Renewable Energy – Buy American or Take Advantage of Economic Opportunities

Proudly Made in the USA or Proud to that it's unaffordable

Much has been made of late in the renewable energy sector towards buying products ‘Made in America’.  The problem is however, American manufactured renewable energy products are just too costly.  China’s on the other hand are not, and regardless of their economic and currency business methods the real question is: Do Americans really want renewable energy ie; solar and wind, etc., or not?

The lack of American manufacturing has plenty of blame to go around. And currently from a business sense only, it simply makes sense to outsource the work.  Therefore, it’s probably the case that certain manufacturing type jobs are gone forever.  So then, where are American solar and wind contractors to get their material to grow the market here in the U.S.?

I think it’s time we face the fact that China is the real deal.  No matter how much greater we may think we are in comparison, the truth is they have reigned supreme in the renewable energy marketplace.  We can try and fight it all we want but, when given the choice to buy solar panels from American manufacturers generally upwards of $1.50 cpw or from China with prices around $1.10 this should be a ‘no brainer’.

The trick is finding Chinese manufacturers that provide quality products meeting American standards. This can require a lot of research or, you could find a broker that deals strictly with this type of research and transaction.

For example,  Alibaba.com offers such a service general except, you must do all the work (research) and assume the responsibility and all the liability that comes with it.  However on the other hand, REepedia’s Products Division does all of this for you.  Contractors can simply state what they need, review the information returned, place an order, and receive the highest quality panels meeting all required certifications for their job.

If contractors were able to purchase panels at a minimum 25% discount to American or elsewhere manufacturers, this savings would effectively be passed along to individual consumers, thus making it more affordable.  While this purchasing strategy would no doubt hurt the American solar manufacturers, it would also spur the much needed growth in the industry.

In turn, energy costs would decrease, thus keeping more money into businesses and households for additional consumption spending, which is something the U.S. economy desperately needs.

For solar and wind to succeed and ultimately excel, Americans need to come to the realization that when it comes to solar, the U.S. made a conscious decision back in the late seventies and early eighties to give our solar technology info over to the Chinese.  We can’t really expect for China to give it back to us either, since undoubtedly we can’t compete with their manufacturing costs (however they do it…?) and therefore, assisted them the ability to create a major piece to their economic engine. All one needs to do is to take a look at the amount of U.S. solar technology manufacturer bankruptcies over the past few years while however, a continuous expansion and already massive growth of Solar installations around the world is occurring.

Americans should decide to ‘get off the fence’ (ouch – it usually hurts when sitting on spikes…) and either go as the rest of the industrializing world or not;  Renewable Energy or Not?…

20 Ways to Invest In Renewable Energy

Alternative energy investing has surged in popularity in recent years as our world has felt the effects of basing the majority of our economy off of a finite resource. Though crude oil and other fossil fuels will last us for the foreseeable future, there will come a time when our energy consumption will have to look to alternative, renewable resources.

The investment thesis behind any of the several alternative energies can be thought of as a play against crude oil, or as one of a natural evolution that we will have to face sooner or later. The timeline for our fossil fuel addiction running dry varies across the board, but it is generally accepted that this issue won’t come to fruition anytime soon.

With alternative energy still a relatively immature industry by global standards, the growth opportunities this sector presents are tremendous and worth a closer look for your portfolio. Below, we outline 20 ways to invest  in the various forms of renewable energy. … Continue Reading

My Turn: Renewable Energy Credits work, even if sold

Recently Kevin Jones of Vermont Law School wrote a My Turn criticizing Vermont’s decision to allow Vermont utilities to sell Renewable Energy Credits from renewable energy projects they had constructed themselves or agreed to fund through Power Purchase Agreements (“Renewable energy policy is an expensive illusion,” Oct. 12).

Instead Mr. Jones argued that the only way to ensure that greenhouse gas emissions were reduced was for Vermont to implement a Renewable Portfolio Standard. This is not a new debate, it happened when the Legislature implemented Vermont’s so-called SPEED rules in the first place.

