Category Archives: Energy Economics

Saving the Economy, Numero Uno

Tweet “The United States,” according to Robert Barro, who teaches economics at Harvard and is a “fellow” at the Hoover Institution, “is in the third year of a grand experiment by the Obama administration.” This is inaccurate. Obama is the President, but the US Constitution provides a framework in which power is divided into three branches of the Federal government, and the power of the each of the branches is checked and balanced by the others, and “all power not expressly granted to the federal government is held by the states and the citizens. It would be more accurate to say that the United States is in the third year of a grand experiment by the Obama administration, the Congress, the Judiciary, the Republican Party, various special interests, and the citizens.

Barro published this flawed analysis in “How to Really Save the Economy, “an op-ed in the New York Times, published Sept. 10, 2011.

“How is the experiment going?” Barro asks rhetorically. “Not well,” he answers.

How could it? On January 16, 2009, a week before the Inauguration, Rush Limbaugh, one of the leaders of the right wing of the United States said, “I hope Obama fails.” (The text is on Limbaugh’s site. An audio is on You Tube.) As I wrote, on Popular Logistics, here, a hope that the President fails is hope that the United States fails.

As was reported, here, in the Washington Post on August 6, 2011, and here on Popular Logistics, on August 8, 2011, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, and the “Young Guns,” their Republican comrades in the House of Representatives, PLANNED as far back as January, 2009 to use the debt ceiling to create a political crisis. The Republicans have been trying to actualize Mr. Limbaugh’s hopes.

Barro is a professor of neoclassical economics, and a fellow of the Hoover Institution. What he doesn’t understand, and what President Herbert Hoover didn’t understand, is that under economic conditions such as we see today, while businesses and government are able to create jobs, business owners are risk averse, and won’t risk capital. The government MUST create jobs, because businesses won’t. Everyone who has a job and a 10 year old car, and is hesitant with regards to buying a new car, understands this. John Maynard Keynes understood this. Franklin Delano Roosevelt understood this. Herbert Hoover didn’t – which is why he lost to Mr. Roosevelt in 1932, and why, 36 years later, President Nixon said “We are all Keynesians now.” (Note that Mr. Nixon has been called many things. However, “Liberal” is not one of them.)

So how do we really save the economy? See Part Deux.

One of the best kept secrets in New York City is the existence of a 40 kilowatt (KW) photovoltaic solar array on the Whitehall Street terminal of the Staten Island Ferry, pictured above, and first covered in Popular Logistics in 2007, here.

There are 90,000 public schools in the United States. Suppose we were to install a 40 KW solar energy system on each of them. PV solar modules require very little maintenance over their 35 to 45 year life expectancy. At a cost of $5,000 per kilowatt of nameplate capacity, each of these 90,000 systems would cost $200,000. This 3.6 gigawatts of distributed daylight-only capacity would cost about $14.4 billion. The total costs would probably be less because PV Solar is subject to economic forces like Moore’s Law.

It seems to make sense to use taxpayer monies to finance these systems; taxpayer monies pay the electric bills for public schools and other public infrastructure.

Every public school in the country would have a power plant that generates power, during the day, with no fuel cost and no waste. And with no associated mining, processing, transportation, fuel costs and no waste management costs. At $5.00 per watt, or $5 billion per gigawatt, the capital costs are lower than the costs of new nuclear and significantly lower than the costs of coal with carbon sequestration, with none of the risks or hazards associated with the systems: no arsenic, mercury, lead, thorium, uranium, zinc, or carbon.

But what are the other implications? What would it give us? Again. see Part Deux

In Jersey Three Strikes Equals a Home Run

Tweet

Strike 1 – Solar Power

When the NJ Clean Energy Program started in 2001, there were six (6) solar energy systems and a nameplate capacity of nine (9) kilowatts. By December 31, 2010 there were over 7000 systems with a combined capacity close to 300 megawatts, MW, of solar electric generating capacity. In the first six months of 2011, another 100 MW was added, bringing the total to 400 MW by June 30, 2011. By these metrics, the NJ Clean Energy Program has been successful.

Continue reading →

Hon. Rush D. Holt, on the Budget Control Act of 2011

Tweet Popular Logistics is a policy blog, not a politics blog. However, politicians make policy. The Honorable Rush D. Holt, NJ-12, said this on Monday, August 1, 2011, when casting a vote against the “Budget Control Act of 2011.”

