America deserves clean, alternative energy. So where is it?

 In Electric Utility

Dreaming of Alternative Energy

In 1901, Serbian inventor Nikola Tesla outlined his plans for wireless distribution of clean, free energy. His Wardenclyffe Tower on Long Island was but the first structure built to test his idyllic system upon a planned utopian community called Radio City. Alas financier J.P. Morgan pulled the plug on Tesla’s dream, concerned that energy consumption should not be free for the masses.

Today we’re not too hopeful for “free” energy, but can we at least get it “cleaner?” The U.S. is still merrily chugging along on antiquated fossil fuels, exploiting all available resources in order to sustain an inherently unsustainable energy source. Why?

Meanwhile, America relies on what was once considered the “greatest engineering achievement of the 20th Century,” our national electrical grid. It consists of three massive interconnections forming a giant high-voltage cobweb. Combined, the grid runs 200,000 miles of power lines, plus another 5.5 million of local ones linking plants to substations to consumers.

And it’s completely unsustainable.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, “65% of utility-scale electricity generation in the United States was produced from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), about 20% was from nuclear energy…” In other words, we use predominantly unsustainable energy to run an inherently unsustainable grid.

Waiting in the Wings

Yet the solution to the problem has been at hand for years. Modern, clean energy sources exist, waiting to be fully harnessed. That is slowly changing, though. Global governments, once having merely paid lip service to the alternative sources of energy, are at last making the necessary transitions to offer cleaner energy to consumers.

Apart from improving energy efficiency in general, alternative methods include utilizing rechargeable batteries and electric automobiles, developing better solar energy techniques, wind and hydropower, and incorporating microgrids.

A plethora of studies and projects done by companies or cities have showcased the effectiveness of such alternative energy sources and the reasons to invest in them. They have also demonstrated how decentralised renewables can open new doors to new energy markets.

The Hawaiian island of Maui, keenly aware of their overreliance on fossil fuels, initiated its own Smart Grid Project, http://www.pecanstreet.org/what-is-pecan-street-inc/attempting to harness the unpredictable power of their wind, the abundant sunshine, and even biomass and waste-to-energy.

The Pecan Street Project in Austin, Texas, is a successful pilot program aimed at developing its own smart grid. For a state as independent as Texas, this is no surprise, despite the fact that Texas is also home to petroleum and gas supermajors, aka “Big Oil.”

Not every project has been as fruitful as Pecan Street, but even failures provide many lessons to learn from. SmartGridCity in Boulder, Colorado, attempted a similar feat (but ultimately couldn’t deliver on its promises, due to lack of experience with the new technologies they were dealing with. SmartGridCity, run by Xcel, admitted as much.)

Advantages of Going Clean

As far as benefits to the environment and cost savings associated with alternative energy innovation, consider that natural gas and wind are “the lowest-cost technology options for new electricity generation across much of the U.S. when cost, public health impacts and environmental effects are considered,” as claimed by the University of Texas at Austin.

Meanwhile, in New York, their Public Service Commission has been working hard to determine exactly how they can incentivize and “compensate” distributed energy producers.  Their plan culminated in Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Reforming the Energy Vision initiative, the purpose of which is “to build a cleaner, more efficient, https://www.governor.ny.gov/and customer-centric electric system.” The Democratic Cuomo isn’t shy; his site states plainly that “Climate change mitigation is a global priority,” obviously and squarely placing the blame on fossil fuels. It goes on to to point out that “Renewable energy resources cost less than ever before.”

But what does all this mean for the end consumer? What are the particular benefits to individuals in our own lives?

For starters, think of the jobs created in an entirely new energy sector. There will still be jobs for those in traditional fossil fuels; the transition won’t be overnight. Many workers can simply take additional training and be prepared for the switches involved, thus avoiding layoffs. As the New York Times recently noted in their article, “What’s Up in Coal Country: Alternative Energy Jobs,” miners are now making the shift to becoming wind tower workers and solar panel installers.

The fact is, renewable energy is the future; it’s only a matter of time, and those who continue to cling to outmoded ways will have a negative job outlook if they do not make preparations.

More and more consumers are becoming “grid defectors,” as pointed out in a study by the Rocky Mountain Institute. And as “solar power and energy storage” edge closer to the “right” price point for everyone, there will be a sudden tipping point and an exodus from the electricity grid. Thus, utilities affected by this pending defection must face facts and begin to restructure their business models if they want to stay relevant in the changing world to come.

Then there’s the so-called “social cost of carbon,” or SC-Co2, which provides two points of data: in dollars, it gives “the long-term damage done by a ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in a given year,” and, also in dollars, it “represents the value of damages avoided for a small emission reduction (i.e., the benefit of a CO2 reduction).”

