OPEC said in its Monthly Oil Market Report released in January. The use of crude for domestic power has fallen by nearly a third since the Wasit gas plant began operations in March 2016, according to the OPEC report. 300,000 Barrels Saudi Aramco will bring online the similar-sized Fadhili gas project in the country’s east by the end of the decade. That gas project and the renewable projects planned for completion by 2023 could save about 300,000 barrels of oil from being burnt for power, according to estimates based on IEA and OPEC data. Alternative energies are “a key factor in the economic transformation,’’ Fabio Scacciavillani, chief economist of the Oman Investment Fund, said in an interview. “This region has a great competitive advantage in low-cost energy production and that will continue with renewables. That will create a big advantage particularly in energy intensive industries.’’Without alternative power sources, including gas and renewables, the kingdom would be forced to increase its crude burn. That can reach as high as 900,000 barrels a day during the kingdom’s summer months, according to data from the Joint Organisations Data Initiative. Saudi Arabia has already taken steps to substitute natural gas for oil in power plants, a change that’s had “immense” impact on the crude burn, OPEC said in its Monthly Oil Market Report released in January. The use of crude for domestic power has fallen by nearly a third since the Wasit gas plant began operations in March 2016, according to the OPEC report. 300,000 Barrels Saudi Aramco will bring online the similar-sized Fadhili gas project in the country’s east by the end of the decade. That gas project and the renewable projects planned for completion by 2023 could save about 300,000 barrels of oil from being burnt for power, according to estimates based on IEA and OPEC data. Alternative energies are “a key factor in the economic transformation,’’ Fabio Scacciavillani, chief economist of the Oman Investment Fund, said in an interview. “This region has a great competitive advantage in low-cost energy production and that will continue with renewables. That will create a big advantage particularly in energy intensive industries.’’Without alternative power sources, including gas and renewables, the kingdom would be forced to increase its crude burn. That can reach as high as 900,000 barrels a day during the kingdom’s summer months, according to data from the Joint Organisations Data Initiative. Saudi Arabia has already taken steps to substitute natural gas for oil in power plants, a change that’s had “immense” impact on the crude burn, OPEC said in its Monthly Oil Market Report released in January. The use of crude for domestic power has fallen by nearly a third since the Wasit gas plant began operations in March 2016, according to the OPEC report. 300,000 Barrels Saudi Aramco will bring online the similar-sized Fadhili gas project in the country’s east by the end of the decade. That gas project and the renewable projects planned for completion by 2023 could save about 300,000 barrels of oil from being burnt for power, according to estimates based on IEA and OPEC data. Alternative energies are “a key factor in the economic transformation,’’ Fabio Scacciavillani, chief economist of the Oman Investment Fund, said in an interview. “This region has a great competitive advantage in low-cost energy production and that will continue with renewables. That will create a big advantage particularly in energy intensive industries.’’
0 Comments
Voting largely along party lines, Congress just confirmed Scott Pruitt as administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—an attorney who has spent his professional career suing the EPA to stop the agency from performing its fundamental mission of ensuring clean air and water for all Americans. ECOWATCH — This confirmation marks a sharp break with precedent; most EPA administrators from both parties have come to the office with a demonstrated commitment to the EPA's mission.
