THIN FILM SOLAR PANELS

Archive for February, 2010

Obama said just the other day that “the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy,” and I got into a little discussion about the rivalry between Obama and the President of China, Hu Jintao, on this topic.

I thought I would leave that issue for awhile to cover other stories, but then this landed at my feet and I couldn’t resist. China’s upcoming Big Clean Energy plans are HUGE and are likely to dwarf what are currently the largest wind power and solar power projects in the world.

Forbes, not exactly the most liberal publication, just did an article on “The World’s Biggest Green Energy Projects,” and it shows that 5 of the top 10 “largest renewable energy projects in the world” were built in the last two years.

Furthermore, though, those projects might look like LEGO® projects soon compared to China’s upcoming solar and wind projects.

Wind Power

The world’s largest wind power project is currently in Texas (with a capacity of 782 MW), but China “is in the midst of building a wind corridor that could grow to a staggering 20,000 MW, 25 times the size of Texas’ Roscoe Wind Farm.” (emphasis mine) This wind farm in China is expected to have a capacity of 5,000 MW by the end of this year.

Solar Power

Additionally, China just “announced it would build a 2,000 MW solar thermal project, five times bigger than the current largest one, California’s Solar Energy Generating System.”

And in the fall, China announced plans to build a 2000 MW solar photovoltaic farm, “33 times bigger than the world’s largest today, a 60 MW farm in Spain.” (empasis mine)

Washington State thought it would take the world title with a planned 75 MW solar PV plant — think again. It may complete this plant before China’s, but don’t think that it will be the big news for long.

Why Big Projects are More Difficult in the US

Jonathan Fahey of Forbes delves into some of the reasons why building such large projects in the US is such a big challenge:

“Though economies of scale help to reduce the cost per watt of bigger projects, bigger projects are riskier. ‘From the developer’s perspective, bigger is better,’ says Ethan Zindler, an analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance. ‘But from the utility’s perspective and the financier’s perspective, that’s not always the case.’

Another problem in the U.S. right now is that projects need to get up and running before government subsidies run out, and smaller projects are easier to complete. For example, at the end of this year a provision that allows developers to get a cash grant for 30% of the construction cost of certain projects is scheduled to expire.

Also, permitting and licensing bigger projects can be more difficult. There’s a rash of proposals for geothermal power plants rated at a relatively modest 49.9 MW, says Karl Gawell, executive director of the Geothermal Energy Association, because permitting is easier for plants under 50 MW.”

Of course, in the end, this makes it hard for Obama to claim, as he did in his State of the Union speech, “I do not accept second place for the United States of America.”

In total, China is outspending the US by almost 7:1, pledging $440 billion vs $69 billion for clean energy over the coming years.

There is expectation that things might change when the economy recovers. “All the learning from this partnership will help us in the United States,” eSolar founder and chairman Bill Gross says. “I think as soon as the economy improves in the rest of the world and banks start lending, there will be a lot of competition in the U.S. and Europe. But, until then, China has the money and the demand.”

Bottom line: right now, China’s one-party government can say, “We want this now” and Obama simply cannot.

US Technology

The positive thing (for the US) is that China’s two huge solar projects will use US technology — photovoltaic panels from Arizona’s First Solar (in its large photovoltaic farm) and technology from California’s eSolar (on the solar thermal farm).

This may be where the US can really win, Gerard Wynn of Reuters reports. “[So]me in the West believe the United States still has an advantage in innovation. The owner of patents, not factories, will likely earn the biggest profits and win the technology race.”

But China may always go back to its unpopular tactic of buying China-produced and China-patented technology. We will have to see. For now, at least, it seems content to buy some US technology for its major solar projects.

Wynn, like Obama, doesn’t give the gold medal to China straight away (see the “CAN THE MARKETS PREVAIL?” section near the bottom of his “Is clean tech China’s moon shot?” article).

Nonetheless, China definitely seems to be aiming for an early lead.

