Governor Youngkin Begins withdrawal from RGGI

Last week Governor Glenn Youngkin signed Executive Order 9 to direct DEQ to examine the impact of RGGI and start the process of ending Virginia's participation in the program. This occurred with the released the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) report.

At the time of the announcement the Governor comment that “costs are soaring for Virginia families … and that RGGI is in reality a carbon tax passed on to families, individuals and businesses throughout the Commonwealth--it’s a bad deal for Virginians. Hardworking Virginians are having to do more with less as inflation steals a historic amount from their paychecks and the failed Biden Administration energy policies are costing Virginians more at the pump and in their homes. We're working every day to cut energy taxes and reduce costs--like the RGGI carbon tax--and make Virginia the best place to live, work and do business." 

The following conclusions and findings were made in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) report: 

• Prior to RGGI, electricity generation in Virginia has increased while CO2 per MWh has almost been cut in half over the last ten years. This was primarily due to changes in the types of generation as seen below.
• Because of the captive nature of their ratepayers, the ability for power-generators to fully pass on costs to consumers, and the fact that the Code of Virginia dedicates RGGI proceeds to grants programs, participation in RGGI is in effect a direct carbon tax on all households and businesses; 
• In addition, consumers are unable to avoid the pass through of these costs because they do not have the opportunity to switch electric providers – Dominion and other providers are monopolies in most regions of Virginia.
• The imposition of the RGGI “carbon tax” fails to achieve its goal as a carbon “cap-and-trade” system because it lacks any incentive for power-generators to actually reduce emissions, due to the ability to pass through costs to consumers.
• The costs of compliance with the trading rule and participation in RGGI have begun to materialized in higher electricity rates as identified in the filings before the State Corporation Commission by Dominion Energy. 
• Emission allowance prices have increased over time, and are expected to continue increasing which will increase the tax on ratepayers. 

 On July 10, 2020, Virginia formally adopted the CO2 Budget Trading Program (Part VII of 9VAC5-140) for the power sector to implement a carbon emissions trading and reduction program as authorized by the Clean Energy and Community Flood Preparedness Act (Article 4 of Chapter 1219 of the 2020 Acts of Assembly). The rule allowed for full participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and make emissions allowances available for sale through an auction program that power producers use for compliance purposes. Proceeds from allowance sales are returned to Virginia to fund climate mitigation and resilience programs. Virginia began full participation in RGGI on January 1, 2021, and participated in five quarterly auctions to date. On January 15, 2022, Governor Youngkin issued Executive Order 9 (2022) (EO-9) to re-evaluate the program.

The review found that prior to the implementation of the RGGI: That a major shift has occurred in the Virginia power sector where electricity generation from coal has been replaced by cleaner generation sources of natural gas and more recently renewable energy generation sources. Also, during the same time, in-state electricity generation had increased by about 30%, which has led to the mass emissions levels remaining relatively constant. Over this time period, Virginia has become the world's data center capital which might have accounted for the growth in electricity demand.

The review also found that:

Because of the captive nature of their ratepayers, the ability for power-generators to fully pass on costs to consumers, and the fact that the Code of Virginia dedicates RGGI proceeds to grants programs, participation in RGGI is in effect a direct carbon tax on all households and businesses.  RGGI fails to achieve its goal as a carbon “cap-and-trade” system because it lacks any incentive for power-generators to actually reduce carbon emissions.  

Other states participating in the RGGI program designed their systems to provide rebates to their ratepayers, in Virginia the program operates as a hidden tax on consumers in which the funds are disbursed through grant programs. Virginia consumers were originally told that the program would not increase their energy bills, and given the rate increases approved, this is untrue. This is an inefficient method to tax and distribute funds for the benefit of Virginians without achieving the intended greenhouse gas emission goal.

The compliance costs of RGGI program participation have submitted by Dominion Energy and approved by the SCC, and have begun to impact electricity rates.  These costs are and will continue to be directly related to the cost of allowances, along with other charges allowed under current law and regulations.  Allowance prices have varied significantly in the past, and future prices will continue to vary.  Four other RGGI participating states (and prospectively a fifth) provide electric bill assistance to customers using some of their auction proceeds which Virginia does not. 

The Solar in the President’s Climate Plan

In 2009 when then President Barack Obama promised that U.S. emissions in 2050 will be 0ver 80% below 2005 levels it seemed like such a far reach. It meant that 2050 emissions will equal those in 1910, when there were 92 million Americans. This past week when President Joseph Biden’s administration released some details of his sweeping climate plan, it seemed less of a reach though their goal is even more ambitious. Solar is an essential part of President Biden’s 2035 clean electricity goal –  carbon-free electricity. This will be accomplished using solar, onshore and offshore wind, existing power plants retrofitted with carbon capture or green hydrogen, geothermal, hydropower, and nuclear. The President proposes that wind and solar combined will provide 75% of electricity by 2035 and 90% by 2050. Renewable power will grow from 30 GW today to nearly 400 GW in 2035 and 1,700 GW in 2050. 

From the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Solar Futures Studydetailing the significant role solar will play in decarbonizing the nation’s power grid. The study shows that by 2035, solar energy will power 40% of the nation’s electricity. DOE goes on to state that deployment of power storage will enable more flexibility and resilience in the power grid.

“A clean grid requires massive, equitable deployment of diverse, sustainable energy sources.” DOE says that the U.S. must install an average of 30 GW of solar capacity per year between now and 2025 and 60 GW per year from 2025-2030. The model the DOE used  shows that the remainder of a carbon-free grid largely supplied by wind (36%), nuclear (11%-13%), hydroelectric (5%-6%) and biopower/geothermal (1%).

In their deployment of solar the DOE includes a large amount of roof top solar, pointing out that solar costs have declined 70 %to 80  % since 2010 – lowering the price of a typical 6 kW residential system by almost $30,000. Utility scale solar requires that thousands of miles of power lines be built to move electricity to urban centers from distant solar and wind farms located in rural areas with favorable weather. The bipartisan infrastructure bill has $73 billion for building thousands of miles of new power lines. Control of the electrical grid would belong to the utilities.

More progressive environmental organizations and community groups are pushing for greater investment in rooftop solar  panels, batteries and local wind turbines. They believe in building a distributed electrical grid. They argue that solar panels, batteries and other local energy sources should be emphasized because they would be more resilient and could be built more quickly. However, a distributed grid requires an infrastructure of sorts to maintain the individual components. 

As an example let’s take a look at the economics of my system after 11 years. The solar panels cost me almost as much in repairs, module replacement and roof leak repairs as the total value in electricity they produced. That is not a good reliability record.

There are several components to the cost and return of a solar system. The first cost is the cost of the system and the second cost is the design, permits and installation cost. The market cost of solar panels and installation costs have been falling for years. When I signed the contract to purchase my roof mounted solar system at the end of 2009 (though it was not installed until May 2010) the cost per kilowatt for the Sharp (made in America) panels I bought was about $6,700 plus permits and installation. DOE says the cost has fallen by more than $30,000. So that the same system that cost me $58,540 installed would cost less than $30,000,

Back in 2009 I was able to obtain a state rebate of $12,000 which is no longer available in Virginia. Also, as you can see from the chart above that a significant source of revenue is something called a SREC or  Solar Renewable Energy Certificates.  SRECs, are not real, but merely a credit for having made one megawatt hour of solar electricity that was used elsewhere. SRECS have no intrinsic value. In other words, if there is no buyer for the SREC, it is worthless. Like most consumer rooftop solar arrays I use l the power produced by the panels in my own home, nonetheless, my system generates around 9 salable  SRECs a year. Because SRECs are not physical items their value depends entirely on regulation which can change over time and are not planned to continue into the future.

