Category Archives: Renewable Energy

Fracking water

Yet another reason why we should take water into account in any development plan: fracking for shale gas uses huge amounts of water, competing with everything else, maybe even using more than power plants and cities.

Delaware Riverkeeper and Protecting Our Waters wrote for Waterkeeper Alliance today, The Water Footprint of Shale Gas Development,

Recent studies examining potable water supplies on a global scale, the current trends in American water consumption and the causes of depletion of this essential resource are helping us to understand that the footprint of shale gas development expands indefinitely when measured in water….

Of the seven nations where the groundwater footprint is greatest, the U.S. is one of the fastest speeding towards disaster. According to Cynthia Barnett’s Blue Revolution, scientists say the 20th century was the wettest in a thousand years and now drier times are ahead.[3] This means that many of the management schemes we use now—based on 20th C planning—need to be changed to avoid catastrophe. So the 410 billion gallons of water America uses every day will suck the nation dry if we don’t stop over-tapping nearly every river and aquifer.

The biggest U.S. users are power plants and agriculture with private

Continue reading →

Germany Added 543 MW of Solar Power Capacity in July

While we in Georgia were still pouring money down that nuclear pit near the Savannah River, Germany has been getting on with real renewable energy. We could have deployed almost that much solar power with just the cost overruns so far at Plant Vogtle.

Nicholas Brown wrote for Clean Technica 8 September 2012, Germany Added 543 MW of Solar Power Capacity in July,

According to Matt McDermott of Treehugger: “[In] the first half of 2012 Germany has installed just over 4.37 gigawatts of grid-tied solar power. Remarkably just about 1.8 GW of that happened in June alone (perhaps even more remarkable, this isn’t even a record amount for one month in Germany).”

The amount of solar power capacity added in June was much more than July’s, but July’s was still impressive. July’s addition brings Germany’s total installed capacity for the first half of 2012 to 4,900 MW (4.9 GW).

This impressive solar installation rate had a lot to do with Germany’s famous Feed-in Tariffs (FIT), but it also had a lot to do with Moore’s Law, illustrated by that graph of cost per kilowatt rapidly going down.

543 MW? That’s more than the 330 MW of solar the $913 million cost overrun at Plant Vogtle in the first half of 2012 could have bought. 1800 MW in June and 543 MW in July? That’s 2343 MW, which is more than the entire rated 2200 MW output of Plant Vogtle 3 and 4 put together, if they ever get built. Sure, the sun doesn’t shine all the time, but in the years until the nukes ever get built (if ever), how much solar could we deploy at the rate of one Vogtle unit equivalent a month?

Hey, maybe we should cancel Plant Vogtle and deploy solar instead! Maybe Georgia Power and Southern Company will realize their big bet has already gone bad. Or maybe we should elect some Public Service Commissioners and legislators who will get them to realize it.

-jsq

 

Industrial Authority goes solar, broadband, and conversational!

The Industrial Authority apparently listened to its focus groups, and discovered that broadband and solar energy are important to attract industry. Andrea Schruijer even recommends conversation, which has been sorely lacking in recent years. Congratulations, Industrial Authority!

Jason Schaefer wrote for the VDT today, Authority analyzes Valdosta business: Broadband, solar power, professional services targeted for growth,

The Authority also plans to work toward the availability of more broadband Internet service and solar power in Valdosta and surrounding communities. These amenities would help support local industries as well as draw new ones to the greater Valdosta area for the creation of new jobs.

That’s a good start. Although it’s not clear from the writeup that VLCIA quite got it about Internet access.

As part of presenting Valdosta as an attractive package for prospective industries, the Authority attempts to ready the land set aside for development before beginning the recruitment process. This means investing in infrastructure, including broadband internet.

“It’s not that we don’t have broadband,” Schruijer said. “What we’re looking at is the technology behind the broadband. We have it in certain areas, but in order for us to grow some of these core targets, such as professional services, we need that infrastructure.”

Well, actually, no, we don’t have broadband. 6Mbps is the fastest most people can get around here, and 30Mbps is the slowest you can even buy in many countries. Plus, it’s not just fast Internet to industrial sites that’s needed: it’s fast Internet access everywhere knowledge-based employees may want to live.

But they’re on the right track:

Because the Authority can’t “buy” industries into coming to Valdosta—though it can offer tax abatements—it is necessary to make sure that new businesses have what they will need before ground is even broken, Schruijer said. To this effect, the Authority will “stimulate the conversation” to actively attract more broadband companies to the area.

A conversation! Now there’s something we’ve been needing around here. And it’s a refreshing change from only a year ago when all we heard was

“Debate is not allowed.”

Maybe the Industrial Authority will be the organization that will show the rest of us how to hold civil discussions about things that affect all of us!

The VDT’s writeup skips quickly over another big change:

Continue reading →

Change the Atomic Energy Act? How about change the Georgia Electric Territorial Act?

In reaction to the NRC denying a nuclear permit for Calvert Cliffs, some nuclear backers suggest changing the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to permit majority foreign ownership of nuclear reactors. What will they suggest next? Asking Iran to invest in U.S. nukes?

