NewEnergyNews: TODAY’S STUDY: SPENDING ON OFFSHORE WIND IS A BETTER INVESTMENT THAN SPENDING ON NAT GAS

NewEnergyNews

Gleanings from the web and the world, condensed for convenience, illustrated for enlightenment, arranged for impact...

Every day is Earth Day.

YESTERDAY

  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER
  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-WHERE NEW ENERGY NEEDS TO BE
  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-KUWAIT’S POSSIBLE SOLAR
  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-WHAT INDIA WIND NEEDS
  • -------------------

    GET THE DAILY HEADLINES EMAIL: CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS OR SEND YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS TO: herman@NewEnergyNews.net

    -------------------

    THE DAY BEFORE

  • TTTA Thursday- HOW CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL WORKS
  • TTTA Thursday-HOW WOMEN MAKE A DIFFERENCE
  • TTTA Thursday-POLITICS AND THE EPA
  • TTTA Thursday-THE ENORMOUS LED OPPORTUNITY
  • THE DAY BEFORE THE DAY BEFORE

  • TODAY’S STUDY: THE NEW INTELLIGENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY
  • QUICK NEWS, May 15: MINNESOTA’S SOLAR AMBITIONS IN CONTEXT; RHODE ISLAND’S FIGHT OVER OCEAN WIND; VC MONEY FOR SMART GRID STEADY

    THE DAY BEFORE THAT

  • TODAY’S STUDY: HOW OIL MARKETS ARE MANIPULATED
  • QUICK NEWS, May 14: HUGE BUFFETT WIND BUY IN IOWA; THE VALUE OF ARIZONA’S SUN; MINNESOTA LOVES WIND
  • AND THE DAY BEFORE THAT

  • TODAY’S STUDY: THE VALUE OF SOLAR WITH STORAGE
  • QUICK NEWS, May 13: HOW BIG OIL USES REPUBLICANS; WIND SAVES MONEY FOR RATEPAYERS – STUDY; BRIGHTSOURCE EXEC TALKS SOLAR TOWER TECH & BIZ
  • THE LAST DAY UP HERE

  • Weekend Video: Senator Blasts Senator For Using Religion To Deny Climate Change
  • Weekend Video: The Remarkable Wind In Scotland
  • Weekend Video: The Sci Show Does Solar
  • --------------------------

    --------------------------

    Anne B. Butterfield of Daily Camera and Huffington Post, is a biweekly contributor to NewEnergyNews

  • Lies, damned lies and politicians (October 8, 2012) by Anne Butterfield (Boulder Daily Camera via NewEnergyNews)

    From the sparring at the first presidential debate, it's pretty sure that energy has become a divisive as well as a competitive issue. Both President Obama and Governor Romney want to be the triumphal producer of energy.

    However Romney likes to smear climate change concerns and clean energy investments, as if all of them go like Solyndra, where a half a billion in loan guarantees went down with the company, as he crowed that 50 percent of clean energy investments supported by the stimulus bill had gone belly up. This was dubbed the "lie of the night" by Michael Grunwald, author of a book about the stimulus bill, citing that maybe one percent of government backed clean energy ventures failed.

    Try getting that rate of safety in your investing. According to a new poll by Hart for the solar industry, voters seem to know that loan guarantees are a steadfast service of government and highly safe, as the Solyndra debacle was deemed unimportant by respondents. Ninety-two percent of registered voters found it important that solar be more widespread, with 70 percent believing that the federal government should be doing more to promote it with incentives (with 71 percent of swing voters feeling this way).

    And, sigh, with tens of thousands of wind power jobs on the chopping block already, Mitt Romney opposes the renewal of the Production Tax Credit. This, even as red states need it renewed, putting him in the dog house with GOP politicians such as Senator Chuck Grassely of Iowa whose state produces 20 percent of its power from wind, and Governor Brownback of Kansas who has made vigorous pleas for the extension of the credit, due to expire this at the end of this year.

