Tag: wind power

The First Fossil-Fuel Free Paradise

Posted on by robbie

Not so long ago, Hawaii’s image as a sweet-smelling tropical paradise was masking a dirty little secret: Of the states most dependent on foreign oil, Hawaii had rocketed to number one. As of 2006, a full 90 percent of its energy came from imported carbon-rich fossil fuels, which had to be delivered in cargo ships. Not surprisingly, this resulted in the highest gas prices in the country, costing state residents some $5 billion annually.
It was clear Hawaii needed to take action. In 2007 its Republican governor, Laura Lingle, enacted legislation committing the state to take its place “among the nation’s leaders in efforts to effect a climate change policy.” In 2015 her successor, Democrat David Ige, took her vision a step farther, signing into law a mandate that Hawaii generate 100 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2045.
“Hawaii decided to lead by example,” says Mark B. Glick of the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute. “And the lessons we’ve learned show that a comprehensive energy transition is attainable.”
It’s a blueprint that can work for other states, energy experts say. Glick agrees, adding that of the initiatives undertaken by Hawaii, boosting its fleet of electric vehicles has been among the most crucial.

RIDING THE CURRENT

Following the Great Recession, Hawaii channeled $4.5 million in federal stimulus funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into building electric vehicle charging stations. At the same time, the Hawaii State Energy Office chipped in $2.3 million in the form of rebates to individuals and businesses that bought electric vehicles (EVs for short).
For a state that had not long before depended almost solely on foreign energy, the results were a game-changer: From 2015 to 2016, as sales of gas-powered vehicles in Hawaii dipped 4 percent, the number of EVs jumped by 26 percent. By the end of last year, Hawaii saw more than 5,000 EVs cruising down its roads. The state has also built an infrastructure of hundreds of public charging stations — widely considered the best such network in the nation.
But Hawaii wasn’t done. To become completely powered by renewable sources, the state also had to make changes to its power grid.
In an all-encompassing effort to cut carbon emissions, a state commission last summer approved a plan by three utility companies to transition to 100 percent clean, renewable sources by 2040 — five years ahead of the already-ambitious schedule set by Gov. Ige. The three companies, which provide power to 95 percent of Hawaii’s population, are on deck to expand the use of wind, biomass, water, geothermal and solar.

Hawaii Gov. David Ige joins the 2017 National Clean Energy Summit via Skype.

The utilities’ trajectory has already been dramatic. On the Big Island of Hawaii, for example, 54 percent of electricity generated in 2016 came from renewables, up from 49 percent the year before. It represented a benchmark in the state’s climate policy: For the first time, more than half of the energy consumed on any of Hawaii’s eight islands came from clean sources.  
In addition, the state was able to curb its overall electricity consumption by nearly 17 percent between 2008 and 2015.
On a third front, between 2008 and 2015, Hawaii’s electricity consumption dropped nearly 17 percent, the result of a concerted state effort to become more energy efficient. State buildings were retrofitted with more efficient cooling systems, and standard light bulbs were switched to LEDs.
Capitalizing on this momentum, in 2016 Hawaii won the country’s largest ever federal Energy Savings Performance Contract from the Department of Energy. The contract gave the state $158 million to retrofit 12 airports. The refurbishments are expected to cut annual electricity use by 49 percent.