Steve Skutnik wrote for http://theenergycollective.com 5 September 2012, A cost-free way to open up nuclear investment,

If this seems entirely backward in a world of global production and investment, that’s because it is. The current regulation is an artifact of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which first authorized private ownership of nuclear facilities. (Prior to this—per the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, all nuclear technology was considered a state secret, during the short time in which the U.S. enjoyed a monopoly on the technology.)

Is there any real compelling reason for restrictions on foreign ownership and investment in nuclear facilities to exist at a time when the U.S. holding a monopoly on the technology has long since passed? Issues of safety here of course are irrelevant—the facilities would be licensed and regulated by the NRC, just as any other nuclear facility is now. About the only salient objection is the political one—i.e., the implications of a foreign entity maintaining controlling ownership in key infrastructure. (Although it’s hard to see anyone getting particularly upset about the reverse—U.S. entities owning a controlling stake in infrastructure in other nations.)

Yeah, sure, strict regulation will deal with that, just like it prevents fracking from setting drinking water on fire, or BP from poisoning the Gulf. The new NRC head is maybe well-meaning, but it’s the same NRC that gave Vogtle 1 a clean bill just before it had to shut down and the same NRC that’s ignoring cancer in Shell Bluff.

Oh, by the way, the article gets to the main point eventually:

Continue reading →

NRC rejects nuke permit for EDF in Maryland

French nuclear operator Électricité de France (EDF) was denied a license last week for the proposed Calvert Cliffs nuclear reactor in Maryland, because the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 prohibits majority foreign ownership of nuclear plants. EDF now has 60 days to find a U.S. partner, or give up the project. Who could the possible suitors be? Hint: think southeast.

The handwriting was on the wall two years ago when Constellation Energy pulled out of the project. Jim Polson and Alan Katz wrote for Bloomberg 10 October 2010, Constellation Drops Nuclear Plant, Denting EDF’s U.S. Plans,

Constellation Energy Group Inc. pulled out of negotiations on a $7.5 billion loan guarantee to build a nuclear reactor in Maryland with Electricite de France SA, potentially damaging the French utility’s U.S. expansion plans and the companies’ partnership.

The cost of the U.S. government loan guarantee that the companies’ joint venture, UniStar Nuclear Energy, would need to build the Calvert Cliffs 3 reactor is too high and creates too much risk for Constellation, the Baltimore-based utility said in a statement yesterday. The statement said the next step is up to EDF. Enlarge image U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel Poneman

In a letter Oct. 8 to Daniel Poneman, deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, Constellation said it received a government estimate that the venture would have to pay about $880 million to the U.S. Treasury for the loan guarantee, “dramatically out of line with both our own independent assessments and of what the figure should reasonably be.”

Constellation’s decision may make it more likely that the U.S. utility will exercise a put option forcing EDF to buy as much as $2 billion of Constellation’s non-nuclear power plants, said Ingo Becker, head of utilities sector research at Kepler Capital Markets.

“EDF very clearly said if they exercise the put, this thing is over,” Becker said. “Constellation may have just turned around the calendar and pulled out of the new build before exercising the put, anticipating EDF’s reaction.”

In a letter Oct. 8 to Daniel Poneman, deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, Constellation said it received a government estimate that the venture would have to pay about $880 million to the U.S. Treasury for the loan guarantee, “dramatically out of line with both our own independent assessments and of what the figure should reasonably be.”

Meanwhile, Southern Company is still trying to reduce what it has to pay for its $8.3 billion federal loan guarantee.

Back in Maryland, the news got worse for the nuke last year. EDF asked for the state’s help, but didn’t get the answer it wanted. Scott Dance wrote for Baltimore Business Journal 16 December 2011, EDF: Constellation-Exelon settlement hurts Maryland nuclear industry,

Continue reading →

Energy experts making excuses for fracking

Numerous eminent current and former regulators, governors, and legislators’ best advice for how to keep fracking from polluting our aquifers and drinking water: “strict regulation”. As Gandhi reputedly said about western civilization: that would be a good idea. But in Georgia and many other places, where the regulatory agency (GA PSC) and the legislature are pretty much captured by the utilities they pretend to regulate, how will we get that “strict regulation”?

This was at a Politico event, sponsored by American Wind Power, called Energy & the Presidency.

Join POLITICO for a lunch conversation with energy experts and policy leaders Energy & the Presidency panel as they discuss current energy legislation, the energy debates facing the nation, policy options and what’s ahead in the year to come. Speakers include: ClearView Energy Partners’ Kevin Book; former Administrator of the EPA and former Director of the White House Office on Climate Change, Carol Browner; Rep. Ed Markey (Mass.); former Gov. Bill Richardson (NM) and former Gov. Bill Ritter (Colo.).

When: Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 12:00 pm ET

This event was in North Carolina, where the late John Blackburn, Ph.D. already reported two years ago that the whole state could be powered by wind, sun, existing hydro, landfill gas, and less natural gas than is already in use, why do we need fracking at all?

Georgia has similar real renewable energy potential, plus studies by Georgia Tech and Duke indicate that Georgia doesn’t need any additional total electric power anyway, if it gets on with energy efficiency. Add solar and wind instead of natural gas, and we can retire a lot of coal plants. With no need for fracking.