While it lasts, for older systems like mine, the revenue from the sale of SRECs is higher than the value of the electricity the solar panels make and made the economics of my system favorable. Today’s pricing with the still available federal tax credit makes the return on investment in a solar photovoltaic system reasonable in almost all locations. There are other locations where various rebates and incentives and higher electricity rates make the return rich enough to support a market in financing alternatives, but it takes time and some level of expertise to optimize the solar incentives markets. Also, the incentives need to be paid for with either tax dollars, national debt, or higher electricity rates.

Solar systems do not last forever. All solar PV panels degrade and slowly over time produce less power. Solar photovoltaic panels have no moving parts , but there are things that can go wrong, wiring failures, snow lifting the solar panels and requiring a new rack and roof repairs to eliminate roof leaks, micro inverter failure and hale damage. Dirt buildup on the panels can reduce power production and the panels do degrade over time. All of these have gone wrong with my system. In all, over the last 11 years I have paid $12,782 out of pocket for repairs not covered under the system and component warranties and spend dozen of hours trying to get repairs scheduled and have warranties honored.  Before we deploy solar panels to every roof with a southern or western orientation, we need to have an equitable monitoring and maintenance plan for all systems or only the well to do will have reliable systems.

Climate Goals for Prince William County

The Prince William Board of County Supervisors voted last Tuesday night to adopt the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments’ (COG) Region Forward Vision includes a sustainability goal that calls for a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions of 50 % below 2005 levels by 2030.

But, the Prince Board of County Supervisors went further in their resolution and directed staff to incorporate into the Comprehensive Plan goals of 100% of Prince William County’s electricity to be from renewable sources by 2035, for Prince William County Government operations to achieve 100% renewable electricity by 2030, and for Prince William County Government to be 100% carbon neutral by 2050.

The Board of Supervisors also directed staff to begin to work on recommendations for the creation of a public advisory body charged with advising on potential enhancements to the Community Energy Master Plan (CEMP) to achieve the goals of the Comprehensive Plan changes.

Okay, let’s look at these goals:

• 100% of PW County’s electricity to be from renewable sources by 2035
• 100% PW County Government operations to achieve 100% renewable electricity by 2030
• and for the PW County government operations to be 100% carbon neutral by 2050

First of all, not all renewable sources of electricity are carbon neutral and carbon neutral is not necessarily renewable. In July Governor Ralph Northam officially launched Clean Energy Virginia,  to direct investment to renewable energy and energy efficiency and help meet the Commonwealth’s goals under the Virginia Clean Economy Act for clean energy production, which include powering "100 % of Virginia’s electricity from carbon-free sources" by 2045.

According to U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) Natural gas fueled more than half of Virginia's electricity net generation in 2018. The state's two nuclear power plants supplied about 30% of Virginia's generation. Coal provided most of the rest, but biomass, hydropower, petroleum, solar photovoltaic (PV), and other energy sources also generate some electricity.

As the Washington Post pointed out the Virginia Clean Economy Act defines “ total electric energy to mean the electric energy sold by Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power in the previous calendar year, excluding nuclear power generated by plants in service in 2020, and excluding carbon-free (but not renewable) electrical power sources established after July 1, 2030.” This definition allows Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power the flexibility to ensure that they can provide reliable power 24/7 to a future that includes the needs of data centers, and envisioned to have increased demand from the electrification of cars and other portions of the transportation sector as well as electrification of space heating. The nuclear power that provides over 30% of Virginia’s needs will stay in the mix and provide the base power.  

It is unclear what definitions the County is using since this was adopted as a resolution without definitions. Howeve[EW1] r, it is clear, this creates a conundrum for Prince William County. They cannot rely on the grid to ever supply the 100% of PW County’s electricity to be from renewable sources by 2035 or in the future. Nuclear is not renewable, but will remain a significant portion of the electrical supply under the Virginia Clean Economy Act 

Furthermore there are problems with the other portions of the resolutions goals:  Prince William County Government operations to achieve 100% renewable electricity by 2030 and for the County government operations to be 100% carbon neutral by 2050. Prince William County has a source of renewable energy that is not carbon free:

In the late 1990’s NEO Prince William (Fortistar) installed a landfill gas collection system and a 1.9 Mega Watt generator tied into the electrical grid. This system became operational in November 1998. The landfill electrical generation plant was expanded in November 2013. The facility, still operated by Fortistar, now generates a total of 6.7 MW of electricity. This is enough power for approximately 5,000 homes. NOVEC buys the renewable (but not carbon free) energy produced at the landfill and resells it to their customers.

In addition, the county built a pipeline from the landfill to the county animal shelter on Bristow Road with connections to several buildings along the way to provide landfill gas to heat the Fleet Maintenance Building and provide fuel to the Animal Shelter incinerator. A connection to the School bus garage was added in 2014. This allows the County Public Works Department to replace the propane formerly used with landfill gas which is a “Renewable Fuel Resource,” and reducing the energy footprint of our county. While this is all renewable and captures and uses the landfill gas with is a very powerful greenhouse gas, it is not carbon neutral.

NOVEC which supplies electricity to a significant portion of Prince William County has only limited generation, it is predominantly a distributor of electricity purchased from other sources including the landfill and a small solar farm in Fauquier. What limited generation they own is renewable, but not carbon free. NOVEC’s   first-ever power plant is the Halifax County Biomass Plant. The plant has the capacity to generate nearly 50 megawatts , but biomass is not carbon free.

So, staff and the future Prince William County public advisory board have work to do to sort out what needs to be done to meet these goals in the Community Energy Master Plan (CEMP). It looks as if there will be significant need and opportunity for a renewable, carbon free credit market for the county to meet these goals. This could benefit residents in the county interested in building solar arrays on their roofs or property. This could make the difference in the return on investment in a solar project and make it worthwhile to deal with the constant stream of repairs to keep a distributed solar system operational or other costs associated with solar power generation.

Other thoughts, for years there has been conversation to use the landfill for a wind power generation. That is a possibility. Also, Lake Jackson Dam once generated electricity maybe it could again or the expanding water storage in Northern Virginia could be used as part of a water storage/power generation management scheme. This no doubt will all be explored as the County moves forward.  

EVs Could Make a Renewable Grid Work

In December 2018 the California Air Resources Board approved a regulation that sets a statewide goal for all public transit agencies to transition to 100 % zero-emission bus fleets by 2040. In June of 2020 the California Air Resources Board approved a regulation requiring more than half of all trucks sold in the state to be zero-emissions by 2035. Finally, in September of 2020 Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order requiring sales of all new passenger vehicles to be zero-emission by 2035 and additional measures to eliminate harmful emissions from the transportation sector.

Combined these are huge goals that will require the remaking of much of the infrastructure and the economy of California. Though there is a long time lag between banning the sale of new internal combustion passenger vehicles and having every car and bus and a large portion of the truck fleet transition to zero emissions, still there is tremendous amount of work that needs to be done. According to the U.S Energy Information Administration,  California has the fifth-largest share of U.S. crude oil reserves and is the seventh-largest producer of crude oil in the nation. California ranks third in the nation in petroleum refining capacity, after Texas and Louisiana, and the state accounts for one-tenth of the total U.S. refining capacity.  A network of crude oil pipelines connects California's oil production to the state's refining centers, which are located primarily in the Central Valley, the Los Angeles area, and the San Francisco Bay area. California also refines imported oil and gas.

