See the Tabbed Pages for links to video tutorials, and a linked list of post titles grouped by topic.

This blog is expressly directed to readers who do not have strong training or backgrounds in science, with the intent of helping them grasp the underpinnings of this important issue. I'm going to present an ongoing series of posts that will develop various aspects of the science of global warming, its causes and possible methods for minimizing its advance and overcoming at least partially its detrimental effects.

Each post will begin with a capsule summary. It will then proceed with captioned sections to amplify and justify the statements and conclusions of the summary. I'll present images and tables where helpful to develop a point, since "a picture is worth a thousand words".

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Private Sector Investment in Renewable Energy and the Need for Federal Subsidies

Summary. Institutions in the private sector are actively implementing renewable energy projects that optimize energy efficiency, install local renewable energy facilities, and/or purchase energy that has been generated by renewable technologies.  Motivations for undertaking these projects include economizing on costs, reducing overall energy usage, and reducing fossil fuel use and emission of greenhouse gases.




In order to encourage these private sector activities, the U. S. federal government should maintain and expand subsidy support for renewable energy.  At the present time this support is contracting radically as the result of expiration of several short-term subsidy programs.  Respected authorities suggest expanding subsidy programs by three-fold, together with tailoring of subsidy programs to optimize effectiveness by, for example, stimulating strong competition and enhancing public-private consortia for deployment of renewable energy.


Introduction. Carbon Dioxide Emissions around the World.  The United States was the nation with the second highest rate of emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the world in 2008 (the latest year tabulated by the U. S. Energy Information Agency (EIA)) .  It is predicted to remain second even by 2035.  Its rate of growth of emissions is foreseen as 0.3% per year, whereas that for China, the largest source of emissions, is expected to grow by 2.6% per year, assuming that no changes in emissions policies will be put in place.  Because of these differences in projected emission rates, by 2035 China is expected to emit 13,441 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2 (31% of the world’s emissions) while the U. S. is expected to emit 6,311 MMT (15% of the total).


Of the major emitters of CO2 in the world, the U. S. is the only one without a comprehensive legislated policy directed to the long-term management of its greenhouse gas emissions.  The state of California, by contrast (comprising about 13% of the economy of the entire country as of 2010), has implemented an ambitious, market-driven goal of reducing statewide emissions from all sources by 80% by 2050.  The European Union also has a plan in operation with the same objectives (see Energy Policy.  I. and Energy Policy. II.).  China differs from California and the European Union in not having a representative form of government, and in striving to expand its economy to a level comparable with that of already-developed countries.  Nevertheless it too has long term policies for its energy development covering the period of its 12th Five YearPlan for 2011-2015, and beyond.


Private Sector Investment in Renewable Energy.  A wide spectrum of corporate, governmental and nonprofit entities in the U. S. are undertaking significant programs that mitigate the effects of increased atmospheric greenhouse gases and the resulting increase in the long-term average global temperature.  This writer subscribes to an emailed newsletter from Environmental Leader (EL), which is distributed daily.  A nonrandom selection of items drawn from its emails between May 17 and May 24, 2012 is tabulated below in the Details section.  The entries are highly representative of offerings appearing routinely in the EL emails.  In general the projects are either energy efficiency efforts in preexisting structures, or installation of new renewable energy sources such as solar or wind energy.  The Environmental Defense Fund in collaboration with major American corporations, cities and colleges; Goldman Sachs Group; Wal-Mart; Apple; and the governments of the U. S. and the state of California are included in the tabulation.  It is significant that Goldman Sachs is committing US$40 billion over the next 10 years for renewable energy investment opportunities worldwide.


The projects highlight the fact that important segments of the American economy, drawn from the corporate, governmental and nonprofit sectors, are embarking on major projects that increase the efficiency of energy use in their facilities, and reduce reliance on energy derived from fossil fuels.  It is highly noteworthy that these efforts are being undertaken spontaneously, i.e., they are implemented on their own volition rather than in response to any particular governmental policy or imposed regulation.  Stated or implied motivations for these projects include savings in operating costs once a payback period is passed, the opportunity to reap profits from investments undertaken with third parties,  reducing greenhouse gas emissions to help mitigate long-term global temperature increases, and moving away from use of fossil fuels  (much of which originates abroad) for energy.