SPEECH OF

HON. RUSH D. HOLT

OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MONDAY AUGUST 1, 2011

BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011

Mr. Speaker, the default debate is, at its heart, a debate between two visions for America. One side envisions rebuilding our country, investing in jobs and education and infrastructure, and rising from the Great Recession as a stronger and more resilient Nation. The other side accepts a pessimistic vision of a weakened America with a shrunken government–a Nation hampered by deep cuts to the safety net and hobbled by a refusal to invest in our future.

Continue reading →

"Beyond Fuel" at the Space Coast Green Living Festival

Green Living Festival

Tweet I am presenting “Beyond Fuel: From Consuming Natural Resources to Harnessing Natural Processes,” a discussion of the hidden costs, or “economic externalities,” of nuclear power, coal, and oil, and the non-obvious benefits of wind, solar, marine hydro and efficiency at the Sp ace Coast Green Living Festival, Cocoa Beach, Florida, Sept 17, 2011.

The festival is sponsored by the Cocoa Beach Surfrider Foundation and the Sierra Club Turtle Coast Group. It will be at the Cocoa Beach Courtyard by Marriott.

Continue reading →

Exxon Profits: $10,700,000,000 for the Quarter

The Associated Press via the Sacramento Bee reported that “Exxon Mobil Corp. earned $10.7 billion … its highest quarterly profit since the third quarter of 2008…. However, Exxon officials noted that sluggish business investment, lower consumer spending and high debt would continue to weigh on the economy.”

Let’s do some math – Exxon earned $10.7 Billion this past quarter. Yet Exxon and other big oil companies receives $2 Billion to $3 Billion per year in tax subsidies. If divided equally, then Exxon would get $400 to $600 million per year, $100 to $150 Million per quarter. The subsidies amount to 0.93% to 1.4% of Exxon’s profits of $10.7 Billion this quarter, and 0.108% to 0.16$ of Exxon’s annual revenues of $370 Billion for the year ended 12/31/10 (Google Finance). This is equivalent to giving someone earning $50,000 per year a gift of $54 to $81.

A lot of people need help: American college students need help paying tuition, Americans on Medicare and Medicaid need help paying their medical bills, and Americans on Unemployment need help paying for food, people trying to design and build a renewable sustainable energy infrastructure. But we are helping oil companies.Why?

Let’s look again at the numbers. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2010, Exxon’s Gross Revenues were $383 Billion. Gross Profits were $107 Billion, and Income Before Taxes were $53 Billion. Profit was 27.9% of Gross Revenues. Income before Taxes was 13.8% of Gross Revenues.

Exxon	12/31/10
Total Revenues	$383	B
Gross Profit	$107	B
Income before Taxes	$53	B

Gross Profit / Revenues	27.94%
Income BT / Revenues	13.84%

Period	Income	Nominal Tax
Year ending 12/31/2010	$53 Billion	$18.55 B
Quarter ending 6/30/2011	10.7 Billion	$3.745 B

And according to Valeri Vasquez, at the Center for American Progress, here, Exxon’s tax rate is 17.6%. The nominal corporate rate is 35%. With profits of $53 Billion last year, rather than receiving subsidies. Exxon should have paid $18.55 Billion in taxes last years. With profits of $10.7 Billion last quarter, Exxon should have paid $3.745 Billion.

Continue reading →

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant – Update

in the Missouri River

Tweet The flooded Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant is not exactly like the nuclear plants at Fukushima Daichi and Fukushima Diana. There are three main differences: First of all, there’s one plant, not 12. The difference of scale is tremendous. Secondly, it was offline – shut down for refueling – when flooded. Meaning, we got lucky, really lucky. Finally, it was hit by the gradually increasing pressures of rising floodwaters, not by an earthquake, a tsunami, and aftershocks. This is huge!

Steve Everly, at the Kansas City Star, reported that David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists was “Reassured.” (here). I spoke to Mr. Lochbaum about the flooded plant on June, 29, 2011.

Most of the releases of radioactive material, generally tritium and tritiated water, occur when plants are online. Because the plant was offline, very little radioactive material has been released into the biosphere as a result of the flooding. While it is easy to filter heavy metals, it is very expensive to isolate tritiated water from water.

The damages due to the flooding are likely to be in the ballpark of $1,000,000 per day in lost revenue – $23 Million since June 6 – because the plant produces power worth about $1,000,000 per day. The buildings that have been damaged are collateral buildings, not the reactor itself. Those buildings would be less expensive to repair than the reactor.