The goal is to transition every vehicle in California to zero emissions would require more electricity, a re-imagined  and modernized grid, charging stations and probably hydrogen fuel cell charging stations.  Eliminate all the oil and gas related portions of the economy and infrastructure and transition to zero emissions vehicles. Will California maintain gas and diesel fueling stations for out of state vehicles? Also, be aware that existing electric vehicle batteries are not without environmental consequences and require rare earth metals only mined in China.  

As U.S. EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler pointed out  in his letter of response to the Governor ;” The truth is that if the state were driving 100% electric vehicles today, the state would be dealing with even worse power shortages than the ones that have already caused a series of otherwise preventable environmental and public health consequences. For example, in August, after the East Bay Municipal Utility District wastewater treatment plant experienced a power outage for nearly two hours, a pump station failure caused 50,000 gallons of raw sewage to be spilled into California’s Oakland Estuary. Also, just this month, the inability to maintain a reliable energy system led the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) to seek an emergency exemption from federal air quality standards in an attempt to maintain power...”

California has struggled to keep the lights on even before the wildfires. As California has clearly demonstrated in their recent failures to maintain adequate power during the heat wave, solar and wind sources of electricity cannot be ramped up when needed. As a matter of fact, solar output in California actually begins falling off at peak demand time. Adequate energy storage is an essential part of planning for a grid that relies significantly on solar and wind. California would need tremendous amounts of storage to best use the wind and solar excess power when it is generated, and there would have to be planned and stored excess. The wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine when it is needed . This is a fundamental shift from the way most of the system is managed today.

Currently, solar and wind supply about of a third of California’s power. Despite still having gas turbines that can supply power at peak demand, California was not able to meet the full demand even with conservation orders in effect. In part this was because California relies heavily on its neighbors- it is a net importer of electricity and the nearby states were also experiencing higher than usual demand.

More energy storage seems to be the answer. Ninety-eight percent of existing energy storage in California is pumped hydro. The state has seven existing pumped storage facilities with a total capacity of 3,967 MW, including projects at Lake Hodges, Castaic Lake, Helms, San Luis Reservoir, O’Neill Forebay, Big Creek, and Oroville. Nonetheless it was not enough to cover the recent shortfall in power or even close to what is necessary to manage a grid entirely dependent on renewable power.

Governor Newsome’s turn to emissions free vehicles where a significant number of personal vehicles might be electric vehicles (EV) brings up the  idea of a vehicle-to-grid power transfer and control system that has been knocking around engineering circles for a decade. In a  2017 study by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory predicted the current power problems saying: “we forecast the significant grid challenges that arise as more renewables are deployed (for power generation), specifically the increasing daytime over-generation, increasing evening peaks (in demand), and increasing up-ramp and down-ramp.”  However, the study finds “evening peaks, down-ramping, and up-ramping, all get slightly worse (with EV’s). EVs with uncontrolled charging will do little to mitigate the daytime over-generation problems and evening shortfalls in power generation.  So, Administrator Wheeler has a point.

The solution according to the researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is grid controlled charging of vehicles and utilizing the stored energy. “When comparing against uncontrolled charging, it is clear there is a substantial lost opportunity if vehicles are not integrated with the grid.” In other words, the California power storage needs can be met “ through the ZEV (zero emissions vehicle) Mandate provided that controlled charging is also widely deployed. The capital investment for stationary storage can instead be redirected to further accelerate the deployment of clean vehicles and vehicle-grid integration, and could even be used to pay EV owners when their vehicles are grid-connected with controlled charging. In this manner, not only are clean vehicles an enabler for a clean electricity grid at substantially lower capital investment, but the avoided costs of supporting renewables with stationary storage can be used to further accelerate the deployment of clean vehicles.”

So, the solution to the reliable power challenge may be electric vehicles. The challenge is integrating electric vehicles into the grid in a way that is effective and accounts for human behavior in using their vehicles and remembering to plug them in. There would also need to be some method of assure that a vehicle would have and adequate charge when it was needed. Drawing down EV batteries during the evening and night to recharge during the day when solar excess peaks could leave little range for vehicles in the morning for longer trips or car service. Imagine if every EV power reserves were drawn down when the evacuation order was issued.   

Keeping Our Grid Supplied with Power

As California has clearly demonstrated in their recent failures to maintain adequate power during the heat wave, solar and wind sources of electricity cannot be ramped up when needed. As a matter of fact, solar output in California actually began falling off at peak demand time. Adequate energy storage is an essential part of planning for a grid that relies significantly on solar and wind. The grid would have to be designed to best use wind and solar when they're available, and to store the excess when those resources are providing more electricity than needed. This is a fundamental shift from the way most of the system is managed today.

Ninety-eight percent of existing energy storage in California is pumped hydro. The state has seven existing pumped storage facilities with a total capacity of 3,967 MW, including projects at Lake Hodges, Castaic Lake, Helms, San Luis Reservoir, O’Neill Forebay, Big Creek, and Oroville. Nonetheless it was not enough to cover the recent shortfall in power. This is probably because demand was higher than usual due to the heat wave, and California is very dependent on imported power.

Virginia is considering storage as part of the Virginia clean power act which requires Virginia’s two largest energy companies to construct or acquire more than 3,100 megawatts of additional energy storage capacity. The capacity of power storage is measured in two ways: power capacity and energy capacity. Generation is often characterized in terms of power capacity, which is the maximum amount of power output possible in any instant, measured as megawatts (MW). However, the length of time that a storage system can sustain power output at its maximum discharge rate, typically expressed in hours. The energy capacity of a power storage system is the total amount of energy that can be stored or discharged by the storage system, and is measured in megawatt hours (MWh).

Electric utilities in Virginia are members of an interstate transmission operator known as PJM which provides independent operation of the wholesale bulk power market for our region. This system increases the reliability of the electric grid at the lowest cost by managing regional supply from lowest cost to highest cost to meet demand. Virginia’s retail electric customers are served by three publically traded investor owned utilities (providing 84.1% of electricity used in the state), 13 electric cooperatives (providing 11.5% of electricity) and 16 municipal utilities (providing 4.4% of electricity). Virginia’s utilities own in-state and out-of-state generation facilities, and make contractual purchases of electricity from in-state and out-of-state producers, and spot purchases of electricity from the PJM wholesale market.

According to the EIA, the PMJ currently has 211,680 MW total power capacity, adequate to supply the contract members. There is 278 MW of battery storage capacity and 173 MWh of battery storage power in the system. However, at this time most storage in the nation is actually hydropower. California, Virginia, and South Carolina account for most of the existing hydroelectric pumped storage capacity in the nation. The largest single facility in the United States was installed in 1985 in Bath County, Virginia, and has a capacity of 3,000 MW. Virginia is also home to the 636 MW Smith Mountain Lake Pumped Storage Hydro and other smaller units.

Grid reliability should not be sacrificed for renewable energy. We must plan for resilience and reliability of our power systems as we make the transition to renewable power.

VA Clean Energy Act Signed while CA Struggles with Power Shortage

On Monday, Governor Northam signed the Virginia Clean Economy Act which establishes a mandatory renewable portfolio standard to achieve 30% renewable energy by 2030, a mandatory energy efficiency resource standard, and creates the path to a carbon-free electric grid by 2045. This took place as California, a pioneer in large scale solar and wind farms is struggling to keep the power amid inadequate electricity supplies during their current heat wave.

Rolling blackouts across California should serve as a cautionary tale for Virginia as we look to move to a carbon free electric grid. Though solar and wind can generate power without contributing to climate change, they cannot generate power round the clock. Over the past weekend rolling blackouts have swept through California due to inadequate power availability. This shortfall is due in part to demand for power peaking in early evening just as the solar arrays began their evening declines.

