Renewable Generation

Submitted by wwwJerry on Thu, 04/09/2009 - 4:22pm.

The Problem: Today’s power sector emits large quantities of greenhouse gases and relies heavily on carbon-based fuels with volatile and rising prices. The current system is unsustainable, both economically and environmentally. Electricity generation accounts for approximately one-third of America’s global warming pollution. Scientists urgently warn such pollution must be sharply reduced to avert the most serious consequences of climate change. Meanwhile, viable, non-polluting generation alternatives exist to deliver reliable, cost-effective power to meet America’s needs.

The Solution: Generate 100% of US electricity from truly clean carbon-free sources. Renewable energy generation technologies like solar thermal, photovoltaics, wind, geothermal and biomass have been adding clean, reliable power to the grid for more than a decade. This includes solar and geothermal plants in the southwest, biomass in the northeast and southeast, and wind farms through the Midwest corridor. It is now time to dramatically ramp-up the contribution of renewables to the energy mix. And the circumstances are just right:

Technology maturity – The renewable power technologies featured in Repower America are in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation of development and come with the associated reliability and enhancements mature technology offers.
No fuel costs – At a time when fossil fuel prices are volatile and will inevitably rise, shifting to power sources with free and limitless fuel inputs makes sense.
Investor support – During the past few years, clean energy has been among the fastest growing sectors in the venture capital and investment banking worlds – in 2007 global investment in clean energy climbed 60% to $150 billion.
Utility understanding – Virtually every state now has experience in integrating renewable electricity into its energy mix. Twenty-eight states now have renewable energy portfolio standards.
Resource availability – Whether it is solar, wind or geothermal, each of these renewable resource types could on its own theoretically meet all of the nation’s power demands, now and well into the future.
Materials availability – There are no limiting material constraints with any of the renewable generation technologies comprising the Repower America scenarios. Key inputs are steel, concrete and glass. Wind turbines blades also use carbon fiber or fiber glass and PV cells rely on specialized materials, none of which will be limited at the levels and timeframe for Repower America.
Workforce availability – Manufacturing of components and construction of the renewable power plants themselves are skills that can be learned and are easily transferable from other sectors. In Pennsylvania former steel workers are now building wind turbine components. In Iowa, former appliance manufacturers are doing the same. In California and New Jersey, former construction workers are now installing rooftop solar PV. And clean energy programs are already emerging at colleges and trade schools around the nation.
Growth histories and trajectories – US installed capacities of solar photovoltaic and wind power have been growing at annual rates of 20 and 30 percent respectively; solar thermal has just begun rapid expansion; and the geothermal industry is booming with 97 projects under development in thirteen states.
The Benefits: Existing, proven renewable power technologies rely on fuels that are free and limitless. They emit no CO2. They eliminate the uncertainty of volatile fossil fuel prices. And, they’re a promising engine of job creation: a $100 billion investment in a clean energy economy over two years would create 2 million new jobs with a significant portion of these jobs helping to revive struggling construction and manufacturing sectors. Research indicates that renewable electricity capacity at levels similar to Repower America would employ 6 million American workers.

On Fri, 04/10/2009 - 12:13am, formosa said:

It sounds like your plan can generate 100% of electricity for the US in two years and shut down all coal, natural gas, hydro and nuclear plants.

Fantastic! Sign me up when you replace the first 500MW coal plant with these mature ready renewables that can make up 100% of our electricity needs.

And I would also like to see the plan for decomissioning all coal, natural gas and nuclear plants across the US with specific dates.

In fact I have no idea why you haven't started this replacement plan already? You have almost 21GW of wind power running _right_ now, all of 2008 and today, in the USA.

At the current growth rates of wind we'll have 70GW or more online --- the AWEA states we don't need backup power (it's a myth according to them), and also they state that every KW by wind reduces KW from conventional plants. Using that and doing some very simple math that's 21GW = 10 average coal plants we can shut down today with no impact to anything because in 2008 these coal plants were'nt producing when wind was producing (that AWEA 1 KW from wind = 1 KW reduction from conventional formula).

So there's really no reason not to go ahead and start shutting down these coal plants today. What are we waiting for?

On Fri, 04/10/2009 - 12:16am, formosa said:

Just to clarify there is 6GW of turbines installed and running in Texas (same regional grid) so we wouldn't need to wait for a new grid to get rid of one of Texas's dirty coal plants.

On Fri, 04/10/2009 - 12:27pm, visitorfromclinton said:

Formosa is right. Well sort of. There already has been idling down of coal plants in texas because of wind. Which is a good thing.

On Fri, 04/10/2009 - 2:40pm, wwwJerry said:

Formosa claims to have all the answers. Reciting a handful of simplistic view points on renewable energy isn't the same as reciting theoretical evidence. Formosa, you should start researching into the theoretical evidence of renewable energy instead of reciting notes from looney tones from Malone. You will find that when you learn the true facts, it will make you more aware that renewable energy is the answer. You will be amazed how you have been misled!
Have a nice Green Energy day.

