LOCKHEED MARTIN SPONSORS FREE ACCESS TO EXCLUSIVE CONTENT.

Vienna, Va.: Public Utilities Fortnightly magazine launched a new twice-monthly online resource today. Fortnightly’s Green Utility (http://greenutility.fortnightly.com) features content developed by Fortnightly’s editorial staff, focusing on renewable power generation technology, finance and regulatory policies in the United States and Canada. The new editorial resource is made possible with sponsorship support from Lockheed Martin.

Fortnightly’s Green Utility will feature exclusive articles, webcasts, intelligence and commentary, as well as special access to related articles from the archives of other publications at Public Utilities Reports Inc. — including Public Utilities Fortnightly, Fortnightly’s Spark and Utility Regulatory News.

“Green Utility will focus Fortnightly’s editorial analysis on the challenges and opportunities of building out North America’s renewable energy infrastructure,” said Michael T. Burr, Fortnightly’s Editor-in-Chief. “Fortnightly brings the world-class editorial expertise to look beyond the news and hype, and analyze renewable energy issues in a way no other publication does. Lockheed Martin’s support allows us to make this unique and objective analysis freely accessible online.”

Fortnightly’s Green Utility is part of Fortnightly.com’s growing inventory of online resources. In the past two years, Fortnightly.com launched two financial databases — the Utility ROE Database and the Transactions Database — providing data about utility ratemaking decisions and financial transactions, such as mergers, acquisitions and debt issues.

The March 1, 2011, installment of Fortnightly’s Green Utility, with a webcast and article developed by Fortnightly Contributing Editor Steven Andersen, features a conversation with tax-credit guru Keith Martin of Chadbourne & Parke. The second installment is scheduled for release on March 15.

PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY (www.fortnightly.com), published by Public Utilities Reports Inc., in Vienna, Va., is the journal of record for the U.S. utility industry, providing authoritative, in-depth analysis of trends in generation, transmission and distribution of electricity and natural gas. For more than 80 years, Public Utilities Fortnightly has delivered exclusive interviews and expert analysis to help utility-industry executives and regulators decide where to invest, how the industry will be regulated and what the future holds. Subscription rate: $287/year.

Posted: March 1st, 2011 under IGCC, R&D, biomass, carbon regulation, climate change, efficiency, electric vehicles, geoengineering, green energy, offshore wind, regulation, renewable energy credits, renewables.
Comments: none

By Michael T. Burr

If you were following @FortnightlyMag on Twitter last week, you saw a stream of tweets in real time from Accenture’s International Utility & Energy Conference in Tyson’s Corner, Va. Below is an edited selection of those tweets, most of which are paraphrased quotations from the speakers indicated.

Gen. Colin Powell, former U.S. Secretary of State (April 20, 2010)

-Energy is the second most powerful force. The free exchange of ideas is the first. 1:27 PM

-Openness and democracy is the greatest weapon America has. 1:14 PM 

-China won’t become America’s enemy because they’re doing too well by being our partner. 1:25 PM 

-In my judgment and that of Kleiner Perkins, cars in America are moving to electricity. It’s a solution that makes sense. 1:03 PM 

-Fuel cells have a unique military application. #bloomenergy 1:55 PM 

-Fuel cells are a breakthrough. Think of them like cell phones. #bloomenergy 1:54 PM

-We need to be careful not to focus so much on terrorism that we forget what we can accomplish. Keep moving forward. 1:40 PM

Ray Kurzweil, inventor and futurist (April 19, 2010)

-People tend to disregard new technologies in the early years of logarithmic growth. 8:50 AM

-Exponential growth in IT is transforming every industry. Every industry will be an IT industry. 8:07 AM

-Nanotechnology is inherently an information technology, subject to exponential growth. 9:20 AM

-Solar and storage are the energy technologies that depend on nanotechnology, and they follow the law of accelerating returns. 10:40 AM

-The cost per watt of photovoltaic cells is a function of nanotech progress. 9:20 AM

-Solar energy production doubles every two years. In five years solar will reach the cost-per-watt crossover point and will be cost-competitive with the alternatives. 8:15 AM

Electricity storage is a bit behind solar. It’ll be eight to nine years before storage is cost effective. In 10-20 years, it’s a whole different landscape. 11:24 AM

-Decentralized power networks are inherently more stable than centralized networks. 8:35 AM

-We’re destroying jobs at the bottom of the skill ladder and replacing them with eight times as many at the top. 8:48 AM

Jonathan Silver, DOE loan program executive director (April 20, 2010)

-Government loans should finance technologies that private financing doesn’t support. When private financing comes in, DOE should get out. 7:55 AM

-The worst thing for private financing isn’t a bad set of rules; it’s uncertainty about the rules. 7:58 AM

-Clean tech investing is the driver of the VC industry today. 8:01 AM

-[On Fortnightly’s question RE: FutureGen status and plans:] Expect progress. Next question? 8:15 AM

Andy Karsner, former DOE Under-Secretary (April 20, 2010)

-Durable price signals are the most effective remedy for ‘capital constipation.’ 9:28 AM

-DOE has lost its focus on R&D toward scalable techs and is displacing private capital. 8:49 AM

-Congress has two approaches to policymaking — do nothing or overreact. 8:33 AM

-Congress is more likely to legislate energy policy in reaction to a crisis than it is to legislate with thoughtful deliberation. 8:35 AM