Solar and wind supply about of a third of California’s power. Despite still having gas turbines that can supply power at peak demand, California was not able to meet the full demand even with conservation orders. In part this was because California relies heavily on its neighbors- it is a net importer of electricity and the nearby states were also experiencing higher than usual demand. Virginia, too, is a net electricity importer.

This should serve as a cautionary tale for Virginia who is planning to eliminate all fossil fuels from the power grid and use batteries to cover serge demand. The Virginia Clean Economy Act proposes 16,100 megawatts of solar and onshore wind, 5,200 megawatts of offshore wind, and 2,700 megawatts of energy storage and states that they are in the public interest. Large scale batteries have the potential to help during brief periods of power scarcity, but it remains to be seen if the Virginia electric grid can maintain reliability without also mainlining some gas fired power generation. My solar production falls significantly during rainy periods and ceases entirely in the snow.

At the signing Governor Northam said: “Together, these pieces of legislation put the Commonwealth in position to meet the urgency of the climate crisis, and lead the transition to renewable energy in a way that captures the economic, environmental, and health benefits for all Virginians.” Let’s hope so. I lived through the power shortages in California in 2001 (sitting around without heat or electricity in the winter) and do not wish to repeat the experience in my golden years.

The Virginia Clean Economy Act not only establishes energy efficiency standards and new investments in solar, onshore wind, offshore wind, and energy storage, but additional legislation advances shared solar and energy storage programs, and dramatically transforms the rooftop solar market, and increase the allowable size of residential net-metered projects to 25 kwatt. The Governor also signed legislation directing the State Corporation Commission to determine when electric utilities should retire coal-fired or natural gas-fired electric generation facilities, and how utility customers should pay for this transition. I look forward to reading their report.

New Study Narrows the Range Planet’s Future Temperature

NOAA graph. Data from NOAA and ETHZ. Our World in Data and the Global Carbon Project. 

For four decades scientists, government policy makers, the IPCC and activists have used the same warning: if the preindustrial concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere doubles from the 280 ppm to 560 ppm the planet will warm between 2.7-8.1 degrees Fahrenheit (In degrees Celsius the range is 1.5-4.5.) That is a big range for global warming- from adaptable to catastrophic.

Now, a new research paper conducted under the World Climate Reasearch Programme (WCRP) and funded in part by The Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, was published two weeks ago in Reviews of Geophysics. Because of the public funding, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory makes the article available for free at this link.

The research was made possible by bringing together an international team of researchers from a wide range of climate disciplines. Using temperature records since the industrial revolution, paleoclimate records to estimate prehistoric temperatures, satellite observations and detailed models that examine the physics of interactions within the climate system, the team was able to narrow the likely temperature range to 4.7-7.0˚F. (This is equivalent to between a warming range of between 2.6°C and 3.9°C.)

Since 1800 when temperature records began, average surface temperatures have risen by almost 2 degrees Fahrenheit or 1.1 degrees Celsius. The planet has not been warming uniformly. The Pacific and Southern Oceans have acted as a heat sink for those portions of the planet. Eventually, those waters will warm and increase cloud cover above the oceans. Global CO2 emissions have continued to grow and scientists are forecasting that atmospheric CO2 concentrations will reach 560 ppm by 2060. Science Magazine published an excellent review and summary by Paul Voosen at this link.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is still the key element that mankind can change. CO2 in the atmosphere (pink line in chart at top) has increased along with human emissions (blue line) since the start of the Industrial Revolution in 1750. Emissions rose slowly to about 5 billion tons a year in the mid-20th century before skyrocketing to more than 35 billion tons per year by the end of the century.

Based on air bubbles trapped in mile-thick ice cores (and other paleoclimate evidence), scientists know that during the ice age cycles of the past million years or so, carbon dioxide never exceeded 300 ppm. Before the Industrial Revolution started in the mid-1700s, the global average amount of carbon dioxide was about 280 ppm.

By the time continuous observations began at Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958, global atmospheric carbon dioxide was already 315 ppm. On May 9, 2013, the daily average carbon dioxide measured at Mauna Loa surpassed 400 ppm for the first time on record. Scientists once hoped that CO2 emissions could be held below the “tipping point,” now the plan is to quickly reach peak emissions and then reverse course reducing global net human-caused CO2 emissions by about 45 % from 2010 levels by 2030 and reaching ‘net zero’ emissions around 2050. (Forbes, 2019). The current strategy  requires that fossil fuels are replaced by low or no-carbon technologies and we further decouple global GDP from CO2 emissions.

10 Years with Solar Panels

I had imagined that solar panels without any moving parts would make free energy from the sun without any problems. However, that has not been my experience. Starting in the second year of ownership I have had an ongoing series of failures of micro inverters, panels or wiring and in the past few years a series of roof leaks as the Black Jack used to seal the racks dried out and failed.

To make matters worse, problems with the system have been hard to address because of the difficulty of finding a capable and willing repair company. Companies are much happier to install systems than repair them, and the cause has not always been obvious to whoever was trying to repair the system. There has been a continual stream of problems that all come down to installation (the roof leaks), wiring, and Enphase micro inverters. The micro inverters seemed to be failing with increasing regularly. During the first five years of ownership, the original installer worked with me to honor his 5 year warranty. He paid for the repairs from a series of fledging installers, but I had no control over the process nor the solutions he chose to implement.

Nothing seemed to solve the increasing number of problems. At the end of year five, the original installer bid me farewell and I was left to my own devises to try and solve my solar issues. Between years five and ten (this past May) I paid a total of $12,782 for repairs though all the Enphase modules were still covered under warrantee.

Concentric (and its predecessor firm) had been doing the solar repairs for me for the last few years and I was happy with their abilities. However, last summer when I had two panels not reporting, they were too busy with new installations to deal with a repair. After several attempt to try and schedule a repair, I decided to call back in the new year when the Tax credit stepped down. By January I had four failed Enphase Micro Inverters. Concentric was finally able to find the time to come out to replace them. The micro inverters were still under warrantee, but the labor to install them was not. Within two weeks of the replacement of the four, I had two other micro inverters not reporting. The lack of reliability has made the Enphase micro inverters very disappointing.

Apparently, Enphase knew this and offered all first generation purchasers (including me) a discount on the newest generation Enphase Modules. I pulled out my records of Enphase module failure and associated expense of replacing the failed modules. I discovered that in the previous four years I had paid $4,040 in labor alone to replace the failed modules which is by the way nearly what the value of the electricity the solar PV system produced over those four years. After several conversations Enphase decided to simply give me 32 micro inverters and a new Envoy unit to tie it all together for free, which was really nice. I paid NOVA Solar, a local installer with good references and at this point over a decade of experience, $5,000 to install the replacement parts. That was four weeks ago yesterday. 

For the first time in years I have all 32 solar panels reporting and functioning normally for the entire four weeks. I am hopeful that the system will be more reliable in the future, but I am weary of getting my hope too high and being disappointed again. Honestly, as troublesome and annoying as they’ve been, my solar panels still make financial sense. My system is just over 10 years old. When I signed the contract to purchase my roof mounted solar system in late 2009 the cost per kilowatt for the Sharp panels I bought was about $6,700 plus permits and installation. However, back in 2009 I was able to obtain a state rebate of $12,000. I also used the 30% federal tax credit which was recently stepped down. The net cost of the solar system in 2010 after rebates and tax credits was $32,578.