At 35 years old, the plant is near the end of its design life. While we can engineer plants that are as safe as the NRC requires, new wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, and efficiency cost less than new nuclear or coal with carbon sequestration. Safety, security, and waste management are not the challenges with sustainable technologies that they present with nuclear and coal. Therefore, it seems logical to consider that once it is decommissioned, the plant will be replaced with wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, and efficiency.

Continue reading →

Brookings, SAP, NRG, and the City of New York on our Energy Future

NRG Energy

Tweet Will moving to the new energy future – deploying Solar, Wind and other sustainable alternatives create 2.7 Million New Jobs?

At “How Cities and Companies Can Work Together to Operate in the New Energy-Constrained Economy” a panel discussion (press release), Bruce Katz, Vice President and Director of the Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings Institution, said “2.7 million new jobs” will be created in moving to the clean energy / low carbon economy.

Mr. Katz also noted that two out of three Americans – 200 million people – live in the 100 biggest metropolitan areas, and those 200 million people are responsible for 75% of our GDP. High carbon energy is no longer cheap. The people in those metropolitan areas, and elsewhere, therefore, must act. Continue reading →

Indian Point 1 – A Zombie Nuclear Power Plant

Bucolic? Pastoral? Looks that way, but looks can be deceiving. First of all, there’s Indian Point 1. Then there’s the water issue. Other issues are waste and national security.

Operating Modalities, Copyright, (c), 2011 L. J. Furman

Indian Point 1

Brought online in August, 1962.
Shutdown in October, 1974.
Spent fuel is stored on site.
Scheduled to be closed in 2026.
Operated 13 years.
“Zombie” 52 years.

Talk about externalities! “Zombie” since ’74 and scheduled as such for another 25 years, total of 52 years. NRC. What does it cost to maintain and manage as a “zombie?” And who pays? The owners or the taxpayers? And did the plant produce so much power in the 12 years of operation that it will make a profit after 52 years of being managed and serviced?

Indian Point 2

Rated Thermal Power: 3216 MW
Net Electrical Rating: 1032 MW
Water Requirements: 840,000 gallons per minute

Indian Point 3

Rated Thermal Power: 3188 MW
Net Electrical Rating: 1051MW
Water Requirements: 840,000 gallons per minute

(source: Entergy / Indian Point website)

Summary – Indian Point is a 2.083 GW complex. Replacing it with new nuclear would cost about $12 to $18 billion, plus the cost of fuel, security, and the costs of interest during the 8 to 10 years of construction. Replacing it with solar would require about 2 million PV solar panels, at a cost of $8 to $12 billion, or 570 wind turbines at a cost of $4 to $6 billion. 2.0 gw of wind and solar do not require 1,680,000 gallons per minute of cooling water, or even 1.0 gallons per minute. Solar and wind do not require fuel and do not produce waste. Nor do they present national security challenges.

Energy Alternatives

2 Gigawatts
Modality Nuclear Solar Wind
Cost (billions) $12 to $18 $8 to $12 $4 to $6
Fuel Yes No No
Waste Yes No No
Security Hole Huge No No

NegaWatts Save MegaBucks

The Newark Star Ledger reported (here and here) that Public Service Electric and Gas, PSE&G, a subsidiary of Public Service Enterprise Group, PSEG, is installing a 2,700-ton chiller the University of Medicine and Dentristy of New Jersey, UMDNJ. This an $11.4 million investment in negawatts. The Star Ledger reported that UMDNJ will save $1.3 million per year on energy costs.What’s the payback? An $11.4 million investment will save $1.3 million per year. That means the system will pay for itself within 9 years, assuming the price of energy remains constant. I think it’s a much more reasonable to assume that the price of energy will go up, so the payback will be higher and the system will pay for itself sooner.

The system will work long after it is paid for. It will save $13 Million over the next 10 years and $26 Million over the next 20 years – assuming electricity costs are constant. Assuming electricity costs increase an average of 5% per year, this will save $16.35 Million over the next 10 years, and $42.99 over the next 20 years.

Projected Savings of $11.4 Million investment.
After 1 Year: $1.3 Million, a return on investment of 11.4% in one year.
After 5 Years: Save $7.18 Million, for a total ROI of 63%, assuming a 5% annual increases in cost of energy.
After 10 Years: Save $16.35 M; total ROI of 143.4%).
After 15 Years: Save $28.05 M; total ROI of (246%)
After 20 Years: Save $42.99 M; total ROI of 377%).

cialis prix pharmacie

We have Governor Corzine to thank. as well as Governors Whitman, McGreevey, Codey, and Christie.

