Water, Wind and Climate Change
Energy Future of the West: Half Empty or Half Full?
There’s a lot of talk around the water cooler about “tipping points” these days, especially as they relate to wobbling climate. But there’s a definite sense that the West is teetering on the edge of its own tipping point, one that will determine whether it bursts forth into a new world of forward-thinking policy choices, or return to a world of – what? – the old stuff.
By Dan Whipple, 6-04-08
 |
|
 | |
| Caption: The Judith Gap Wind Energy Center in Wheatland County, Montana, the state's largest wind farm, but perhaps not for long. Photo by Dave Morris | |
|
Colorado House Majority Leader Alice Madden put up a slide of Lake Mead with the rhetorical question: Half empty or half full?
Madden’s immediate subject at the University of Colorado’s Natural Resource Law Center’s Annual Summer Conference was water, but the question echoed around a wide variety of subjects: energy, climate, renewable resources.
There’s a lot of talk around the water cooler about “tipping points” these days, especially as they relate to wobbling climate. But there’s a definite sense that the West is teetering on the edge of its own tipping point, one that will determine whether it bursts forth into a new world of forward-thinking policy choices, or return to a world of – what? – the old stuff.
In short, there is a new wind blowing through energy policy. Wind. Really. Lots of wind.
Vicky Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund, said, “There’s lots of reason for hope and some stunning progress. But there are gaps.”
The chief reason for hope is the growth of renewable energy and the reduction in costs of that power. As the cost of fossil fuel has increased – that famous four dollar a gallon gasoline – alternative fuel sources have become more attractive.
In the real world so far, “alternative energy” means wind power, mostly. There are some strides being made in solar power, but the growth in alternative energy is mostly in the wind.
On the Great Plains, Bob Gough of NativeEnergy Inc., said that the 30 Missouri River Basin tribes are trying to break the Indian cycle of energy development – “sell low, buy high,” Gough said – “now we’re seeing revitalization around wind with a intertribal wind planning and policy … we’re trying to find a way beyond this recipe for poverty. Gough says the tribes are working on a distributed wind project in the Great Plains.”
The use of wind in power generation has been successful in Colorado. Madden said that the renewable energy standard passed in 2004 in required that 10 percent of power be generated form renewables by 2015. The state’s largest utility, Xcel Energy, originally opposed that standard.
But by 2007, Xcel had already met the ten percent standard, and supported successful legislation to increase the level to 20 percent by 2020. Nearly all of Xcel’s renewable energy generation comes from wind.
The central Rockies have been firmly in the middle of the pack on energy innovation. Madden admits, “We haven’t led on these issues. But we have done a 180 on them.” A major question is what comes next.
Madden cited legislation passed in Colorado this year that allows cities and counties to give homeowners low-interest loans to provide energy efficiency improvements to the homeowner’s house, which is repaid by an increase in property taxes. The debts, however, stay with the house, not with the homeowner.
Heidi Van Gederen, Colorado Gov, Bill Ritter’s senior advisor on climate change, said that initiatives in other states might offer a clue to future initiatives. These might include state subsidies for worker training for the alternative technology industries, or rewarding manufacturers for using less packaging.
"But there’s a definite sense that the West is teetering on the edge of its own tipping point, one that will determine whether it bursts forth into a new world of forward-thinking policy choices, or return to a world of – what? – the old stuff."
I for one have no faith in government being the crucible for forward-thinking policy. What's missing here is goethermal and nuclear power which works when the wind blows or the sun shines or not. Government's role should not be as the decider, tainted by politics and graft, but as the incentiviser for new technologies that stand on their own. That would be real forward-thinking policy. Those incentives may include 100 year patent rights and a federal income tax holiday for 50 years. As Europe is showing the cap and trade system is a complete fiasco an is about as backward-thinking as a policy can get in my opinion.
Would Craig be so bold about free enterprise as to declare that nuclear energy proceed ONLY via private investment (no government subsidies) and with NO Anderson Act protections that limit insurance liabilities?
Hmmmmmm?
Inky perhaps you are too young to remember the WPPSS fiasco via governemnt investment and management that utilities across the west are still paying for.
Comment By Craig Moore, 6-05-08Patrick Moore on wind power: http://wenatcheeworld.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080605/NEWS04/641779115/1005
>>>>>>>
Patrick Moore: My message and my overview resonates with people in the utility industry who are charged with the practical task of providing electricity 24-7 in a very complex grid system to many different customers. If anything ever goes wrong, they get blamed.
Yet they are being — forced is probably too strong a word — through political pressure to adopt strategies that they, themselves, do not believe are the best way to go. And renewable mandates is one of those problems ...
The idea that we can replace fossil fuels and hydro and nuclear with intermittent sources of solar and wind is a complete pipe dream. It is impossible, and yet it is being promoted as the solution.
WW: Voters last year approved I-937 (renewable portfolio standard), which will eventually require utilities, including PUDs, to supply 15 percent of their demand with wind, solar and other non-hydro sources of renewable energy. Will this mandate make the state more energy self-sufficient?
Moore: No. It will make electricity more expensive and less reliable. And it will cost the economy unnecessarily, in that the hydro is renewable.
<<<<<<<<<
Dear New West--
Be sure to consider the tremendous potential of Concentrating Solar Power. Colorado has the potential for over 200 GW of CSP according to the National Renewable Energy Lab and the Colorado's Governor's Energy Office and we only need about 12 GW to run the entire state.
Clearly we can increase our reliance on renewable energy and do it without significant increases in costs especially when accurate estimates of coal and natural gas costs and the coming costs of CO2 regulation are properly factored in. Thermal storage also allows CSP plants to run when the sun isn't shining.