Renewable Portfolio Standard advocates like Mr. Jones argue that without retirement of energy credits there is no greenhouse gas reduction. That by selling Vermont energy credits to Connecticut or Massachusetts, we are letting those states continue to run dirty, old generating plants. Instead he advocates that Vermont should establish a system to force retirement of Renewable Energy Credits itself and stop Vermont utilities from selling them out of state. It is unfortunate that Mr. Jones would ignore the financial implications of his position.

In 2008 Burlington Electric Department conducted an Integrated Resource Plan evaluating supply options over the next 20 years. That resource plan concluded that for BED to purchase 100 percent of its supply from renewable resources it would require a 25 percent rate increase. But, if we combined those purchases with sales of the Renewable Energy Credits it would require only a minimal, or possibly no, rate increase.

Since that IRP was approved BED has contracted for energy from the Sheffield Wind project, Georgia Mountain Community Wind, Hydro Quebec, and numerous solar installations. We are in discussions with Grandpa’s Knob Wind and will be looking to purchase output from the Winooski-1 hydro facility when its existing contract expires. That procurement approach puts us on a path to sourcing 100 percent of our supply from renewable resources — potentially by 2014. The cost of these purchases has been heavily mitigated by the ability to sell the Renewable Energy Credits, with nearly 6 percent of BED’s revenues now coming from energy credit sales.

Will Renewable Energy Survive in the U.S.?

For renewable energy in the U.S., the question of survival and growth is still unanswered. After all, the Department of Energy has been funding renewable energy research and development since its inception some 34 years ago from the consolidation of the Federal Energy Administration, the Federal Power Commission and the Energy Research and Development Administration, which was tasked to manage the nuclear weapon, naval reactor and energy development programs.

Concurrently, support for biofuels, photovoltaic and solar thermal energy systems, wind and geothermal systems and hydrogen have pervaded all government leaders’ speeches as the way to achieve energy independence and environmental stewardship.

The New York Times reported that by 2009 the renewable energy industry supplied 8 percent of the energy consumed in the U.S. Though not counting conventional hydro, which today is not considered a renewable source of energy, renewable energy still supplied about 5 percent of all our energy needs. One could say, 5 percent is better than no percent.  Additionally, the same NYT report claims the U.S. solar market has grown to a $6 billion industry.

In comparison, American Petroleum Institute’s (API) report “Putting Earnings into Perspective” suggest the U.S. Oil and Natural Gas (O&G) industry brought in about $1.2 trillion in revenues in 2010. Another API report states “since 2000, (O&G) has invested over $2 trillion in U.S. capital projects to advance all forms of energy, including alternatives.” With this enormous market potential and federal and industry spending on alternate energy, surely the renewable energy industry has to succeed, so it would seem.

Additionally, a Times article in April 2011 reports “in one sense green energy is already achieving scale—in new power generation. Solar is growing faster than any other form of energy, and new statistics from the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) showed that wind added 5,116 MW of new capacity last year. That’s 26% of all new energy generation added in the U.S. in 2010, second only to natural gas, which supplied 40% of new power. … Since 2007 wind has added an average of 35% of all new capacity—twice the amount of new coal and nuclear combined.”

So, why the skepticism? It appears that the growth of the U.S. solar and wind segments of the industry is slowing down. The Times article noted above goes on to say “2010 wasn’t the best year for the wind industry. Thanks in part to regulatory uncertainty last year and the post-recession collapse of the tax equity market that helps fund many renewable energy projects, just half as much wind was installed in 2010 as in 2009. And the U.S. has fallen behind China as the world’s wind leader—China now has some 45,000 MW of wind installed, compared to 40,000 MW in the U.S. China added 18,900 MW of wind in 2010, nearly four times more than the U.S.” The slack and uncertainty in the U.S. solar industry was readily apparent at the Solar Power International 2011 tradeshow recently held in Dallas. The myriad of solar module manufactures (a vast majority Chinese) all indicated the same theme – the current situation in the U.S.is less than desirable. Hence the reason why there is an oversupply and a large inventory of solar panels being dumped on the U.S. market, possibly below cost.

This uncertainty, whether temporary or the start of a downward spiral, may be due to a combination of factors such as:

•                High capital cost for installed capacity.

•                Lack of reliability to satisfy demand 24/7.