Continue reading →

Earth Day, 2011, Where Are We?

Earth from Space, courtesy of the American taxpayer. Reto Stöckli, Nazmi El Saleous, and Marit Jentoft-Nilsen, NASA GSFC

Tweet

Earth Day, 2010, I looked to the future on Popular Logistics. In 2009, I wrote about water pollution and agricultural waste in the Chesapeake. Today I am looking at the present and recent past. While a comprehensive look at where we are can be found on the web pages of the World Watch Institute, the New York Times, and the World Factbook of the Central Intelligence Agency, I want to make a few points.

Our energy policy is “when you flip a switch, the juice gotta flow.” It ain’t magic. It’s engineering and classical physics, with an understanding of radioactive fission and decay and a profound lack of long term thinking. It ain’t magic, but it might as well be. But we really need to base our energy policy on an understanding of ecological economics and sustainability.

We’ve had a few problems with nuclear power and fossil fuel in the last few years. Yet, there’s some light on the horizon.

Continue reading →

Cape Wind, Leadership and Vision

Tweet

On Friday, March 25,2011, Cape Wind LLC‘s CEO Jim Gordon spoke at Columbia University about the long delayed project. When he started the project, back in 2001, the Europeans were 10 years ahead of us. Today the Europeans are 20 years ahead of us, and the Chinese too are years ahead of us.

Mr. Gordon quoted Theodore Roosevelt, IV, as saying, “I live on the Cape. If we don’t do this, in 50 years the Cape will be under water.” Cape Cod’s highest point is about 300 feet above sea level so Mr. Roosevelt was exaggerating. His home may wind up under water, but at least some of the Cape will be one or more islands. Speaking of islands, Nantucket, which in 2006 had the highest median property values in Massachusetts, rises some 30 feet above sea level. If sea level rises 30 feet, Nantucket will get washed away.

Mr. Gordon said, “Cape Cod has the most polluted air in New England. When you harness the wind you get clean electricity: No arsenic, lead, mercury, thorium, uranium, or zinc or carbon dioxide like you get from burning coal. No barges of oil that can spill. No radioactive waste like you get from nuclear power. Last year we read about the coal mine disaster in West Virginia. Then the Deepwater Horizon. Now we’re reading about the disaster in Japan. With wind there is no possibility of a disaster, Zero.”

And, he added, “Fossil fuels are a finite resource. New England has neither coal, oil, or natural gas – but there is a tremendous amount of wind. When you factor in the costs of storms and sea level rise – you would think it’s a no-brainer.” The question is not “Can wind power provide base line capacity?” But “How can wind power provide base line capacity.”

Mr. Gordon told how during a trade mission to China, one of his engineers was grilled about wind power, offshore wind, engineering, costs, and siting. After the end of the grilling his hosts said “we read Cape Wind, by Wendy Williams and Robert Whitcomb. We would never allow that here.” In 2009 China built a 100 mw wind farm off the coast of Shanghai – completed the project quickly. By the end of 2010 they had 41.8 gigawatts of nameplate capacity wind power – enough for about 45 million Americans (wikipedia). Continue reading →

21 Century Energy or Business As Usual?

NY Times Special (Business As Usual) Energy Section

Clifford Krauss’ “Can We Do Without the Mideast?” sets the tone for the “Special Energy Section” in the NY Times, March 31, 2011. “The path to independence – or at least an end to dependence on the Mideast – could well be dirty, expensive and politically explosive.” Is this an April Fool’s Day joke? The path to sustainable energy requires vision and hard work. a solar array on every roof and insulation in every wall and every attic. It will be better for the economy, better for the environment, and better for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren. Continue reading →

After Fukushima, Wall Street Bearish on Nuclear Power

before the catastrophe

(Second in a series on the ecological economics, financial ramifications, logistics, and systems dynamics of nuclear power in the light of the ongoing catastrophe at Fukushima.)

Cary Krosinsky, VP at Trucost, is once again teaching a course on Sustainable Investing at the Center for Environmental Research and Conservation, CERC, at Columbia University. At the March 10 seminar a student spoke about her recent 400% “home run” in a uranium mining operation. She bought in because the earnings were high, debt was low, yet the price was low. It was a classic “value” play of a well-run company undervalued by the market.

