Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
I don't know about discouraging people from doing their own.  As rates
rise to pay for this bailout I think that generating your own power
will look better and better.

I think we should look at the claims about how much work the power
grid needs with some skepicism.  If I were the current owner of the
power grid and I was being offered 2.3x book value for the asset plus a
contract to maintain it, I would start spreading the word about how
much maintenance and work it needs to start those juicy contracts
going.

How much of those fixes would the utilities have done to the grid if
they continued to own it?  How much are they now saying it needs?  Why
the big change?
  

    
I tend to agree with you.

We need som investments in the grid so we can use the wind power that
is being generated in southern California and so that perhaps -- with
some planning God for bid -- we start building more large wind farms
throughout the West. Transmission really is a regional activity. 

I originally like the idea of getting something -- the transmisison
lines -- if we are going to bail out the utilitites. But it is
beginning to look like an open check. Perhaps it would be better to let
them continue to own what they have, but figure out a way to finance
new lines. There are probably folks willing to put up their own capital
to do it.

Transmission lines do not generate a whole lot of revenue. That's why
there have been so little investments in them over the past few years.

And now with Bush and FERC raising questions regarding federal
regulatory approval -- and PG&E with holding anyhow -- we may have once
again just spent a whole lot of time and money on a percieved solution
that will not fly.
  

    

More from Tom Gray:

Gail Williams writes:

> >the scheduled expiration of the U.S. wind energy production tax
credit
>
> Is this something which should be extended?

Yes.  It was originally passed in 1992 on the basis that it "leveled the
playing field" for wind with energy sources such as oil and gas, which
receive substantial benefits from the federal government in the form of
a variety of tax breaks.

Not only have those tax breaks continued unabated, but the current
Administration is now proposing to enlarge them as part of its overall
effort to boost energy supply.  So, the logic for the wind credit is
still very sound.

> How likely is that?

We in the industry are cautiously optimistic.  On the positive side, we
have strong support in both the House and Senate tax committees.  The
main reason it is not a slam-dunk is that there are a lot of big-ticket
tax items being proposed this year (for example, elimination of the
"marriage penalty") and we think the Administration will be giving
higher priority to those for political reasons than to business tax
proposals.

One key issue is how long the credit should be extended.  We would like
to see it extended for at least five years.  Last time it expired (June
30, 1999) it was not extended until a few months later, and then only
for two and a half years (Dec. 31, 2001).  As a result, this is what the
new-wind-capacity-installed totals looked like for the U.S. over the
past three years:  1999, 732 MW; 2000, 56 MW; 2001 (estimated), 2,000
MW.  You can probably guess that such a feast-or-famine trendline is not
good for the industry's orderly development.

Tom Gray
American Wind Energy Association
  

    
      > ...1,000 MW of wind, or enough to generate as much electricity
      > as 400,000 California homes use.

So is this based on a 40% performance factor? Or is the estimated demand of a
california home now estimated at something less than 1 KW, on average? 

$4/watt sounds cheap for solar (I have to pay closer to $10/watt for the
small panels on my boat). But there's a performance factor there too. Before
we conclude that $4/watt for solar is four times as expensive as $1/watt for
wind, don't we have to multiply each price by the appropriate performance
factor? (and please correct me if I should be using a term other than
"performance factot" for average output/rated capacity).
  

    
        As far as the grid, nobody wants to address the underlying cause of
the situation.  The utilities caused this mess, though not solely.  Of
greater importance, they've spent the last 25 years throwing up every
roadblock they could build, placing serious impediments to a
sustainable future.  They stopped us contractually, caused transmission
constraints, forced us to increase our cost of doing business, while
taking credit for our success in their ads.
        Now PG&E is throwing all manner of impediments to the timely
resolution of the crisis, being obstructionist and cautionary on the
conservation plan.

        Simple and clear history, when Kenetech's huge bankruptcy sent shock
waves through the industry, taking two years to resolve and transfer
ownership and operations, the windmills never stopped delivering power.

        The utilities have spent 3 years syphoning profits to their holding
companies, getting regulatory approval for their detailed asset
sheltering schemes, even having executives selling personal shares
while hiring bankruptcy council, and generally acting like spoiled
children now that their monopoly's been taken from the sandbox.

        They've made their heist, now let them go bankrupt.  Neither the
State, nor its citizens, nor the thousands of dedicated maintenance
workers will let the grid deteriorate.  Everything will be fine, and we
can go back to work producing power instead of fighting turf battles. 
Kenetech proved we can do this.
  

    
    >...now let them go backrupt.

That's fine by me.

And if we can figure out how to save some of that anticipated huge salmon run
this year, I don't mind eating a couple of them by candle light...
  

