The American wind belt run from Texas up to the Dakotas. Last year, America has overtook Germany to become the world's largest wind power generator. Wind energy accounts for 42% of the new energy generating capacity in the US. Unfortunately, like many industries in the US, the growth of the wind generating industry has slowed down a bit from 2008 where it had grown by 50% compared to this year's growth of 20%.
What happened is that creating wind energy requires a lot of upfront capital. The credit crunch and economic down turn has shrunk the availability for this capital. In addition, the wind industry is having problems getting various local, states and federal authorities to set up power lines to transmit this wind energy. In fact, the biggest wind energy promoter, T. Boone Pickens, just called off plans to build the world's largest wind farm because he could not get the transmissions lines.
However, it is not all negative. Government stimulus and funding is helping to support the growth in this industry. In addition, legislation that would require energy company's to obtain a certain percentage of its power from alternative sources, such as wind, will help states commit to build these transmissions lines. There is great growth opportunity considering that 2% of US electricity is generated by wind and there is a lot of untapped resources out there to harness this energy. Keep any eye out on the weather report for more windy days, which could be a good thing for your utility bill.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Could London Go Dark?
I remember watching documentaries about London in WWII when it suffered countless bombing attacks from the Germans. One of the UK's defense measures against these attacks was to turnoff all of the lights to limit the visual targets for the German bombers. Unfortunately, England may be seeing some form of a blackout again. At least it is not due to the threat of some country's aerial attack.
Britain is running short of power. It is facing the shut down of many power stations over the next decade and its energy supply from its own internal resources is becoming tight. The government estimates that 750GW in generating capacity will be gone by 2015. Ironically, the economic recession has perhaps pushed this out a little further because the demand for energy has dropped; however, it is hoped and believed that this economic down turn will end shortly.
Britain's energy grids have already shown some strain when it was hit by a harsh winter in 2005-06. It has faced blackouts recently due to two power stations failing at the same time. The problem is that Britain is facing aging power stations and a shortage of alternative resources and new power stations. In addition, the building of new "cleaner" power stations, such as nuclear, would take years to get one up and running and other alternative resources, such as solar. On top of that Britain has committed to lower its carbon emissions by 34% lower than its levels in 1990 by 2020 and 80% by 2050. As a result, it cannot turn to a reliable and abundant energy source, such as coal, because it is the largest fossil fuel emitter. The government is looking at expanding its alternative energy resources such as wind power. In fact, the UK is looking at getting 33GW of energy from its offshore wind program. This is an incredible leap considering now they only get 0.6GW. In addition, they would need to build 5000 turbine over the next 11 years to meet this goal. Another source could be gas; however, the supply from the North Sea is shrinking. This means that the Brits will need to rely on foreign sources such as Russia and the Middle East. This dependency could jeopardize the UK's security.
In the future, we may see many countries facing a similar energy crisis as they are limited on the type of energy resource they can use due to their commitments to meet certain carbon emissions reduction goals. This is a tough trade off; however, it seems like trade off that must been done in order to reduced global warming.
Britain is running short of power. It is facing the shut down of many power stations over the next decade and its energy supply from its own internal resources is becoming tight. The government estimates that 750GW in generating capacity will be gone by 2015. Ironically, the economic recession has perhaps pushed this out a little further because the demand for energy has dropped; however, it is hoped and believed that this economic down turn will end shortly.
Britain's energy grids have already shown some strain when it was hit by a harsh winter in 2005-06. It has faced blackouts recently due to two power stations failing at the same time. The problem is that Britain is facing aging power stations and a shortage of alternative resources and new power stations. In addition, the building of new "cleaner" power stations, such as nuclear, would take years to get one up and running and other alternative resources, such as solar. On top of that Britain has committed to lower its carbon emissions by 34% lower than its levels in 1990 by 2020 and 80% by 2050. As a result, it cannot turn to a reliable and abundant energy source, such as coal, because it is the largest fossil fuel emitter. The government is looking at expanding its alternative energy resources such as wind power. In fact, the UK is looking at getting 33GW of energy from its offshore wind program. This is an incredible leap considering now they only get 0.6GW. In addition, they would need to build 5000 turbine over the next 11 years to meet this goal. Another source could be gas; however, the supply from the North Sea is shrinking. This means that the Brits will need to rely on foreign sources such as Russia and the Middle East. This dependency could jeopardize the UK's security.
In the future, we may see many countries facing a similar energy crisis as they are limited on the type of energy resource they can use due to their commitments to meet certain carbon emissions reduction goals. This is a tough trade off; however, it seems like trade off that must been done in order to reduced global warming.