Subsidies for Renewable Energy.  The accumulation of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere will continue indefinitely over the next several decades under current policies in place around the world.  This will lead to increased long-term global average temperature, and to its detrimental effects such as regional drought and heat waves, regionally increased rainfall and flooding, increased wildfires and decreased agricultural harvests.  For this reason it is imperative to implement measures to mitigate emissions as soon as possible.  The anecdotal initiatives in the private sphere mentioned here are representative of a broader trend occurring in the private sector in the U. S.  The availability and economic viability of various forms of renewable energy have benefited from financial support from the U. S. federal government over the past few decades; yet there have been serious problems with the way in which federal support has been implemented.


Subsidies for fossil fuels have been in place in the U.S. for almost 100 years.  Subsidies for the nuclear energy industry have been particularly profound.  Subsidies for renewable energy sources of course began much more recently.  Pfund and Healy recently reported on federal energy subsidies.  Historical average annual subsidies for sectors in the energy economy are shown below; the periods in question are in the caption of the graphic.  (Biofuels include agricultural ethanol.)  The cumulative subsidy for renewables (not counting biofuels) is less than one-tenth that for oil and gas.


Historical average of annual subsidies in 2010 US$ billions received by gray, oil and gas (US$4.86, over 1918-2009); purple, nuclear (US$3.50, over 1947-1999); orange, biofuels (US$1.08, over 1980-2009); green, renewable energy sources (US$0.37, over 1994-2009).


Separately, these authors conclude that, over the earliest 15 years of federal subsidy grants to a new technology, when their effects will have the greatest effect, nuclear energy received more than 1% of the federal budget (on a constant dollar basis), subsidies to the oil and gas industry amounted to one-half percent of the budget, whereas renewable energy sources received subsidies amounting to only about one-tenth percent of the budget.  Thus the proportional support for oil and gas in its early years as an industry was about 5 times greater than that for renewable energy sources.   Accordingly, in order to promote research, development and deployment (RD&D) of renewable energy sources, federal subsidies should be expanded proportionately.


In addition, for the renewable energy sector, recent subsidy support has occurred intermittently, interspersed with periods in which support lapsed.  This is shown for the case of wind energy in the following graphic, for an interval ending in 2006.


Cumulative wind generating capacity (left axis, blue line) and capacity added each year (right axis, green bars) for years from 1981 to 2006.  The arrows show years in which the Production Tax Credit (PTC)expired without being renewed.
  

The three arrows in the graphic above show years in which the Production Tax Credit lapsed rather than being continued without interruption.  This break in the continuity of support had a drastic effect, reducing the rate of installation of new wind generating capacity dramatically in the affected years (see the graphic above).  Corporate management needs to have an understanding of the economic environment to be expected over the medium and long term in order to make informed strategic and investment decisions.  Clearly the short-term intermittency of support for wind energy had major consequences in the corporate sector developing this energy source.
 

A new report from the Brookings Institution on present and future subsidy structures for renewable energy appeared in April 2012 (“Beyond Boom & Bust: Putting Clean Tech on a Path to Subsidy Independence” , by Jesse Jenkins, Mark Muro, Ted Nordhaus, Michael Shellenberger, Letha Tawney, and Alex Trembath).  Whereas Pfund and Healey’s report was retrospective, this document examines the present and allocated trends in the next few years.  They analyzed 92 distinct federal support programs.  They note that federal subsidies for renewable energy in 2012 contract to about 50% of the support in the previous year, and fall even further

 
U. S. Federal subsidy support for renewable energy 2009-2014 in US$ billions.  Red, non-stimulus support; Tan, stimulus (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act; ARRA) support.


by 2014.  The graphic shows that the recession stimulus for renewable energy, legislated in 2009 (beige segments above) fall to essentially zero by 2014, as intended.  Non-stimulus support for renewable energy (red segments) does not make up for the loss of the stimulus support, remaining at a very low level, about US$11-13 billion through 2014.
 