But would a “Sustainable Investor” buy a uranium stock? My goal, as a “Sustainable Investor” is “To outperform the S&P 500 index by investing in the top companies, from the perspective of environmental impact, sustainability, management and governance, in the sectors I hope will thrive over the next 25 to 50 years.”

After Tsunami, STR/AFP/Getty Images

Cary didn’t exactly write the book on sustainable investing. He edited it. In Sustainable Investing, the Art of Long Term Performance, copyright, (C) Cary Krosinsky and Nick Robins, 2008 (Earth Scan) he defines “Sustainable Investing” as “an approach to investing driven by the long-term economic, environmental, and social risks and opportunities facing the global economy.”

Jane and Michael Hoffman, in Green, Your Place in the New Energy Revolution, wrote that the nuclear industry was killed not by the protesters at Seabrook, and the environmentalists at Environmental Defense (EDF), Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), or local groups like NY Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) who hired lawyers and scientists to force the utilities to build plants more safely. But it was bankers on Wall Street who, in the aftermath of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, realized that their Million-dollar investments could turn into Billion-Dollar liabilities in seconds, and stopped investing in new nuclear power plants. Even though their liability was limited by the Price Anderson Act in the US and by corresponding legislation in other governments, they might never see a return on their investment. Despite promises by Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama of loan guarantees – government subsidies – to build plants, Wall Street is reacting to Fukushima with a mix of caution and skepticism. According to the Wall Street Journal, “The Street” is now, once again, bearish on nuclear power but it is looking again at solar and wind. (click here).

“The nuclear industry is on edge after last week’s quake caused serious damage to several reactors. Bank of America Merrill Lynch cut its stock-investment rating of Entergy ($69.76, -$3.93, -5.33%) and Scana Corp. (SCG, $38.54, -$1.51, -3.77%) to underperform from neutral, citing risks including delays and higher approval costs for relicencing of existing plants. Dahlman Rose says as many as 10 reactors could be affected, which consume the equivalent of 340,000 pounds of uranium each month. The firm cut its price targets for Cameco Corp. (CCJ, $30.90, -$6.48, -17.34%) and Uranerz Energy Corp. (URZ, $3.08, -$0.87, -22.03%).

“Renewable-energy stocks rose in the U.S. in the wake of the nuclear-plant concerns in Japan putting a fresh pall over that industry and some investors believing non-nuclear energy sources away from fossil fuels will get a boost. Solar companies are leading the way, including First Solar Inc.

“CreditSights and other analysts form a chorus that the “nuclear renaissance” of new plants in emerging markets and developed nations will slow, while the potential for new design and safety measures could challenge sector economics .

“Japan’s nuclear crisis is hammering shares in the U.S. nuclear sector, but investors should keep an eye on engineering-and-construction stocks that work in the sector as well, JP Morgan says, citing Shaw Group Inc. Babcock & Wilcox Co. , URS Corp. and EnergySolutions Inc. “We believe the safety features of newer generation reactors will be considerably more advanced” than the older Fukushima units causing havoc over the weekend, the firm writes, but still sees likelihood that renewed nuclear worries are a headwind for these stocks.”

Here are the data:

Company	Symbol	Quote	Change	Percent
Entergy	ETR	$69.76	($3.93)	-5.33%
Uranium Energy	UEC	$4.03	($0.82)	-16.91%

Shaw	SHAW	$30.92	($7.49)	-19.50%
Babcox	BWC	$31.58	($2.79)	-8.12%
URS	URS	$43.88	($1.58)	-3.48%

First Solar	FSLR	$145.13	$5.39	3.86%
(data from March 14, 2011.)

My analysis –

Peter Crowell, professor of Finance and Logistics in the Marlboro College MBA in Managing for Sustainability asked “What happens if you – we – take away all the subsidies?”

If we take away the subsidies from nuclear power, the industry would collapse. The same holds for the fossil fuel industry – if you factor in the hidden “externalized” costs of environmental cleanup. It makes no sense to build nuclear plants, or coal plants, drill for oil or use fracking for natural gas. These are more expensive to build, run, and maintain than solar and wind. Rather than keeping nuclear and fossil fuels on life support while fuel gets harder and more expensive to extract we need to put our best engineering minds to work on clean, sustainable power.

And I expect the vultures on Wall Street to buy Japanese stocks as soon as they sense the market has hit bottom, but only if they see investment in infrastructure.

Index to the series

Earthquake, Tsunami and Energy Policy, March 11-13, 2011. Here.
After Fukushima, Wall Street Bearish on Nuclear Power. March 14, 2011. Here.
Fukushima: Worse than Chernobyl? Here.