Friday, August 7, 2009
It is all about relationships
There were not many countries that liked George W. Bush. India, however, was one of them. One reason they favored Bush was because he did not pressure them to abide to any carbon emission restrictions. That was easy for Bush to do considering that he did not enforce any restrictions on his on country. At least he was not a hypocrite here.
Anyway, when U.S. Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, raised the subject about India abiding to some carbon emission cap to India's minister of environment and forests, Jairam Ramesh, his response was not what she and many environmentalists hoped. He stated, "There is simply no case for the pressure that we — who have among the lowest emissions per capita — face to actually reduce emissions."
He stated further to her, "And as if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours."
The U.S. in its recent carbon reduction bill passed in the House has some form of tariff to be assessed against goods of countries that do not abide by certain carbon cap requirements.
The problem is that we have spent the last eight years ignoring this issue and now we are taking internal action, but also pressing other countries. Unfortunately, the President cannot always brush off past sins of the prior President by stating that what his country did in the past was not his fault. India looks at America as one country, regardless of who is running it. The actions of one President tend to carryover into to other President. The only thing America can do in regard to pressing developing countries to seek ways to reduce carbon emissions is to demonstrate to the rest of its world its serious commitment to this matter by drastically reducing its own carbon emissions. Some argue that the current bill passed in the House is not enought. In addition, the US needs to share technology with these countries in assisting them to reduce these emissions, which may be more controversial because of intellectual property issues.
This will not by the first or the last time that America will here the above statements from the developing countries. This is going to take awhile. Unfortunately, some believe we do not have enough time to wait patiently for the developing countries to turn around.
Anyway, when U.S. Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, raised the subject about India abiding to some carbon emission cap to India's minister of environment and forests, Jairam Ramesh, his response was not what she and many environmentalists hoped. He stated, "There is simply no case for the pressure that we — who have among the lowest emissions per capita — face to actually reduce emissions."
He stated further to her, "And as if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours."
The U.S. in its recent carbon reduction bill passed in the House has some form of tariff to be assessed against goods of countries that do not abide by certain carbon cap requirements.
The problem is that we have spent the last eight years ignoring this issue and now we are taking internal action, but also pressing other countries. Unfortunately, the President cannot always brush off past sins of the prior President by stating that what his country did in the past was not his fault. India looks at America as one country, regardless of who is running it. The actions of one President tend to carryover into to other President. The only thing America can do in regard to pressing developing countries to seek ways to reduce carbon emissions is to demonstrate to the rest of its world its serious commitment to this matter by drastically reducing its own carbon emissions. Some argue that the current bill passed in the House is not enought. In addition, the US needs to share technology with these countries in assisting them to reduce these emissions, which may be more controversial because of intellectual property issues.
This will not by the first or the last time that America will here the above statements from the developing countries. This is going to take awhile. Unfortunately, some believe we do not have enough time to wait patiently for the developing countries to turn around.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Why isn't the Green going into Green?
$39 billion of February's $787 billion stimulus bill was set aside for the Department of Treasury for purpose of creating sustainable green jobs for this new green economy. With the unemployment rate at 9.7%, including it being double digits in some states, many are wondering whether or not this money was allocated correctly. Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, stated recently in Iowa that he will soon initiate $16 million in spending for green fuels and energy efficiency. Up to June 19th, however, only $5.8 billion of that $39 billion of "green" dollars has been allocated. So what's holding everything up? You would think that the government being the true American spender would be out there spending money like one of the wives from the reality TV Show, the Wive of Orange County.
According to the Economist magazine, before this new sea change in energy initatives, the priority of the Department of Energy, which includes a large portion of its people and money, had been dedicated to handling America's nuclear-weapon stop pile. In addition, the Department has never seen this amount of money in its budget. It takes a up to three months for the Department to approve its current loan program applications for funding various projects. Unfortunately, even though it has increased its staff, the Department of Energy is seeking volunteer experts to assist them in reviewing applications and doing due diligence on the parties requesting such funding.
In the end, it might be a good thing that the government is being forced to take a little more time to spend this money. Who wants to have the government purchasing 100,000 solar flashlights valued at $1000 each.
According to the Economist magazine, before this new sea change in energy initatives, the priority of the Department of Energy, which includes a large portion of its people and money, had been dedicated to handling America's nuclear-weapon stop pile. In addition, the Department has never seen this amount of money in its budget. It takes a up to three months for the Department to approve its current loan program applications for funding various projects. Unfortunately, even though it has increased its staff, the Department of Energy is seeking volunteer experts to assist them in reviewing applications and doing due diligence on the parties requesting such funding.
In the end, it might be a good thing that the government is being forced to take a little more time to spend this money. Who wants to have the government purchasing 100,000 solar flashlights valued at $1000 each.