On Fri, 04/10/2009 - 11:09pm, formosa said:

I would never claim to have all the answers, only that we've yet to have any operational data to support the marketing hype of industrial wind power and justify it's impacts.

What specifically is "theoretical" evidence?

Evidence of the theories of renewable energy? Got that in spades.

On Sat, 04/11/2009 - 8:00am, visitorfromclinton said:

Formasa can't claim to have any answer never mind all the answers.
- He has made zero carbon reduction clams without any data of his own to back up his ridiculous simplistic postion.
- goes on about reduction versus avoidance argument. When pressed on my anaologies about reduction he make vague analogies about china polluting and therefore if we reduce it means nothing.
- He thinks that tax reduction in a host town with signficiant budget spending in education is a bad thing.
- When presented with govt. based fact he hides behind the operational data argument that bely the governments own published facts
- He doesn't think MIT is a smart bunch of folk and has concluded since they didn't publish to him their data that is just theoretical mumbo jumbo therfore should be dismissed
- When asked specifics - like what the heck is AEP buying all of those storage batteries for - no comment.
- In his own town, when his views have been challanged exposing him for the simplton that he is he acts like a bully has and made targeted fun of individual who have speech impediments.
- Has no answer why green orginizations like greenpeace and the sierra club are supportive of this technology

It makes me wonder just what is his real issue with wind turbines. Could it be a bit of finanical envy as he not a hosting landowner or maybe the visual aspect of these towers that form the foundation for his nimby view?

On Sat, 04/11/2009 - 8:12pm, formosa said:

It's really telling that this person visitorfromclinton cannot restrain him/herself from turning the discussion into personal attacks. Every single item is a conflation or misrepresentation of any position I've ever posted on the topic. Now he/she resorts to name calling and outright slander/libel.

Visitorfromclinton, I have no idea why you think you can go around misrepresenting and slandering people, but you are permanently ignored.

On Sat, 04/11/2009 - 8:35pm, visitorfromclinton said:

No formosa, its you with the typical hit and run tactics. You posture with ridiculous postions and then choose the route that someone is misrespenting you when cornered.

On Sat, 04/11/2009 - 9:00pm, wwwJerry said:

When reading Formosa's last blog I was sure that I was reading a blog written by Calvin Martin. If not then the writer must have been tutored by Calvin Martin.
Formosa, you need to get a grip on things. Being so negative and always thinking someone is out to get you is going to ruin your life. I advise you to seek help if you can't control your fear of not being accepted as being right about everything. Don't see the same doctor that Calvin is using because Dr. Pierpont isn't doing Calvin any good! Try loosening up a bit, it's only a blog and wind power is coming.... just like the light bulb, automobile, airplane, power lines and everything else that has frightened people that don't like change.

On Sun, 04/12/2009 - 4:30pm, formosa said:

So "Jerry", ignoring all the irrelevent personal comments let me ask you...

Do you believe industrializing our rural lands a good or a bad thing?

If you believe industrializing our rural lands and national parks (with windpower) is a necessity in order to save the environment, produce clean power, et al ... is there any place you would not industrialize?

Are you in favor of industrializing residential areas?

On your wind power is "coming" (implying it's not here yet) --- do you acknowledge that there are 20,000+ industrial wind turbines running for several years now, close to a decade? And industrial "wind parks" have been in operation since the 80's, do you acknowledge this?

Would you support industrial wind power if it were shown by operational data not to replace conventional power plants or reduce pollution?

Last question, I assume you live somewhere on rural land. Would you honestly live 1,000 feet away from an industrial machine that is 500 foot tall - when there are numerous documented noise, light and shadow flicker complaints, as well as being completely out of character for the land use? Or, in your view are all those complaints just made up by people who live in fear of change?

On Fri, 04/17/2009 - 7:30pm, visitorfromclinton said:

I think its pretty obvious Formosa. Yes, developement of our wind resources is a good thing. Its a positive to the environment and a positive to the hosting community. I live as close as anyone to these machines and don't find them bothersome at all. And this isn't theory. Just how close do you live to them? Are your views based upon your own real life observation or have you been "sniffing the malone glue" a bit too frequently? And yes you're right, wind is already here. The anti wind movement - including your views have been dismissed. You in a small minority Formasa. This wow movement lost and in a huge way. Wait until electric cars are the standard. What do you think is going play an important role for charging them at night? Time to accept change as well as some environmental responsiblity. The only real real question are you a nimby or a banana advocate (Build Absolutely Nothing, Anywhere, Near Anyone).

On Sun, 04/26/2009 - 10:28pm, liny-mod said:

formosa, visitorfromclinton, wwwJerry: if you have nothing to add to the discussion, please refrain from posting comments. Just to make myself clear, comments/posts that consist of nothing but name-calling is not considered "adding to the discussion." The offending posts have been deleted.