A schematic representation of the temporary nature of much federal support for renewable energy, as exemplified for wind and solar energy, is shown in the following graphic.  The specific labels for each arrow are understandably not legible; the important feature below is that many of the programs have terminated or are scheduled to terminate by 2013 (shown by the vertical bars at the ends of the respective arrows).  The various arrows identify specific statutory support programs. 

U. S. Federal subsidy support timelines for wind energy and solar energy through 2015 (the right-most vertical line in each panel) and beyond. 

  
For wind, the lowest arrow continuing beyond 2015 is for a loan guarantee program that continues until a budgeted maximum of US$1.5 billion for all renewables is reached.  For solar, the two lowest arrows continuing beyond 2015 are for a 30% investment tax credit through 2016 which falls to 10% after that, and for the same US$1.5 billion maximum described for the case of wind subsidies.

Jenkins and coworkers point out that many renewable energy companies are likely to experience market contraction, or undergo bankruptcy or consolidation, in the coming years.  This is expected in view of the reduced U. S. federal support currently envisioned, and because overseas markets for U. S. products are also contracting in view of loss of subsidy support abroad.  As did Pfund and Healey, Jenkins and coworkers recognize that U. S. federal support has been poorly conceived, characterized by a “boom and bust cycle of aid and withdrawal”.

On a positive note, however, they find that expenditures of US$150 billion between 2009 and 2014 likely leverage public and private investment in clean technology of US$327 to 622 billion.  Of course such investment levels bring with them significant expansion of jobs for the American economy.

The authors note that subsidy support should be wisely dispersed over the future term, to support renewable energy RD&D, manufacture and deployment during its sensitive formative period, recognizing that this sector faces formidable competitive stress from established fossil fuel-based energy and from foreign providers of renewable energy hardware that themselves are substantially subsidized.

They view the present period of diminishing subsidy support for renewables as a favorable opportunity to fashion purposeful, long-term support programs for this growing industry.  Among its recommendations for new policy departures are the following:

  1. Reward development of improved technologies, and promote cost reductions.  The market for renewable energy should remain a competitive one.  Deploying new technologies should be in market settings that provide incentives and rewards for continued improvements in technology performance and costs.  Subsidy programs should be structured for new developments arising as they proceed, by reducing or eliminating support for unsuccessful ventures and those that attain competitive stature on their own.  Use of private capital should be encouraged by subsidy programs, and support, while temporary, should be of sufficient duration that business ventures operate in an environment of financial certainty.
  1. The energy innovation system should strive to make renewable energy cheap.  RD&D should be expanded to three times today’s levels; Pfund and Healey reached a similar conclusion.  Federal programs such as Energy Frontier Research Centers, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, and Energy Innovation Hubs should be supported and expanded.  These typically are conducive to create public-private partnerships.  It is important to develop and utilize technical professionals of the highest level to help drive innovation.
Conclusion

We have provided anecdotal but representative reports of renewable energy and energy efficiency projects undertaken spontaneously in the private sector.  These show that more mature renewable energy technologies are competitive with energy derived from fossil fuels.  Deployment of non-fossil fuel-derived energy should be encouraged to expand this type of investment.

In the face of this stamp of approval provided in the private sector, U. S. federal support for renewable energy RD&D, manufacture and deployment is undergoing a drastic reduction at present.  We have summarized non-profit reports that strongly support expanding and optimizing federal government support for renewable energy.  Their recommendations should be implemented by the government.

Details

Selections from Environmental Leader emails, detailing specific renewable energy projects, are tabulated below.

