Renewable Energy Production Exceeding All Expectations

[The large Barren Ridge solar panel array near Mojave, California. (Photo by George Rose/Getty Images)]

Here's a bit of good news from ARS Technica:

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has released numbers on US electricity generationfor the first quarter of 2017, and renewable energy numbers are coming in big.

According to the EIA, renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and geothermal power accounted for 10.68 percent of total electricity generation in the first quarter of 2017. If you include electricity from conventional hydroelectric plants, renewables made up nearly a fifth of total electricity generation—as much as 19.35 percent.

The striking part about that number is that the EIA, a statistical department within the Department of Energy, couldn’t foresee how dramatically renewables’ share of the electricity mix would increase just five years ago. In 2012, the administration predicted (PDF, page 87) that electricity generation from renewable sources would increase “from 10 percent in 2010 to 15 percent in 2035.” Even by 2015, the administration predicted (PDF, page ES-6) that “The renewable share of total generation grows from 13 percent in 2013 to 18 percent in 2040.”

Non-profit organization Sun Day Campaign said in a statement that, if the EIA were to extend its 2012 renewable growth forecast further out into the future, “renewables would not be expected to reach 19.35 percent until roughly the year 2057.”

The renewable energy numbers for the first quarter of 2017 include about 4.786 TWh of residential and small-scale solar electricity, as well as 9.2 TWh of utility-grade solar electricity. In the previous year's first quarter, utility-grade solar generated only 6.67 TWh of electricity, meaning utility-grade solar electricity generation increased 38.5 percent year over year.

The EIA’s projections didn’t foresee the explosion of solar installations caused by compelling federal tax incentives combined with plummeting photovoltaic costs. Instead, five years ago, economists were predicting that “most of the growth in renewable electricity generation comes from wind and biomass facilities.”

Wind certainly contributed a major proportion of renewable energy in the first three months of 2017 (67.64 TWh), but biomass faltered, with wood and wood-derived fuels losing 1.2 percent of the total electricity generation year over year. “Other biomass” lost 2.3 percent of the share it had in 2016.

For the entire year, the renewable energy portion of total electricity generation won’t track exactly with the first quarter of the year. Solar might increase as the days get longer and sunnier, while hydro could fall behind if any reservoirs experience droughts. Depending on where you are in the country, wind can become more variable in the summer.

About 15% Of Texas Energy Is Now Supplied By Wind

(This chart shows the 2016 energy sources in Texas.)

Although coal and natural gas still provide most of the electricity for homes and businesses in Texas, wind energy is growing fast. In 2016, it has provided nearly 15% of all energy. The following article is by Katherine Tweed at Green Tech Media.

First, some definitions:

Megawatt -- unit of power equal to 1 million watts.

Gigawatt -- init of power equal to 1 billion watts.

1 Megawatt will provide enough energy to supply the needs of 400 to 900 homes (depending on the time of year and location of those homes).

Tweed writes:

Texas grid operator ERCOT announced a new record for wind on Monday. For the first time, wind provided more than 15,000 megawatts of electricity to the state on a single day. 

The record wind on Sunday supplied an average of 41 percent of electricity throughout the day. But it was not an all-time record for wind in Texas. On one day in March, wind supplied more than 48 percent of load during one hour.

It is not the hour-by-hour records that are impressive, however.

Texas is already the clear leader in wind power in the U.S., and that lead is widening. Texas has more than 18,000 megawatts installed and another 5,000 megawatts under construction, according to the American Wind Energy Association.

Wind power made up an average of 11.7 percent of electricity in 2015 in Texas, a figure that will be at least 14.7 in 2016, according to ERCOT.

The final tally of wind power’s contribution to the Texas electric grid will likely be slightly higher, as the wind blows harder in winter and therefore wind power contributions to the power mix usually go up.

Of course, the growing share of wind is still half the amount of coal in Texas and about one-third of natural gas generation.

Coal and natural gas may dominate in Texas, but the investment the state has made in transmission and improving renewable energy forecasts could allow for even more wind and solar in the future.

The wind power in Texas is coming from across the state, including the Texas Panhandle, the west and the south. Texas’ success with wind power is largely due to its Competitive Renewable Energy Zones, which were identified mostly in West Texas and the state's Panhandle region. A key to the project was about $7 billion in transmission lines to carry the wind power where it is needed.

