RENEWABLE ENERGY:
German solar industry sets major records in June but needs more storage
Henry Gass, E&E reporter
ClimateWire: Thursday, June 19, 2014
Over a two-week span earlier this month, the German solar power sector broke three national power production records, according to analysis from a German industry research institute. Its growing solar capacity also makes it a world leader, but whether the remarkable growth can continue could hinge on what happens in the energy storage market in the next two years.
In the first week of June, the German solar power sector generated a record total of 1.26 terawatt-hours of electricity, according to Fraunhofer ISE. On the second Monday in June, a national holiday in Germany, it produced 23.1 gigawatts between 1 and 2 p.m., equaling 50.6 percent of the nation's total electricity demand.
But several coinciding circumstances aligned to help set these records, according to Tobias Rothacher at Germany Trade & Invest, the country's economic development agency. Solar power production in early June has shown what the sector is capable of, but whether Germany is able to consistently harvest this much power is another question.
One reason for this month's records is, simply, that Germany has more solar panels installed this year than it has in the past, Rothacher said.
But good weather and the fact that it was a national holiday weekend, when there is usually less electricity demand, were big factors in producing this month's records, Rothacher said. In the first five months of this year German solar power production is about 34 percent higher than it was last year, while actual installed capacity only increased by 10 percent.
Without more storage, solar power will be lost
But even with steadily increasing capacity and a proven potential to supply the bulk of Germany's electricity demand, solar power isn't going to be able to displace fossil fuel resources until it is able to store the surplus energy it generates on good-weather days.
"Nowadays we also need fossil fueled power plants in case the weather is not so good," Rothacher said. "Over time, we need to have more flexibility, and that means we need to store this [solar] electricity.
"We can only provide this consistency of solar power in the grid if we have storage capacity: for example, the bundling of thousands of [photovoltaic] energy storage systems in order to provide grid support services."
In the next few years energy storage capacity is going to be crucial to the long-term economic survival of Germany's solar power sector. The industry is currently supported by a feed-in tariff that pays solar power providers for the electricity they feed into the grid. When the country reaches 52 GW of installed solar capacity, that tariff will stop. Germany currently has 37 GW of installed capacity, and Rothacher expects the country to reach 52 GW in next three or four years.
The solar power sector -- along with other intermittent renewable power sectors in Germany -- is also hurt by some details of the European grid system, which charges power producers for feeding power into the grid when there's an oversupply.
The "negative pricing" during periods of oversupply is needed to keep electricity supply and demand in balance, but for conventional fossil fuel power sources, it is often cheaper to pay the charge rather than shut down. Some power producers are technically not quick enough to reduce their output when they have to, so they pay, too (ClimateWire, June 18).
Incentives needed for batteries?
Renewable energy sources, on the other hand, are required to shut down during periods of oversupply -- which is also often when solar and wind power facilities are producing the most power. And as solar capacity grows, electricity oversupply will become more of a problem, Rothacher said.
"If we don't build up storage capacity then our other renewable energy sources will be shut down more often," he added.
But there are several ways Germany could build storage capacity over the next few years, according to Rothacher, including through some financial benefits the market hasn't valued yet. For example, electricity providers in Germany have to pay every time they transport electricity through the grid. With enough storage capacity those fees could be avoided.
There are no major technological obstacles in the energy storage market, but Rothacher said the storage market will need similar monetary and regulatory support from the German government that the solar industry has received in order to grow.
"Both of these markets are really interconnected," Rothacher added. "We need to change some of these grid regulations, and we could maybe start to value, monetize some of the services batteries can provide."
2014/06/13
Renewables
By Ducky Paredes | May 21, 2014
OUR President has always been critical of using renewables – wind and solar power -- to generate electricity. In a State of the Nation Address, he said: “Did they happen to mention that renewable energy is also more expensive–from the cost of building the plants to the eventual price of energy? Did they mention that it cannot provide the baseload–the capacity required to make sure brownouts do not occur?”
Then, he really let loose: “If you put up a wind-powered plant, what do you do when there is no wind? If you put up a solar plant, what do you when the sky is cloudy? Let me be clear: I believe in renewable energy and we support its use, but there should also be baseload plants that can ensure a steady supply of electricity for our homes and industries. I wonder if those who are critical of the plants we want put up will be as noisy when they are busy fanning themselves during brownouts. All I am really saying is this: Let us help each other find a solution.” Well, the problem is that our President has got it all wrong.