MONEY MIGHT GO, BUT MOMENTUM WON’T

Other states, however, have struggled to copy Hawaii’s success. In 2017, California, a progressive state with 15 times Hawaii’s population, considered a law that would similarly mandate all its energy come from carbon-free sources by 2045. Had it passed, it would have made California the largest economy on the planet to make such a sweeping clean energy commitment, but the bill failed in the face of opposition from public utility companies and union workers (it may be considered again in 2018).
In the face of the current administration’s reticence to push for climate change policies, “states and cities need to do more, not less,” says Fran Pavley, a former state senator who authored a 2006 law that committed California to the most extensive per-capita carbon cuts in the nation — that is, until it was eclipsed by Hawaii in 2015.
Since Hawaii enacted its ambitious law, a few states, including Oregon, Vermont and New York, have passed similar laws to source at least 50 percent of their energy from renewable sources by the 2030s. And dozens of U.S. cities have pledged to do even better. But some of the main tools that Hawaii used to turn away from fossil fuels are being phased out — namely, federal clean-energy subsidies.
Starting in 2009, more than $30 billion in Recovery Act funds went toward an array of clean energy projects. As a result, between 2010 and 2016, the percentage of American power generated by clean renewables doubled from 4 to 8 percent, says Stephen Munro, a policy expert who works for Bloomberg New Energy. If you add in hydroelectric sources, that number jumps to 15 percent.
“Much of that gain is clearly due to Obama-era subsidies,” Munro says.
The clean-energy subsidies Obama implemented, widely credited with lowering the cost of wind energy by two-thirds and increasing solar production tenfold, are scheduled to sunset in the early 2020s unless they’re extended — something the Trump administration has signaled opposition to.
But even if they’re allowed to expire, some climate activists believe that those Obama-era subsidies have already given clean energy enough momentum to overtake fossil fuels. Even in Hawaii, which benefitted greatly from federal money, the state still found ways to incentivize its residents to make the transition by giving EVs free and preferential parking, for example, as well as special access to express lanes.
In other words, what happened in Hawaii won’t stay in Hawaii. That is as long as other states, bolstered by that clean energy momentum, work to foster cooperation among regulators, government, business, activists and consumers — federal money or no.

How Does Clean Energy Help Us Grow?

Posted on by robbie

The foundation for a low carbon energy future, involving not only power sources like wind and solar, but also such wide-ranging industries as lighting and transportation, continues to strengthen. Renewables and clean technology are scaling up faster than expected, with advancing technology and significant cost declines drawing investors and accelerating growth. What’s more, substantial economic benefits have become more obvious, perhaps most significantly in the expansion of infrastructure and local jobs.
Goldman Sachs has been instrumental as both an investor and financier in clean energy development. Since setting our initial target in 2012 to deploy $40 billion over 10 years in the clean energy space, we have invested and financed $54 billion and expanded our goal to $150 billion in capital by 2025. This will ensure that we continue to play a key role, leveraging capital markets to aid in the global transition to greater energy security and sustainable economic growth.
The impact of our investment and expertise has been visible and substantial. From 2012 through May 2016, when we reached the initial $40 billion target, we helped 89 companies and projects scale up clean energy and renewables in 29 countries, helping facilitate 31 gigawatts of renewable electricity generation — enough to power 5.5 million U.S. homes. Our investments and financings have also fueled the broader clean tech ecosystem: the development of electric cars, smart grids and manufacturing capacity for solar components and advanced biofuels.
Together, these companies and projects have helped to employ tens of thousands of people and have had a significant positive economic impact on local communities. What’s more, they are helping to avoid millions of metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year.
[ph]

Clean Energy Impact Report

Clean tech and renewables are growing and are resulting in significant benefits, from reduced environmental impact to economic development in markets worldwide. What are the benefits of our own commitment to the clean energy space? We recently issued a report that gauged the impacts of our investments and financings across the globe. After conducting our analysis, here’s what we found.

The Three Drivers of a Low Carbon Future

Technology, capital and policy — all have a leading role to play in increasing energy security, reducing negative impacts and moving the global economy to a more sustainable energy system. Kyung-Ah Park, head of Goldman Sachs’ Environmental Markets Group, sees rapid technology innovation and convergence, catalyzed by capital and policy, driving a broader shift to a low carbon economy.
[ph]
This article is paid for by Goldman Sachs.

What’s Next for Clean Energy?

Posted on by robbie

In June 2017, President Trump announced the United States was withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord, a landmark agreement aiming to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.
“The United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, but begin negotiations to reenter the Paris Accord — or an entirely new transaction — on terms that are fair for the United States,” President Trump said.
In March of that same year, the president also issued an executive order to undo the Clean Power Plan, which tightly regulated power plants burning fossil fuels in an effort to reduce U.S. carbon emissions.
“My administration is putting an end to the war on coal,” said President Trump during the signing.
But for more than a decade, natural gas and clean energy sources, including wind and solar, have become increasingly affordable and reliable. The Paris agreement and the Clean Power Plan may have been scrapped, but clean energy remains (very much) part of the American energy market.
[ph][ph][ph][ph][ph]

How Dallas Became a Role Model for Community Policing, The Secret Streams That Keep Hawaii Pristine and More

Posted on by robbie


A Different Beat, Texas Monthly
The sniper attack that killed five Dallas cops this summer shocked locals: “Why here?” they wondered. Unlike other racially diverse urban areas, police relations in this Texan metropolis were quite strong. Since 2010, Police Chief David Brown harped on the need for community policing — even after his own patrol cops called for his resignation — saying a team of 80 neighborhood specialists are the city’s best crime-fighting tool.