With wind power flowing across the state, solar power is now starting to catch on to take advantage of the transmission lines. In 2015, ERCOT did not even list solar as a fuel source on its annual demand and energy report.

In 2016, the figures are still very small -- but they're growing. ERCOT reports about 685 megawatts of solar will be on-line in Texas in 2016, up from less than 300 in 2015. For the first time, solar energy received its own designation as a fuel type in ERCOT’s annual demand and energy report.

Large-scale solar could grow quickly in Texas, but will not even come close to wind. By 2020, ERCOT expects 2.5 gigawatts of solar on its system, compared to more than 28 gigawatts of wind.

The Green Energy Revolution Is Already Happening

(Graphic is by Dylan Petrohilos at Think Progress.)

With their control of Congress, the Republicans have done their best to keep this nation from going to clean and renewable energy sources. They have long been in the back pocket of Big Oil and Big Coal, and have done their best to make sure America continues to depend mainly on fossil fuels (and global warming be damned).

But in spite of the worst efforts of the congressional Republicans, a green energy revolution is happening in the United States. It would happen faster without GOP obstruction efforts, but they have been unable to stop it.

Here is how Samantha Page at Think Progress describes the growing energy revolution:

The energy mix in the U.S. is changing — and two separate events this week point to how we’re getting more green energy and less of the dirty stuff. 

To start, there are now more than a million solar installations across the United States, including on nearly 950,000 homes and small businesses. This is a big deal. Right now, U.S. solar is generating the amount of electricity used by the entire state of Pennsylvania. And that contribution is only growing: By the end of 2016, there will be twice as much solar as there was in 2014. 

The solar boom has been driven largely by individuals and companies (we’re looking at you, Apple and Google) who want to use clean, renewable energy. They are getting the message that solar is better for the planet — but it’s also proven to be a savvy investment. Through policies that pay customers back for the electricity they put on the grid, paired with an investment tax credit designed to help level the playing field, many Americans have seen significant returns on their investment in solar.

“The first big barrier for solar was that it was really much more expensive,” Adam Browning, executive director of Vote Solar, a California-based advocacy group, told reporters on a call Wednesday. But through incentives and market-based policies, the economic landscape has changed, he said. “The whole premise here is that through scale you bring down cost, and that’s exactly what has happened.” 

Solar still makes up a tiny fraction — just over 1 percent — of the electricity used in the United States, but last year, for the first time ever, it was the largest source of new generation. 

Where we get our power, then, is changing. It has to. 

The electricity sector is the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, responsible for a third of the country’s emissions, according to the EPA. This is due largely to our reliance on coal-fired power plants — but that, too, is changing.

This week saw the announced retirement of coal-fired generators at two power plants in Illinois, which brings the tally of closed (or closing) coal generation to 100 gigawatts worth since 2010, according to the Sierra Club, which has focused on limiting and now reducing coal use since 2002.

Reducing coal use is critical to meeting the country’s emissions goals, including the ones outlined by the Clean Power Plan and international commitments under the Paris agreement, Bruce Nilles, senior director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign, told ThinkProgress. “Getting coal replaced with clean energy is the lion’s share of how we get there,” Nilles said. 

And the transition to clean energy doesn’t just mean less greenhouse gas emissions. The reduction in coal use for just the first 100 GW is also going to prevent 100,792 asthma attacks, 9,420 heart attacks, and 6,097 premature deaths each year, the Sierra Club calculates.

Historically, coal has been a big part of the United States’ electricity generation. In 2011, it dropped below 40 percent of generation for the first time since 1978. In 2015, coal was only 33 percent of generation. 

“Solar, three years ago, was barely registering at all,” Nilles said. “Wind was beginning to get taken seriously.” Now, both of those industries are much more established. Earlier this month, Berkshire Hathaway-owned MidAmerican Energy announced it is adding another 2 GW of wind power to its portfolio — without raising electricity rates. The company has a stated goal of 100 percent renewable energy. Iowa has embraced wind power, getting 31 percent of its electricity from the prairie winds. 

Iowa has no coal, natural gas, or oil, Nilles explained. “They have a situation for decades where they have been shipping money out of state,” he said. “The vast majority of people are asking: Why aren’t we doing more of this?”

Public Wants More Emphasis Put On Clean Energy Sources

All we seem to hear from congressional Republicans is "drill, baby, drill". They want our government to put the emphasis on drilling for (and using) more oil -- probably because they get huge campaign donations from the giant oil companies. But it turns out that their own party is the only supporters for that. About 60% of the GOP base wants more emphasis put on oil production.