Dr. Jean Lindo, convenor of No to Coal (Network Opposed to Coal) Davao, and a member of the nationwide broad coalition, antiCOALition, noted that she found it “disappointing to hear a President make fun of Renewable Energy solution during his SONA which betrays his lack of knowledge on the science of clean and green energy.” While she ignores the President’s silly remarks, she says that she forgives the President “since he is not a man of science.” However, she adds “a wise, conscientious leader would have consulted credible scientists rather than toe the line of corporate reductionism.”
Lindo said that the President and his advisers “do not know that even if there is no wind in Malacañang he can still enjoy electricity because the Philippines has a total wind capacity that can produce 70,000 MW of potential installed capacity, according to a 1999 US-NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) study and this estimate is conservative.”
“Even on a cloudy day over Malacañang, the solar panels can still capture the light and energy can be stored and they can enjoy energy still,” she said, adding that if the President and his advisers “do careful, independent search on Renewable Energy, they would surely bump into very good models of long-term, people-friendly, sustainable energy,” she said.
“It is not funny that they have voluntarily turned themselves into political green jokes in favor of corporate reductionists,” Lindo added.
Even now as he has just inaugurated the largest solar plant in the Visayas, the President is on record as saying:
“Renewable energy is still the most expensive component. It follows that if our entire energy mix is derived from renewable sources, then the price of electricity – which people are already complaining about today – will rise even more. Government therefore has to strike a balance between this, and our desire to attract more investments in renewable energy.”
Our President or the ones who write his speeches (which he delivers without thinking) and those he consults with on renewables are dead wrong. They have to be.
Germany and France, which have at least 50% less sunlight than the Philippines gets, have embraced solar and wind power, relying on them, on certain days, for as much as 50% of the electricity that they use.
Here is a report from a German Energy blog: “En route to its 2050 Energiewende goal of 80% of the nation’s power being supplied by renewables, especially spurred on by the phaseout of nuclear reactors, Germany broke another renewable energy record on Sunday, May 11, 2014. Europe’s biggest clean-energy market reached almost 75% renewable power market share on noon of that day.
(Energiewende was the title of a 1980 publication by the German Öko-Institut, calling for the complete abandonment of nuclear and petroleum energy. On the February 16 of that year the German Federal Ministry of the Environment also hosted a symposium in Berlin, called Energiewende – Atomausstieg und Klimaschutz (Energy Transition: Nuclear Phase-Out and Climate Protection). The views of the Öko-Institut, initially strongly opposed, have gradually become common knowledge in energy policy. In the following decades the term expanded in scope; in its present form it dates back to at least 2002.)
*Energiewende designates a significant change in energy policy: The term encompasses a reorientation of policy from demand to supply and a shift from centralized to distributed generation (for example, producing heat and power in very small cogeneration units), which should replace overproduction and avoidable energy consumption with energy-saving measures and increased efficiency.)
“As the Disruptive Renewables chart created by Renewables International shows, electricity prices went negative for much of the afternoon.
“Renewables hit another record in the first quarter 2014 by supplying 27%–over one quarter–of Germany’s electricity demand. Bloomberg reports that the German Association of Energy and Water Industries (BDEW), which represents 1,800 companies, calculated that renewable generators produced 40.2 billion kWh of electricity this past quarter, up from 35.7 billion kWh in the same period last year. BDEW attributes the achievement to additional installations and favorable weather.
“Bernard Chabot, a well-known renewable energy consultant based in France, sees the 27% figure as indicative of renewable energy’s potential, as Kiley Kroh of ThinkProgress reports:
“‘Once again, it was demonstrated that a modern electricity system such as the German one can already accept large penetration rates of variable but predictable renewable energy sources such as wind and solar PV power.’
“Renewable energy in Germany has grown tremendously in the past decade, with wind and solar the nation’s most productive technologies. The 27% renewable power use amount is double the share of US electricity supplied by renewables recently.
“As reported in Solar Love in March, the ECLAREON PV Grid Parity Monitor of parity proximity indicated that the PV Levelized Cost of Electricity in Germany, Italy, and Spain has reached retail parity with the grids in those nations. Commercial solar power there is no longer more expensive than conventional energy sources.
“Grid parity is defined as the moment when PV LCOE becomes competitive with grid electricity prices. Once PV grid parity is reached, electricity consumers would be better off by self-consuming PV-generated electricity instead of purchasing electricity from the grid.
“Germany and Italy are better positioned than Spain, however, because of the latter nation’s lack of regulatory support for PV self-consumption. In fact, Spain has instituted retroactive solar feed-in tariff cuts and blocks individuals from using solar power not generated by the country’s official energy companies.