    
The solar stuff is roughly $7/watt for residential. For large
commerical installations, it is cheaper. 

The $1 billion = 1,000 MW of wind is a ballpark number from the
American Wind Energy Association for 1999.

But I'm intrigued by Randy's salmon idea. Now that Phred is gone, we
can scheme at ways of getting some of the salmon. Mix in a lot of wine,
and I bet none of us would be surly. We probably would shift this
discussion from electricity deregulation to something more fun.

I ramble.

What should be the goal for California? Ten or 20 percent from wind?
How much from solar? 

I say we should have a national minimum standard of 25 percent of each
state's power to come from renewables. If we implemented such a
policy, we would be lowering long-term power costs, increase
reliability and price stability, and finally address global climate
change. 

Policy makers should plan and set the goals. Let creative
entreprenuers install and operate the clean stuff.....

Opinions anyone?
  

    
Email from Tom Gray:

Fishmeal writes:

> > ...1,000 MW of wind, or enough to generate as much electricity
> > as 400,000 California homes use.
>
>    So is this based on a 40% performance factor? Or is the estimated
demand of a
>    california home now estimated at something less than 1 KW, on
average?

The latter.  My understanding is that the average California household
uses about 7,000 kWh annually, which works out to about 800 watts on a
continuous basis.

>      $4/watt sounds cheap for solar (I have to pay closer to $10/watt
for the
>      small panels on my boat). But there's a performance factor there
too. Before
>      we conclude that $4/watt for solar is four times as expensive as
$1/watt for
>      wind, don't we have to multiply each price by the appropriate
performance
>      factor? (and please correct me if I should be using a term other
than
>      "performance factot" for average output/rated capacity).

The term I've heard used most often is capacity factor.  I'm no expert on
solar, but the CF for wind is now running between 30% and 35% at good
sites.  And yes, you would have to take CF into account to make
comparisons.

I'm not here to dump on other renewables, though.  There are plenty of
locations and applications where PV is the appropriate way to go.  Ditto
for small wind turbines, which are more expensive on a $/W basis than the
big ones.

Tom Gray
American Wind Energy Association
  

    
Email from Tom Gray (keep truckin', Tom!)

Peter Asmus writes:

> The solar stuff is roughly $7/watt for residential. For large
> commerical installations, it is cheaper.
>
> The $1 billion = 1,000 MW of wind is a ballpark number from the
> American Wind Energy Association for 1999.

Yes, and we are still using that as a general round number.

> But I'm intrigued by Randy's salmon idea. Now that Phred is gone, we
> can scheme at ways of getting some of the salmon. Mix in a lot of
wine,
> and I bet none of us would be surly. We probably would shift this
> discussion from electricity deregulation to something more fun.

You bet, definitely a side benefit of diversifying from hydro into other
renewables.

>  I ramble.
>
>  What should be the goal for California? Ten or 20 percent from wind?
>  How much from solar?

I think with goals, a time frame is always needed.  Wind can go higher
than 20%, but I don't know what is achievable in various time frames
yet--it depends on available transmission capacity.  I'm starting to ask
around on that topic now.

I think Calif. use is about 250 billion kWh annually.  Wind is at about
1.5% of that now.  I'd say it could go to 10% in five years with a really
strong push (a state renewables portfolio standard of 20% or more by
2006), IF the transmission capacity could be made available.  A good chunk
of it would probably come from out of state.

>  I say we should have a national minimum standard of 25 percent of
each
> state's power to come from renewables. If we implemented such a
> policy, we would be lowering long-term power costs, increase
> reliability and price stability, and finally address global climate
> change.
>
> Policy makers should plan and set the goals. Let creative
> entreprenuers install and operate the clean stuff.....
>
> Opinions anyone?

Again, a year is needed, but you've got my vote.  The highest anyone has
gone in proposed federal legislation is Sen. Jim Jeffords (R-Vt.), 20% by
2020.  At the moment, such a "mandate" is still viewed as anathema by many
members of Congress and will have a very difficult time passing except
possibly as part of a grand restructuring deal.

The other thing it would do is ease the inevitable transition to
renewables when the time comes.  We've got to do it eventually anyway, so
why not start now?

Tom Gray
American Wind Energy Association
  

    
I got my home solar for $6 per Watt.  I think the marine proof stuff pk
needs for his boat doesn't compare.

I can beleive $4 per Watt in huge quantities.
  

    
Well, those are not my numbers. PowerLight, which installs large
commercial rooftop systems, came up with the estimate of $400 million
for 100 MW over 4 years.