    Didn't Romney get the memo? Republican governors are making hay with clean energy such as Haley Barbour and Chris Christie. To Mississippi, Barbour brought four solar sector firms to Mississippi along with two in biofuels plus a clean tech car venture with China. Christie made New Jersey a leading solar market in the nation, this year contending with California for first place.

    But Romney and other high priests of the GOP act as though the only real energy is the type that can be burned, and somehow, Obama has nibbled at this hemlock by constantly touting his success with fracking and his openness to the XL pipeline.

    A truly strange specter is that pipeline; it lets our heartland be used as a byway for tar sands products (which sink rather than float when spilled), so they can go straight to international markets. We get the downsides and none of the upsides -- even as the pipeline could increase gasoline prices in the Midwest, which would lose its existing access to tar sands products.

    One plausible upside of the pipeline being routed through the United States (where it might be built quickly, as would not happen in the alternative route through western Canada) is that it could strengthen the hand of President Obama in his suite of sanctions against Iran, including a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil. Our recent frack-mania allows our nation to resume oil production levels not seen for 15 years and thus strengthens our hand. Three weeks ago Iran admitted having problems selling oil due to U.S. and European sanctions; now the nation's currency is in free fall.

    One certainly hopes that tar sands will thrive mightily as a "psy-ops" against Iran and not as a chemical weapon against our climate, as Dr. James Hansen has sternly warned.

    Never bounded by his prior convictions about the climate, Romney crows that he would authorize the pipeline on day one and build it himself if need be (as if he in his wingtips could "John Wayne" his way around an oil field). It's all such a sham he-man rodeo.

    And no one mentioned the climate -- in spite of hundreds of thousands of petition signatures demanding the topic. Neither candidate pushed clean energy as the vote winner that poll after poll have shown it to be. Authors for DBL Investors in their study of green energy exclaim, "We all need to understand that green jobs are not the idle dreaming of a small group of partisan activists and insiders, but a source of livelihood for millions, literally in all parts of the country." The light shines in the darkness but the darkness of our politics has not understood it.

    Author's note: Want to support my work? Please "fan" me at Huffpost Denver, here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anne-butterfield). Thanks.

    -------------------

    Anne's previous NewEnergyNews columns:

  • Lies, damned lies and politicians (October 8, 2012)
  • Colorado's Elegant Solution to Fracking (April 23, 2012)
  • Shale Gas: From Geologic Bubble to Economic Bubble (March 15, 2012)
  • Taken for granted no more (February 5, 2012)
  • The Republican clown car circus (January 6, 2012)
  • Twenty-Somethings of Colorado With Skin in the Game (November 22, 2011)
  • Occupy, Xcel, and the Mother of All Cliffs (October 31, 2011)
  • Boulder Can Own Its Power With Distributed Generation (June 7, 2011)
  • The Plunging Cost of Renewables and Boulder's Energy Future (April 19, 2011)
  • Paddling Down the River Denial (January 12, 2011)
  • The Fox (News) That Jumped the Shark (December 16, 2010)
  • Click here for an archive of Butterfield columns

    -------------------

    Some details about NewEnergyNews and the man behind the curtain: Herman K. Trabish, Agua Dulce, CA., Doctor with my hands, Writer with my head, Student of New Energy and Human Experience with my heart

    email: herman@NewEnergyNews.net

    -------------------

    Your intrepid reporter

    -------------------

      A tip of the NewEnergyNews cap to Phillip Garcia for crucial assistance in the design implementation of this site. Thanks, Phillip.

    -------------------

    Pay a visit to the HARRY BOYKOFF page at Basketball Reference, sponsored by NewEnergyNews and Oil In Their Blood.