“Germany and Italy have comparatively low PV installation prices. Each boasts a competitive system, low discount rates, and high retail electricity prices. Mexico, well positioned, is likely to reach parity next, and France, with a relatively neutral regulatory profile, soon afterward.”
Even without total understanding of the situation, as proven by the colder countries in Europe that have less sun than the Philippines gets, a shift to solar and wind energy and other renewables is possible and costs can even improve and become more affordable. After all, France, Germany and Italy have gone the route and even lowered the cost to their consumers. If these countries deprived of the amounts of sun that we suffer from, can do that, why are we stuck with coal plants and oil-burning generators and the costs that they bring with them? Because those who control our energy policy are coal and oil men!
Readers who missed a column can access www.duckyparedes.com/blogs. This is updated daily. Your reactions are welcome at duckyparedes@gmail.com or you can send me a message through Twitter @diretsahan.
OUR President has always been critical of using renewables – wind and solar power -- to generate electricity. In a State of the Nation Address, he said: “Did they happen to mention that renewable energy is also more expensive–from the cost of building the plants to the eventual price of energy? Did they mention that it cannot provide the baseload–the capacity required to make sure brownouts do not occur?”
Then, he really let loose: “If you put up a wind-powered plant, what do you do when there is no wind? If you put up a solar plant, what do you when the sky is cloudy? Let me be clear: I believe in renewable energy and we support its use, but there should also be baseload plants that can ensure a steady supply of electricity for our homes and industries. I wonder if those who are critical of the plants we want put up will be as noisy when they are busy fanning themselves during brownouts. All I am really saying is this: Let us help each other find a solution.” Well, the problem is that our President has got it all wrong.
Dr. Jean Lindo, convenor of No to Coal (Network Opposed to Coal) Davao, and a member of the nationwide broad coalition, antiCOALition, noted that she found it “disappointing to hear a President make fun of Renewable Energy solution during his SONA which betrays his lack of knowledge on the science of clean and green energy.” While she ignores the President’s silly remarks, she says that she forgives the President “since he is not a man of science.” However, she adds “a wise, conscientious leader would have consulted credible scientists rather than toe the line of corporate reductionism.”
Lindo said that the President and his advisers “do not know that even if there is no wind in Malacañang he can still enjoy electricity because the Philippines has a total wind capacity that can produce 70,000 MW of potential installed capacity, according to a 1999 US-NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) study and this estimate is conservative.”
“Even on a cloudy day over Malacañang, the solar panels can still capture the light and energy can be stored and they can enjoy energy still,” she said, adding that if the President and his advisers “do careful, independent search on Renewable Energy, they would surely bump into very good models of long-term, people-friendly, sustainable energy,” she said.
“It is not funny that they have voluntarily turned themselves into political green jokes in favor of corporate reductionists,” Lindo added.
Even now as he has just inaugurated the largest solar plant in the Visayas, the President is on record as saying:
“Renewable energy is still the most expensive component. It follows that if our entire energy mix is derived from renewable sources, then the price of electricity – which people are already complaining about today – will rise even more. Government therefore has to strike a balance between this, and our desire to attract more investments in renewable energy.”
Our President or the ones who write his speeches (which he delivers without thinking) and those he consults with on renewables are dead wrong. They have to be.
Germany and France, which have at least 50% less sunlight than the Philippines gets, have embraced solar and wind power, relying on them, on certain days, for as much as 50% of the electricity that they use.
Here is a report from a German Energy blog: “En route to its 2050 Energiewende goal of 80% of the nation’s power being supplied by renewables, especially spurred on by the phaseout of nuclear reactors, Germany broke another renewable energy record on Sunday, May 11, 2014. Europe’s biggest clean-energy market reached almost 75% renewable power market share on noon of that day.
(Energiewende was the title of a 1980 publication by the German Öko-Institut, calling for the complete abandonment of nuclear and petroleum energy. On the February 16 of that year the German Federal Ministry of the Environment also hosted a symposium in Berlin, called Energiewende – Atomausstieg und Klimaschutz (Energy Transition: Nuclear Phase-Out and Climate Protection). The views of the Öko-Institut, initially strongly opposed, have gradually become common knowledge in energy policy. In the following decades the term expanded in scope; in its present form it dates back to at least 2002.)
*Energiewende designates a significant change in energy policy: The term encompasses a reorientation of policy from demand to supply and a shift from centralized to distributed generation (for example, producing heat and power in very small cogeneration units), which should replace overproduction and avoidable energy consumption with energy-saving measures and increased efficiency.)