•                Low PPA rates.

•                SREC / REC fluctuations and inability to lock-in long-term purchase agreements.

•                Geographic constraints.

•                Regulatory hurdles.

•                Large real estate requirements for solar.

•                Costly maintenance for wind turbines.

•                Erosion of support for subsidies by Congress.

•                Lack of a federal energy policy.

•                Demise of some key federal incentives.

•                Erratic retail gasoline prices.

Another look at the energy consumption chart shows biomass to comprise 50 percent of the renewable energy capacity. Without biomass and hydrothermal, the renewable energy industry is almost negligible, i.e., about 1.2 percent of the energy consumed in the U.S. This deficiency, though, presents as a tremendous opportunity for growth of renewables.

Biomass, which will continue to grow, is more sustainable than renewable energy technology. In any event and no matter what it is called, biomass will continue to grow. Why, because the factors stated above, for the most part do not come into play. Take the case of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). The technology exists to convert MSW into biofuels or electrons. Problematic MSW that is brought to landfills can be converted onsite to useable energy. Economic benefits exist on both ends, i.e., disposal cost saving on the front-end and revenue generation on the back-end.

The cost of solar modules, which were  more than $3 per watt a few years ago, can be purchased today around $1 per watt. This trend is in the right direction. While manufacturing efficiencies and competition have contributed to the rapid drop in prices, the glut of solar panels in the market and dumping by Chinese manufactures may have more to do with lowering prices. At the end of the day, a solar farm will cost “all in” about $3.25 per watt, best case. A gas-fired electricity power generation plant will cost south of $1.25 per watt. Therefore, a utility that is not faced with gross penalties for using conventional fuels will generally install new capacity with gas.

Theoretically, sooner or later a business has to stand on its own two feet. Long-term subsidies are the wrong tool. However, renewables need subsidies to compete on a level playing field. Either remove subsides for both renewables and oil and gas, or provide equal incentives for both. For starters, O&G subsidies include:

•                Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit.

•                Expensing of Intangible Drilling Costs.

•                Tertiary Injectants Deduction.

•                Passive Loss Exception for Working Interests in Oil Properties.

•                Percentage Depletion Allowance.

•                Manufacturing Tax Deduction.

•                Reduced Geological and Geophysical Amortization Period.

Growth of renewable energy market (solar, unconventional hydropower, geothermal and wind) will only be achieved if the factors stated above are addressed in a strategic U.S. energy policy that reflects the long-term interests of our country. If not, solar and/or wind won’t cut the mustard in the foreseeable future.

Let’s not criticize the power company for using inexpensive fossil-fuels. Customers scream bloody hell every time the retailer raises their electrical rate. Few if any are overjoyed at a rate increase. All like low costs of energy. Today, the most effective way to hedge the trend against renewables is to be energy efficient, adopt sustainable energy

Continue Reading…

Renewable Energy Can Replace Nuclear Plants

Renewable Energy Can Replace Nuclear Plants and Create Jobs Who would of thought??

As we reported today, Germany is adding thousands of jobs and new industries by converting from nuclear energy to renewables. The same could happen in the US.

Here’s an example.

If the Indian Point Energy nuclear plant in NY state isn’t  relicensed in 2015, it could be replaced with a wide range of renewable energy options available today.

Energy efficiency and renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, alone could meet the region’s energy demand. And there is additional capacity available through new transmission projects and by making existing natural gas power plants much more efficient.

“The world watched the nuclear crisis in Japan with fear and heavy hearts; no one wants to see a repeat here in one of the most densely populated regions of the country,” says Frances Beinecke, President of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). ”Fortunately, we have a wealth of safer energy sources ready to go that can fully replace the power from Indian Point. When we consider the human and economic costs of a nuclear crisis in New York, and the host of benefits from investing in clean energy, the solution is common sense.”

The nuclear plant is just 34 miles north of the center of Manhattan.

NRDC’s new risk analysis compares the human and financial costs of the Fukushima disaster to the potential risks of a nuclear crisis at Indian Point, and reveals that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission underestimates the danger posed to Indian Point from seismic activity. An accident at one of Indian Point’s reactors on the scale of the recent catastrophe in Japan could send a fallout plume south to the New York City metropolitan area, require the sheltering or evacuation of millions of people, and cost 10 to 100 times more than Fukushima’s disaster.

