QUICK NEWS, 12-14: SENATE KEEPS NEW ENERGY GRANTS A YEAR; HUGE OFFSHORE WIND PROPOSAL; THE $50 LIGHT BULB; SUSTAINABLE BIOMASS IN MIZZOU?

SENATE KEEPS NEW ENERGY GRANTS A YEAR
Will the Tax Bill Be Good for Renewable Energy?
Bryan Walsh, December 13, 2010 (Time)

"Amid all the political agony over the tax compromise [approved to go forward by an 83-15 vote in the Senate] …[there are] a few provisions…that will impact the alternative energy industry [including]…

"An extension of the 50 cent per gallon tax credit for liquid coal transportation fuels, provided in Sections 6426 and 6427 of the federal tax code…[which] environmentalists are against, vociferously—liquid coal can…[produce] twice as much carbon pollution as convention fuels… [The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) calls it] a fundamentally flawed technology…"

The good news is that the Senate's bill keeps 1603 for a year. (click to enlarge)

"A one-year extension of the tax credit for corn ethanol of 45 cents per gallon, plus a tariff on imported ethanol of 54 cents per gallon. Most—though not all—environmental groups are against the extension of more tax credits for the corn ethanol industry, which has been given billion in subsidies over the year…

"A one-year extension of the Convertible Renewable Tax incentive for renewable electricity projects, also known as Section 1603. The program was part of the 2009 stimulus package, and gave renewable electricity projects like wind and solar a cash grant in lieu of tax credits. Before the financial crisis, renewable projects were often funded by tax equity—a solar producer might strike a deal, for example, with a bank, which could write off some of its tax bill in exchange for contributing to renewable power. But with the crash, suddenly there was a lot less tax that needed to be paid, and the cash grant program helped save the industry…The economy hasn't improved much, and many players in the wind and solar industries say that without the credit's extension, new developments could implode next year…"

The next questions are (1) how much will be lost because the program will ONLY be extended for a year and (2) when will the politicians show some long term vision? (click to enlarge)

"The bill also aims to extend a tax credit for energy efficiency in new homes that expired in 2009, making it apply retroactively to 2010 and through 2011. There's also more credits for manufacturers of energy-efficient appliances…

"…[Because] critically needed clean energy incentives [benefits are]…outweighed by the harm that would result from the ethanol and liquid coal incentives…NRDC is therefore opposing the bill…For most in the renewable energy industries, however, the need to keep investment credits and subsidies flowing is reason enough to support the bill. The solar and wind industries in particular have argued that losing the tax credits could result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs [and thousands of megawatts of new solar and wind capacity], and prevent the growth of some 65,000 jobs…"


HUGE OFFSHORE WIND PROPOSAL
Wind Farm Would Link Northeastern Grids
Matthew L. Wald, December 9, 2010 (NY Times)

"…[Ambitious offshore wind] proposals are coming in…A wind power developer, Deepwater Wind…[just] proposed a 1,000-megawatt wind farm in a spot between Rhode Island and the eastern end of Long Island in New York. The towers would be so huge, their blades rising 500 feet above the water’s surface, that they would be separated by seven- or eight-tenths of a mile, and thus would cover 270 square miles…Perhaps more significantly, the farm would be connected to the grids of both New England and New York and could become a conduit for relatively low-priced electricity in the north to flow into the higher-priced New York market…

"A power line running from the offshore turbines to one point on shore would be mostly unused the majority of the time because the wind machines seldom turn at full capacity…But the power lines could be loaded with power generated on land — from wind machines or conventional sources – when the wind was not blowing strongly offshore."

The Google-backed transmission plan (click to enlarge)

"The Department of Energy has designated the land area that such a cable would bypass, Connecticut and part of New York State, as one of the two most congested, electrically speaking, in the United States. The other one covers parts of California and Arizona…In some ways, the project’s logic echoes the rationale for the Atlantic Wind Connection, a proposal for a transmission backbone that would run down the Atlantic Coast from New Jersey to Virginia…New technology has made offshore cables more practical.