Put another way, SC-Co2 is “the estimated future economic loss caused by emitting 1 metric ton (2,204 lb, or 1,000 kg) of carbon today.” Statistics vary significantly o the SC-Co2, but the bottom line is that there’s a long-term cost savings to reducing carbon use immediately. The sooner it stops, the faster the money is saved; the longer we wait, the further the cost rises.

The Future Waits for No One…Not Even Us

American is literally behind the power curve. In Europe, cities like Stockholm have a clear plan in place to be “fossil-fuel free” in just over 20 years from now. The German city of Frankfurt expects the same by 2050.

Around the globe, “alternative energy” is not so “alternative” anymore. The sources are becoming primary, as they should be for they offer the solution to our energy woes. There is much work to be done and challenges to overcome. But as fuel cells and microgrids become the norm, “reliable, cost-competitive and clean energy” become the new buzzwords. These technologies no longer reside in the realm of futuristic science fiction. FuelCell Energy is one company of many striving to ensure these technologies are “winning a place within the increasingly decentralized US energy system.”

Right above us our neighbor Canada has witnessed the benefits of transitioning to renewable, while acknowledging the “challenges for all stakeholders (utilities, independent power producers, governments, regulators, manufacturers and housing industry).” Through energy science and technology funding, Natural Resources Canada is tackling the myriad barriers to implementation in order to integrate clean power to their own grid.

Meanwhile, we can stand in awe at countries such as Norway, which is already virtually completely free from fossil fuels, with an astounding “98 percent of the electricity production” obtained by renewable energy sources, mainly hydropower.

There are no longer any valid excuses. The time is ripe to push once and for all for comprehensive changes to the way America creates and uses energy.

Recommended Posts
  • LazyReader

    A gallon of gasoline contains 120 megajoules of potential energy and the
    US uses 392 million gallons of gas per day (cars, trucks, gas powered
    equipment, mowers, light aircraft, portable generators, etc). The US
    uses 47 Petajoules (47,000,000,000,000,000) of gasoline energy per day.
    The Wind power industry in the US produces 5.9 Petajoules of energy per
    day. So even if we convert the US automotive
    fleet or everything that runs on gas over to electric we’d require at
    least 47 petajoules of additional electric power (since the current
    electric supply is occupied by it’s current uses); to supply with would
    require 8 TIMES As many wind turbines that currently dot the country,
    just to power the automotive fleet.

    • Outcast_Searcher

      So what? The world can’t change over the next several decades? More wind and lots more solar, including home solar can’t be installed? Home battery backup battery systems can’t or won’t be installed as such systems become cheaper?

      If we had to solve the entire problem tomorrow, next week, or even next year, then yes, that would be a huge problem.

      But we don’t. The build-out of the electric fleet will take decades.

      And let’s remember that every gallon of gasoline or diesel we burn produces about 20 pounds of CO2, feeding the global warming problem. Getting the vast majority of that energy from a clean source is a necessity in the longer term.

      • LazyReader

        global energy consumption is about 567 Exajoules or a power demand of
        about 18 terawatts. The third world where most of the worlds rainforests
        are located account for 60% of that. So the Third World needs to
        replace 340 Exajoules or 10 Terawatts of energy with renewable energy,
        currently 90% of the third worlds energy is met with wood or biomass and
        fossil fuels. Never the less, 10 terawatts of wind power that’s 10
        million 1 Megawatt wind mills then take into consideration the Betz
        limit that the maximum energy performance of a turbine is about 59%
        running efficiency which it often never runs at that level of
        performance, the average wind turbine efficiency is 30-35% , that’s less
        than a third so you need three times as many turbines to make up the
        difference; that’s 30 MILLION turbines then you have to build even more
        turbines cause the wind distribution is not universal all over the world
        so you have to send electricity from one site to another when the wind
        is stagnant which may require twice as many turbines so that’s 60
        MILLION turbines. Then you have to install them so that’s 60 million
        acres of forest that has to go since it takes a acre of treeless land
        (as tall trees interfere with the wind pattern splaying against the
        turbines). it takes about a ton of of neodymium and other rare earth
        metal per turbine so that’s 60 million tons of rare earth metal. China
        whom consolidates 90% of the global supply, only produces 100,000 tons a
        year so it would take 600 years to mine it all assuming that much even
        exists. That’s a lot of Strip mining, probably that needs to be done in
        the rainforest regions of the world. And that’s just the third world,
        never mind the industrialized worlds energy demands. Don’t get me
        started where all the copper wire is gonna come from or all the Lithium
        to store it. Given the environmentalist uproar over mining…..anything.