One might even say that this vote signals the end of an era of bipartisan congressional support for a strong federal role in protecting our environment, as this newly confirmed administrator is likely to dismantle the safeguards that both parties have supported since the 1970s. What that means for all of us who care about clean air and water and the protection of our environment is this: It is up to us to monitor carefully what happens next and to be prepared to spring into action as needed. Here are some of the key developments I'm watching for: Will Scott Pruitt Recuse Himself? As repeatedly noted in his nomination hearing, Pruitt has represented the State of Oklahoma in numerous lawsuits against EPA. Many of these cases are still active today, directed at major EPA regulations, including the Clean Power Plan (which limits carbon emissions from power plants); national air quality standards; mercury emissions from coal plants; methane limits for the oil and natural gas excavation; and a Clean Water Act rule that clarifies federal jurisdiction over bodies of water. During the nomination hearing, Pruitt did not commit to recusing himself from these cases, but he did say he would rely on advice from the EPA ethics counsel. Common sense tells us that he cannot possibly be impartial on these issues and conflicts of interest abound. For example, the state attorneys general who joined him in the suit against the Clean Power Plan have written a letter to the Trump administration, asking the president to issue an executive order declaring that the rule is unlawful. Responding to this request would, in the normal course of business, require EPA input, since it is an EPA regulation. How can Scott Pruitt possibly participate in any review of that request given that, just a few weeks ago, he himself was one of the attorneys general making this claim? He must recuse himself, as 30 senators have made clear in a recent letter. Will Scott Pruitt Cut Federal Law Enforcement? By wide margins, most Americans favor enforcement of laws that protect our air and water. Cutting EPA enforcement will therefore be unpopular—but Scott Pruitt is likely to argue that we can rely on states to enforce environmental laws, so cutting the EPA's budget won't do any real harm. This is a dangerous myth. Having served as a state environmental commissioner, I know from personal experience that state environmental agencies are already strapped. They typically lack the technical experts employed at the EPA and stand in no position to take on additional enforcement responsibilities shed by the EPA. In Massachusetts where I served, for example, my former agency's staff was cut nearly in half between 2002 and 2012 due to budget cuts, even as the agency's responsibilities grew. That occurred in a state well known for its strong commitment to environmental protection. As a result, my agency was forced to cut back on important and effective programs, such as water sampling to locate sources of bacteria that pollute rivers. If the EPA's budget is cut, it will mean even fewer resources for states, because states now receive a significant share of the EPA's budget to cover enforcement activities. Second, state environmental agencies sometimes experience political pressure against enforcement that might harm a large employer or impose significant costs on residents. We saw some of this in play in Flint, Michigan, where a state agency did not enforce a law requiring corrosion treatment of pipes to reduce lead contamination; it took an EPA staffer and outside scientists, as well as the residents themselves, to blow the whistle on lax state enforcement. Third, states are not equipped to deal with the widespread problem of interstate pollution. To cite one of the most egregious examples, the state of Maryland could shut down virtually all in-state sources of air pollution and yet still not be in compliance with health-based air quality standards due to pollution from neighboring "upwind" states. A strong federal law enforcement presence is needed to address the simple fact that air and water pollutants do not honor state boundary lines. We and others stand prepared to fight crippling budget cuts at the EPA and explain that the protection of our air and water requires both federal and state environmental law enforcement. Scott Pruitt Will Likely Gut the Clean Power Plan; What Will He Replace It With? During the campaign, President Trump called for abolishing the Clean Power Plan, the EPA regulations that limit carbon emissions from power plants. And as noted, Administrator Pruitt sued to block it. It now seems nearly inevitable that he will move to drastically undermine the plan. The question is, what will he propose to replace it? The EPA does not have the option of doing nothing. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the EPA has a duty to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act if it makes a determination that such gases endanger public health and the environment. In 2009, EPA made such a finding (which Pruitt fought, though unsuccessfully). Thus, EPA remains obligated to regulate carbon dioxide emissions in general and in particular with respect to power plants, which are among the nation's largest source of these emissions. One predictable approach would be a revised regulation that reduces emissions, but by a much smaller percentage. The current litigation over the Clean Power Plan could serve as a roadmap for a diminished rule. The Clean Power Plan relies on three strategies to reduce emissions—improving efficiency of coal plants, switching from coal to gas and switching to renewables. During the litigation, Scott Pruitt conceded that the EPA had the authority to require improvements to coal plant efficiency, but claimed that the other two strategies, which go "beyond the fenceline" of an individual source, were unlawful. Thus, one might expect that a revised rule will mirror what Pruitt called for in court. If so, rather than cutting carbon emissions by approximately 32 percent by 2030, the rule would result in barely noticeable emission reductions. If this happens, litigation will be necessary. The court that mandated the EPA to address greenhouse gas emissions should not be satisfied with a rule that does little to cut one of the nation's largest sources of CO2 emissions. How About Vehicles? The second biggest carbon cutting program of the Obama administration is the Union of Concerned Scientists-backed fuel economy standards for cars which, it is estimated, will roughly double fuel economy between 2012 and 2025. Those standards were agreed to by the automakers at the time. They are projected to cut billions of tons of CO2, reduce oil use by billions of barrels and save consumers an average of $8000 over the lifetime of a vehicle. When the standards were put in place, they included a "mid-term review" provision in which the EPA would assess whether changes in technology, costs or factors might warrant a change to the standards. The review was to be completed by April 2018, but the Obama administration in its closing days completed the review and determined, based on a thorough review, that there was no reason to change the standards, since automakers are ahead of schedule in meeting these standards and at a lower cost than originally predicted. Some automakers are calling for this determination to be re-opened, presumably so that the rules can be modified and perhaps weakened. And one can justifiably be anxious that they could offer something that the Trump administration is keen to secure—a commitment to increased manufacturing in the U.S.—in exchange for relaxing these standards. It would be a disaster for these historic standards to be rolled back and we'll fight any such rollback along with many allies. How About Science? As I wrote recently, Pruitt's record shows little evidence of deference to scientists. After all, he sued the EPA for relying upon the world's most prominent climate scientists, including many employed by the federal government, in finding that greenhouse gases endangered the environment. And he claimed that the question of climate change and the role of human causes of it are still an open question for debate. As EPA administrator, he will hear from EPA scientists whose expert judgment will not align with his deregulatory agenda in some cases. Will these scientists' findings be suppressed or disregarded? We call on Pruitt to declare that scientific integrity is a core guiding principle for the EPA, that he will abide by the existing EPA scientific integrity policy and even look for ways to improve it, as recommended by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Vigilance Required Scott Pruitt comes to his new position with the heavy baggage of having devoted a good part of his career to opposing EPA, not to mention the apparent antipathy of his boss towards the agency. The Trump transition team further fueled anxiety over the EPA's fate with threats of gag orders on agency scientists, deletion of climate data from the website, and draconian budget cuts. This is why we see, for example, hundreds of career civil servants risking their jobs by publicly protesting Pruitt's confirmation. Scott Pruitt has a chance now to push the reset button and position himself as an open-minded and principled conservative, rather than a deregulatory ideologue. Most helpful to him will be to invest significant time in hearing from the agency's talented scientists, engineers, policy analysts and attorneys. No matter what, we will be watching his actions vigilantly and stand prepared to fight to retain key protections of Americans' health and safety at the agency he now oversees. Steve Holliday, CEO of National Grid, the company that operates the gas and power transmission networks in the UK and in the northeastern US, believes the idea of large coal-fired or nuclear power stations to be used for baseload power is “outdated.” ENERGY POST — “From a consumer’s point of view, the solar on the rooftop is going to be the baseload. Centralized power stations will be increasingly used to provide peak demand”, he says, in an exclusive interview for World Energy Focus. The chief of National Grid also notes that energy markets “are clearly moving towards much more distributed production and towards microgrids.”