Uncovering the Potential of Honolulu’s Hidden Streams, Next City
Open a manhole cover on Oahu, and one might find a stream of crystal-clear freshwater, dotted with fish wriggling upstream — just one of the many auwai, or canals, that native Hawaiians dug, then paved over centuries later. In Honolulu, a city well known for its sandy beaches, architects are reclaiming the rest of the tropical island’s buried waterways to accent public parks, buffer against flooding and repair coral reefs damaged by impure runoff.

America’s First Offshore Wind Farm May Power Up a New Industry, The New York Times
Several miles from New England’s shore, a brand-new energy project could have massive environmental ramifications. No, not oil drilling (with its hazardous spills), but the first-ever offshore wind farm. When three massive turbines near Block Island, R.I., begin twirling this October in the unobstructed Atlantic Ocean breezes (likely at faster, more consistent speeds than those on land), they could turbocharge  the already booming renewable energy sector.

MORE: 5 Ways To Strengthen Ties Between Cops and Citizens

Obama Promised to Make the Environment a Main Policy Issue. Did He?

Posted on by robbie

“This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” That’s what Barack Obama promised in 2008 upon winning the Democratic nomination. Seven years later, he’s returning to his pledge as he ponders his legacy and his final 500 days in office.
Was this really the moment when climate change reversed course? NationSwell asked dozens of scientists, historians, jurists, former EPA administrators, legislators and presidential candidates a simple question: How will future generations judge Barack Obama’s record on energy and the environment? Not surprisingly, the responses vary. Some were glowing (“Barack Obama is destined to go down as the greatest climate change-fighting president in history,” says Ed Chen, national communications director for the Natural Resources Defense Council), while others were hesitant to issue a verdict: “It’s a very unfinished climate legacy, full of steps forwards, sideways, and back,” says Bill McKibben, former staff writer at The New Yorker and founder of 350.org, a grassroots climate change movement.
Indeed, the 44th president faltered on environmental legislation in his first term, preferring to expend his political capital on the Affordable Care Act. But Obama’s use of regulatory authority and his agreement with China likely ensure his place in the pantheon of modern environmental champions.
[ph]
BACKPEDALLING FROM CAMPAIGN PROMISES
It’s taken nearly two full terms to bring his labors to fruition. Shortly after defeating Sen. John McCain in the race for the Oval Office, Obama set two bills in motion on which he would stake his legacy: the health care law in the upper chamber, and in the lower, a comprehensive environmental bill that included a market-based carbon cap-and-trade system and renewable energy standards, co-authored by Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat whose amendments strengthened the Clean Air Act in 1990.
In June 2009, Waxman’s bill narrowly passed the House by a vote of 219-212. “There was an apparent window of opportunity” in that moment, says D. James Baker, a scientist who headed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under Bill Clinton, but by December, “the administration was eager for a quick victory and opted for health care.” The climate change bill became Obama’s “stepchild,” a senior official told The New Yorker.
Offering concessions to earn goodwill from the Republican caucus, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agreed to delay implementation of carbon regulations for another year. Soon after, the president announced huge sections of U.S. waters along the East Coast and Gulf of Mexico open for drilling and withdrew support for the versions of Waxman’s cap-and-trade bill being negotiated in the Democratic-led Senate.
“Whether with Obama’s support [a nationwide cap-and-trade law] could have happened is a good question,” says Baker, “but there is no question that the decision to back off was demoralizing to the environment and climate change community.” Days later, as oil bubbled up from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Democrats hung their heads in defeat. “The missing piece of his legacy is national climate change legislation, which he and Congress failed to pass,” says Kenneth Kimmel, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
MAKING USE OF REGULATION, NOT LEGISLATION
That’s not to say Obama failed completely during his first term. The 2009 stimulus bill designated $90 billion for a bevy of green initiatives: retrofitting homes for energy efficiency, fueling development in wind and solar power, modernizing the grid, training employees for green jobs, building high-speed rail, researching carbon capture for coal-burning plants and manufacturing cleaner cars.