  • ---------------
  • Wednesday, January 23, 2013

    TODAY’S STUDY: SPENDING ON OFFSHORE WIND IS A BETTER INVESTMENT THAN SPENDING ON NAT GAS

    A Study into the Economics of Gas and Offshore Wind; A report for Greenpeace and WWF-UK

    November 2012 (Cambridge Economics)

    Executive Summary

    Key Findings

    • This research finds that, compared to a future power system more heavily dependent on gas, large-scale investment in offshore wind would impact positively on UK GDP and employment. GDP increases by 0.8% by 2030 and there are over 100,000 additional jobs by 2025, falling to 70,000 additional jobs by 2030. The development of offshore wind capacity would stimulate construction and manufacturing demand over the period to 2030. In the longer term, it would prevent locking the UK into natural gas usage and imports.

    • However, the scale of the macroeconomic impact depends on the location of the supply chain for offshore wind equipment. If the import content of offshore wind projects were to remain at current levels, the positive impact on GDP would be smaller (0.2% by 2030). Alternatively, if the development of the UK as a major global centre for offshore wind attracted investment in UK-based production, this could boost UK exports and lead to larger GDP gains.

    • The impact on GDP and employment by 2025 and 2030 of a high offshore wind deployment scenario, compared to a scenario with high gas-fired generation, is shown in Figure ES.1.

    Background

    • Greenpeace and WWF commissioned Cambridge Econometrics to assess the macroeconomic impact of large-scale offshore wind deployment, compared to a future with limited offshore wind power generation in the UK and, in its place, additional gas-fired generation.

    The macroeconomic impact of large-scale offshore wind deployment

    • Our analysis compares the economic outcomes of two alternative power generation portfolios to 2030. The first of these (labelled WIND) is similar to the Committee on Climate Change's (CCC) 65% renewable electricity scenario1 with large-scale development of offshore wind, while the alternative case (labelled GAS) relies instead on existing and new gas plants to provide the UK's electricity. It should be noted that the scenarios compare deployment of (currently) the most expensive large-scale renewable energy option against unabated gas power generation. In the real world, however, a high renewables scenario would include lower cost technology options, as outlined in DECC's renewables roadmap. The scenarios are described in more detail in Chapter 2.

    • The combination of falling capital costs for wind turbines and rising natural gas import prices means that offshore wind is only slightly more expensive than Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGTs), by 2030. As a result, electricity prices in the WIND scenario are only 1% higher than in the GAS scenario in 2030; a very small difference compared to possible variation in relative prices caused by other factors such as changes in gas prices. This challenges the prevailing view that electricity produced by gas-fired plants will be much cheaper indefinitely.

    • The model results show several important economic impacts. The construction work for large-scale investment in offshore wind boosts GDP and creates jobs (which are mainly high skilled) in the UK. However, as noted above, currently much of the investment is in equipment that is produced overseas. The GAS scenario also relies heavily on imports (of natural gas) but captures revenues for government through the carbon price floor. In the WIND scenario the UK pays slightly more for electricity but more of the value added of the supply chain is located in the UK. Total UK imports of natural gas are 45% lower in the WIND scenario by 2030, a reduction of almost £8bn annually.

    • Despite a small increase in electricity prices, GDP is around 0.8% higher in the WIND scenario by 2030 because the domestic content (construction and manufacturing of offshore wind capacity) of electricity is higher than in the GAS scenario. The relative increase in GDP in the high offshore wind scenario is robust to all the key sensitivities we tested (see below). If a commitment to offshore wind led to major supply chain companies locating in the UK, it is likely that exports would also increase, serving to increase GDP further and create more jobs, but the potential impact of this is not included in the analysis presented here.

    Levelised costs and the import content of gas and wind generation

    • The study also assessed the prospective cost structures of gas and offshore wind power generation and compared the levelised costs for projects initiated between 2012 and 2030, with a range of assumptions and at varying discount rates. The findings draw on prior analysis and show that gas-fired generation is currently cheaper, for each unit of electricity generated over the lifetime of the plant, than offshore wind. However, as gas and carbon prices are expected to increase in the future and the unit costs of offshore wind farms are expected to decrease, this difference will become smaller.