“This industry is going through a tremendous transformation. We used to have a pretty good idea of what future needs would be. We would build assets that would last decades and that would be sure to cover those needs. That world has ended. Our strategy is now centered around agility and flexibility, based on our inability to predict or prescribe what our customers are going to want.” As CEO, since 2007, of a company active on two continents, and being responsible for both gas and electricity transmission and distribution, Steve Holiday finds himself smack at the centre of the whirlwind developments in the energy sector. And since National Grid is a regulated (albeit publicly listed) company, he can speak from a reasonably independent position. Which makes it fascinating to talk to him. “What is crucial”, says Holliday, “is what consumers will want. In the past all consumers got the same. One size fits all. Now one size will not fit all. People will want to interact with energy in many different ways.” This is why he warns against people who think they can predict the future. “Some people think they have the answer, whatever it may be. But I believe there will be different answers for different places, rural and cities, and for different customers. That’s why flexibility and agility are key.” Taken by surprise Nevertheless certain trends that are currently taking place are unmistakable, says Holliday. “The world is clearly moving towards much more distributed electricity production and towards microgrids. The pace of that development is uncertain. That depends on political decisions, regulatory incentives, consumer preferences, technological developments. But the direction is clear.” “The amount of solar being added to the system is incredible. 1500 MW in the first three months of this year” For the UK National Grid works with four Future Energy Scenarios, which are available on the internet and updated every year. According to these scenarios, it is likely that by 2020 small-scale, distributed generation will represent a third of total capacity in the UK. Holliday: “This is a quadrupling in just a few years. It represents a massive increase from the old days of centrally dispatched generation.” Recent government measures in the UK to limit subsidies for renewable energy may affect the timing of this development, says Holliday, but not the trend. He notes that the speed at which the energy system is changing has taken many people by surprise, including himself. “The amount of solar being added to the system is incredible. 1500 MW in the first three months of this year. That’s the capacity of two power stations. I made a comment to the Energy Minister four years ago that there was little probability we would have 20,000 MW of solar in the UK. Now three of our scenarios have more than 20,000 MW of solar by 2035.” Big systems That’s not to say that there will be no need for big networks in the future, Holliday adds. “We need big systems that are able to take power that is spilling over. And you are unlikely to economically balance energy needs without some centrally dispatched generation, whether that’s offshore wind, nuclear power or gas. In this sense we see ourselves as a stable long-term business around which new business models are emerging.” What is the future of baseload generation in such a system? “That’s asking the wrong question”, says Holliday. “The idea of baseload power is already outdated. I think you should look at this the other way around. From a consumer’s point of view, baseload is what I am producing myself. The solar on my rooftop, my heat pump – that’s the baseload. Those are the electrons that are free at the margin. The point is: this is an industry that was based on meeting demand. An extraordinary amount of capital was tied up for an unusual set of circumstances: to ensure supply at any moment. This is now turned on its head. The future will be much more driven by availability of supply: by demand side response and management which will enable the market to balance price of supply and of demand. It’s how we balance these things that will determine the future shape of our business.” “If you have nuclear power in the mix, you will have to think about the size of these plants. Today they are enormous” So nuclear power stations will be used to meet peak demand? “If you have nuclear power in the mix, you will have to think about the size of these plants. Today they are enormous. You will need to find a way to get smaller, potentially modular nuclear power plants. I suspect they are going to be associated with fixed demand for businesses rather than household consumers in future, for demand that’s locked in. For small consumers you need flexibility.” Energy incubator How much of a problem is the integration of intermittent renewables in Holliday’s view? “It’s simplistic to only look at storage. We will have the intelligence available in the system to ensure power is consumed when it’s there and not when it’s not there.” This is what software companies are working on at the moment, says Holliday. “We have a partnership with New York University where we support a program for startups. Of the 30 startups we are supporting, 25 are software companies. And this is called an