Category Archives: Energy

After Fukushima, Wall Street Bearish on Nuclear Power

Fukushima 1 - before the catastrophe

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

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

Matthew L. Wald/NYTimes.com: Obama Administration consider opening strategic energy reserve

Regular readers know that when Matthew L.  Wald‘s byline appears in The New York Times, we pay attention.  In “Obama Considers Tapping Oil Reserve, ” we suspect that space considerations forced the omission of certain important background details. First, excerpts from Mr. Wald’s piece:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is considering tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in response to rapidly rising gasoline prices brought on by turmoil in the Middle East, the White House chief of staff, William M. Daley, said on Sunday.

“It’s something that only has been done on very rare occasions,” Mr. Daley said on “Meet the Press” on

Image by Infrogmation via Wikimedia Commons.

NBC, adding, “It’s something we’re considering.”

Administration officials have sent mixed signals about the possibility of opening the reserve, which would add supply to the domestic oil market and tend to push down prices.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said on Friday that the administration was monitoring prices, but he has been reluctant to endorse more aggressive steps.

“We don’t want to be totally reactive so that when the price goes up, everybody panics, and when it goes back down, everybody goes back to sleep,” he said.

A few days earlier, Mr. Chu said the administration was watching the situation closely, but it expected oil production that had been lost in Libya would be made up by production elsewhere.

Administration officials continue to emphasize the critical need for long-term steps to reduce oil use, like improving the fuel economy of cars and promoting battery-powered vehicles.

But recently, five Senate Democrats have called for opening the reserve, which is stored in four salt domes in Texas and Louisiana. And on Feb. 24, three House Democrats from New England, where oil is used to heat homes, wrote to Mr. Obama saying that while exporters could increase production, “they also profit from oil price spikes and therefore have little incentive to quickly respond with the increased supply needed to calm markets.”

“We don’t want to be totally reactive so that when the price goes up, everybody panics, and when it goes back down, everybody goes back to sleep,” he said.

A few days earlier, Mr. Chu said the administration was watching the situation closely, but it expected oil production that had been lost in Libya would be made up by production elsewhere.

Administration officials continue to emphasize the critical need for long-term steps to reduce oil use, like improving the fuel economy of cars and promoting battery-powered vehicles.

Continue reading →

Offshore Wind Energy – Mitigating climate change

Offshore Wind Energy: Its potential to mitigate climate change

Offshore Wind Turbine, sunrise.

Sunrise

(For Webinar Click Here) New England Faculty Colloquium: Climate Change, Policy, and Energy Solutions Wednesday, March 2, 2011 – 2:30 pm

James Manwell, U Mass Amherst, Director, Wind Energy Center, (Press Release: Renewable Energy Research Laboratory)

Wind power in the United States has grown from 1,800 MW in 1990 to 35,000 MW by the end 2009. And off-shore wind farms are planned from Virginia to Massachusetts.  The costs have dropped ten-fold.  Electricity from wind is now less expensive than electricity from coal and nuclear – with none of the environmental costs.

Wind and solar are the opposite of fossil fuels and nuclear. With fossil fuels and nuclear it is easy to regulate the electricity the plant produces, but the wastes can be a problem.  With wind and solar there is no waste, but we can not regulate the output. Or rather, we can easily turn it down, but we can’t turn it up.  If we are to shift to a clean, sustainable energy paradigm we need to develop a more flexible grid and other technologies for a combined cycle system. The  Wind Energy Center at University of Massachusetts, Amherst, is, in their words, “responding to the need for superior, cutting edge research solutions to these issues.”

New Solar Tech: Less Waste; Lower Cost.

Waste Equals Cost. Less Waste Equals Equals Lower Costs.

1366 Technologies - Standard 4-step, high waste process versus 1366 Direct Wafer process

Standard process versus 1366 Direct Wafer process

 

 

People frequently ask me about waste in Solar PV. Clearly, given that no fuel is consumed, no waste is produced from the use of a solar energy system to generate electricity. PV solar modules are not flammable (below something like around 1,000o C) so even if the building burns down under the modules – which could produce toxics – there is no waste from the solar energy system.

However, there is a carbon footprint in transport and installation, and there is waste associated with the production of solar modules. This is about to be reduced. Continue reading →

Cats, Mice, and Sustainable Energy

Tweet

Follow LJF97 on Twitter

“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.

President Obama, Courtesy of the White House.

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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

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 →

New England Electricity Demand Curve – Rising

New England Electricity Demand Curve

New England Electricity Demand Curve

This curve, derived from the ISO New England electricity demand table, here, shows that electricity use has been rising steadily since January, 2000.

Three observations:

  1. There are two (2) annual peaks, one in July-August, and an unexpected peak in December-January.
  2. The peaks are getting higher.
  3. Low demand is flat and High demand is rising. The high of 13,386 gwh in July, 2010, is 43% above the low of 9,352 gwh, April, 2000.

I’m not sure what it means. Check back while I figure it out.

Renewable Energy, The Wall St. Journal, Faux News

George Gilder, writing in the Wall Street Journal, 11/18/10, in California’s Destructive Green Jobs Lobby complained of the defeat of the repeal of the “Global Warming Solutions Act.”