"…[T]he proposed wind farm would be financed and built in phases, with 40 or 60 machines going up each year. The machines would generate 5 or 6 megawatts each.
(By comparison, giant wind machines on land are generally 1.5 megawatts. A megawatt is enough to run a Super Walmart.)…The offshore depths are 90 to 160 feet, modest by oil drilling standards but very deep for wind…The rotor’s diameter would be 400 feet, so that when a blade pointed straight up, it would rise more than 500 feet above the water’s surface. Building huge machines makes economic sense at sea, where each platform is expensive and where giant blades can be delivered by barge…[though] too long to move on most roads."

The 1,000 megawatt plan (click to enlarge)

"The project’s large scale could bring down the unit costs, wind proponents say. A farm with wind machines of that size was recently approved for the coast of Belgium…[A]dvocates say that what offshore wind power [also] needs to succeed is a sort of critical mass, the promise of enough investment that onshore industries will spring up to manufacture the parts in enough volume to push costs down…

"Locating the farm between two large power pools would make its output easier to absorb…But it would require approval by the New York Independent System Operator as well as its New England counterpart and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission…It would also need permission from the Interior Department, which controls land use at sea, but that agency recently announced a simplified procedure for approving wind farms…[The proposed project has] financing…to get through the planning phase but…[new investors will] be needed before construction could begin. Building the wind farm would cost $4 billion to $5 billion; the transmission line, which would be 150 miles long, would cost another $500 million to $1 billion…"


THE $50 LIGHT BULB
click to enlarge
click to enlarge


SUSTAINABLE BIOMASS IN MIZZOU?
Missouri turns to forests for renewable energy
Alan Scher Zagier, December 10, 2010 (Bloomberg News)

"…[W]hen an international energy company based across the [Missouri] announced plans to build a 20-megawatt energy plant using lumber byproducts and wood waste as fuel, project supporters expected quick approval…[but] Salem's five-member Board of Aldermen unanimously rejected ProEnergy Services of Sedalia's plans to build a wood-burning power plant…Those on opposite sides disagree over just how much pollution-causing carbon is generated by "woody biomass " — a catch-all term that includes sawdust, bark, branches, wood pellets, corn cobs and small trees left behind by loggers.

"The workers and owners of area charcoal plants, pallet factories, sawmills and other wood product manufacturers also fear excessive demand of a limited resource…They invoke the arrival of two high-capacity wood chip mills in the late '90s that brought out-of-state crews with heavy machinery and ‘strip and flip’ speculators before a global decline in the pulp and paper market led to plant shutdowns…"

click to enlarge

"The Missouri Forest Products Association suggested in a January 2010 report that the forests surrounding Salem could support a 10-megawatt plant — half the size of the ProEnergy proposal. Such a plant would have only added to an industry that state economists suggested accounted for nearly 28,000 jobs with a $4.3 billion statewide economic impact, according to a 2007 study…By [forest manager Terry Cunningham’s] estimate…[150 to 200 jobs would be lost], far more than the 25 new full-time jobs promised by ProEnergy…[and logging crew investment of $1.5 million in equipment would create] a financial incentive to overharvest…

"Company officials remain confident the forest floors have plenty of surplus wood waste…[and contend] a $35 million investment, along with hundreds of temporary construction jobs, would be otherwise welcomed in the poverty-stricken, job-starved region…The vote by Salem city officials hasn't deterred ProEnergy, [consultant Mike Mills, former aide to Republican U.S. Senators John Ashcroft and Kit Bond] said…Bond, who is retiring from the Senate at the end of the year, is one of the state's biggest boosters of wood-burning energy plants…[and has pushed] for more private investment…"

click to enlarge

"…[Massachusetts] invested $1 million toward four woody biomass plants before a citizens' backlash…[and] an independent study which concluded that biomass produces more polluting carbon emissions than other renewable energy sources [and coal]…Industry members say the study was flawed…Massachusetts then enacted stringent renewable energy standards…that biomass industry leaders say will prevent new plants…

"Biomass plant owners say it's inaccurate to compare their product to coal, because trees left standing can absorb carbon dioxide released when wood is burned. And trees cut down for fuel can be replanted. But burning wood releases stored carbon immediately, while forests take years to fully grow…Retired University of Missouri forestry professor Gene Garrett…[said] state officials and industry leaders [will protect the state’s] more than 1.3 million acres of federally set-aside conservation land on which to cultivate biomass crops. Another 11 million acres in the state is available for sustainable harvesting, he said…"