In addition, I obtained a property tax exemption in Prince William County (and most counties in Virginia). The exemption is based on the Energy Efficient Buildings Tax Exemption (Code of VA §58.1-3221.2) which allows any county, city, or town to exempt or partially exempt energy efficient buildings from local property taxes. In Prince William County the amount of the exemption is based on the installed cost of solar array. That translated to a savings of $656.82 a year for 5 years. I have one more year of the tax credit.

The largest portion of the return is from something called a SREC, a solar renewable energy credit. A SREC is a credit for each megawatt hours of electricity that is produced, but used elsewhere. SRECs have value only because some states have solar set asides from their Renewable Portfolio Standards, RPS, which require that a portion of energy produced by a utility be produced by renewable power. There are currently no RPS solar requirements in Virginia, thus no value to SRECs in Virginia today beyond the $10-$15 that a RPS credit is worth, though that may change under the new Clean Energy Virginia laws.

When I installed my solar panels, my system was eligible to sell SRECs in Pennsylvania and Washington DC and I registered my system in both markets. The Pennsylvania market has since collapsed, but the District of Columbia passed a law in 2011 which made the SRECs quite valuable. The law prevents out-of-state systems from registering after January 31st 2011, but my system was grandfathered. DC is currently the only under-supplied SREC market in the nation There ae no large commercial solar farms, no large industrial installations. Thanks to the Washington DC SREC market my solar panels have earned $33,329.29 (after fees but before taxes), dwarfing the $11,800 in free energy they have produced. Even with a total of $12,782 I have paid out of pocket in repairs (more than the total value of the electricity produced), the system has paid for itself and I am more than $2,000 cash positive on the project so far with everything working.

The Costs of My Solar

Yet More Solar Repairs

Solar Panels have turned out to have regular problems and be far from trouble free. Starting in the second year of ownership I have had an ongoing series of failures of micro inverters, panels or wiring. For two and a half years I struggled to resolve the continual failures of random panels or micro inverters. I ended up having the entire solar photo voltaic system rewired the winter before last. That seemed to solve the problems I had been having for more than a year. However, this spring when I finally had the shingles on the roof that were damaged by the solar repair work replaced, I started once more to have solar panel problems. At the moment I have two panels that are not reporting. I called my solar panel repair guy, the subcontractor of the original installer and he came out to look at the situation.

My relationship with my solar panels is a turbulent one because problems with the system are so hard to identify and address; and there have been problem after problem. The original installation was problematic, the electrical wiring was not correctly done, many of the components used in the installation turned out to be rated for interior use and the system was not set up correctly. Ultimately, I had the system rewired using rain tight fittings, replaced conduit with prefabricated fittings and proper grounding. When they were finally done and the system turned back on I had all 32 solar panels producing and reporting. Just in time for the sunny spring last year.

All seemed well until this spring when I had to have some roof repairs done to repair the damage all that climbing on the roof caused in addition to the damage from the harsh winter. When the roof work was finished, suddenly I had one panel not reporting. The roofer came back and checked the plugs. Two days later the panel was once more reporting, but shortly after that the panel seemed to fail again along with a second panel. I called the solar repair company. They got back to me a couple of weeks later.

After climbing on the roof and examining the system, the repairman showed me pictures of what he believed to be the latest set of problems. Half of the racking system that holds the solar panels on the roof had lifted up slightly. It was probably all the snow last winter. In addition, there was at least one Enphase inverter that had failed. The repair people assumed that the second inverter had also failed, despite having a green light.

So the newest proposal is to Replace & Repair the solar panel racking for ½ of the system, 16 panels, for  $ 3,742. The scope of work is:

• 16 PV panels & inverters will be dismounted to be tested & cleaned
• All L-Feet & associated flashing will be removed & roof penetrations sealed
• New IronRidge Flashing Feet will be installed on an off-set location from original feet locations
• New IronRidge Mid Clamps will be installed to secure PV Panels into new Rails
• All mounting rails will be replaced with IronRidge XR-10 series rails
• In addition, the 2 malfunctioning Enphase Micro Inverters will be replaced.

The charge for the materials for the work are 60% of the expense - $2,242 (Items: $1,892 + S&H:$350)

• IronRidge XR-10 Series Rails
• IronRidge L-Feet with Flashing
• IronRidge 2.0” Mid Clamps
• Electrical Grounding Hardware
• Roof Sealants
• Roof Shingle Flashing

The solar photo voltaic array turns out to need regular maintenance and repairs, and is subject to damage from snow, rain, wind and roofers. There is no certification or license for solar panel installers or repair companies that I can check.  The solar company is working under a valid class A contractor’s license, and have all the proper insurance. Since this is the repairs to the racking system and the lift of the system could be seen in the pictures that they took, it is a safety issue; the solar panels could fall off of the roof and injure someone. This should be addressed as soon as possible. We will move ahead with the repair. Though, I look ahead and see a continual series of repairs. I need to understand at least in my own mind, how I would determine the point I give up. It comes down to money and time.

Though troublesome, my solar panels still make financial sense. The market cost of solar panels and installation has been falling for years, but so have the financial incentives. When I signed the contract to purchase my roof mounted solar system in 2009 (though it was not installed until May 2010) the cost per kilowatt for the Sharp panels I bought was about $6,700 plus permits and installation. These days that cost is about $1,800 and may be even lower. 

However, back in 2009 I was able to obtain a state rebate of $12,000 which is no longer available in Virginia. I also used the 30% federal tax credit which was recently extended and is still available. The net cost of the solar system in 2010 after rebates and tax credits was $32,578. In addition, today there is a property tax exemption in Prince William County (and most counties in Virginia). The exemption is based on the Energy Efficient Buildings Tax Exemption (Code of VA §58.1-3221.2) which allows any county, city, or town to exempt or partially exempt energy efficient buildings from local property taxes. In Prince William County the amount of the exemption is based on the installed cost of solar array and I applied for the exemption and was approved recently. My property assessment will be reduced for five years by the cost of my solar array. Based on the county property tax rate for this year that translates to a savings of $656.82 each year for the next 5 years.

The largest portion of my return is from something called a SREC, a solar renewable energy credit. A SREC is a credit for each megawatt hours of electricity that is produced, but used elsewhere. SRECs have value only because some states have solar set asides from their Renewable Portfolio Standards, RPS, which require that a portion of energy produced by a utility be produced by renewable power. There are no RPS solar requirements in Virginia, thus no value to SRECs in Virginia today beyond the $10-$15 that a RPS credit is worth.

However, my SRECs have value. When I installed my solar array, my system was eligible to sell SRECs in Pennsylvania and Washington DC and I registered my Virginia based solar photovoltaic array in both markets. The Pennsylvania market has collapsed, but the District of Columbia passed a law in 2011 which made the SRECs quite valuable for a number of years. The law prevents out-of-state systems from registering after January 31st 2011 is registered mine well before that. DC is currently the only under-supplied SREC market in the nation, because of the lack of large commercial solar farms and large industrial installations. Washington DC is a city with limited non-governmental buildings and no available private land beyond the reservoirs and Blue Plains waste water treatment plant.

The dollar value of the solar power I generate from my solar panels is worth less than I have sold my SRECs for over the past five years. However, there is no guarantee that my SRECs will be worth anything next year and as more solar power is registered in DC and the penalty price of failing to meet the solar carve out falls the value of my SRECs will decrease. My SRECs potentially have some value until 2025. Once my system no longer has the solar incentives available to it, I will have to reevaluate how worthwhile the system is to maintain going forward, but for now, this just extends the payback time for the system.

PW Landfill and Piedmont Environmental Council Win Environmental Awards

The 2013 Virginia Governor’s Environmental Excellence Awards were announced on April 10, 2013, at the Environment Virginia Symposium in Lexington, VA. Among the nine Gold Medal Winners were two wonderful local organizations: Prince William County’s Solid Waste Division for its Sustainability Program and the Piedmont Environmental Council for its Land Conservation Program.