Corporations

Company or Program
Details
URL Link
Environmental Defense Fund Climate Corps
EDF places recent MBA and MPA graduates in 54 companies, universities and cities.  They identify ways to enhance energy efficiency, saving costs and lowering emissions.  Institutions include Google, Boeing, Boston City Schools, Los Angeles, New Orleans and Oberlin College.
Goldman Sachs Group
Goldman Sachs has identified renewable energy projects as a major investment opportunity over the next decade, having the potential for generating significant profit.  It plans to invest US$40 billion over the next 10 years, especially in major developing countries that have put aggressive programs in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including China and Brazil.  It will target development of solar, wind, hydro, biofuels, biomass conversion, energy efficiency, energy storage, green transportation, efficient materials, LED lighting and transmission.
Goldman Sachs Group
Goldman Sachs intends to reduce its own net emissions of carbon dioxide to zero by 2020.
Central Concrete, A US Concrete company
Central Concrete will supply energy-efficient concrete to build the new San Francisco 49ers stadium, reducing CO2 emissions by 11,500 tons of CO2.  (Portland cement manufacture is very energy intensive; additionally CO2 is released from limestone when it is converted to the cement.)  Central uses coal fly ash in place of cement in its concrete.  It has in addition provided their concrete to San Francisco Public Utilities, NASA Ames Building, San Francisco Academy of Sciences, San Jose Arena, Stanford Stadium and Santa Clara University.
Deloitte Center for Energy Solutions
The Deloitte reSources 2012 Study is based on interviews with hundreds of business executives and 2,200 consumers.  90% of businesses have developed energy reduction goals, mainly electricity, for profitability and ethical reasons.  Customers of almost 2/3 of the companies also demand environmental solutions.  In the Study, companies have goals averaging 24% reduction in electricity, emissions, and fuel use over 3-4 years.  60% of companies have the goal of achieving pay-off of environmental investment of about 4 years.
Owens Corning
Owens Corning placed a solar photovoltaic (PV) system in operation at its Kearny, NJ facility in November 2009.  It was installed by SunEdison, with support from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
The company’s Gresham OR plant opened its PV system in October 2009.  This system supplies 100% of the electric power for the plant. 
Owens Corning
Owens Corning is reducing emissions company-wide by 25% per unit of production, over 2006-2012.  In addition to PV systems, the company is optimizing its energy-intensive manufacturing of building materials.
Nissan
Nissan is installing solar PV and solar thermal (for heat generation) panels at two vehicle assembly plants in Spain.
Apple
Apple will power its Maiden, NC data center 100% by renewable energy, 60% of which will be generated on site.  It has earned LEED Platinum certification.  Other facilities (including Austin, TX, Sacramento, CA, Cupertino, CA, Cork, Ireland, and Munich, Germany) are or will be powered by renewable sources.
Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart outlets in Massachusetts are being fitted with solar PV sources that will provide 10-15% of their power needs.  All together the projects will provide 10.5 MW of solar power at 27 stores.  Wal-Mart has similar projects in other states.  In California, for instance, 130 stores have or will have rooftop solar sources, generating 20-30% of their power needs.

Governmental Entities

Company or Program
Details
URL Link
Environmental Defense Fund Climate Corps
EDF places recent MBA and MPA graduates in 54 companies, universities and cities.  They identify ways to enhance energy efficiency, saving costs and lowering emissions.  Institutions include Google, Boeing, Boston City Schools, Los Angeles, New Orleans and Oberlin College.
California Cap and Trade Program
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) and governor’s executive order mandate prescribed, staged, reductions in statewide greenhouse gas emissions, to 80% by 2050.  As of now, the first auction of emission allowances will occur in November 2012, and emissions will be charged against allowances starting in January 2013.
U. S. Government & IBM
Under President Obama’s Executive Order 13514 to reduce energy use in federal buildings by 30% by 2015 from 2008 levels, IBM is providing “smart building technology”, first to some of the most-energy intensive facilities.  The technology permits monitoring and adjusting energy use to optimize efficiency.

Nonprofit Organization

Company or Program
Details
URL Link
Environmental Defense Fund Climate Corps
EDF places recent MBA and MPA graduates in 54 companies, universities and cities.  They identify ways to enhance energy efficiency, saving costs and lowering emissions.  Institutions include Google, Boeing, Boston City Schools, Los Angeles, New Orleans and Oberlin College.


© 2012 Henry Auer

2 comments:

  1. I read above article. It's nice information are give.

    MBA Colleges in UK

    ReplyDelete
  2. Global warming is primarily a problem of too much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere—which acts as a blanket, trapping heat and warming the planet.

    ReplyDelete