“As the Disruptive Renewables chart created by Renewables International shows, electricity prices went negative for much of the afternoon.
“Renewables hit another record in the first quarter 2014 by supplying 27%–over one quarter–of Germany’s electricity demand. Bloomberg reports that the German Association of Energy and Water Industries (BDEW), which represents 1,800 companies, calculated that renewable generators produced 40.2 billion kWh of electricity this past quarter, up from 35.7 billion kWh in the same period last year. BDEW attributes the achievement to additional installations and favorable weather.
“Bernard Chabot, a well-known renewable energy consultant based in France, sees the 27% figure as indicative of renewable energy’s potential, as Kiley Kroh of ThinkProgress reports:
“‘Once again, it was demonstrated that a modern electricity system such as the German one can already accept large penetration rates of variable but predictable renewable energy sources such as wind and solar PV power.’
“Renewable energy in Germany has grown tremendously in the past decade, with wind and solar the nation’s most productive technologies. The 27% renewable power use amount is double the share of US electricity supplied by renewables recently.
“As reported in Solar Love in March, the ECLAREON PV Grid Parity Monitor of parity proximity indicated that the PV Levelized Cost of Electricity in Germany, Italy, and Spain has reached retail parity with the grids in those nations. Commercial solar power there is no longer more expensive than conventional energy sources.
“Grid parity is defined as the moment when PV LCOE becomes competitive with grid electricity prices. Once PV grid parity is reached, electricity consumers would be better off by self-consuming PV-generated electricity instead of purchasing electricity from the grid.
“Germany and Italy are better positioned than Spain, however, because of the latter nation’s lack of regulatory support for PV self-consumption. In fact, Spain has instituted retroactive solar feed-in tariff cuts and blocks individuals from using solar power not generated by the country’s official energy companies.
“Germany and Italy have comparatively low PV installation prices. Each boasts a competitive system, low discount rates, and high retail electricity prices. Mexico, well positioned, is likely to reach parity next, and France, with a relatively neutral regulatory profile, soon afterward.”
Even without total understanding of the situation, as proven by the colder countries in Europe that have less sun than the Philippines gets, a shift to solar and wind energy and other renewables is possible and costs can even improve and become more affordable. After all, France, Germany and Italy have gone the route and even lowered the cost to their consumers. If these countries deprived of the amounts of sun that we suffer from, can do that, why are we stuck with coal plants and oil-burning generators and the costs that they bring with them? Because those who control our energy policy are coal and oil men!
Readers who missed a column can access www.duckyparedes.com/blogs. This is updated daily. Your reactions are welcome at duckyparedes@gmail.com or you can send me a message through Twitter @diretsahan.
2014/06/09
Cost of off grid solar electricity
How much is the cost of off
grid solar electricity?
"To off grid or not to off grid? That is the question..."
Blog entry by EastGreenfields Enterprises
Nowadays there lots of people
thinking of going solar… sure, good it’s about time! With dwindling supply in
the provinces or even in the cities during the summer months and the monthly power bill increases who wouldn’t
think about going solar?
Off grid solar is
advantageous especially if you don’t have an access to cheap electricity. Hands
down, off grid solar just makes an economic sense… But if you are living within an
area that is already supplied by the grid electricity is it still economically
wise to have off grid system? This blog entry will try to answer that
question.
As stated, an area without
access to grid electricity, off grid solar generated electricity makes sense
simply because there is no benchmark of the cost of electricity in that areas…say
an island in the Visayas or in a village in the Mountain province. But within
city limits or within an area with access to Meralco or cooperative
distribution grid, there is a benchmark how off grid solar electricity should
cost.
In average, the cost of grid
electricity is P12 per kW-hr. The cost of off-grid solar electricity should be
less than the grid price so that you can say it’s a good economic sense… a wise
investment.
(E1)
Grid electricity cost > off grid solar electricity cost
So how much is the off grid
system cost?
Off grid solar main
components are the following: Solar panel, charge controller, power inverter
and batteries. And the ancillary equipment (termed as balance of system or BOS
in geek speak) as follows: mounting bracket, junction/panel boxes, breakers and
switches.
If we would like to power a
desk top computer (230 watts) and electric fan (100 watts) for at least 6 hours
per day then the power requirement will be at least 1980 watt-hour. For this load
requirement a 500 watt off grid system is required. The table below summarize
the equipment required for the system and the cost of the main equipment. Note
here that balance of system or the ancillary equipment is not given price and
the labor too is not included.