Of course, with the buy-down funds from the Energy Commission, and tax
credits being proposed for 50 to 75 percent of systems, new
low-interest loans for solar, the cost to the consumer is going way
down while prices we will be charged for grid power will stay high for
quite some time.

Well, unfortunately, I have come down with a cold/flu. Working too
much I guess. I'm supposed to head into Sacto later today, but I may
need to postpone.

Let me throw out this question:

Of all the wind entreprenuers, which was the smartest? the dumbest? 

Are there any parallels between the profiteers profiled in my book and
the profiteers now getting so much bad press? What are the key
differences?
  

    
        Take your whiskey and lemon, Peter, or is it ginger and goldenseal? 
Feel better, and hope you can still log in.
        Many of the policy issues we've discussed in recent posts are also
addressed in earlier posts.  Good you bring up the questions of the
windpower history you chronicled, and how the lessons might translate
to today's opportunity crisis.
        I'd like to hear what readers glean from the book... or people who
lived through those heady days.
        
        
  

    
        There is a good article in yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle on
small wind turbines for rural users and the California Energy
Commission subsidy program.  SWECS stalwarts Mike Bergey and Paul Gipe
are quoted.  (Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems, one of the worst
windpower acronyms ever.)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/02/27/M
N200385.DTL
  

    
I think that encouraging wind or solar at the closest possible point
to the consumer is the way to go.  Sure you lose some of the economies
of scale, although that's less of a problem for solar, but you avoid
having a single point of failure and you avoid having to build a lot of
new powerplants.

It may not be possible under the new regulation scheme but what if the
utility owned the PV panels on my roof and were responsible for
installation, upkeep, and repairs.

Instead of spending that $7M all in one place for a megawatt of power,
that megawatt could be generated 2500W at a time on 400 roofs.
  

    
I haven't gone you guys, I had to leave the NW so they could have
their earthquake.  btw, the now-closed Trojan Nuclear Plant northwest
of Portland is in an active earthquake zone.  

I saw in the Detroit News today an editorial lauding the possible return
of nuclear power in the Republican energy plan.  Maybe this will make
people think twice about even thinking about it.
  

    
Phred -- it is a little weird that the earthquake struck shortly afer
you left. I knew you had some pull, but you continue to amze me.

Well, I've been under deadline all day. Was supposed to make some
music tonight with the Space Debris gang, but instead I'm going to
rest. 

I will be in Sacto tomorrow, however, so others are going to have to
fill-in some blanks. I will have my laptop and I will be back in full
swing (hopefully) by Thursday evening and/or Friday morning.

Are we burning out? Rust never sleeps, they say. Black-throated wind,
whispers of sin, and speak of a life that passes like dew...

I'm taking a nap and will check in later. 

Randy, what have you heard from Sacto?  Good news or bad news -- or
both?
  

    
        Rather than comment on Sacto, here's an anlysis of the aptly named
Murk-owski (R-Alaska) energy bill headed to the Senate floor:

   "Increased dependence on nuclear power will create more stockpiles
of high-level radioactive waste, a problem the bill does not adequately
address. For example, the legislation offers tax credits to utilities
that store nuclear waste and would commit public dollars to research
dangerous and discredited technologies for "recycling" nuclear waste. 

   The oil, gas, and electric power generating industries, however,
receive the lion's share of the estimated $23 billion of taxpayer
handouts. Power generators, whose profits were one the highest of any
industry group last year, with shareholder returns approaching 60
percent, would receive more than $1.1 billion to use more coal to
produce electricity.

   The bill also provides incentives for oil and gas companies to
drill on federal land. In addition to opening up the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge to drilling, cash royalty payments for drilling on
public land would no longer be required, and offshore, deep-water rigs
wouldn't have to pay royalties if the price of oil falls below a
certain level. An additional $300 million would be provided to oil
companies for extracting oil difficult to reach. 

   When the numerous  accounting and tax credits are taken into
account, taxpayers would be subsidizing these oil and gas companies to
the tune of more than $10 billion."  Public Citizen

        In what kind of world am i out there talking about rational and sane
energy policy?
  

    
In a short phrase: this is disgusting.

I say it is time for revolt!

I'm heading off to Sacto. Will check in later tonight.

Let's get some discussion of what our dream budget should be....
  

    
        Wouldn't you guys rather talk about windpower?
  

    
Email from Kathleen York, Director of the Point Arena Clean Air Project:

Our small town on the Mendocino coast is in the process of becoming a
renewable energy labratory. We approached the pellet stove industry and
with their help have established wholesale pellet stove and fuel buying
co-ops. 