Cats, Mice, and Sustainable Energy

“Join me in setting a new goal: By 2035, 80 percent of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources.” – President Barack Obama, State of the Union, January 25, 2011.

When a mouse makes noise, only other mice and local cats take notice. When a lion roars, however, everyone notices; other lions, elephants, zebras, gazelles, smaller cats, mice ….

New Jersey is one of 27 states, which, like the District of Columbia, have a Renewable Portfolio Standard, or RPS, mandating that by a certain date, a specific target of a renewable energy capacity will be deployed. An additional five states have non-binding goals. (This are listed by the U. S. Dept. of Energy at Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.)

In New Jersey the RPS is 22.5%, about 1.6 gigawatts (GW), by 2021. New Jersey today, in January, 2011, has about 300 megawatts of renewable energy capacity. I am confident that New Jersey will meet, and possibly exceed its RPS goal. We started with 9.0 kilowatts (KW) of photovoltaic solar in 2001. We were up to 211 megawatts (MW), by the end of September, 2010, and we added an additional 24 MW in December, 2010. Even when you factor in 30 MW of biomass, 8 mw of wind power, and 1.5 mw of fuel cells, this is less than 20% of the goal of 1.6 gw. (This is shown at the NJ Clean Energy Program Renewable Energy Technologies page.) However paradigm shifts are systems phenomena. They occur at exponential rates. We went from 9.0 kw in 2001 to 211 mw in mid-2010, to 360 mw by the end of 2010. In December, 2010, we added an additional 10% – moving from 236 mw to 260 mw. We are hitting the handle of the hockey stick.

California’s RPS is 33% by 2030. In Texas, the RPS calls for 5,880 MW by 2015. California , New Jersey and Texas are the roaring mice in domestic US clean energy policy. And a cat – the lion in the Oval Office – the President of the United States – has listened to the mice in California, New Jersey, and Texas. Last night he roared.

Courtesy of the White House.

In his “State of the Union” address, January 25, 2011, President Obama set a lofty goal: “80% clean electric generation by 2035.” While I think we can do better – 100% clean renewable sustainable energy by 2025 – Obama’s goal is specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-bound. It’s SMART. It’s also wise.

As a President should, Obama is thinking, and thinking long term. We at Popular Logistics wish him success because success for a President means a better future for the nation.

–

Two observations.

There is no such thing as “Clean Coal.” Even if we capture and sequester all the carbon dioxide produced from burning coal, which is expensive, there are still impurities, such as arsenic, lead, mercury, uranium, zinc in coal. And mining and processing coal is a very dirty business.
Nuclear is heavily regulated. We exercise tighter control over the wastes. In practice, nuclear power is arguably cleaner than coal. But in reality, things happen.

One question is “Can we achieve Obama’s Clean Electricity Goal?” But a better question is “How can we achieve this goal? ” My back of the envelope response is:

100 gigawatts offshore wind,
100 gigawatts land based wind,
50 gigagwatts solar,
75 gigawatts stored micro-hydro or biofuel, for when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.

And as Amory Lovins, of the Rocky Mountain Institute, says, “The cheapest unit of energy is the ‘Negawatt’ – the energy you don’t have to buy.” How much can we reduce our energy requirements? How much can we gain by conservation?

Solar Energy Saves Money, Could Provide Free Electricity and CASH to Municipalities & Schools in New Jersey

1.5 MW Solar Array, Rutgers University, Livingston Campus

New Jersey taxpayers could net $36.9 million per year, $369 million over 10 years, with the installation of 152.5 megawatts (MW) of photovoltaic (PV) solar electricity systems on public schools, community colleges, and each of the public universities in the state.

The systems would pay for themselves within the first 8 years. At 2010 values of electricity and Solar Renewable Energy Certificates (SRECs), these systems would generate electricity worth approximately $300 Million and SRECs worth $1.2 Billion over the first 10 years, approximately $369 Million in excess of the cost of the systems, and provide virtually free electricity over the remainder of their 35 to 40 year lifespan.

Widespread deployment of solar energy increases the resilience of the electric grid, strengthens national security and can enhance local emergency response capabilities.

These are the conclusions of a feasibility study by Lawrence J. Furman, principal of Furman Consulting Group, LLC during the course of his studies for an MBA in Managing for Sustainability at Marlboro College Graduate School.

Continue reading →