“Economic sanity lost out in what may have been the most important election on Nov. 2—and, no, I’m not talking about the gubernatorial or senate races. … This was the California referendum to repeal Assembly Bill 32, the so-called Global Warming Solutions Act, which ratchets the state’s economy back to 1990 levels of greenhouse gases by 2020. That’s a 30% drop followed by a mandated 80% overall drop by 2050. Together with a $500 billion public-pension overhang, the new energy cap dooms the state to bankruptcy.”

Gilder also wrote: “California officials acknowledged last Thursday that the state faces $20 billion deficits every year from now to 2016.” That’s $120 Billion over the next 6 years. This is a state of 37 million people (US Census). It should be able to borrow that money at 4% or 5% – which is $3083 per capita. Borrowed at 5% interest over 20 years, it’s $20.35 per person per month – which does not seem to be enough to push someone into bankruptcy.

Continue reading →

Election Day, 2010

John F. Kennedy

John F. Kennedy

President Kennedy once said “Politics is the only game that matters.” It’s winner take all, and the winner decides how your money is spent. President Clinton used to say “It’s the economy, stupid.” This still applies. Neither the President nor the Congress was focused on putting Americans back to work. They need to re-read Keynes, and also study Ecological Economics. (And Mr. President it’s not the economy according to the economists, it’s the economy according to voters who are up to their eyeballs in debt, unemployed, or facing foreclosure, and their kids, with health care, courtesy of your law, but fresh out of college, with huge college loans, and no jobs.)

Gov. Elect Cuomo

Gov. Elect Cuomo

Andrew Cuomo’s win of the NY Governor’s race was not a surprise. Altho the margin – 1,135,214 votes (2,565,869 votes, 61%, to 1,430,655, 34%, Washington Post) is staggering . Some of my conservative Republican friends voted for Cuomo. Others abstained. How could they vote for Carl Paladino, with such an obvious inability to govern, a guy who is uncomfortable with gay people but who owns 2 gay bars?

Congratulations to Governor-Elect Cuomo, and the State of New York. Popular Logistics would like to see Gov. Cuomo run for President in 2016.

Lucy Liu, Actor

Lucy Liu, Actor

Jennifer Lopez, aka Jennie from The Hood

Jennifer Lopez, Singer & Actor

Senator Harry Reid won reelection, thanks to Hispanics, Asians, and African Americans, by a margin of 5%. Hispanic citizens were 10% of the vote, with 66.7% voting for Reid.  According to the AP, on NPR, “Reid won two-thirds of the Hispanic vote” 80% of African-Americans and 75% of Asians.

(Note to Sharron Angle – like Asians and Hispanics generally, both Lucy Liu, on the left in blue, and Jennifer Lopez on the right in beige, have black hair and brown eyes. Even if I didn’t know who they were, I’d know the woman in blue is Asian and the woman in beige is Hispanic, or white-with-a-tan.) Continue reading →

Google announces Biggest OffShore Wind Project

Schematic Map of Atlantic Wind Connection

Schematic Map of Atlantic Wind Connection

Google is putting its money where its mouth is. Back in early September, 2008, Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt said, “We have a total failure of political leadership, at least in the U. S., and perhaps the world.” He then called for 100% of U. S. power to come from green energy in 20 years – with 500,000 wind energy jobs. (See “Google’s Eric Schmidt Details Energy Plan, Chides Lack of Leadership,” by By Katie Fehrenbacher, Sep. 9, 2008, on Gigacom.) Schmidt combined Al Gore’s call for 100% clean electricity in 10 years with Intel CEO Andy Grove’s call for millions of plug-in hybrid cars.  (I would like to add that they should be plug-in hybrid biofuel, with the fuel coming from sewage and factory farm waste, not food crops.)

Recently, 10/12/10,  Erick Schonfeld at GreenTech (onTechCrunch) wrote Google Backs Biggest U.S. Offshore Wind Project:

Arklow Bank Wind Farm

Arklow Bank Wind Farm. Copyright (C) 2005, GE. Used with permission.

“Using its cash to kickstart renewable energy businesses, Google is now backing the largest U.S. offshore wind farm project to date. The Atlantic Wind Connection is a proposed string of offshore wind turbines that will stretch 350 miles off the Atlantic coast from Virginia to New Jersey. Once completed, the project will produce 6,000 megawatts of power, which is equivalent to 60 percent of all the wind power built in the U.S. last year. The wind project will serve nearly 2 million homes. Continue reading →

Wired: It's the grid that matters most

Which is to say the distributed network matters as much as the renewable sources. From Generate Electricity Everywhere:

Problem Establishing local-scale power near end users ranks high on everyone’s spec list for Grid 2.0. That’s one reason Obama’s stimulus plan contains a grant that will reimburse property owners for 30 percent of the cost of a solar energy system. But utilities—former monopolies, after all—are reluctant to give up control over their antique, accident-prone grid. And people with enough rooftop real estate to squeeze out serious juice balk at the hassle.
Solution Create a new class of energy service providers that act as middlemen between power companies and large commercial facilities with big rooftops. For instance, SunEdison builds and maintains solar plants on the rooftops of operations like Wal-Mart, Whole Foods, and Kohl’s in eight states. It’s a win-win arrangement: Electric companies get a trusted partner in power generation, and businesses get green energy at a fixed, competitive rate—without additional investment. The secret sauce isn’t photovoltaic panels; it’s the networking gear, sensors, and software that let a SunEdison control room in California manage hundreds of solar sites cost-effectively. And that means it’s suited for scaling up. Says Mark Culpepper, a veteran of Cisco Systems who is now CTO of SunEdison: “Generating power anywhere you can fit a panel totally changes the dynamic of the energy market.”
By Spencer Reiss at Wired Science.