Prince William County’s Sustainability Program at the landfill encompasses recycling, groundwater protection, storm water management, erosion control, air quality monitory, alternative energy generation, material reuse and habitat development. As a part of its community outreach efforts, the landfill facilities have been opened to citizens, school groups, bird watchers, business groups and professional organizations. The Solid Waste Division shares credit for the program’s success with county management support, a strong working relationship with regulatory agencies, and community involvement and pride. Tom Smith, chief of the County’s Solid Waste Division, said, “Prince William County recognizes the importance of protecting the health, safety, and environment of the community we serve. I’m very proud of what the County has accomplished with regards to environmental sustainability.”

In 2012 the landfill was designated an “Audubon at Home” wildlife sanctuary. According to the Prince William Conservation Alliance, who organizes the annual Nokesville Christmas Bird Count, the Prince William County Landfill has the largest numbers of Bald Eagles in the county. On Christmas day 2012 the Birders counted 10 adults and 10 immature Bald Eagles, along with many gulls including 650 Ring-billed Gulls and three Great Black-backed Gulls.

The life expectancy of the landfill has been prolonged to 2065 through expanding recycling and composting in the county. The landfill is targeting to achieve 40% recycling countywide by 2015. The landfill is built as a series of cells that include liners of plastic membranes and watertight geo-synthetic clay liner fabric on the bottom along with a leachate collection system. At the end of each day, earth covers the trash deposited in the cell, to keep animals away and improve aesthetics. When a cell if full, it is capped to prevent (or at least limit) the rain that percolates through the landfill and covered in soil.

The PW Landfill has 48 groundwater monitoring wells, and 78 landfill gas extraction wells. Landfill gas is generated during the natural process of bacterial decomposition of organic material contained in the trash buried in the landfill. Landfill gas is approximately forty to sixty percent methane, with the remainder being mostly carbon dioxide with varying amounts of nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, sulfur, and other contaminants. The gases produced within the landfill are either collected and flared off or used to produce heat and electricity. The landfill gas cannot be allowed to build up in the landfill because of the risk of explosion. More than 7 million tons of trash buried at the landfill. That trash currently generates 2,700 standard cubic feet per minute of landfill gas and will increase. Flaring the gas releases greenhouse gases to no purpose.

In 1998 the County formed a partnership with Fortistar to install a landfill gas collection system and a 1.9 MW energy recover facility which is a two engine turbine that burns the gas to make electricity that is sold to NOVEC, the local electric cooperative. The 1.9 MW energy recovery system is currently operational, but the amount of landfill gas generated has increased from 1600 scfm in 1999, to the current amount of 2600 scfm, and is utilizing less than 25% of the currently available landfill gas for energy recovery. Three (3) additional turbine engines are scheduled to be installed by August 2013 to produce additional 4.8 MW of electricity. Additional gas will be available even after the new engines are installed and will provide landfill gas to heat the Fleet Maintenance Building and provide fuel to the Animal Shelter through a new gas pipeline. The landfill is moving forward to develop plans to create an “ECO Park” at the landfill.

The Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) located in Warrenton received their award for their land conservation work combining public and private initiatives with market-based solutions to achieve regional conservation goals. Heather Richards, accepted the award on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental Council and said, “We are honored to be recognized for over 40 years of work in preserving the scenic, cultural, and natural resources of the Piedmont. The need for land conservation remains strong throughout our region and all of Virginia, and we look forward to continuing our partnership with landowners and the community to protect the landscape that makes this place special to us all.”

PEC staff work with landowners bringing a holistic approach to land conservation. They see the decisions of individual landowners to protect their land in a larger, collective context. PEC reaches out to landowners to raise the idea of land conservation and meeting with those who are interested in conserving their land bringing experience and knowledge to help the landowners through the process. As an accredited land trust, they also hold conservation easements directly. PEC currently holds 47 easements -- protecting over 6,600 acres in our region.

I know PEC through their Sustainable Habitat Program. PEC works with landowners throughout the region on land management strategies to improve wildlife habitat and water quality. PEC works to educate all types of landowners about our region’s crucial ecosystems and the small and large steps we can all take to protect our wildlife corridors and watershed. PEC staff stays up to date with local, state and federal policy regarding land conservation. This year, PEC played a major role in writing and introducing a bill in the Virginia General Assembly, HB 1398, which protects and expands the tools available for helping landowners conserve their land in perpetuity. The bill passed with board bi-partisan support.

Photo of native plant and grasses in Loudoun is by Katherine Vance

Also receiving a Gold Medal Award was Virginia Tech for its Sustainability Program, with four components targeting improving the efficiency of facilities and operations, enhancing academic programs related to sustainability, engaging the larger community, and changing campus culture and behavior to conserve energy, water and materials. (Green Risks supplies content for the Extension newsletter published at Virginia Tech.)

2011 U.S. Electrical Power Generation by Fuel

Last week when the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA released the second year of reported greenhouse gas emissions data from large sources they stated in their press release that “Power plants remain the largest stationary source of GHG emissions, with 2,221 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (mmtCO2e), roughly one-third of total U.S. emissions. In 2011 emissions from this source were approximately 4.6 % below 2010 emissions, reflecting an ongoing increase in power generation from natural gas and renewable sources.”

 Many news sources published the press release verbatim. If the increase in renewables was due to the recent surge in construction of wind and solar power generation installations this could be just the beginning in the shrinking of the CO2e footprint of the U.S. electrical grid. A fuel change from coal to natural gas would also significantly reduce the CO2e footprint of electrical power.  I decide to take a hard look at the Electrical Generation Data available from theU.S. Energy Information Administration. The major uses of energy in the United States are heating of residential and commercial buildings (11%), industry (20%), transportation including cars, trucks, trains, planes and ships (27.4%), and electric power generation (40%). Clearly, changes in the makeup of the generating sectors would have a profound effect on the CO2e generation of the nation.

From the U.S. EIA Data

 Overall from 2010 to 2011 electrical power generated in the U.S. fell fractionally less than half a percentage point- 19.40 billion Kilowatt hours to 4,105.7 billion Kilowatt hours of power generated in 2011. Power generated from coal fell 113 billion Kilowatt hours to 1,743.3 billion Kilowatt hours. Power generated from natural gas rose 28.9 billion Kilowatt hours to 1016.6 billion Kilowatt hours. Nuclear power generation fell 16.8 billion Kilowatt hours to 790 billion Kilowatt hours. Hydroelectric power generation rose 64.9 billion Kilowatt hours. Wind generation rose 25 billion Kilowatt hours and solar generation rose 0.6 billion Kilowatt hours.

The big reduction in greenhouse gas emissions appears to be from the overall reduction in fossil fuel based power generation of 93.4 billion Kilowatt hours which also included a reduction in coal generation and an increase in natural gas generation that generates only 56% of the CO2e per Kilowatt hour of power as coal and the significant increase in hydroelectric power. Power generated from renewable sources increased 92.7 billion Kilowatt hours in 2011 over 2010 the largest portion of which is attributed to an increase in hydroelectric power generation.

Since it has been two generations since the U.S. has built large damns, it seems most likely that the increase in hydroelectric generation was due to the heavy rains in that year increasing hydroelectric generation. Unfortunately in the drought year of 2012 the amount of power generated by hydroelectric will fall and fossil fuel generation will have to make up the difference. There has been a permanent  increase in wind power generation capacity as newly built wind farms have been tied into the power grid. This is likely to continue to increase in the short run as long as building the wind farms are subsidized by the government and the expense of connecting the wind generation to the power grid is carried by the rate payers. 