Related Stories:
1) Who’s More Powerful than Obama?
2) China Forgets “China-Only Wind Turbines” Policy, but Why?
3) Locals to Get a Bus Tour of Proposed Abengoa Mojave Desert Solar Thermal Project
4) Biggest Wind Farm in World — in Texas

Image Credit: ? China ? guccio via flickr under a CC license

Reporter Roxana Tiron of The Hill picked this up over the weekend: the U.S. Department of Defense (aka the Pentagon) will include an analysis of climate change in the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), a comprehensive strategic analysis which is set for release today. The branches of the U.S. armed forces have been busy acting on climate change for years, most notably the U.S. Army (and within that, the Army Corps of Engineers), the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Air Force.  Tiron reports that today’s QDR will mark the first time that the Pentagon itself recognizes climate change as a factor in global instability and U.S. national security.  The QDR was delivered to Congress last Friday and a draft is posted on InsideDefense.com, a subscriber website.

Climate Change and the Quadrennial Defense Review

The Quadrennial Defense Review is a legislatively mandated  review of long term strategy and priorities, based on an analysis of current and future threats.   According to Tiron’s report, the QDR will call for climate change assessments at all Department of Defense installations to prepare for the impact of rising sea levels, severe heat, and other conditions that could affect operational readiness at bases, and training grounds and other facilities.

The U.S. Armed Forces and Climate Change

If you’ve been following defense news for the past few years, the QDR’s inclusion of climate change will come as no surprise.  The U.S. military has been installing solar energy and taking other climate change related sustainability measures hand over fist.  The recognition of climate change is implicit in the Army’s Strategy for the Environment (yes, they have one), and explicit in the U.S. Navy Task Force on Climate Change (yes, they have that, too) which bluntly states that “rapidly diminishing sea ice, melting glaciers, rising sea levels, [and] increased storm severity” will impact Navy missions, including humanitarian relief.

Climate Change and U.S. Military Veterans

In addressing climate change, the QDR would vindicate numerous military veterans and veterans’ organizations that have advocated for climate action in recent years, including Operation Free and VoteVets.  Last spring a dozen retired senior officers called on the Pentagon to address climate change as an “urgent” national security threat.  At Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings last summer, retired Navy Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn stated that “climate change poses a clear and present danger.”

The Department of Defense and Climate Change

Last fall the Pentagon disclosed that it costs about $400 per gallon to get conventional fuel to remote bases in Afghanistan.  Dropping that hint was no accident, it was a serious kick in the butt for the U.S. to get off fossil fuels and get cracking on sustainable energy and other climate change related actions.  The Department of Defense is, if anything, the expert on climate change.  Climate research by the Department of Defense contributes a significant portion of information to the Climate Change Science Program, a subset of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (GCRP is a creation of the U.S. Congress).  DoD-sponsored research includes a long list of satellite observations, oceanographic information gathered by the Navy, polar research, and other related programs, so for those who still can’t wrap their heads around the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, maybe the U.S. military can make a convincing case on the need for action. Image: The Pentagon by gregweat98 on flickr.com.

Using coal for electricity produces CO2, and climate policy aims to prevent greenhouse gases from hurting our habitat. But it also produces SOx and NOx and particulate matter that have immediate health dangers.

A University of Wisconsin study was able to put an economic value on just the immediate health benefits of enacting climate policy.  Implications of incorporating air-quality co-benefits into climate change policymaking found coal is really costing us about $40 per each ton of CO2.

In climate policy discourse, the cost/benefit analysis of the health benefits has not till now been a consideration, but there are air quality co-benefits of climate policy.

The Wisconsin summary of the 37 studies that have put a dollar value on the health benefits of climate policy was just published in the peer reviewed journal Environmental Research Letters.

For the 22 studies that accounted for developed nations alone, the value of air quality co-benefits per avoided ton of CO2 would average around $40 per ton, they found. The mean was $31, the median was $44, and the full range was from $2 – $192.

Including the much more immediate health costs might make climate change policy more attainable. The co-benefits are more local, nearer term, and health related, and have the potential to engage even those who are averse to the costs of climate policy or unmotivated by avoided climatic damages.

Health still has genuinely bipartisan support in the US, says Bush polling expert Frank Luntz, who should know. He recently advised environmentalists to bring up “health” as the benefit of transitioning from fossil energy.

Having a livable planet to enjoy that health on, however, shares no such bipartisan support. Sophisticated devaluation of climate science in US media outlets on the right has led to an alternate reality being developed for consumers of conservative media. The attack by the fossil energy industry has succeeded.

Until now the scientists who study health have been immune from this attack. But too many studies like this one, and that might change. In a few decades, I’m predicting, your grandchildrens’ health, too, will be just another Bolshevik plot, as is their right to a livable climate.

More from Susan Kraemer Journalists on Twitter