But the rest of America doesn't agree. Only 41% of the general public wants to see more emphasis put on oil production (38% of Independents and 28% of Democrats). And nuclear and coal forms of energy get even less support. Even the Republicans don't show a majority wanting to put more emphasis on them.

The public really wants the government to put more emphasis on clean (and renewable) forms of energy -- especially solar (79%) and wind (70%). Finishing in third is natural gas (55%) -- the cleanest -burning of the fossil fuels (although it's production through "fracking" can destroy soil and water).

These numbers are from a recent Gallup Poll -- done between March 5th and 8th of a random national sample of 1,025 adults, with a margin of error of 4 points.

Most Americans Prefer Alternative Energy Development

The recent budget bill that passed and was signed into law cut money for the development of alternative energy sources. It wasn't as big a cut as the House had wanted last summer, but it shows where the Republican Congress would like to move on energy. The oil, coal, and gas companies funneled a ton of money toward Republican candidates in the last election, and they want those Republicans to now strangle the development of alternative energy sources so they can squeeze money money out of consumers -- and the Republicans are ready to give them what they want.

This energy policy makes no sense. These fossil fuels are not unending, and will be tapped out soon (except for coal, which is the dirtiest fossil fuel of all). And there is no doubt that the current fairly low prices will not last. Oil and gas prices always go up and down according to the season and supply -- and as the supply dwindles (as it surely will) the prices will climb to record levels. And this doesn't even consider the harmful effects our dependence on fossil fuels is having on our environment.

This is not what the public wants, and if the Republicans continue down the fossil fuel road, without developing alternative and renewable energy sources, they are going to find themselves at odds with public opinion on yet another issue.

Note in the charts above that 60% of Americans think it is more important to develop alternative energy sources than to continue to depend on fossil fuels. And that includes almost every demographic group. Only two groups seniors and Republicans don't show a significant majority preferring the development of alternative energies -- and the seniors prefer alternative energies by a 7 point margin. Only the Republicans have a majority preferring fossil fuels.

These charts were made from information in a new Pew Research Center survey. That survey was done between December 3rd and 7th of a random national sample of 1,507 adults, and has a margin of error of 2.9 points.

And the public doesn't consider nuclear energy to be one of those acceptable alternative energy sources. About 53% oppose increasing the use of nuclear energy, while only 41% supports it.

Solar Power Generation Has Doubled For 7 Straight Years

(The image above is by S-kei and was found at Wikipedia.)

The fossil fuel producers, and the power plants generating electricity from those fossil fuels, have to be hating this. Solar power is still in its infancy in this country, but it is growing fast -- and with the price of solar panels dropping each year, that growth is likely to continue unabated. Consider this short article by Zack Colman in the Washington Examiner.

The amount of U.S. electricity generated from solar power is slated to more than double for the seventh consecutive year.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration said that solar has provided 7.4 million megawatt-hours of electricity through June, enough to power about 685,000 homes per year. Aided by a mishmash of federal and state incentives, coupled with plummeting solar panel prices, installations are increasing all over the country — generation this year is more than double the 3.5 million megawatt-hours over the same period last year.

While solar's slice of the U.S. electricity pie is still small — it accounted for just 0.2 percent of total generation in 2013 — the electric utility industry is viewing it as a disruptive force. That's because once residents turn to solar, utility revenues take a hit because they lose a customer.

Some utilities and conservative groups have taken to fighting one of the most pervasive incentives, which is known as net metering. The mechanism allows solar customers to sell excess power back into the grid while remaining connected to it for backup purposes.

Opponents say net metering passes the cost of maintaining the electric grid for solar customers onto non-solar customers.

But its backers say utilities receive benefits because solar suppresses electricity demand during periods of high use, helping utilities avoid running costly "peaker" plants used to head off supply shortages.

A Breakthrough In The Solar Generation Of Energy

The following post is from the staff at Science Alert. I thought it was important enough to repost it here for my readers.

A solar thermal test plant in Newcastle, Australia, has generated “supercritical” steam at a pressure of 23.5 mpa (3400 psi) and 570°C (1,058°F). 

CSIRO is claiming it as a world record, and it’s a HUGE step for solar thermal energy.

"It's like breaking the sound barrier; this step change proves solar has the potential to compete with the peak performance capabilities of fossil fuel sources," Dr Alex Wonhas, CSIRO’s Energy Director, told Colin Jeffrey for Gizmag.