A quick visit to http://www.ausra.com or http://www.esolar.com or a Google search on Concentrating Solar Power will bring you up to date on the tremendous potential of this other utility-scale, thermal form of solar.
Thanks. Leslie Glustrom (Boulder, Colorado)
I just read an article regarding the stark power reality facing Great Britain: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1025586/FUEL-CRISIS-Forget-warnings-panic-pumps-Thanks-decades-government-neglect-Britain-set-lose-nearly-half-electricity-years.html
How soon before we face the same situation here. Sun sparkles and wind puffs just won't make up the deficit.
From the article:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
By 2015, when the power stations which meet two-fifths of our current electricity needs have gone out of business, we could be facing the most serious disruption to our power supplies since the 'three-day week' of the 1970s.
But the impact of such power cuts on the Britain of today would be far more damaging than they were in the time of Edward Heath 35 years ago.
Compared with then, our dependence on continuous electricity supplies is infinitely greater - thanks, above all, to our reliance on computers.
We are no longer talking just about factories shutting down or lighting our homes with candles. Without computers, our entire economy would grind to a halt.
Scarcely an office, shop, bank or hospital in the land would be able to function. Our railway system would be immobilised. Road traffic would be in chaos as traffic lights ceased to operate and petrol stations closed down.
Yet this is the scale of the catastrophe which may be facing us, thanks to the failure of government to give Britain a proper energy policy.
Scaremongering? Just look at the hard facts. At the moment, to meet Britain's peak electricity demand, our power stations need to provide a minimum 56 gigawatts (GW) of capacity.
Ten gigawatts, nearly a fifth, comes from our ageing nuclear power stations, all but one of which are so old that over the next few years they will have reached the end of their useful working life.
On top of that, however, we shall also have to shut down nine more major power stations - six coal-fired, three oil-fired - forced to close by the crippling cost of complying with an EU anti-pollution law, the so- called Large Combustion Plants directive.
This will take out another 13GW of capacity, bringing the total shortfall to 22GW - a staggering 40 per cent of the 56GW we have today.
Waking up at last to the scale of the abyss that is yawning before us, our Government - not least Prime Minister Gordon Brown - has realised the only way to avert this disaster must be to build as fast as possible at least 20 new power stations, gasfired, coal-fired or nuclear.
<<<<<<<<<<<<
Barak Obama opposes nuclear power. Countries are standing in line to have them built by the few companies capable. How will we make up the difference here?
Well presented Craig, I certainly remember the useless solar panels of the late 70's. Everyone was an expert. In 1985, 33 permits had been issued for nuclear power plants...zero were built. The new government mandated light bulbs (made only in China) is typical of what's comming.
Comment By Wilson, 6-13-08Craig--not sure where you get the Obama opposition to nukes; enviros seem to think being based in Illinois has made him too prone to support nukes and coal-based synfuels. I do remember Don Hodel and WPPSS, and that history supports, not rebuts, the cogent questions you didn't answer. Given the long history out there of loud calls for market-based solutions coupled with quiet insistence on protection from the magic of the marketplace, don't you think Inky deserves a better response?
Comment By Craig Moore, 6-13-08Wilson, Obama opposes having a permanent repository and is in favor of undefined local solutions. He favors locals having veto power over waste site decisions. That kills any nuclear option. No place for the waste. No plant. See: factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/17/fact_check_hillary_clinton_att.php
>>>>>>>>>
OBAMA HAS CONSISTENTLY OPPOSED USING YUCCA FOR PERMANENT NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE
Obama Sent A Letter With Durbin Saying That There Should Be Local Veto Power For Nuclear Waste Dumping. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported, "When he was in Las Vegas in March for a health care forum, Obama told The Associated Press he opposed the repository and would look to regional storage as a solution. Surely that could not have meant keeping the stuff in Illinois, where much of the nation's commercial nuclear waste is generated. On June 30, 2006, Obama and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., wrote a letter to Sen. Pete Domenici, D-N.M., who at the time chaired a key energy subcommittee. 'Senator Obama and I want to make it clear to the chairman that any plan to create regional nuclear waste sites without any local veto power is unacceptable,' Durbin said at the time. 'Illinois must not become a dumping ground -- even a temporary one -- for nuclear waste brought in from other states.'" [Las Vegas Review-Journal, 5/15/07]
Obama Spokeswoman Said That States Shouldn't Be Burdened With Others' Waste. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported, "The Obama campaign said Monday the candidate did not accept money from Exelon's lobbyists. Spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the letter shows Obama 'doesn't believe any state should be burdened with storing the waste from others as long as the state has a storage site to deal with its own waste.'" [Las Vegas Review-Journal, 5/15/07]
Obama Wrote "I Have Always Opposed Using Yucca Mountain As A Nuclear Waste Repository." In 2007, Obama wrote, "I want every Nevadan to know that I have always opposed using Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository, and I want to explain the many reasons why I've held that view. In my state of Illinois, we have faced our own issues of nuclear waste management. There are some who believe that Illinois should serve as a repository for nuclear waste from other states. My view on this subject was made clear in a 2006 letter to Sen. Pete Domenici, who at the time was chairman of the Senate Energy Committee. 'States should not be unfairly burdened with waste from other states,' I wrote. 'Every state should be afforded the opportunity to chart a course that addresses its own interim waste storage in a manner.' That is a position I hold to this day when it comes to both Illinois and Nevada." [Obama Letter To The Editor, Las Vegas Review Journal, 5/21/07]
3/23/07: Obama Said He Was Opposed To Plans To Build A Permanent Nuclear Waste Repository At Yucca Mountain. The AP reported, "Obama said he was opposed to plans to build a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The senator, whose home state has the most nuclear reactors in the nation, suggested he might support regional dump sites." [AP, 3/23/07]
<<<<<<<<<<<<<