For the Future

Arklow Bank Wind Turbines

Arklow Bank Wind Farm, offshore of Ireland. Copyright, C, GE Energy. Used with permission.

Conferences –

Academics – An MBA for Changing the Climate of Business (click here). Continue reading →

Solar Power and Toxic Waste

Ground-mounted solar array in a field of wildflowers

Ground-mounted solar array in a field of wildflowers. Copyright iphotostock.com

If you think there are zero direct emissions from the production of electricity from PV solar modules, YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. There are however, indirect emissions associated with production, transport, installation and refresh / recycle are dependent on the technologies used in those processes. Most are associated with the use of fossil fuels and nuclear power to manufacture and move solar modules.

Three observations stand out David Biello’s article, “Dark Side of Solar Cells Brightens,” Scientific American, Feb. 2008.

  1. Indirect emissions are derived from the fossil fuels used to generate the electricity for PV manufacturing facilities.
  2. Heavy metals, such as cadmium, used to manufacture PV solar modules, can be recovered from mining wastes and coal ash.
  3. Overall toxic emissions are 90 to 300 times lower than those from coal power plants.

Continue reading →

The Deepwater Horizon – The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly

Oil Eating Bacteria

Oil Eating Bacteria

The good news is that newly discovered bacteria biodegrade oil in the oceans, and have been chowing down on the oil spilled from the Deepwater Horizon  (Earth and Sky, NPR, PBS, SFGATE) and from oil seeps for millions of years.

While it’s unexpected and wonderful that bacteria are biodegrading the oil, is begs the question:

Do we want to fill the seas with oil and oil-eating bacteria or oceans of clean water, coral, oysters, fish, turtles, and dolphins?

And how quickly can they consume the 5.1 million barrels that gushed into the Gulf at a rate of 60,000 barrels per day for 85 days begining April 20, continuing thru May and June, and ending July 15, 2011?

I suspect it will take more than a few weeks, months, or years.

And do those bacteria break down dispersants?

John Ehrenfeld defines “Sustainability” as “Flourishing.” Because they are small and short-lived, shrimp can handle a higher level of toxics than say dolphins, turtles, etc. We will know the Gulf is clean when there are flourishing populations of dolphins, turtles, and larger and longer-lived fauna, and when they have lower concentrations of heavy metals and petrochemicals in their tissues. Continue reading →

The Dirtyiest 1% in NYC Produce 86% of the Soot and Ozone

Cigarette Smoke

Cigarette Smoke

Mayor Bloomberg is concerned about air pollution in New York City. Bloomberg has data that show elevated levels of nicotinimides in non-smoking New Yorkers. Believing this results from second hand smoking, he wants to prompt New Yorkers to quit smoking. It’s logical – cigarette smoke contains nicotine.  But what if the body produces nicotinimides in response to particulates and ozone?

Industrial Smog

Industrial Smog

In her piece Use Bio-Heat as a substitute for #2 Heating Oil, the architect Ellen Honigstock of The Toeprint Project points out that 9,000 of the 960,000 buildings in New York City – less than 1% – use #4 and #6 oil – the dirtiest heating oil. Those 9,000 buildings are responsible for over 86% of the soot and ozone pollution in the air.

Honigstock explains:

No. 2 and No. 6 Heating Oil

These particulates contribute to the failure of New York City’s air to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the failing grade received from the American Lung Association’s State of the Air Report not to mention all the unnecessary cases of childhood asthma in New York City’s kids.

Generally speaking, when crude oil comes off the boat into the refinery, the sludgier oil (called residual oil) sinks to the bottom while more refined products, which are less viscous such as propane, gasoline, kerosene etc… (called distillates) rise to the top.

#6 oil is barely refined sludge.  It’s the least expensive of the heating oils and has the highest fuel content which starts to explain why people continue to use it.

It is solid at room temperature.  This means that the entire oil tank must be kept to at least 90 degrees at all times in order for the oil to burn properly.  #2 oil, while more expensive per gallon, burns much cleaner, doesn’t require any additional energy to make the combustion process work properly and typically requires less maintenance than boilers burning #6.

Environmental Defense Fund, with support form the Urban Green Council issued a very informative report called “The Bottom of the Barrel:  How the Dirtiest Heating Oil pollutes our Air and harms our Heath” including a great interactive map showing all the buildings currently using #6 and #4 oil.

There’s more at The Toeprint Project – including how New York City residents can find bio-fuel to heat their buildings.