The Energy Centre uses a field of more than 600 mirrors (known as heliostats) which are all directed at two towers housing solar receivers and turbines, Gizmag reports.

This supercritical steam is used to drive the world’s most advanced power plant turbines, but previously it’s only been possible to produce it by burning fossil fuels such as coal or gas.

"Instead of relying on burning fossil fuels to produce supercritical steam, this breakthrough demonstrates that the power plants of the future could instead be using the free, zero emission energy of the sun to achieve the same result,” Dr Wonhas explained.

Currently, commercial solar thermal or concentrating solar power power plants only operate a “subcritical” levels, using less pressurised steam. This means that they’ve never been able to match the output or efficiency of the world’s best fossil fuel power plants - until now.

The commercial development of this technology is still a fair way off, but this is an important first step towards a more sustainable future.

Public's Views On Energy More Reasonable Than Leaders

Right-wingers, like the "Witch of Wasilla", have tried to convince Americans that the way out of our energy problems was to just increase production of the fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) -- and their mantra was "drill, baby, drill". And after the 2010 elections they were able to seek that to many people. Note on the chart above that in 2011 those wanting more production nearly caught up (closed to within 7 points) with those who say more conservation is the best answer.

But that was short-lived. The current gap favors conservation by 23 points, which is more like opinions since 2000. People know that we are not going to drill our way out of our energy problems. There is a finite amount of fossil fuels, especially oil, and we are at or near the point where production will begin to fall no matter how much drilling is done. The only reasonable answer is more conservation, coupled with alternate and renewable energy sources (wind, solar, etc.).

The chart above was made from information in a series of Gallup Polls -- with the last being between March 6th and 9th of a random nationwide sample of 1,048 adults (with a 4 point margin of error). Here are some other results from that poll, showing what the general public supports and opposes. It shows that most Americans are a lot smarter than the teabaggers when it comes to energy.

Government should spend more money developing solar & wind power.
Support...............67%
Oppose...............32%

Government should spend more money developing alternate fuels for automobiles.
Support...............66%
Oppose...............33%

Higher emissions and pollution standards should be set for businesses and industry.
Support...............65%
Oppose...............35%

Federal Environmental regulations should be more strongly enforced.
Support...............64%
Oppose...............34%

Mandatory controls should be placed on emissions of CO2 & other greenhouse gases.
Support...............63%
Oppose...............35%

Set higher emissions standards for automobiles.
Support...............62%
Oppose...............35%

Set stricter standards for extracting natural gas, including fracking.
Support...............58%
Oppose...............37%

Expand the use of nuclear energy.
Support...............47%
Oppose...............51%

Carole King Speaks Out For Clean Power

(The picture above of Carole King is by Michael Borkson.)

Songwriter/musician/singer Carole King (whose Tapestry album is one of my all-time favorites) has come out in favor of clean power -- energy that does not pollute the environment. She did this in an article for The Huffington Post. It's a good article, and I recommend it. Here is part of what she had to say:

I've been fortunate to call central Idaho my home for almost forty years. It's not easy to convey the beauty of living where humans can coexist peacefully with bears, wolves, deer, elk, salmon, eagles, and other wildlife. But something profound is changing in these central Idaho mountains. . .

The scientific evidence is irrefutable. As the planet warms, Idaho and much of the West will see more and more fire. But we're also seeing the effects of climate change in other parts of the country. The affected citizens will never forget the physical and economic devastation wreaked by Superstorm Sandy. Residents and business owners in coastal communities such as New York, New Jersey, and New Orleans, and on islands, are losing a little more land every day from rising seas. . .

I don't understand how men and women who want the best for their children and grandchildren can be so blind to the consequences of their actions. There is nowhere to hide from global warming. Expanding fossil fuel development into our last remaining wild ecosystems will destroy the remnants of our natural heritage and trigger even more climate disruption. Why would people do this when there are energy solutions right in front of them: clean energy from wind, solar, and high-tech energy efficiency. Some individuals who have done well in the oil industry have been smart enough to invest in clean power. They know that clean power will revitalize rural economies while addressing climate change. If the oil industry won't come along, we need to put pressure on them through the courts, in the media, and in peaceful demonstrations in numbers too great to ignore. And we need to vote for legislators who understand that the future health of our planet, our economy, and our families lies in Clean Power. . .