500 Watts-peak Off grid system
|
|
Parts
|
Price
|
5x 100 watts Solar Panels – Polycrystalline (Yingli Brand)
|
PHP 35,375.00
|
40 Amps Solar Charge Controller (MPPT Type)
|
PHP 19,656.00
|
'- EPSOLAR Tracer 4210
|
|
2000 watts Inverter (Pure Sine Wave)
|
PHP 12,298.72
|
3x 120 AH Motolite Solar Master
|
PHP 24,120.00
|
Capital cost of 500
Watts-peak Off grid system
|
PHP 91,449.72
|
(Disclaimer: The prices
indicated in this blog entry are the current market price of each component.
There maybe some discrepancy in the price, reader may disagree on the prices
indicated, after reading this blog the reader is encourage to make their own
calculation and analysis to make their own decision in going off grid solar.)
Cost of off grid solar
electricity per kW-hr produce
To make an analysis or cost
comparison against Meralco prices, the off grid solar electricity for the 1st
year of operation should be calculated. The 500 watts-peak off grid system on
average can produce 648 kW-hr of electricity. Divide the capital cost by the 1st
year energy produce to calculate the cost of off grid solar electricity for 1st
year operation.
(E2) 1st year operating cost, C1st yr
Equation 2 (E2) shows how
much the cost of off grid solar electricity. The result is not encouraging
given that the average grid electricity cost only P12 per kW-hr. But the system
will not only be operational for just 1 year right? Yes of course so it should
be evaluated against energy produce for the rest of its useful life cycle.
Off grid solar has one big
disadvantage, it uses a battery for energy storage and batteries needs to be
maintained and replace after a period of time because of deterioration. And
batteries are not replace piece by piece, a battery bank of 3 batteries, should
be replaced by equal number of 3 batteries. For the 500 watts-peak off grid
system, it was designed with a depth of discharge of 50%. It has a battery bank
of 3 units of 120 AH Motolite Solar Master. With a diligent operation of 50%
DOD, it is estimated to last 5 years. So it means that in the 5th
year of operation the batteries should be replaced. Replacement will incur at
least P24,120 (note: to simplify calculation, we will not impose future cost of
batteries, we will only use present cost).
(E3) 5th year operating cost, C5th yr
After 5 years of operation
and battery replacement on the 5th year, the cost of off grid solar
electricity is still higher than the average grid electricity. Thus, after 5
years, off grid solar electricity is more expensive for areas with readily available grid electricity.
Solar panels are designed for
at least 20-25 years effective up to 85% of its rated name plate capacity. It
means that after 20-25 years, the 100 watt panels can still deliver 85 watts of
its name plate. Given the longevity of the solar modules, it is therefore
calculated against 20-25 years of production.
The table below shows the
cost of off grid system from 1st year to 25th year design
life cycle.
off grid solar cost
|
||
Yr cost
|
500W off grid system
|
cost per kW-hr
|
1st yr cost
|
PHP 91,449.72
|
PHP 141.13
|
5th yr cost
|
PHP 115,569.72
|
PHP 36.25
|
10th yr cost
|
PHP 139,689.72
|
PHP 22.36
|
15th yr cost
|
PHP 163,809.72
|
PHP 17.85
|
20th yr cost
|
PHP 187,929.72
|
PHP 15.69
|
25th yr cost
|
PHP 212,049.72
|
PHP 14.48
|
The table shows, without
doubt even if we use present cost calculation, the cost of off grid solar
electricity is always greater than the cost of grid electricity.
The cost of off grid solar
escalates over the years because of battery replacement. It is inevitable
because the system simply won’t work without batteries for energy storage.
The advantage of independent
power source by using batteries is also the biggest cost disadvantage of off
grid systems. That is why off grid system is best used in areas without access
to grids like resort homes, farm houses, and other remote applications.
2014/06/04
EPA carbon emission limits may shift energy mix
The Obama administration's historic plan to reduce carbon emissions from existing power plants, unveiled Monday, could hasten the nation's shift from coal toward natural gas, energy efficiency and renewable sources such as wind and solar.
The controversial proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency calls for a 30% national cut in power-plant emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide — below 2005 levels — by 2030, but it gives states varying reduction goals, depending on their power mix.
The 645-page plan, a key pillar of President Obama's climate initiative, requires states to develop and implement plans for meeting their targets. Recognizing that coal-fired facilities emit more carbon than other power plants, the administration plan sets lower 2030 targets for some states that rely heavily on coal, such as West Virginia, than those such as New York, with a more diversified energy mix.