-”No policy” is a lot cheaper than “bad policy.” 8:46 AM

-The official US position on oil price policy is we don’t know and it’s out of our control. 9:12 AM

Andy Serri, Ameren (April 20, 2010)

-In Washington, the loudest party, the last to speak, rules the day. Subject matter experts aren’t in the room. 8:54 AM

Hugh McDermott, Better Place (April 19, 2010)

-As long as EV batteries carry a price premium, we will take that out of the equation w/ leasing. 3:27 PM

Mark Case, Baltimore Gas & Electric (April 19, 2010)

-BG&E’s “no losers” rebate program nets the same peak reduction as critical peak pricing and gives 100% of customers immediate benefit. 2:47 PM

-Peak rebate program will save customers $1,500 each over the 15 year meter lifespan. 2:44 PM

Chris Colbert, UniStar (April 19, 2010)

-We haven’t started construction yet and Calvert Cliffs is already big: $600 million just for permitting & licensing. 1:02 PM

-You have to convince yourself you’re not building just one reactor, but three or four. 1:35 PM

-We’re not just building a project; we’re building up the whole nuclear industry again, including the NRC. 1:30 PM

Gautham Chandra, Washington Gas Light (4/19/2010)

-We try to position ourselves to be the lowest cost platform to bring the best technology solutions to market. 10:49 AM

-The regulatory tide is moving gradually toward DG and distributed control of the grid. 11:27 AM

A.R. Mullinax, Duke Energy CIO (4/19/2010)

-We’re hedging our bets, investing in all the emerging solutions. 10:45 AM

-Once you break the electricity storage barrier, everything changes. 11:18 AM

Arthur Hanna, Accenture (4/19/2010)

-About 51% of US consumers say they don’t trust energy companies to make correct decisions to address US energy challenges. 9:33 AM

-… Yet 2/3 say the industry is responsible to solve energy problems. 9:35 AM

-The energy industry has a responsibility to take charge of educating consumers. If they don’t trust us, they’ll trust someone else. 9:48 AM

Geoffrey Colvin, Fortune magazine (4/19/2010)

-The most successful companies are very good at creating new solutions for customers’ new problems. 10:22 AM

Posted: April 26th, 2010 under Current News, R&D, Uncategorized, climate change, dynamic pricing, finance, geoengineering, green energy, investment banks, natural gas, renewable energy credits, renewables, smart grid.
Comments: none

By Michael T. Burr

 

The London-based Institute of Mechanical Engineers (IME) published a thought-provoking report in August examining the role of geoengineering strategies for dealing with climate change. The report is interesting partly because of the technologies it examines, but mostly because of the policy argument it raises.

The report focuses primarily on three approaches, namely:

- CO2 scrubbing artificial “trees,” containing sorbents that would require subsequent burial;

- Algae-growth strips, attached to buildings and later harvested for biofuel production; and

- Reflective roofing, intended to direct solar radiation back into space and reduce AC demand.

 

Although these approaches seem novel and interesting, I’m not sure they really comprise geoengineering. The National Academy of Sciences defines geo-engineering as “large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry.” Examples include seeding the stratosphere with reflective sulfur aerosols, or stimulating phytoplankton blooms by fertilizing ocean shallows with iron. By contrast, the hands-on, site-specific technologies discussed in the IME report would face a very steep growth curve before they could resemble “large-scale engineering.”

 

Quibbling aside, however, the IME report merits attention, if only because it makes an important point that’s been mostly ignored in the climate policy debate. In short, most discussions seem to position geoengineering as a “Plan B” approach to addressing climate change. In other words, if Plan A fails, and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and mitigation fall short of what’s necessary to avoid a climate catastrophe, then we’ll default to Plan B — direct intervention in the global climate, vis-à-vis geoengineering.

 

The IME report suggests that if we wait for GHG policies to fail before putting R&D resources into geoengineering, then it might be too late for geoengineering to work — or to be more precise, reining-in a runaway climate might require desperate geoengineering measures, incurring higher costs and yielding more damaging side-effects for the environment than we’d get with more moderate approaches. Instead, the report argues, policy makers should treat Plans A and B as complementary rather than exclusive approaches, and should consider geoengineering as part of an integrated strategy — a strategy that notably includes adapting to the inevitable climate change that already is happening and almost certainly will continue, to some degree, no matter what we do.

 

“Two decades of failed global mitigation efforts should be a wake-up call,” the report states. “It could be geo-engineering that provides the global community with those extra years to introduce effective mitigation and adaptation strategies, and, in the long term, remove some of the existing CO2 from the atmosphere. As such, Plan B needs to be upgraded to become a fully integrated part of a comprehensive three-point approach embracing mitigation, adaptation and geo-engineering.”

In other words, if we’re re-tooling for a more sustainable future, then we should make sure we’re using all the tools at our disposal — not just the ones that adapt our economy, but also the ones that adapt the climate itself. In the long term this might turn out to be the inevitable strategy, given the century we’ve spent gasifying the planet’s fossilized carbon. But that strategy will be cheaper and less damaging if we accept and pursue geoengineering earlier, rather than later in the process. -MTB

Posted: September 1st, 2009 under Uncategorized, carbon regulation, climate change, energy policy, geoengineering.
Comments: none