energy incubator!” These companies, says Holliday, “are building the apps that will transform the energy world, aggregating data, marrying supply and demand. It is a really exciting space to be in.” As an example he notes that “there will be massive amounts of data available from vehicle charging stations in the future. Intelligence is going to decide how this will be used.” Does this mean network operators are currently overinvesting? For example, do we really need to build big new power lines to transport electricity from offshore wind power farms, as some people are saying? Holliday: “It depends. If you look at Germany, they will have huge offshore capacity in the north and a lot of the consumption in the south. How else can you match that than with transmission lines? But in the UK and Northeastern US, the challenge is to ensure we are smart and limit the building more capacity and sweat our assets.” Electrifying In the UK total electricity demand is expected to stay flat until the mid-2020s. Then it will take off again as “enormous amounts of heat and transport are likely to be electrified”. He is convinced “cars will go electric”. So will a major portion of heat. “As the World Energy Council’s Jazz and Symphony Scenarios show, for the moment you can’t square the Energy Trilemma without fossil fuels. But in the future what you really need is electricity.” So could the likes of Shell, BP and Total move into electricity? “If you want to be an energy company ten years from now, it’s hard not to think about that.” “In a competitive retail market as an energy supplier where volume drives profits it is difficult to incentivize using less energy” Interestingly, the UK and Northeastern US have very different market designs. The UK retail market is competitive and fragmented. “In the Northeastern US”, says Holliday, “95% of our customers want us to procure their power and gas and simply charge them the wholesale costs.” The advantage of the US structure is that “it allows us to really focus on reducing our customers’ demand without implications for our profit. In a competitive retail market as an energy supplier where volume drives profits it is difficult to incentivize using less energy.” Yet in both markets, new entrants will emerge that will transform the business, says Holliday. “They will ask consumers what they will really value. 100% reliability? A low price? And they will find or design a product that is suitable.” Solar energy provides about 1.3 percent of America’s electricity, but it’s now responsible for more than twice as many jobs as coal, gas, and oil power combined. CIRCA — This clean-energy labor boon is now a ray of hope for laid-off coal miners in the Pittsburgh area. Wylie Koontz, a laid-off coal miner, said it was one of the industries hiring.
That's because solar is a pretty labor-intensive process. The jobs come from designing and manufacturing the panels, and marketing and installing them. A college dropout, Koontz found out firsthand how unstable 21st-century coal mining jobs are. “I went to college because I had a baseball scholarship so I thought I’d give college a try,” Koontz said. “It just wasn’t for me so I got a job at the coal mine and got laid off in July of 2016.” After getting laid off, 23-year-old Koontz spent two months unemployed before finding another position in the energy sector. “Before I got the job I didn’t know anything about solar.” Skills in the mine are useful in the solar industry. “They’re usually fairly agile working from the mines,” said Marty Bovee of Energy Independent Solutions (EIS) Solar. “They’re either working in cramped or high spaces” Coal still produces one-third of all of the energy consumed in the United States. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 250,000 people working in the coal industry in the early 1980s. As of October of 2016, that number dropped to 50,000. According to the 2017 U.S. Energy and Employment Report, the solar industry has seen a 5,000 percent growth in net energy generation over the last decade and is now responsible for more than twice as many jobs as coal, gas, and oil power combined. Solar power companies searching for employees look to energy competitors for help. But like many former manufacturing hubs that line the Rust Belt, Pittsburgh has gone through an economic upheaval in the last half century that has left generations of blue collar workers searching for work. “Everybody’s pretty much just worried about getting laid off,” Koontz said. “Ten years ago they probably didn’t, but they do now.” “We’ve gotten lots of applicants who are either laid off miners or laid off steelworkers,” Bovee said. There were 3,061 people employed in the solar industry in Pennsylvania in 2016, up 23 percent from a year ago. The emergence of solar may be a ray of hope for workers whose skills may be out of date. However, coal miners who saw their once healthy industry fall apart remain guarded about the future. Climate change is extending far beyond the threat of melting polar ice caps — it's putting a dangerous stranglehold on life in oceans, too CNN — A new study published in the science journal Nature Wednesday found that the ocean's worldwide oxygen content declined by more than 2% between 1960 and 2010.