I have an idea: let’s elect Public Service Commissioners and legislators who are not beholden to the utilities they will regulate!

-jsq

New NRC head says agency is standing up for public health and safety

Sounds to me like the NRC is not telling its new chief everything. For example, what about Vogtle unit 1 shutting down right after it passed an NRC review? What about cancer in Shell Bluff, Georgia, near the reactors?

Mike M. Ahlers wrote for CNN 14 August 2012, New NRC chair vouches for agency’s independence, states goals

Allison Macfarlane said Tuesday she has confidence in the agency and its independence from the nation’s 104 commercial nuclear power plants.

“I have some strong initial impressions of the agency, and one is that I’ve been very impressed with the staff and their dedication to safety, and their willingness to stand up to industry when they believe a situation is not safe,” Macfarlane said in a wide-ranging discussion with reporters.

“So I’m actually quite assured that the agency is completing its mission of protecting public health and safety,” she said. “They take safety issues very seriously. They take their role as regulators very seriously and the public should be assure that they have the public’s best interests in mind.”

Macfarlane said she hopes to build public confidence in the agency by improving communication, increasing transparency and making NRC documents understandable. “Some of them are rather opaque,” she allowed.

She has said some slightly more impressive things back before she was appointed. Continue reading →

Wind second only to natural gas in 2011 added capacity

Looks like Southern Company (SO) bet on the wrong horse.

David Danielson wrote for DoE 14 August 2012, A Banner Year for the U.S. Wind Industry,

The report finds total U.S. wind power capacity grew to 47,000 megawatts by the end of 2011 and has since grown to 50,000 megawatts, enough to power 12 million homes annually — as many homes as in the entire state of California. And as wind energy capacity has grown, more and more wind turbines and components like towers, blades, gears, and generators are “Made in America.” Nearly 70 percent of all of the equipment installed at U.S. wind farms last year came from domestic manufacturers, doubling from 35 percent in 2005.

Why should SO worry? Wind only came in second in added capacity. Because of this:

In addition to strong gains in domestic wind manufacturing and capacity, the report finds that as wind technology improves, costs are coming down. Technological innovations are helping make longer and lighter wind turbine blades, while improving turbine performance and increasing the efficiency of power generation. At the same time, wind project capital and maintenance costs have continued to decline.

And wind doesn't even have Moore's Law going for it as much as solar does, plus solar is usable in more areas than wind. Add wind and solar and why do we need much natural gas? (Or any coal or nuclear?)

-jsq

Where would Georgia Solar Utilities Inc. get enough land for 80 MW solar generation?

Plant Branch in Georgia Where will Georgia Solar Utilities Inc. get the 2,200 acres it says it needs to build 80 MW of solar generation? Well, it’s supposed to be “adjacent to Georgia Power Co’s coal-burning Plant Branch near Milledgeville, Ga.”, so let’s look there.

Plant Branch Location Map A brochure on Plant Branch by Georgia Power (undated, but last date mentioned is 1998, so I’m guessing 1999) says:

Located on 1,900 acres on Lake Sinclair in Putnam County between Eatonton and Milledgeville, Plant Branch was the first million-plus-kilowatt electric generating station to operate on the Georgia Power system. It is named for Harllee Branch Jr., former chairman of the board of Southern Company and president of Georgia Power. Construction on the plant began in 1961, and by the summer of 1969, Coal pouring onto pile four units were in operation. The 1,539,000 kilowatts generated by Plant Branch provides enough electrical power for 342,000 households.

And now Plant Branch will be among the first to close coal-generating units. According to Melissa Stiers for GPB News 12 July 2011, Georgia Power Closing Three Plants,

Two coal fired units at Plant Branch in Milledgeville will close in 2013. That’s a result of federal regulation tightening air pollution controls. The company has said it’s too costly to upgrade those units.

Plant Branch across Lake Sinclair As we know, Georgia Power’s parent The Southern Company claimed it was incompetent to deal with the new EPA regulations even though it had already announced the Plant Branch closures (amounting to about 770 MW), and later SO announced 4,000 MW of coal plant closures.

While the various news stories keep saying Plant Branch is in Milledgeville, actually, it’s on the other side of Lake Sinclair, closer to Eatonville, Plant Branch site in Putnam County qpublic map and in Putnam County. A quick glance at the Putnam County Tax Assessor database maps shows that the land parcel containing Plant Branch is 913.87 acres, much of which isn’t actually used by the plant. And Georgia Power owns a total of more than 3,000 acres adjacent to that site. So I’m guessing the 2,200 acres figure is simply around 3,100 total Georgia Power acres minus 913 acres for the present Plant Branch site.

Estimates for land needed for a megawatt of solar power generation range Continue reading →

Pass the Production Tax Credit for Georgia Jobs

At yesterday’s wind rally on Tybee Island, one spoke about passing the Production Tax Credit for wind jobs in Georgia.

More pictures and videos in the GA Sierra Club flickr set.

-jsq

PS: Owed to Seth Gunning.