"The U.S. energy sector is in transition, anyway," and the plan's rollout over the next 15 years will help to "shape" that shift in a low-carbon direction that addresses climate concerns, says Tim Profeta, director of Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environment Policy Solutions.
The nation's energy industry has dramatically shifted toward natural gas in recent years as new drilling techniques have lowered its production costs. Power plants fueled by natural gas produced 30% of U.S. electricity in 2012 — up from 16% in 2000. Plunging prices for solar panels and wind turbines have also prompted a surge in renewable energy.
In contrast, the coal industry has hit hard times. Its power plants still provide the nation's largest share of electricity, 37%, but that's down from 52% in 2000 and is expected — even without the latest EPA proposal — to hit 32% by 2040, according to the Energy Information Administration.
The EIA, which says the number of U.S. coal power plants has fallen from 633 in 2002 to 557 in 2012, expects 60 gigawatts of coal-fired power — one-fifth of total U.S. coal capacity in 2012 — will retire by 2020, and that's excluding the impact of the new EPA rule. The EPA says the average age of U.S. coal plants is now 42 years.
Critics say the EPA plan, expected to trigger legal challenges, amounts to a "war on coal." Rep. Nick J. Rahall, D- W.V., said Monday that he and his state's GOP colleague, Rep. David McKinley, will introduce legislation to stop the new proposal, along with another one last year aimed at future power plants.
"This new regulation threatens our economy and does so with an apparent disregard for the livelihoods of our coal miners and thousands of families throughout West Virginia," Rahall said.
The new EPA rule, along with federal limits on mercury emissions taking effect next year, could force the retirement of at least one-third of the nation's coal-fired power plants by 2030, says Mike Duncan, president and CEO of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, an industry group. "It creates a reliability and affordability problem," he says, adding it will raise electricity prices for U.S. consumers and manufacturers that will push jobs overseas.
Advocates say the plan has health, climate and economic benefits. "This is not just about disappearing polar bears or melting ice caps. ... This is about protecting local economies and jobs," said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, adding it will spur innovation and create jobs.
The EPA projects annual compliance costs of $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion by 2030, but since the proposal is expected to reduce air pollution, it says annual public health benefits will total $55 billion to $93 billion by avoiding up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks each year.
The proposal, which won't take effect for at least two more years, allows states to meet their targets in a variety of ways that include greater use of pollution-control technology, energy efficiency, natural gas or renewable energy. States could also follow California and nine northeastern states, which have created cap-and-trade programs that cap overall emissions but allow polluters to buy government-issued credits from clean-energy producers.
The ultimate impact will "come down to costs," says Richard J. Campbell, a specialist in energy policy at the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. He says states will look for the most cost-effective ways to comply, including the potential retirement of more coal-fired power plants.
The EPA rule could accelerate the U.S. shift away from coal, but it gives states plenty of options, says Kyle Aarons, a senior fellow at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, a non-profit group.
Even coal-reliant states should be able to meet the goals, says Dan Bakal, director of electric power for Ceres, a non-profit group that promotes corporate sustainabilty. He says they've yet to take steps, including the trading of pollution credits, that states with low carbon-emission rates have already deployed.
Duke University's Profeta agrees, saying the proposal is "not unsympathetic to coal-heavy states." The EPA, for example, sets a 20% emission-reduction target for West Virginia and 19% for Wyoming by 2030, and an 18% cut for Kentucky. It sets a 44% goal for New York, although the state can get credit for prior emission-cutting efforts.
China follows USA with emissions pledge
Kim Hjelmgaard, USA TODAY
3:39 p.m. EDT June 3, 2014
One day after the United States said it would slash carbon emissions from existing power plants by 30% below 2005 levels, China, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, said it would set an absolute cap on its emissions by 2016.
The announcement comes ahead of the start of U.N.-sponsored climate talks in Bonn, Germany, on Wednesday. The steps being taken by the world's top two polluters are important announcements that signal positive steps in addressing the planet's changing climate, Christiana Figueres, the U.N.'s top climate official, told USA TODAY on Tuesday.
However, she cautioned, "We need ever higher ambition by all nations in the run-up to the U.N. climate convention meeting in Paris in 2015 — ambition that can match emission reductions and support for adaptation in vulnerable countries and communities with the sobering scientific reality."
In Paris, the U.N. is seeking to adopt a legally binding agreement on emissions that will cover all nations.