Friday, July 17, 2009
What do fireflies have to do with the economy?
I love the summer time. Especially, I love fireflies. They are nature’s little fireworks. When it starts to get dark, you see these little flashes of light dispersed throughout the night air. It brings out the child in all of us. My children love collecting these insects, studying them and then releasing them. Ironically, this spectacle of lights signifies more adult like activity then child’s play. The fireflies have a mission. These lights are the equivalent to a man at the bar sending a drink over to a female to get her attention. And like any male in this natural bar scene, they are competing with hundreds of other males trying to do the same thing. The night sky is not some natural landscape. It is an insect singles scene.
Unfortunately, the attendance of nature’s singles night is dwindling. There has been a considerable drop in the firefly population. It is not due to the firefly population finding marital bliss and coming off the singles market. There are variety of reasons cited, such as pesticides, light pollution and change in the weather patterns. No one is truly certain for this decrease and scientist continue to study the causes. In fact, you can go to the following website to read more about it and assist in the research: https://www.mos.org/fireflywatch/.
So what does this have to do with the economy? Most likely, you did not realize there is this firefly population decrease and you only would have become aware of the problem when there were no more fireflies. This is similar to the economic crisis.
Many of us did not realize that we were in a recession until a year after it officially began. More importantly, almost all of us did not realize the problems we were creating with sub prime loans, credit default swaps, and collateralized mortgage obligations until the crisis hit last year. The problem existed before that; however, everyone ignored it.
They say history never repeats itself; however, that is not true for human behavior. As my wife reminds me, I need to pay better attention. Perhaps, we all need to be more aware of our surroundings. Go out and enjoy the natural beauty of the summer. Watch that natural firework show. Maybe if we pay a little more attention to our surroundings, we can prevent the next crisis from happening as opposed to dealing with it when it happens.
I love the summer time. Especially, I love fireflies. They are nature’s little fireworks. When it starts to get dark, you see these little flashes of light dispersed throughout the night air. It brings out the child in all of us. My children love collecting these insects, studying them and then releasing them. Ironically, this spectacle of lights signifies more adult like activity then child’s play. The fireflies have a mission. These lights are the equivalent to a man at the bar sending a drink over to a female to get her attention. And like any male in this natural bar scene, they are competing with hundreds of other males trying to do the same thing. The night sky is not some natural landscape. It is an insect singles scene.
Unfortunately, the attendance of nature’s singles night is dwindling. There has been a considerable drop in the firefly population. It is not due to the firefly population finding marital bliss and coming off the singles market. There are variety of reasons cited, such as pesticides, light pollution and change in the weather patterns. No one is truly certain for this decrease and scientist continue to study the causes. In fact, you can go to the following website to read more about it and assist in the research: https://www.mos.org/fireflywatch/.
So what does this have to do with the economy? Most likely, you did not realize there is this firefly population decrease and you only would have become aware of the problem when there were no more fireflies. This is similar to the economic crisis.
Many of us did not realize that we were in a recession until a year after it officially began. More importantly, almost all of us did not realize the problems we were creating with sub prime loans, credit default swaps, and collateralized mortgage obligations until the crisis hit last year. The problem existed before that; however, everyone ignored it.
They say history never repeats itself; however, that is not true for human behavior. As my wife reminds me, I need to pay better attention. Perhaps, we all need to be more aware of our surroundings. Go out and enjoy the natural beauty of the summer. Watch that natural firework show. Maybe if we pay a little more attention to our surroundings, we can prevent the next crisis from happening as opposed to dealing with it when it happens.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
The Godfather
One of my favorite movies of all time is the Godfather. There are multiple scenes I love in that movie; however, one scene that stands out is at the wedding of Don Corleone's daughter. Don Corleone is in his office and people are visiting him asking for a favor. As he grants a favor, he reminds that person that someday he will return the favor to him.
I am afraid America is the person approaching the Godfather and the Godfather is China. Over a $2 trillion of US government bonds have been purchased by Chinese government. The money provided by China is allowing us to float our current deficit. Without that country's assistance, the majority of the free spending the US government is doing would not be possible.
Unfortunately, this relationship may be fine for now; however, this may be different in the future. We may not have the leverage that we had in the past when dealing with China. This shift in the balance of power may impact our ability to influence China in the many areas, including fighting global warming.
It is projected that China and India will pass the US in the leaders in carbon emissions. Both countries have robust economies, which require a lot of energy to fuel their expansion. The cheapest form of energy to maintain this pace of growth is coal. Coal emits the largest of amount of CO2 emissions. According to the New York Times, China currently uses more coal than the US, Europe and Japan combined. In many cases, China is using new energy efficient technology in burning its coal; however, coal is still a dirty energy that emits a large amount of CO2.