Our Mayor wants to establish a wind farm and we have learned that solar
pannels produce well even in our fog. We would like to ask the hosts to
steer us in the right direction. How would they go about this if this were
their town?  We just heard about rural electric co-ops, would that be a
good way to go?  

Kathleen York, Director, Point Arena Clean Air Project
  

    
        I've always been partial to communities developing their own local
power sources, Kathleen, and one might surmise there's enough wind in
Point Arena.
        For a small windplant, there are several key factors which are the
first steps in project development.  You must analyze the resource,
meaning quantifying the meteorology.  You must begin to analyze the
cost benefit of various windplant scales.  You must identify possible
project locations, often exposed ridges.  Then you can begin to
identify the types and costs of turbines that fit your needs.  Having
an experienced professional on board often saves time, money and
missteps (product placement).
        The meteorologist would search for nearby wind data, and play a role
in evaluating various potential sites, and might recommend a location
to place annemometry sufficient for further data.  There is no
substitute, period, for detailed wind data.  When i get calls, the
first thing i do is reinforce the concept that there's no substitute
for knowing your fuel.
        The development team would identify locations, and examine the
factors involved in developing the various sites.  Environmental and
permit review would almost certainly be a factor, and I could imagine
the Coastal Commission expressing concern.
        At this point you upgrade the analysis from feasibility to project
projections, and if windpower still makes sense, you move the project
forward, picking turbines, obtaining financing, developing your
operations plan, and constructing the site.
        Then you just kick back, put your feet up on the desk, and watch
nature deliver her monthly check.  (After that comment, every windsmith
in the State will make me buy him, or her, a beer.)
  

    
More email from Kathleen York:

Peter, Yes, Point Arena is famous for it's wind, especially the spring
wind (our version of a Blue Norther). The molecues of this north wind are
so dense they can pentetrate REI expedition weight gear and long johns. I
would ask any wind wizards out there who might be interested in our
project to e-mail me at jazzbird@mcn.org.  Your book just arrived and I am
sure it will really help, Kathleen
  

    
Kathleen --

Your story is an inspiration. 

Did you know there is a state program that can cover up to half of the
installation costs of small wind turbines or solar PV systems? 

The California Energy Commission's Emerging Renewable Buy-Down Program
started out with $54 million; last I checked $40 million was still
left. 

check out: www.consumerenergycenter.org/renewable/making/buydown.html

A number of other new loan and tax credit programs are being debated
in the California Legislature. Now is the time to move on these ideas!

I agree with Randy. We need to get communities involved in shaping our
energy future. Whether its creating new municipal utilities or
developing projects through local governments and community groups, I
think it is high time we bring back POWER TO THE PEOPLE.

Hope you enjoy the book!
  

    
Ah yes, my book.

Well, I'm back from Sacramento, where I ran into an incredible amount
of people I knew by just standing across from the State Capitol.

Jim Caldwell, who I know from the days when I did some writing work
for the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technlologies, told
me he bought four of my books! I got out my calculator and figured the
royalty on that sale amounted to a couiple six packs of great beer. Or
a bottle of decent wine.

He said his favorite part was the section dealing with Carl Jung.

For those of you who actually read my book, do the trials and
tribulations of the wind farmers inspire you? Do all of the tales of
turbines that threw blades or self-destructed make you laugh -- or
wonder if this wind power stuff is for real?

What makes wind power so unique is that it has such a close, organic
relationship to its immediate surroundings. We put up this technology
in spots that encounter the most intense weather known -- and then we
wonder why they occassionally break.

Today, the fact the wind power is the fastest growing power source,
seems to prove that the past 20 years of experimentation has worked out
most of the bugs. Someone once told me that even traditional
technologies, such as natural gas plants, still have failures, all
kinds of things go wrong. But they are large invible to the average Joe
or Jane. Not so with wind power in places like Palm Springs and the
Altamont Pass, where passersby can see whether they ar working or not.

Any thoughts?

One more question before I take a nap. (I know its morning here on the
West Coast, but I've been working way too hard lately and this damn
cold....)

Each chapter begins with a quote, ranging from folks such as Edward
Teller, Hunter Thompson and John Muir. Which quote is your favorite?
  

    
The part of your book that really hit me the hardest was the big demo
turbine that threw a blade at the big meeting.  What I found amazing
was that you had a quote from Vince Schwent who was there.

Since I had been talking to Vince about how to get PGE to go along and
do what they were supposed to all along just a few weeks before, I was
really inspired by this guy who in the Brown administration is working
on renewables, and keeps on plugging away at it for 20 years through
some hardcore anti renewable governors and is still at it today.

That kind of commitment is rare and it made me appreciate all of the
other people in your book who were in it for the long haul all the
more.