The new pledge by China was made at a climate conference in Beijing by He Jiankun, chairman of China's Advisory Committee, according to Reuters. On Monday, the Obama administration unveiled aggressive plans to target a low-carbon future for the USA.
CO2: EPA carbon emission limits may shift energy mix
In a statement on Sunday, Figueres praised the proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency that ultimately works to address climate change by pushing for a more diversified energy mix: "I fully expect action by the United States to spur others in taking concrete action — action that can set the stage and put in place the pathways that can bend the global emissions curve down in order to keep worldwide temperature rise under 2 degrees Celsius this century," she said.
Connie Hedegaard, the EU's climate commissioner, speaking of the EPA draft rule, which won't come into effect for at least two years, said: ''This proposed rule is the strongest action ever taken by the U.S. government to fight climate change."
China and the USA are the world's top carbon dioxide emitters followed by the 28-country bloc that forms the European Union. On Tuesday, the EU confirmed that its carbon emissions have fallen to 19.2% below 1990 levels.
EPA finally gets U.S. into climate game: Our View
USA TODAY
The Editorial Board,
2 p.m. EDT June 2, 2014
It's not how much comes out of every smokestack but the total amount of emissions.
In recent weeks, the scientific warnings about global warming have been coming in faster than a line of summer thunderstorms. Authoritative studies have documented rising sea levels, "irreversible" ice sheet melting, a northward migration of the tropics, and climate-induced conflict and instability.
There's no guarantee that the Obama administration's new limits on carbon emissions from existing power plants, announced Monday, can reverse these ominous trends. Global warming is, by definition, a global problem. So even if America meets the administration's goal of a 30% reduction from 2005 levels by 2030, the U.S. reductions will be swamped by increases elsewhere if other big polluters don't follow suit.
Does this mean the new rules aren't worth the effort? Hardly. If the plan survives the inevitable political and legal assaults, it will prevent a not-inconsequential hundreds of millions of tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere. It will make renewables such as solar and wind power more competitive with fossil fuels. And it will improve public health at home by reducing soot and smog-forming emissions from coal-burning power plants, the largest source of greenhouse gases.
NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION: A better pathway
Most important, the proposal will give the United States, the world's second largest carbon emitter after China, far more leverage in upcoming international climate talks. "Every country is watching what every other country is doing," says David Doniger, director of the climate and clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which proposed a strategy similar to the one the Environmental Protection Agency announced. "This is the United States' way to show it is in the game."
Because a head-in-the-sand Congress has refused to put a price on carbon pollution, the administration opted for the next best approach. The EPA is using its authority under the Clean Air Act to set state standards, based on their energy mixes. States can use a variety of ways to meet their goals. These flexible rules recognize that what's important is not how much comes out of every smokestack, but the total amount of emissions. This is not a new idea: California and nine Northeast states already have "cap-and-trade" programs that limit overall emissions but allow polluters to buy government-issued credits from clean-energy producers.
Even before the new EPA rules were announced, they set off the usual flurry of warring economic prognostications. Business groups warned of skyrocketing utility bills and job losses. The NRDC and other environmental groups claim that electric bills will actually drop, and that new green-energy jobs will replace lost coal-related ones.
Who's right? The history of environmental regulations has been that the biggest scare stories haven't panned out. Cleaner air and cleaner water have been achieved at manageable costs. But it's reasonable to conclude that the new regulations will cause electric rates to rise in some regions, particularly in coal-dependent states such as Kentucky, Wyoming, West Virginia, Indiana and North Dakota.
That's part of the price of an accelerating shift away from coal toward natural gas and renewables. Perhaps the new standards will make clean-coal and carbon recapture technologies more economically feasible. And perhaps low-income energy assistance could be increased to consumers in coal-dependent places to help ease the transition. In any case, a singular focus on electric bills overlooks the high costs of inaction for taxpayers everywhere — in storm damage, sea wall construction and drought relief.
There's a tiny chance, of course, that the scientific consensus on human-induced climate disruption is too alarmist. But there's also a chance that it might be too conservative, that scientists are being overly cautious for fear of being labeled alarmist.
Prudent risk management involves leaving a margin for error when the fate of the planet is at risk. It involves preparing for the worst and hoping for the best. So far, the nation's policy has mainly involved preparing for the best case scenarios and hoping against the worst ones.
Monday's announcement marks the start of a far saner approach for the United States, one that will resonate globally.
USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.