So when the US approaches China this December in Copenhagen or in the future and asks China to reduce its Co2 emissions, China will remind the US on how much it benefited from using these large Co2 emitters to expand its economy and now China has the right to do the same. What leverage do we really have if China is providing a debt service to our economy. Not much. That is why we need to reduce our debt with China or any other nation because we will have no leverage for forcing these developing countries to forgo immediate growth to reduce the level of CO2 emissions. If we still have more than $2 trillion of US bonds owed by China, that will be a short conversation. In the end, we might have a better chance in asking Don Corleone to give up the mob business and retire to Sicily than we will have with China forgoing its growing use of coal.
I am afraid America is the person approaching the Godfather and the Godfather is China. Over a $2 trillion of US government bonds have been purchased by Chinese government. The money provided by China is allowing us to float our current deficit. Without that country's assistance, the majority of the free spending the US government is doing would not be possible.
Unfortunately, this relationship may be fine for now; however, this may be different in the future. We may not have the leverage that we had in the past when dealing with China. This shift in the balance of power may impact our ability to influence China in the many areas, including fighting global warming.
It is projected that China and India will pass the US in the leaders in carbon emissions. Both countries have robust economies, which require a lot of energy to fuel their expansion. The cheapest form of energy to maintain this pace of growth is coal. Coal emits the largest of amount of CO2 emissions. According to the New York Times, China currently uses more coal than the US, Europe and Japan combined. In many cases, China is using new energy efficient technology in burning its coal; however, coal is still a dirty energy that emits a large amount of CO2.
So when the US approaches China this December in Copenhagen or in the future and asks China to reduce its Co2 emissions, China will remind the US on how much it benefited from using these large Co2 emitters to expand its economy and now China has the right to do the same. What leverage do we really have if China is providing a debt service to our economy. Not much. That is why we need to reduce our debt with China or any other nation because we will have no leverage for forcing these developing countries to forgo immediate growth to reduce the level of CO2 emissions. If we still have more than $2 trillion of US bonds owed by China, that will be a short conversation. In the end, we might have a better chance in asking Don Corleone to give up the mob business and retire to Sicily than we will have with China forgoing its growing use of coal.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
That's alot of money we can save
Here are some interesting statistics from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
If Congress passed legislation consistent with the Union of Concerned Scientists recommendations, we can save the following amount of money:
$900- The net amount of money the average US household would save in 2030 on their energy bills.
$255 billion- The amount of money business and consumers could save in 2030 on electricity, natural gas, home heating oil, and transportation costs.
$1.7 trillion- The net amount of money the US would save from 2010 to 2030.
Go to www.ucsusa.org for more information.
Clearly, taking such action to achieve these cost savings will have an initial impact on our own budgets and livelihoods. As a result, because of the current recession, this is not the best time to ask Americans to support such legislation. However, like many other difficult issues, we cannot continue to hold off taking action until some indefinite period of time in the future. In the end, that future may never arrive.
If we are reevaluating the health care system and the financial markets during this economic crisis, why not reevaluate how we impact our environment. One could argue that without a sustainable environment, there would be not health care system or financial markets. Also, many of us have spent extra money initially to receive significant savings in the future. Therefore, this is concept of spending now to receive future savings is not a novel approach. Previous generations have made sacrifices for the future generations. It is our time to do the same. Winston Churchill once said, "Americans will always do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the alternatives." Let's prove Winston Churchill wrong by taking action now.
If Congress passed legislation consistent with the Union of Concerned Scientists recommendations, we can save the following amount of money:
$900- The net amount of money the average US household would save in 2030 on their energy bills.
$255 billion- The amount of money business and consumers could save in 2030 on electricity, natural gas, home heating oil, and transportation costs.
$1.7 trillion- The net amount of money the US would save from 2010 to 2030.
Go to www.ucsusa.org for more information.
Clearly, taking such action to achieve these cost savings will have an initial impact on our own budgets and livelihoods. As a result, because of the current recession, this is not the best time to ask Americans to support such legislation. However, like many other difficult issues, we cannot continue to hold off taking action until some indefinite period of time in the future. In the end, that future may never arrive.
If we are reevaluating the health care system and the financial markets during this economic crisis, why not reevaluate how we impact our environment. One could argue that without a sustainable environment, there would be not health care system or financial markets. Also, many of us have spent extra money initially to receive significant savings in the future. Therefore, this is concept of spending now to receive future savings is not a novel approach. Previous generations have made sacrifices for the future generations. It is our time to do the same. Winston Churchill once said, "Americans will always do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the alternatives." Let's prove Winston Churchill wrong by taking action now.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