  

The drop in fossil fuel generation from 2010 to 2011 is almost exactly equal to the increase in renewable power generation- primarily hydroelectric and wind. The U.S. use of electricity is fairly stable at this time. The overall reduction in fossil fuel generation accounts for half the reduction in CO2e the other half of the reduction of CO2e appears to be coming from the migration to natural gas.  A slight reduction in overall generation would account for the difference. While this is exciting news, I was surprised how big hydroelectric generation was overall. Also, we have not built any damns in over two generations so that the hydroelectric capacity is very dependent on how wet a year it is. In the past40 years hydroelectric power generation has fluctuated from a high of around 325-350 billion Kilowatt hours a year during the wet years of the mid 1980’s and 1990’s to the lows of 220-250 billion Kilowatt hours during the early 2000’s. Since, 2012 was a drought year, the CO2e of electrical generation in the U.S. will increase despite the growing importance of wind power generation from 1.34% of power generated in 2008 to 2.92% of power generated in 2011. 

Hydroelectric Generation vs total Electrical Generation 1949-2011

IEA Says $ 5 Trillion needed to Prevent Global Warming

International Energy Agency (IEA) was established in November 1974 in response to the global oil crisis created by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil embargo. Its primary mandate was to promote energy security amongst its member countries by organizing a collective response to future oil embargo's or other disruptions in the oil supply. Over the years the mission has evolved to include holding global warming at 2°C by providing policy recommendations for ways to ensure reliable, clean energy for its 28 member countries (which includes the United States). The IEA has become a tracker of carbon dioxide releases and investment in carbon control technologies. They released their annual progress report to member countries on implementing clean energy and carbon dioxide controls worldwide geared to preventing global temperatures from increasing more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels called the Energy Technology Perspectives 2012 2°C Scenario Report, EDP 2DC for short .

Though filled with cheerful statement about accomplishments in installing solar panels and the growth in wind turbines, the report tells us that the world is not really doing that well at instituting clean energy technologies. The EDP 2DC, states that it is still feasible to prevent the earth’s temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius if “timely and significant government policy action is taken, and a range of clean energy technologies are developed and deployed globally,” but we’re pretty much out of time. The government action required is spending more money, much more money. The money is to be spent for the development and implementation of clean technologies to reduce Energy related CO2 emissions by over 5 billion metric tons before 2020 and continue to fall thereafter to less than half of the current level while world population continues to grow. The IEA estimates that the  additional investment cost of achieving these carbon reductions would cost $5 trillion by 2020, but the countries would save $4 trillion (in future dollars) in fuel not burned from the scenario where the world just marches forward on its current path and doubles it’s fossil fuel use by 2050.

Worldwide CO2 emissions are up 6% from 2009, to over 30 billion metric tons, in 2010. Thirty billion metric tons of CO2 is an increase of 40% above the 1990 levels and it seems impossible that any group of policy recommendations will stop the increase in energy use in the emerging markets from continuing. The IEA estimates that the since 2000, China has more than tripled its installed capacity of coal power plants, while India’s capacity has increased by 50%. Unfortunately, they have not used to most efficient designs and technologies available in those plants. In addition, while the IEA strategy includes doubling the nuclear power capacity by 2025, almost 440 nuclear reactors in operation across the world remained virtually constant over the past decade, with 32 reactors shut down and the same number added to the grid. Overall, nuclear capacity increased by 6%, due to installation of larger reactors and power upgrades in existing reactors.  However, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and Japan have developed plans to phase out their nuclear reactors in the next decade in response to the damage to the nuclear reactors that occurred in the Japanese tsunami. Finally, while wind and solar power have enjoyed significant growth in the past few years, the world economic climate has forced many nations (notably Germany and Spain) to reduce or eliminate solar incentives and IEA doubts that the growth rate in this area can be sustained. 

The worldwide level of CO2 is higher than the worst-case scenario outlined by climate experts just five years ago, but fortunately temperatures have not (yet) risen as projected by the climate models.  The relationship of climate change to worldwide CO2 levels may not be the one assumed in the climate models, nonetheless, the IEA report assumes the projections of the climate models are the absolute trajectory of global temperatures.  Recently,  the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced total gross US emissions of CO2 equivalents in 2010 was to 6,822 million metric tons of carbon dioxide gross,and 5,746 million metric tons of CO2 net of the carbon sink of our forests. The peak of CO2 emissions in the US was 2007 and though emissions have increased since 2009, they are still below 2007 levels. This is true for most of the older first world nations whose carbon emission have already peaked or have slowed their growth significantly. Now the developed world is struggling with huge budget deficits, how to implement austerity measures and how to fund the entitlements programs, pensions, health care and other government promises. The emerging nations are sprinting to build power infrastructure in their nations where significant portions of their citizens do not have reliably available electric power or yet have cars. This does not seem to be a scenario where the recommended policies and strategies are likely to be implemented.

The IEA report talks about how technologies from electric vehicles, solar panels, nuclear generators, to wind farms and technologies to sequester carbon can make a decisive difference in limiting global temperature rise to 2°C above pre-industrial levels. EDS 2DC provides policies for nations on how to spend their way to a cleaner energy future. The IEA believes that the technologies with the greatest potential for energy and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions savings are making the slowest progress: “carbon capture and storage (CCS) is not seeing the necessary rates of investment into full-scale demonstration projects and nearly one-half of new coal-fired power plants are still being built with inefficient technology; vehicle fuel-efficiency improvement is slow; and significant untapped energy-efficiency potential remains in the building and industry sectors.”

The development of carbon sequestion technology is a one of the big leaps of faith, but the implementation of energy saving strategies like insulation, efficient lighting and higher efficiency heating and air conditioning systems, on commercial and residential buildings are seemingly easy improvements because they show a short term and immediate return on investment and are simple to do. Commercial and residential buildings account for 32% of energy use and improved insulation and changes in temperature settings, lighting efficiency and other small choices could reduce world energy use 8-10% yet nations have failed to adopt regulations and implementation strategies to promote this. We have failed to accomplish even the most straight forward of the policy goals while spending huge amounts of money on renewable energy incentives. The IEA continues to pursue a mirage of a future where renewable energy and carbon sequestion will save us. Instead, IEA needs to spend their brain power and resources in developing strategies for living in the world we are going to find ourselves in. 

Promising a Wind Turbine to Get their Building Approved in Fairfax

Pohanka Stonecroft, LLC, wants to build a new car dealership and repair shop in Fairfax which requires rezoning an industrial property to commercial. The Fairfax county staff reviewed the original request and recommended denial. If you want to look it up the case is RZ 2011-SU-024 / SE 2011-SU-009. The request was initially denied because the Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for green building practices for new uses were interpreted to require USGBC LEED certification and did not lend itself to car dealerships which due to the heating and cooling requirements per person of a car showroom do not fit easily into the LEED guidelines. The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) currently offers a set of voluntary green building standards known as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) by far the most popular and well-known green building certification program in the nation. LEED operates as a point-based certification system, where building developers can reach the Certified, Silver, Gold and Platinum levels of ‘greenness’ in different ways hopefully appropriate to the local conditions. While the LEEDS point-based system allows flexibility for building developers, it has limitations for unusual uses. Also, LEED certification requires an investment of money to pay for third party verification and periodic verifications.