There is currently a surplus of electricity capacity in the regions near Indian Point, including New York City, If Indian Point  closed when its operating license expires in 2015, there would be no need for new electric capacity to meet reliability requirements until 2020.

The option to replace that electricity are underway or would have plenty of time to be implemented well before then.

The report, Indian Point Energy Center Nuclear Plant Retirement Analysis; Replacement Options, Reliability Issues and Economic Effects, identifies the following conservative estimates of alternative energy sources that can replace Indian Point’s 2,000 MW of electric capacity by 2020:

• 1,550 MW in savings from new energy efficiency resources in the Indian Point region, beyond those that are already planned. Additional savings are available in the rest of NY State.
• Nearly 600 MW of renewable energy capacity to meet peak electricity demand (and up to 3,000 MW total capacity) by 2015. In total, more than 6,000 MW of renewable energy projects like wind and solar are already in the planning process in the state.
• 8,000 MW from proposed new transmission lines to bring power to New York City from upstate New York and other regions, including the already approved 660 MW Hudson Transmission Line, and nearly 2,000 MW of lines are already well along in the approval process.
• Over 1,000 MW from increased efficiency at existing, outdated natural gas plants in New York City, which involves updating their technology to increase power output and reduce air emissions and other pollution.

Many of the projects and initiatives are already underway, and will be built whether Indian Point closes down or not.

The report estimates this transition will likely add about $1-$3 a month to electricity bills on the low end, or $4-$5 per month on the high end. The more reliance on energy efficiency, the lower the costs will be, and customers who participate in new energy efficiency programs will be able to lower their bills.

“The more you learn about Indian Point, the more you know it must close,” says Robert Kennedy Jr., Chief Prosecuting Attorney for Riverkeeper and Senior Attorney at NRDC. “It’s too old, near too many people, and too vulnerable to fire, earthquake, outside attack and a host of other potential disasters.

What’s more, we simply don’t need Indian Point’s dirty, dangerous power: current surpluses are sufficient to consign Indian Point to the scrap heap when its licenses expire if not sooner. By the time we start to need more power – in 2020 – we’ll have at least another 4,500 megawatts in replacement energy and efficiency savings in place. New York is safer, more secure and simply better off without Indian Point.”

Only clean energy is good enough

Norway will launch Energy + at a high-level conference co-organized by the International Energy Agency

Today the Norwegian government will launch Energy +, a global initiative to finance access to renewable energy, energy efficiency and low carbon development in developing countries. WWF welcomes this effort to bring clean and safe light, heat and energy to the approximate 3 billion people in the world without access to reliable energy, and applauds Norway’s leadership.

Norway will launch Energy + at a high-level conference co-organized by the International Energy Agency and attended by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. The conference will include discussion of both renewables and fossil fuels as solutions to energy poverty.

Rasmus Hansson, CEO of WWF-Norway, says: “Ending energy poverty should be part of the solution to climate change, not part of the problem. WWF urges Norway, and other countries, to keep their focus on renewables, the energy of the future – not on the dirty fossil fuels of the past.”

Norway’s initiative comes just as the UN climate negotiations have bogged down on the issue of climate finance for developing countries. Without agreement on finance, the future of the negotiations is in danger.

Samantha Smith, leader for WWF’s global climate and energy work, said: “The science is certain – we have no time to lose in switching to clean, safe and renewable energy. Norway’s leadership is critical when the UN climate negotiations so far have failed to deliver the money we need for this switch.”

2012 will be the UN year of sustainable energy for all. “We urge the UN to focus on renewable energy, the only truly sustainable energy source. WWF’s Energy Report shows that we can meet all of the world’s energy needs with 100% renewable energy. We think this is a great focus for 2012, “said Samantha Smith.

Other Nations Like Renewable Energy Better than America

Here in the United States, we are the largest consumers of fossil fuels, and emit far and away the most so-called greenhouse gases.