Scientists have long warned about the potentially deadly consequences of the ocean's declining oxygen levels on marine life, and its resulting impact on humans. The study came from the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany, where the three co-authors — Sunke Schmidtko, Lothar Stramma and Martin Visbeck — pulled data dating back to 1960. Using information on oxygen, temperature and other factors relating to the world's oceans, they mapped it around the globe and estimated the overall oxygen loss. "We were able to document the oxygen distribution and its changes for the entire ocean for the first time. These numbers are an essential prerequisite for improving forecasts for the ocean of the future," wrote Schmidtko. Where bacteria thrives While 2% may sound like only a small change, it doesn't take much of a drop to threaten the state of oceans. The only organism in the ocean that thrives with little-to-no oxygen is bacteria. "Just a little loss of oxygen in coastal waters can lead to a complete change in ecosystems -- a small decrease in oxygen like this can transform from something desirable to very undesirable," said David Baker, Assistant Professor at the University of Hong Kong's Swire Institute of Marine Sciences. Oxygen in the world's oceans is not evenly distributed, and the 2% drop represents just an average of all the globe's oceans together. In some parts of the world, there has been a much steeper decline of oxygen levels over the past five decades -- for example, in the North Pacific, where the largest volume of oxygen was lost. The largest percentage was lost in the Arctic Ocean. "The oxygen losses in the ocean can have far-reaching consequences because of the uneven distribution. For fisheries and coastal economies this process may have detrimental consequences," wrote Stramma. Climate change The ocean's oxygen depletion, the study shows, is mostly a result of climate change. One driving factor, the authors found, is as simple as warming temperatures -- like a warm can of Coke that can't hold fizz, warm ocean water has difficulty holding oxygen. But this only accounts for 15% of the oxygen depletion. What also causes oxygen depletion, again driven by climate change, is that the ocean is becoming more stratified. This is a result of changing temperature gradients in the Arctic, and the reduction of sea ice. Oxygen enters the water at the surface, but as that surface layer gets warmer, it's less likely to sink to the oxygen-starved layers below. "It's almost like the oceans are getting ready for a heart attack," said Baker. "You're essentially slowing the heartbeat of the ocean, and you're getting less oxygen to the ocean." The study finds that the reduction of sea ice has led to more plankton growth -- and with more plankton growth comes more plankton decomposition. Decomposition decreases oxygen levels even further. So-called "dead zones" -- low-oxygen areas in the ocean's shallow waters -- are also multiplying along the shore, the study finds. Fish can't thrive there -- a dangerous threat to both the ecosystem and the economy -- but that's not the only problem. These areas are pumping out a harmful greenhouse gas called nitrous oxide -- "the evil counterpart to carbon dioxide," as Baker puts it. 'Far-reaching implications' Nitrous oxide is potent. It lasts in the atmosphere a long time and contributes to global warming -- meaning that the effects of climate change on the world's oceans causes more global warming, in turn. The study's authors end their report on a pessimistic note, writing that "far-reaching implications for marine ecosystems and fisheries can be expected." While Baker said that the world is edging closer to solving the carbon dioxide problem, it's barely scratched the surface when it comes to the issue of nitrous oxide. He said that there's little hope in addressing this in a timely way unless people commit to addressing problems that are quickly becoming cliché, like consuming less and recycling more. "The oceans are really a mirror of human health -- if they're sick and dying, then that's the future of humanity as well," said Baker. Last year's solar deployment numbers just came in and they are, in a word, phenomenal. Utilities bought more new solar capacity than they did natural gas capacity: an astounding 22 states added more than 100 MW of solar each. ECOWATCH — At the same time, there is grim news about delays in construction and associated cost overruns for nuclear plant construction projects in Georgia and South Carolina. SCANA—owner of South Carolina Electric & Gas and sponsor of the VC Summer Nuclear Project—has just reported new delays in the in-service dates of its new reactors to 2020. Construction started more than 7 years ago, with energy deliveries promised to begin in 2016.
