The views expressed on this site are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Resources for the Future or its other researchers.
1. How huge is a “huge chunk”? In a recent Rolling Stone interview, Barack Obama said that he would rebate a “huge chunk” of carbon auction revenue back to taxpayers. I heard this through Peter Barnes’ cap and dividend website. For previous commentary on cap and dividend see here and here.
2. What the hell does T. Boone Pickens want? I’m sure you’ve all seen his new wind commercial:
Am I the only person who finds this ad creepy? He doesn’t even ask for anything. Does he want subsidies for the 4 GW worth of wind turbines he just bought? Also, what’s with the “I’m T. Boone and this is my ad” moment at the end?
3. This sounds familiar. Finally, I started reading Rabbit is Rich last night and here’s how the book, which is set in the 1970s, opens,
Running out of gas, Rabbit Angstrom thinks as he stands behind the summer-dusty windows of the Springer Motors display room watching the traffic go by on Route 111, traffic somehow thin and scared compared to what it used to be. The fucking world is running out of gas.
The DOE, in conjunction with Black & Veatch and AWEA, finally released its long awaited 20% Wind Energy by 2030 study (PDF) yesterday. I haven’t read the whole thing yet as I’m still swamped at work, but here are some quick highlights from the DOE press release:
Annual installations need to increase more than threefold. Achieving 20 percent wind will require the number of annual turbine installations to increase from approximately 2000 in 2006 to almost 7000 in 2017.
Costs of integrating intermittent wind power into the grid are modest. 20 percent wind can be reliably integrated into the grid for less than 0.5 cents per kWh.
No material constraints currently exist. Although demand for copper, fiberglass and other raw materials will increase, achieving 20 percent wind is not limited by the availability of raw materials.
Transmission challenges need to be addressed. Issues related to siting and cost allocation of new transmission lines to access the Nation’s best wind resources will need to be resolved in order to achieve 20 percent wind.
Most notably, the report identifies opportunities for 7.6 cumulative gigatons of CO2 to be avoided by 2030, saving 825 million metric tons in 2030 and every year thereafter if wind energy achieves 20 percent of the nation’s electricity mix.
More to come on this once I’ve had a chance to go through it carefully.
When I was in Russia a few years ago a friend told me a corny, but somehow interesting joke. She told me that the Russian word for a breeze or a draft in a room is pronounced “dooit” (literally, “it blows”). So if you speak both Russian and English, you sometimes say to people, “Close the window. Do it.”, and laugh.
That was a very tangential segue to my second skeptical RPS post of the day. Yesterday I was at a renewables meeting with Peter Bierden, Director of Global Wind Projects at GE Energy. He was going along talking about how great wind energy is when suddenly he dropped this little tidbit of information on the group: GE, by far and away the largest turbine manufacturer in the US, is so backed up that you can’t even place an order for delivery prior to 2010. Every electricity model out there, RFF’s included, predicts meeting the overwhelming majority of renewable generation requirements with wind energy in the short to medium term. Now Peter didn’t discuss exactly how many turbines were set to be delivered, but the fact that they’re booked solid prior to Congress passing an energy bill does not bode well.
Ironically, Congress’s ridiculous, discontinuous approach the the federal production tax credit (PTC) is probably the main source of GE’s current supply constraints. When a Republican congress allowed the PTC to lapse last, in 2003, GE was left holding the bag on its contracts in progress with suppliers. Now we’re going through this charade all over again, as Congress debates whether or not to extend the PTC. Yet, even if they do decide to extend it another year, according to Bierden’s comments, that won‘t affect wind installation at all, as turbine purchasers today would be concerned with a PTC in 2011.
The Oregonian highlights wind turbine-related bird fatalities:
The numbers sound small: Nationwide, collisions kill about 2.3 birds of all varieties per turbine per year, studies show. In the Northwest, it’s about 1.9 birds per turbine. That could mean more than 3,000 bird deaths a year in the gorge.
But birders say those numbers are meaningless because the totals make no distinction between abundant and rare species. Golden eagles and ferruginous hawks — a threatened species in Washington — already are few in number, said Michael Denny of the Blue Mountain Audubon Society, and even a few fatalities could prove devastating.
Many existing or proposed wind farms in Washington and Oregon are located in the eastern Columbia River Valley, an area that overlaps with the breeding grounds of the aforementioned ferruginous hawk.
Basically, the whole matter is summed up nicely by Darren Huseby, regional director of development company enXco:
“The reality of our economy, our way of life is that we need to build certain facilities to provide electricity,” and they will have certain effects on the environment, he said. “It’s a societal question: What degree of (bird) mortality are they willing to accept?”
The tradeoffs are clear. Wind turbines are going to have some negative impact on bird populations (unless, perhaps, if they are sited offshore). However, burning coal and natural gas for electricity has obvious consequences as well. This is a classic case for cost-benefit analysis and another reason environmental valuation is such an important technique to develop.