Ultimately, Fairfax County decided that actual certification through the USGBC LEED program was not a requirement for County staff approval. Instead, the county staff agreed on what they term a “realistic and equitable commitment to green building practices from the applicant and ensuring that the resulting development contained substantial energy saving technologies.” The revised plan that was approved contained guarantees for specific energy-efficient technologies, materials, and construction practices that the applicant intends to use in building a car dealership that will hopefully be the most energy efficient care dealership in Fairfax. Most notable among these was the commitment by Pohanka to install an electricity-generating wind turbine on site to meet the energy savings requirements of Fairfax County by generating renewable energy. The news of a wind turbine in Fairfax made the Washington Post and peaked my interst.

Wind energy accounted for 2.3% of energy produced in the United States in 2010 more than doubling in capacity since 2008. New technologies have decreased the cost of producing electricity from wind, and growth in wind power has been encouraged by tax breaks for renewable energy and payments in some states for renewable energy credits, the size of a wind turbine will determine the amount of power generated and the amount of wind necessary to turn the turbine. Large industrial turbines require huge prevailing winds to spin the blades. The higher the wind speed the greater amount of power that can be generated. However there is also a growing market for small wind turbines for residential and small commercial use. These units generate between 38 kWh/month at 12 mph to over 500 kWh/month at 12 mph. My research found that for these turbines to generate power the wind speed should be at least 7mph for them to generate their minimum amount of power.

The U.S. Department of Energy's Wind Program and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) published a wind resource map for the state of Virginia. According to data collected for the Department of Energy by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, there are areas in Virginia that have prevailing wind speeds consistent with community-scale production, the Sully district of Fairfax is not one of these windy locations. Several areas of the state are estimated to have good-to-excellent wind resource. These include the Atlantic coast along the Delmarva Peninsula and the Virginia Beach area, the ridge crests in the north-central part of the state, and ridge crests near the borders of West Virginia and North Carolina. For forty years the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, has monitored the monthly and average annual prevailing wind speed at Dulles Airport. The average annual wind speed at Dulles has been 7.4 miles per hour which is equal to 3.3 meters/second in wind speed.

According to the submissions made to Fairfax County, the Pohanka proposal included installation of a Renewegy, LLC VP-20 turbine to generate 1% of the site’s electricity. According to the Renewegy product literature, these products can be very effective at 6.0 meter per second and with state incentives at 20% and federal savings at 30%, depreciation, renewable energy sales at $20/REC, and electricity savings the payback would be in under 8 years. However, with average annual wind speed at 3.3 meters per second the Renewegy VP-20 will generate less than 5,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per year. The annual energy savings for the unit would be only $500-$600 per year. In Virginia there is no mandated Renewable Portfolio Standard, RPS, so while RECs are purchased and sold the going rate is $15. Virginia does not currently have any money in state incentives so only the 30% federal tax credit would be available to subsidize this purchase. My quick estimate is the payback period for the wind turbine in Virginia would be in excess of 20 years. Pohanka should consider smaller turbines that can run optimally at the prevailing wind speed or solar panels.

Energy Consumption in the US 2010

According to the US Energy Information Administration, the statistics branch of the Department of Energy, the US used 98 quadrillion BTU last year. Energy sources are measured in different physical units depending on the type of energy source: barrels of oil, cubic feet of natural gas, tons of coal, kilowatt hours of electricity. In the United States, British thermal units (Btu), a measure of heat energy, is a commonly used unit for comparing different types of energy. In 2010, U.S. primary energy use equaled 98 quadrillion (=E15, or one thousand trillion) Btu. If it helps to visualize this any better, that is equivalent to about 2,471 Mtoe (million tons of oil equivalent) the energy measurement standard used by the International Energy Agency, IEA, the keeper of world statistics. In a world with seven billion people the United States is estimated to have 310 million people, about 4% of the world’s population, 7% of the land mass and use about 14% of the energy (depending on how fast China and India are growing since the world energy data is about two years old).

In the United States the US Energy Information Administration collects and reports the energy statistics in quadrillion BTUs and has recently reported the summary data for 2010. These statistics paint a picture of who we are today. The major energy sources in the United States are petroleum-gas and oil (37%), natural gas (25%), coal (21%), nuclear (9%), and renewable energy primarily biomass and hydro power generation (8%). The United States only produces about 75% of the energy we consume, the shortfall is imported petroleum. The major users are heating of residential and commercial buildings (11%), industry (20%), transportation including cars, trucks, trains, planes and ships (27.4%), and electric power generation (40%).

The slightly complicated chart above shows the types of fuel and the sector that consumes it. Looking at petroleum, you can see that it supplies 37% of our energy needs. Transportation, cars, trucks, trains, planes and ships, uses 71% of petroleum and that petroleum provides 94% of the total energy used in transportation. Industry uses 22% of the total petroleum consumed by the United States to supply 40% of the energy used by industry. Studying all the details of the chart tells you a lot about the United States in 2010. It will also allow you to understand the impact that policies, regulation and scientific advances might have on the country.

For example, 92% of coal mined in the United States is used to generate electricity, regulations like the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule affecting electricity generation are likely to impact coal use, cost of electricity, mining and mining regions. In 2010, of the 1,085.3 million short tons of coal produced in the United States, about 7.5% was exported, so if the number of coal fired electrical plants is decreased, the demand for coal to produce electricity is reduced, the amount of coal mined in the United States will decrease, the number of coal miners and employees of coal companies will decrease, the trains transporting coal and their employees will not be necessary, and the cost of electricity will increase as the electrical power industry builds new generation plants burning other fuels.
.
Some primary energy sources, such as nuclear and coal, are entirely used in one sector, electrical generation. Others, like natural gas and renewables, are more evenly distributed across sectors. Similarly, while transportation is almost entirely dependent on petroleum, electric power uses a variety of fuels. Because the United States is the world’s largest oil importer, it may seem surprising that it also exports about 2 million barrels a day of refined petroleum products. It seems were are also an excellent oil refiner on the easily accessed Gulf Coast. Petroleum is used primarily for gasoline for cars (55%), diesel for trucks and heating oil (23%), propane and liquefied petroleum gases used in homes and farms for cooking, heating, and jet fuel (9%). The five biggest sources of net crude oil imported to the United States in 2010 were: Canada (25%), Saudi Arabia (12%), Nigeria (11%), Venezuela (10%), Mexico (9%). Policy decisions about a future Keystone pipeline may change that in the future. U.S. crude oil imports grew rapidly from mid-20th century until the late 1970s, but fell sharply from 1979 to 1985 because of restructuring the economy (manufacturing as a component of the economy was reduced), conservation, and improved efficiency. After 1985, the upward trend resumed, peaking at 10.1 million barrels per day in 2005, and falling to 9.2 million barrels per day in 2010.

Natural gas is the source of 25% of the energy consumed in the United States and in 2010 was used almost equally for industry, electrical generations and residential and commercial heating. Most, but not all, of the natural gas consumed in the United States is produced in the United States. Some natural gas is imported to the United States in the older Keystone pipelines. Natural gas is also being shipped to the United States as liquefied natural gas (LNG). U.S. natural gas production and consumption were nearly in balance through 1986 though U.S. production of natural gas peaked in 1973. From 1986 to 2006 consumption of natural gas outpaced production, and imports rose. Then in 2006 U.S. production of natural gas began to increase as a result of the development of more efficient and cost effective hydraulic fracturing techniques. In 2010 natural gas production in the United States reached the highest recorded annual total since 1973. Regulation and control of hydraulic fracturing will impact the cost of natural gas production in the United States, the availability of gas and the environmental impact to our natural resources.

In truth I am an old time engineer who learned to look at the world with a slide rule (calculators were just coming in and thought to be cheating). Through numbers I understand the world, policies and see relationships.