Green Party Says No New Nuclear Plants

The nuclear disaster in Japan is still posing a danger to the people there (and possibly in many other places as radioactive water keeps pouring into the Pacific Ocean). They just upgraded the disaster once again (from a level one to a level three continuing danger), after finding that contaminated water continues to leak from the plant -- water that is radioactive enough to give a worker five years worth of radiation in just one hour.

And in spite of this continuing disaster, some people in the United States continue to think the answer to our energy problems is to build more nuclear power plants -- plants that could easily cause this same kind of disaster in this country. Personally, I find it amazing that after Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, anyone could still want to build more nuclear plants. How many disasters must happen before people realize that nuclear energy is just too dangerous?

There is at least one political party that sees the truth -- the Green Party. They know that building more nuclear plants is sheer insanity, when we have so much potential for clean and renewable energy sources -- sources that we have barely begun to tap. Here is what Harvey Wasserman (a member of the Green Party Shadow Cabinet) has to say on this matter:

As the horror show at Fukushima worsens by the day, our opposition to atomic energy becomes ever more vital. Now more than ever, we advocate a total "solartopian" shift to renewables for our planet's energy supply.

That transition has become even more essential as the nightmare at Fukushima deepens.

For decades the nuclear power industry has vehemently denied that a commercial reactor could explode.  When Chernobyl exploded, the industry said this could happen only to a Soviet reactor. But three reactors have now exploded at Fukushima. There are some two dozen reactors in the U.S. virtually identical to Fukushima Unit One. The three melted/exploded cores are missing. Steam emissions indicate there might still be fissioning going on at the site.

Meanwhile the spent fuel pool at Unit Four is perched 100 feet in the air.  If it loses coolant, or comes crashing to the ground, thousands of times more radiation will be released than was at Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Already Fukushima has emitted at least 20 times more radiation than those two bombings, most of it into the Pacific Ocean. Contaminated tuna have been caught as far away as California.  

Today we also know that at least 300,000 tons of highly radioactive liquid has leaked from at least one of the 1,000 or more storage tanks hastily constructed at the Fukushima site. We know that hundreds of thousands of gallons of contaminated groundwater has been pouring steadily through the site and into the ocean.  

It has been shown for many years that wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, ocean thermal, sustainable bio-fuels, increased efficiency and conservation and much more in terms of green energy can power this planet cheaply, cleanly and safely while creating millions of jobs and taking root far more quickly than any "new generation" of reactors.

We therefore urge that the nations of the world immediately focus their best energies on containing the horrifying contamination radiating from Fukushima while devoting all the technical, scientific and economic resources necessary to transition our global economy onto a Solartopia green-powered basis as rapidly as possible.

Germans Push Clean Energy - Reduce CO2

Here in the United States we use far more than our share of the world's energy, and we continue to use the dirty carbon dioxide producing fossil fuels to make most of that energy. Only a tiny part of the energy we produce comes from clean and renewable energy sources (like wind, tides, solar, etc.). We continue to buy into the argument that either those sources are too expensive to develop or they are unable to provide a significant part of our needs. I think the real truth is that the oil, gas, and coal companies have bought too many of our politicians.

While the United States continues to make excuses, Germany has bit the bullet and invested heavily in the new renewable energy technologies, and it is already paying off big for them. Here is part of the the German energy story, as reported in The Guardian:

Germany has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions significantly in recent years as it has pushed forward a renewable agenda leading Europe into an age of wind and solar power. 

In the past year, the country's CO2 emissions fell by 2.4% compared with 2010, according to figures released by Germany's Federal Environment Agency (UBA). The decrease, say experts, has largely come through a push towards renewable energy that has accelerated since the country began its move away from nuclear power. 

In the first six months of 2012, the amount of electricity produced using renewable energy rose from 20% to 25%, bringing the country closer to its targets of 35% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. 

"We are on a good track in regard to the increase in the share of renewables," said Brigitte Knopf, deputy head of research at the sustainable solutions project at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (Pik). "This is a story of success, though some challenges are still ahead."

There are still problems, but the Germans are forging ahead to reach their goal, instead of whinging that it can't be done. If they can do this without hurting their industry or curtailing electric use by consumers, why can't the United States do the same?