Past hopes for a "renaissance" in nuclear power in the U.S., with four to eight new nuclear plant facilities projected to come online in America between 2016 and 2018, have been overwhelmed by competition. Union of Concerned Scientists predicted this trend in costs many times. Great Solar News Meanwhile, there is much to say about the solar boom. Just ask one of your 1,300,000 neighbors who have solar on their property. To put these achievements in perspective, let's talk about solar jobs and productivity. The solar industry employs more than 260,000 people in the U.S. The continuous improvement in know-how in construction techniques and in manufacturing drives down solar deployment costs every three months. The pricing for new solar projects is coming in the range of 4 cents (Texas) to 5 cents (California) per kilowatt hour. In comparison with nuclear, the amount of solar power built in 2016, taking into account how many hours each can operate each day, is the equivalent of more than three new nuclear plants. To dive in a little deeper: let's use a 25 percent capacity factor for new solar, making the 14,626 MW installed equivalent to 3,650 MW of theoretically perfectly running nuclear plants. The Westinghouse AP 1000 units under construction for the last seven to 10 years produce about 1,100 MW. So, in one year, solar additions were equal to what takes more than seven years to build. The difference in speed of deployment is why Union of Concerned Scientists is clear that nuclear power isn't a near-term climate solution. The Demise of the Nuclear Option In the energy business, nuclear is fading fast. Struggles to keep existing plants open in competitive markets are roiling the electricity markets. But the recent news about the very few manufacturing firms supplying nuclear construction illustrates how very different the nuclear industry is from solar. Cost over-runs in the U.S. plants are so large that when state regulators finally put a cap on what South Carolina and Georgia consumers would pay, manufacturer Toshiba (owner of Westinghouse) found itself with $6 billion in losses and the likely end of its business in nuclear power plant construction. The concentration of nuclear component manufacturing in so few companies has shown how a problem with quality led to a "single point of failure" plaguing the fleet of French nuclear plants. Policy in the U.S. has been to shield the utility companies from the risks of their business decisions to construct nuclear plants, continuing with the Vogtle plant in Georgia. Would We Ever Go 100% Solar? Would we ever build only solar? Maybe, but that's not the right question. "What can we do with lots of solar?" is a better one. We can keep absorbing the solar pattern of production with the tools we have. We can plan to adjust to cheap energy in the middle of the day with time-varying rates. And if we can get energy storage further along, we can get to the end of this debate. Solar power installations doubled in 2016 over 2015, as more and more areas of the United States began pulling their power from the sun. CNBC — For the first time, solar power installations formed the largest group of electricity generating capacity of any energy source, according to a new report from Greentech Media.
Nearly 40 percent of new power generation projects added last year were solar, in terms of electrical production capacity. A record 22 states each added more than 100 megawatts, the report said. It was also the first time since 2011 that the growth of nonresidential installations surpassed residential solar growth, and that was driven mostly by utility-scale projects. Part of this resulted from a pipeline of projects builders were trying to complete in case the federal Investment Tax Credit for solar was not extended beyond the end of 2016. Tax credits and policies, like net metering, do play a big role in the solar market, but in an increasing number of cases, it comes down to simple economics. GTM Research analyst Cory Honeyman said in an interview with CNBC that utilities are also making significant investments in solar power in states that have no renewable energy requirements, such as many states across the Southeast. This means homes, businesses and utilities in some regions are investing in solar even when they are not being forced to, or even when they do not receive subsidies from state governments. This is largely because solar is becoming cost-competitive with natural gas, and some customers may use solar as a hedge against future fluctuations in natural gas prices, Honeyman said. While utility-scale customers were a driving force, residential solar still makes up a substantial portion of new growth. Some of the big residential markets, such as California, are seeing residential installation rates level off, but growth is strong in other states, such as Maryland and New Jersey. There are now 1.3 million solar installations across the United States, with a cumulative capacity of over 40 gigawatts. The Solar Energy Industries Association estimates that 1 megawatt of electricity can power 164 homes, so 40 gigawatts is enough capacity to power 6,560,000 U.S. households. When the world's largest petrostate decides to bet on clean energy, it's time to pay attention THE STREET — Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia's massive state-owned oil company, is gearing up to sell a small stake to the public. Just 5% of this $2 trillion firm would equate to a $100 billion IPO, four times larger than Alibaba's 2015 IPO, which currently stands as the biggest new stock issue ever.