    • The results also show that a large proportion of the operating cost of a gas CCGT plant over its lifetime is imported because of the large imported fuel cost component (see Appendix D).

    • At present a large proportion of the lifetime offshore wind farm cost also goes to imports, as offshore wind turbine manufacturing has so far remained largely outside the UK (see Appendix D). However, in a scenario with high offshore wind deployment, there would be the opportunity to attract investment into the UK supply chain, increasing the proportion of wind turbines that are designed and manufactured domestically.

    • There is considerable scope for offshore wind costs, both capital and operating, to fall over time, as economies of scale and learning effects drive costs down. In addition, as offshore wind projects become established, the risk premium associated with the borrowing cost for offshore wind will be reduced; this is currently a major cost of offshore wind relative to new gas projects.

    Impact on CO2 emissions

    • UK power sector CO2 emissions in the WIND scenario would be one-third of those in the GAS scenario in 2030, even though some gas-fired power is needed to provide backup when there is insufficient wind to meet power demand.

    • The development of offshore wind capacity envisaged in the WIND scenario, coupled with other low carbon sources and measures to deal with the intermittency, meets the CCC's recommended target for the carbon intensity of the UK's power generation target of 50gCO2/kWh by 2030 and would reduce total annual emissions in the UK by 50MtCO2 by 2030. The lock in to offshore wind would support decarbonisation consistent with the UK's legally binding emissions target for 2050 and encourage the development of the UK as an offshore wind technology leader.

    Sensitivity analysis

    • To ensure that the results of the economic modelling analysis are robust, the following sensitivity tests were carried out (discussed in full in Chapter 5):

    – Natural gas prices: The sensitivities are the DECC low and high gas price assumptions. The impact by 2030 on GDP of moving from the GAS to the WIND scenario is 0.7% in a world of low gas prices and 0.9% in a world of high gas prices.

    – Domestic gas production: Shale gas could reduce the UK's dependence on natural gas imports, but this has no impact on the scenario results. The reason is that increased UK gas extraction represents a positive impact on GDP regardless of whether or not it is used in UK power generation. In the WIND case the gas is sold on the export market (which is not generally feasible for new shale gas in the USA).

    – The future costs of offshore wind projects: Offshore wind costs are expected to fall considerably as offshore wind capacity is deployed, but it is not clear by how much. Under the low capital cost sensitivity the impact on GDP between the WIND and the GAS scenario increases to 1%, while high capital cost projections reduce the impact on GDP to 0.6%.

    – The import content of offshore wind projects: If significant offshore wind capacity is deployed in the UK, it is possible that a substantial domestic supply chain will be developed. In the central WIND scenario, the import content of the capital required for an offshore wind project is projected to fall from 63% to 37% by 2030. If the import content of an offshore wind project were to remain at 63%, the positive impact on GDP by 2030 would be reduced to 0.2%.

    – The required interconnection capacity to support intermittency: The two scenarios contain the same level of interconnector capacity. However, the requirement may be less if there is a high level of gas generation, but our sensitivity test for this assumption did not materially affect the positive GDP impact of 0.8%.

    • The results of the sensitivity analysis are shown in Figure ES.3. The results highlight the potential benefits of reducing the import content, and capital cost, of offshore wind projects, but still show that substantial emissions reductions could be made in the WIND scenario without a negative impact on the economy, even under conservative assumptions on import content and capital cost reductions for offshore wind. The assumptions tested on interconnection capacity, gas production and the price of gas have only a small impact on the economic results. These are described further in Chapter 5 of this report.

    • At the sectoral level the differences are also modest. Large-scale development of offshore wind is likely to benefit engineering, manufacturing and construction firms, and also possibly insurance and project financing companies. In contrast, utilities (including gas distribution) would benefit from increases in gas-fired generation.

    0 Comments:

    Post a Comment

    << Home