Voters Want More Solar Power Developed

Once again, Willard Mitt Romney (aka Wall Street Willie) is out-of-step with the views of the American people. He has said on the campaign trail that he would cut the government subsidies for the development of renewable energy sources. In the recent debate, he tried to justify this by remarking that 50% of the "green" firms that the government has helped with loan guarantees have gone out of business. This was a lie. Out of the 26 recipients of those loan guarantees, only 3 have gone out of business.

The truth is that the American people like the idea of clean and renewable energy sources (solar, wind, etc.). A recent survey shows that 92% of all voters thought the development of solar energy was either "very important" or "somewhat important, and only 8% thought it was not important. And the figures for the all-important swing voters was the same (with 93% thinking it was very or somewhat important).

And that's not all. The voters think the government should be doing more to support the development of solar energy -- not less. About 70% of the voters say the government should be offering more financial incentives for the development of solar energy technology (just the opposite of what Willard wants to do). And that figure rises to 72% among swing voters.

And the support for developing more solar energy cuts across all political lines. It has the support of 98% of Democrats, 95% of Independents, and 84% of Republicans. Willard is clearly going against the wishes of the voters, including many in his own party (except for the teabaggers -- the only group that a recent Pew Research Poll found viewing negatively the need for clean energy & action on global climate change). In fact, that same Pew Poll found that every demographic group (with the exceptions of those over 65 and the right-wing teabaggers) think a higher priority should be put on clean and renewable energy sources instead of traditional energy sources (fossil fuels).

Energy Use In The United States

In 2010, the United States used about 97.7 quadrillion Btu of energy -- an increase of 2.7 quadrillion Btu over the previous year. And there is no doubt the energy use in this country is still growing. The U.S. has always used more than its share of energy. The entire world used about 500 quadrillion Btu of energy in 2010 (according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration). That means that this country used about 19.54% of the world's energy (or about 1 out of every 5 Btu), even though it only has 4.5% of the world's population.

That is a problem. It is going to be very hard to continue hogging this much of the world's energy, with the rest of the world's countries modernizing (and requiring more energy themselves each year). But it is not the only problem. The other problem rests in where we get that energy we use. Renewable energy sources make up about 8.2% of usage, and nuclear energy makes up about 8.6%. That means the fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, coal) still provide 83.2% of all the energy used in the United States.

Some people seem to think that the supply of oil is endless, and all we have to do is increase drilling and that will solve all our problems. That is both a short-sighted and ridiculous view. Most energy experts realize that the point of "peak oil" is fast approaching (if we have not already reached it). "Peak oil" is the point at which production starts to drop, no matter how much drilling is done. Like it or not, all of the fossil fuels exist in a finite quantity -- which means they will all run out eventually.

The most plentiful of the fossil fuels, especially in this country, is coal. It has been said that we have hundreds of years of coal. But coal will also run out eventually -- and coal is the dirtiest of the fossil fuels. We hear about "clean coal" these days, but that is just propaganda put out by the coal producers. There is no such thing as clean coal -- and probably never will be. Increasing (or even just maintaining) the usage of coal energy will do nothing except hasten global climate change (an impending disaster regardless of what Republican politicians say).

The hard truth is that the United States needs to change its energy ways -- and it needs to do it pretty fast. We need to cut our use of fossil fuels drastically (all of them), increase the percentage of renewable energy used, and vastly increase the efficiency with which we use available energy. This can be done, but it will require some political will, and it will require Americans to change.

We must invest more money in renewable energy, and do it now. And we must increase the efficiency of our transportation and homes. There must be more public transportation. And vehicles must be made much more efficient. One of the biggest wasters of energy in the U.S. is in the kind of homes we build. They are incredibly inefficient and waste large amounts of energy. The technology already exists to make more efficient homes. We are just not using it, and that must change.

Americans have a decision to make. Are we more interested in a few more years of comfort and resistance to change, or are we going to pass on a better world to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren? There's not a lot of time. What will we choose?

Obama And Romney Policies On Energy

If you've wondered why Big Oil and Big Coal have already poured over $16 million into helping the Romney campaign, the chart above (from Think Progress) should answer your questions. President Obama has increased fuel efficiency, protected government lands, passed new regulations to reduce pollution, supports funding for clean energy and creation of green jobs, and wants to eliminate many of the unneeded subsidies for the energy industry.

Romney (aka Wall Street Willie) would do just the opposite. He would turn Big Oil and Big Coal loose to destroy the environment and create more health problems from pollution. He would also cut funding for clean energy and oppose new fuel efficiency standards, while protecting the tax subsidies for these giant corporations.