However, here's where things get even more interesting: Saudi Aramco has telegraphed its long-term direction. The company has tasked a team of global investment banks with lining up a portfolio of solar energy firms primed for acquisition. According to Bloomberg, $5 billion is available for this spending spree, which should help Saudi Aramco meet its goal of generating 10 gigawatts of power from renewable energy sources by 2023. Make no mistake, this is likely just the first warning for OPEC and the oil majors. While firms such as Royal Dutch Shell have made tentative moves toward embracing clean energy in recent years, the economics of solar power are improving so quickly that oil exploration may soon be a losing proposition. Until now, solar power has depended on a series of global tax credits. Yet, falling solar panel prices mean that solar is now cheaper than coal in many countries. And the World Economic Forum predicts that by 2020 "solar photovoltaic is projected to have a lower [levelized cost of electricity] than coal or natural gas-fired generation throughout the world." A US airline has become the first to make a commercial flight using renewable energy. INDEPENDENT — An Alaska Airlines flight departed from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in Washington state on Monday, flying to Reagan National Airport in Washington DC partially using alternative fuel made from the bark of trees recycled from the harvesting of managed forests.
The biofuel, which made up 20 percent of the fuel used during the approximately five hour flight, was developed by the Northwest Advanced Renewables Alliance (Nara). The five-year project was launched in 2011 by 32 universities, companies and government agencies to find a way to produce more environmentally friendly jetfuel using a $39.6m grant from the US Department of Agriculture Joe Sprague, Alaska Airlines’ senior vice president of communications and external relations, said: “This latest milestone in Alaska’s efforts to promote sustainable biofuels is especially exciting since it is uniquely sourced from the forest residuals in the Pacific Northwest “Nara’s accomplishments and the investment of the US Department of Agriculture provide another key in helping Alaska Airlines and the aviation industry reduce its carbon footprint and dependency on fossil fuels.” Washington State University, which leads the Nara project, said although the 1,080 gallons of biofuel used during the flight would have minimal impact on Alaska’s greenhouse gas emissions, the success of the project bodes well for the future. If the airline were able to replace 20 percent of its entire fuel supply at Sea-Tac Airport, it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 142,000 metric tons of CO2. “This is equivalent to taking approximately 30,000 passenger vehicles off the road for one year. Washington Senator Maria Cantwell praised the project saying “Today’s flight comes after years of investments to help the aviation biofuels industry take off. “By creating these sustainable biofuels, we will revitalize our rural agricultural communities, foster economic growth, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and cut our dependence on foreign oil while growing our competitiveness in global markets.” The success of the renewables initiative comes as the fight against climate change comes under threat in the US. Clean energy grew at a record pace as the United States added 22GW of capacity — the equivalent of 11 Hoover Dams — to the grid from renewable sources last year, significantly trumping new fossil fuel additions, according to a new report. TIME — The report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) and the Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE) cites the declining cost of wind and solar power, largely due to advances in technology, as prime reasons for the rapid adoption of renewables. The cost of building large utility-scale solar photovoltaic power plants for example has been fallen by 50% in just five years.
Renewable energy companies have also benefited from the quick decline in coal power that has resulted from a combination of factors including stiff competition from cheap natural gas and environmental regulation. Coal-fired power plants now provide only 30% of the country's electricity compared with nearly half of the supply in 2008. "The contributions of sustainable energy to the country’s economic competitiveness are direct, dramatic and dynamic,” says Lisa Jacobson, president of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, a nonprofit that promotes market solutions to environmental issues, in a press release. Cheap natural gas prices and increased use of low-cost renewables has ultimately benefited consumers, according to the report. Electricity costs have fallen more than 2% in real terms between 2015 and 2016 and American consumers spent less than 4% of their household spending on energy for the first time ever. Climate change-causing greenhouse gas emissions declined to their lowest level in a quarter century even as the economy continued to grow, according to the report. The finding is the latest evidence answering the question policymakers long-debated about whether economic growth can be decoupled from carbon dioxide emissions. |
James Ramos,BPII'm your go to solar energy expert here to guide you step-by-step through all of your solar options. Categories |
James The Solar Energy Expert