2014/06/03
EPA carbon rules could speed U.S. shift from coal
Wendy Koch, USA TODAY
6:01 a.m. EDT May 31, 2014
6:01 a.m. EDT May 31, 2014
The Obama administration's historic proposal to reduce carbon emissions from U.S. power plants, expected Monday, could accelerate the nation's shift from coal to natural gas and renewable energy.
Aimed at fighting climate change, the Environmental Protection Agency rules will require states to develop and implement plans to cut power plant emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide. They will give states a range of options to comply, including the trading of pollution credits. Critics, however, say they could drive up electricity prices and shutter plants nationwide.
"This is a colossal proposal that should achieve the biggest carbon pollution reductions ever undertaken by the United States," says Daniel J. Weiss of the Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning think tank with close ties to the White House. "No president has ever proposed a climate pollution cleanup this big."
Thwarted by Congress' inability to pass a bill to lower U.S. carbon emissions, President Obama is pushing forward his own approach that could become one of the signature achievements of his administration.
Last June, he asked the EPA to use its power under the Clean Air Act to craft rules limiting CO2 emissions from existing power plants. These rules would go far beyond an EPA proposal last year to limit emissions from new plants, and their impact will also exceed the administration's 2011 requirement that new cars and light trucks double fuel efficiency by 2025.
The reason? Power plants account for the largest share, nearly 40%, of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and Obama has already pledged to slash emissions 17% from 2005 levels by 2020. Coal-fired facilities will be hardest hit because they emit more CO2 than other power plants.
Here are five things you need to know about the controversial rules:
1. They will not happen overnight. Opponents, including business groups and Republicans, will likely cast them as a costly "war on coal" and file lawsuits to challenge EPA authority. Recent legal rulings, though, have largely sided with the EPA. .
Obama has asked the EPA to finalize the rules in June 2015, after which states would have at least a year to submit plans for how they would achieve the reductions. The agency would then review those plans and, if states refuse to submit them, it could create its own plan.
"It will be a few years before we see changes from this rule," says Kyle Aarons, a senior fellow at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, a nonprofit group.
2. They will be flexible. The rules are expected to give a range of emission-reduction targets with varying deadlines and options to meet them.
So, states could comply by requiring plants to install pollution-control technology; setting up energy efficiency programs to reduce energy demand; or using more carbon-free energy such as solar and nuclear or cleaner-burning fuels like natural gas. They could also follow California and nine northeast states, which have created cap-and-trade programs that cap overall emissions but allow polluters to buy government-issued credits from clean-energy producers.
Obama's senior counselor, John Podesta, said the reductions will be made "in the most cost-effective and most efficient way possible." A key factor will be the baseline year or years that are used to set them, because U.S. carbon emissions were lower between 2008 and 2012 than in the early 2000s or last year.
3. They accelerate the shift away from coal. As natural gas prices have fallen, the coal industry has seen its share of U.S. electricity generation plummet from 52% in 2000 to 37% in 2012. In contrast, natural gas has seen its share double, from 16% in 2000 to 30% in 2012.
Even without the EPA carbon rules, the EIA projects coal's share will drop further and 60 gigawatts of coal-fired power — about one-fifth of the total U.S. coal capacity in 2012 — will retire by 2020. In recent years, dozens of old coal-fired plants have closed or announced their retirements.
"This rule would accelerate that shift" away from coal, says Aarons.
The carbon limits could lead to "draconian changes" in the U.S. energy mix, says Karen Harbert, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy.
4. Their impacts could vary by state. Harbert's group released a study that warns the rules could hike consumer electricity prices, reduce jobs and slow economic growth, adding the South will see the biggest increases in power costs.
"The Chamber has a long record of releasing reports that cry wolf (about EPA rules) and is invariably wrong," says David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. The NRDC's analysis says the rules could create hundreds of thousands of energy-efficiency jobs and, by lowering energy use, reduce consumer utility bills.
Some states that rely heavily on coal could struggle more than others to meet the EPA limits. Kentucky, Wyoming, West Virginia, Indiana and North Dakota have the highest carbon emission rates while Idaho, Vermont , Washington, Oregon and Maine have the lowest, according to a May report co-authored by Ceres, a non-profit research group that promotes corporate sustainability.
5. Their influence extends beyond the U.S. "This is clearly a pivotal moment that the world will be watching closely," says Mindy Lubber, Ceres' president, noting a new round of United Nations climate talks will take place next year in Paris.
Doniger says the EPA rules will show the United States is "in the game" and will help nudge other countries to make reductions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)