There is really no comparison here. While the president is following a sane energy policy (although more could be done to stop global warming), Romney would just turn the country over to the giant corporations (who care only for their bottom line -- not the environment or the people).

Only A Partial Solution

(Cartoon above is done by Michael Ramirez in the Investor's Business Daily.)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to electric cars. I think they're probably a good idea whose time has come. If we put enough of them on the road, we probably can reduce our dependence somewhat on crude oil. But we need to stop thinking that electric cars are the way to end pollution in the United States.

I'm not saying that the use of electric cars will make no difference in pollution levels -- only that the difference they would make is much smaller than most people think. The truth is that the electric cars have a carbon footprint also, and currently that carbon footprint is not a whole lot smaller than that of a gasoline-powered auto.

How can that be? Two reasons. First, gasoline-powered autos are much cleaner than they used to be (and at least the newer ones don't pollute nearly as much as autos used to do). Second, the electric cars must get their electric power from somewhere, and that is usually from a dirty coal-powered energy plant.

If a proliferation of electric cars simply results in the building of more dirty coal-powered energy plants (and there is no such thing as a "clean" coal-powered plant), then little or nothing would have been accomplished toward cleaning up air pollution. The EPA has already told us that nearly 70% of the pollution produced in this country now comes from energy plants -- and the worst violators are the coal-fired plants.

Electric cars are a start, but they are only a small part of the solution we need to combat pollution. Far more important is cleaning up energy-producing plants -- and that must be done by finding new clean and renewable sources for energy production. Coal producers like to brag that they have hundreds of years of supply and their product is cheap. That might be true. But isn't planetary survival more important than a cheap dirty fuel? Can we really afford to continue building coal-powered plants? I think not.

MIT Creates New Energy Source

This is some pretty exciting news. It seems that researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), one of the most prestigious science and engineering schools in the United States, has created a new energy source -- and it's clean and renewable. The odd thing is that the only way you can see this energy source is with a very powerful microscope, because it is created by using nanotechnology.

For a few years now, we have been hearing about the possibilities offered by the new field of nanotechnology. Now it looks like the first usable breakthrough has been accomplished. MIT has devised a process to generate electricity using nanotechnology. And this new process may soon revolutionize batteries for all kind of devices.

The researchers built tiny wires out of carbon nanotubes. Then they coated these wires with a fuel and discovered it generated electricity -- a lot of electricity considering its tiny size. They believe they will be able to use this technology to create batteries at least 10 times smaller than current batteries, but produce the same amount of electricity.

The nanotechnology batteries will have a couple of other advantages over current batteries. First, they will not lose power while sitting and not being used (as you probably know, current batteries can lose their charge even if they are not being used). This will result in a huge energy savings.

Second, these batteries are non-toxic since they are made of carbon. Current batteries are made from very toxic heavy metals like lead, nickel and cadmium, and must be disposed of very carefully. The carbon nanotechnology batteries can simply be burned and produce no toxic fumes or waste.

Computers, cell phones and other electronic devices will be the first to benefit from the nanotechnology batteries. This is a marvelous breakthrough, and I hope it's not too long before the new nano-batteries hit the market.

(The picture above is an artist's rendition of a carbon nanotube.)

Wind Power - The First Step

The large scale production of wind energy will be a real boon to Texas, and especially to the Panhandle region. But before wind energy can really take off, there must be a way to get that energy from where it is produced to where it is needed (and will be used). In other words, new energy transmission lines must be built.

Thank goodness that process is finally starting. Sharyland Utilities is holding public hearings on its proposed routes for transmission lines thru the Panhandle. The first section will be built from near Hereford to White Deer, and will run just south of Amarillo (see above map).

There are several routes available for this section of the transmission line, and these will be discussed in public hearings the next couple of days. The first will be held in Amarillo tonight from 5-8pm at the Region 16 Service Center (5800 Bell Street). The second will be held tomorrow in Panhandle (just east of Amarillo) from 5-8pm at the Carson County War Memorial Building (500 Main Street). Both meetings are open to the public.

In the first quarter of 2010, Sharyland will prepare to file permits for the specific routes it will use. In the second quarter of 2010, it will file those permit applications with the Texas Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The PUC should approve those permits by the end of 2010, and construction is currently scheduled to begin in the first half of 2011.