Here in the US, we are being intentionally misled regarding what the rest of the world is doing on behalf of environmental issues. The use of renewable energy sources is catching on around the world, but we stay focused on non-renewable and costly fossil fuels. The amount of energy required to run the whole world is nearly beyond comprehension, and growing daily.

A number of our politicians recognize the problem, and are actually talking about it. A few years ago, though, who would have ever thought that California’s governor would be driving a hybrid car? Not only did Schwarzenegger drive a hybrid, but he passed a three billion dollar solar energy program, making him one of the most eco-friendly leaders out there. The federal government, however, has been lagging far behind, particularly the Bush administration, what with their ties to the big oil companies. They had a tough time even acknowledging there was even something to be concerned about, much less doing anything about it.

This is why millions of Americans have the wrong idea about what’s really taking place everywhere else. In Australia, for instance, they’ve decreed that by the year 2016 they will be using renewable resources for at least 60% of their energy requirements. If the US were to take such a big step, envisage the difference.

Take a look at Germany; they lead nations in solar technology, and wind too. Germany plans are to have renewable energy as the source for twenty percent of their whole energy supply by 2020. And how about Norway? Currently 99% of their energy needs are met by renewable energy. They use no crude oil for this purpose. It has no oil imports, and exports nearly all of its resources in oil, making it the world’s third largest exporter.

Brazil might have fascinating political situations, but it has become South America’s clean energy leader. Majority of the transportation in Brazil has been converted to using ethanol, and the objective is for the whole country to run 100% ethanol. Ethanol is a biofuel that can be created from sugar cane, and it costs approximately half of a gallon made from oil.

If the US did the same thing, the savings on petroleum would be nearly 2 trillion dollars. This just gives you an idea of the strides being made in other countries so as to clean our beautiful, green planet up.

Here in the United States, we are the largest consumers of fossil fuels, and emit far and away the most so-called greenhouse gases. Without Americans, the rest of the countries in the world can do their best, but they won’t succeed in completing the process. As long as the US refuses to acknowledge there is a problem, the problem will remain.

Continue Reading…

The Truth About Renewable Subsidies

you compare renewable subsidies to the growth stages of oil and gas, coal, nuclear energy, and biofuels, it becomes apparent

The headlines will tell you that subsidies for renewable energy are outrageously high and like throwing money down the drain. But outside of some poor decisions(ahem, Solyndra), subsidies for renewable energy have been effective at lowering costs and require very little money from the government.

When you compare renewable subsidies to the growth stages of oil and gas, coal, nuclear energy, and biofuels, it becomes apparent that we’re nowhere near the support we gave to those energy sources. In a study done by Nancy Pfund and Ben Healey for DBL Investors , some interesting statistics emerge.

• In its first 15 years, “nuclear subsidies accounted for more than 1% of the federal budget.”
• Over the same time frame, oil and gas subsidies accounted for half a percent of the budget.
• Renewable energy currently gets about one-tenth of one percent in subsidies from the federal government.

This relatively paltry amount of funding has helped create an industry that now employs more than 93,500 workers and is growing at 66%. China’s government has also provided a boost to renewables by giving cheap loans to manufacturers such as LDK Solar (NYSE: LDK  ) , Trina Solar (NYSE: TSL  ) , and JA Solar (Nasdaq: JASO  ) . Those companies have pushed costs lower and helped make solar cost-competitive with other new sources of energy.

So when you hear about First Solar (Nasdaq: FSLR  ) or SunPower (Nasdaq: SPWRA  ) getting billions of dollars in loan guarantees, remember to keep those numbers in perspective. The federal government is helping push a nascent industry to a point where it can be cost competitive on its own with established sources of energy. It’s been done with oil and gas, coal, and nuclear energy before, so we’re not entering uncharted territory.

Level the playing field
None of this is to say that renewable energy should get more subsidies. Only to point out that the small amount of subsidies currently given to wind, solar, and other renewable sources are a drop in the bucket compared to energy sources we now take for granted.

One of government’s responsibilities is to direct energy investment to the source that is in our best long-term interest. With costs falling rapidly, domestic jobs growing, and environmental impact minimal, why wouldn’t the government help push renewable energy along?

Continue Reading…