Sharyland will be building about 300 miles of the transmission lines across 11 counties. It is good to see the process is finally getting started. Wind energy will not only provide a new source of income for many farmers and ranchers, but it will create many new jobs in this area. But this cannot happen on a large scale until the transmission lines are completed.

Here in the Panhandle, we are eager to begin providing Texas with clean and renewable energy.

Bill Richardson's Energy Plan

If the United Nations and most of the world's climate scientists are to be believed, then we are running out of time to do something about the greenhouse gases that are beginning to cause disastrous global climate changes. George Bush and his Republican cronies have already wasted the last seven years by denying that a problem exists.

This leaves us with precious little time in which to get started with the changes that need to be made. Since Bush has made it clear that nothing will be done during his administration, that makes it very important that the next president we elect have a clear and coherent plan of action.

I received the following letter from presidential candidate Bill Richardson. In it, he lays out his plan for dealing with energy concerns and global climate change. This is what he has to say:

It's time for a revolution.

We have been hearing about this country's energy crisis for years, yet our dependence on foreign oil has deepened, our fuel efficiency standards have stagnated, and our greenhouse gas emissions have multiplied exponentially. The time for incremental change and conventional thinking is long gone.
Today I'm calling for a New American Revolution - an energy and climate revolution.

There are five crucial elements to my plan:

Cut oil demand: 50% by 2020. Increasing the gas mileage of the average car to more than 50 mpg is just one way to help achieve this goal.

Change to Renewable Sources for Electricity: 50% by 2040. We could save customers $21 billion a year by 2020 by changing to alternative energy sources.

Dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions: 90% by 2050. We must set strict limits on emissions. We'll do it by instituting a market-based cap and trade system.

Restore America as the world's leader. We must return to the international negotiating table and support mandatory Kyoto-style limits on global warming pollution.

Get it all done without breaking the bank. By reducing oil imports and raising revenue from carbon permits, we will create more than 10 times more economic value than we spend to make this program happen.

The plan I'm proposing will inevitably draw questions. As when President Kennedy challenged this country to put a man on the moon, people will say it can't be done. But I believe that we are facing a global crisis where there can be no such thing as "can't be done."

My plan is more aggressive than any other candidate's. And I am the only candidate with the experience and record of accomplishment up for this challenge.

As Secretary of Energy, I pushed for a national renewable energy portfolio standard and the development of new vehicle technology. As Governor, I made New Mexico the Clean Energy State by supporting alternative energy tax incentives and setting aggressive targets to reduce global warming emissions.
As President, I will make this a Clean Energy Nation.

For too long, our leaders in Washington have denied and ignored the issue of global climate change. Now, it's up to us. The only way to reject the conventional wisdom that "it can't be done" is to build a movement that will not be denied. That movement can start with you.

Thank you for your commitment to a clean energy future,

Bill Richardson

New Plant To Produce Gas From Cow Patties

There are over 13 million head of cattle in the state of Texas. Each cow will produce about a ton of manure a year. Instead of being a waste product, some are now considering this 13 million tons of manure, or cow patties as we call them here in Texas, to be a valuable resource in the search for clean and renewable energy.

This is not such a crazy idea. For thousands of years, animal dung has been burned as a fuel to cook and to heat homes with, especially in under-developed parts of the world. Now this old idea is being given a modern twist. There are thousands of plants in Europe that produce "biogas" [methane] from animal dung, and use this biogas to produce electric power.

Now this idea has finally come to Texas, where we have an abundance of the natural resource needed -- cow patties.

Microgy Inc., a Colorado-based energy company, is building a plant in Stephenville to convert cow patties into natural gas, which will then be sold to gas-burning power plants. They already have a contract to sell the gas produced in Stephenville to the Lower Colorado River Authority in Austin.

The plant will process about 10,000 pounds of manure a day, and produce enough gas provide electric power for 6,000 homes. The best part is that this power will be produced without adding to the pollution problems in Texas.

Of course, this is just a drop in the bucket when you consider the enormous power needs of Texas. But you have to start somewhere, and Microgy would like to build more of the biogas-producing plants.

Biogas plants will never produce enough gas for all of Texas' energy needs, but combined with other clean forms of energy, such as wind-powered generators, it could be a significant factor in the energy equation.

To me, this makes a lot more sense than just continuing to build coal-burning and pollution-producing power plants. A recent poll shows that a large majority of Texans agree.

Texas has a problem with meeting EPA clean air standards. It is time for us to consider new and innovative ideas such as biogas.