“The stimulus package gave President Obama a chance to invest in renewables early in his first term, allowing him to make progress on the issues unlike most other recent presidents, who have been forced for political reasons to leave critical environmental issues to their second terms,” says Baker. If anything, the president’s preference for working outside the legislature set the standard for his later environmental accomplishments. After the bruising battle over healthcare and the Republican sweep of the 2010 midterm elections, Obama took the path of least resistance.
Waxman retired last year after 20 terms, but you can still sense his frustration with the gridlock that killed his legislation. In an email, he tells NationSwell that Congress “refuses to learn from the overwhelming scientific consensus on the dangers we are facing.” He applauded President Obama for circumventing the increasingly partisan legislature by using “the power to act domestically and internationally based on existing laws on the books, even without Congress passing new laws.” Bolstered by a Supreme Court ruling in 2007 that George W. Bush’s administration had shirked their duties, Waxman’s Clean Air Act amendments provided all the authority Obama needed.
[ph]
In the past month, much of the focus has been on the Clean Power Plan, which will reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 32 percent by 2030. But that’s only the latest in a long series of administrative actions. During Obama’s first term, the EPA and the Department of Transportation set new fuel efficiency standards: All cars built after 2025 must get at least 54.5 miles per gallon. This summer, those same agencies proposed raising standards for medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles as well. Despite litigation that’s made its way all the way to the Supreme Court, the EPA slashed the acceptable levels of ozone that clouds city skylines, mercury released by coal-fired plants and methane billowing from oil fields, landfills and farms.  When it comes to conservation, Obama’s designated more land and water as national monuments under the Antiquities Act — 260 million acres total — than any other president.
In creating “the first-ever framework for the United States to achieve long-term emissions reductions,” says Richard Revesz, former dean of New York University School of Law, these achievements will outlast Obama’s two terms — regardless of whom the next president is. “Even if the Democrats lose the White House in 2017, the new greenhouse gas regulations will still need to be implemented,” says Steven Cohen, executive director of Columbia’s Earth Institute. Those guidelines, along with states’ actions, “will probably end the use of coal as a source of energy in the U.S.”
Despite the likely positive outcomes, several Republicans interviewed chastised the president for his reliance on regulations, instead of legislation. “It will be seen as a failure that he wasn’t able to get anything through that is enforceable,” says Christine Todd Whitman, the former New Jersey governor who was George W. Bush’s first appointee as EPA administrator. She argues that using the “heavy-handed tool” of the EPA “will make things more difficult for the agency going forward.”
[ph]
Others had even harsher words. “President Obama has dogmatically used energy as a political tool rather than a building block of renewed economic vibrancy,” says Mike Leavitt, former governor of Utah and Whitman’s successor as EPA administrator. Luke Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining Association, agrees. “He was the president who deepened the partisan divide between Republicans and Democrats over these crucial intersecting issues” of energy and the environment.
CONFRONTING CLIMATE CHANGE HEAD ON
Perhaps because the president has been “hamstrung by politics,” as one historian phrased it, he’s not staking his legacy on any one bill or rule. Instead, as his recent photo-ops in Alaska demonstrates, Obama seems to be focusing on perceptions. His prominence on the global stage — including his role in negotiating the limited Copenhagen Accord in 2010 and the recent deal with China to curb their emissions by 2030 — “helped move the issue of global environmental sustainability to the center of the American and international political agenda,” says Cohen.
As the commander-in-chief prepares to convene with leaders from 196 countries to sign a treaty at the United Nations Climate Change Conference this December, his legacy on climate change “lies in his success in making climate change a central policy obligation,” says Carol M. Browner, Obama’s advisor who directed the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy from 2009 to 2011, when Waxman’s cap-and-trade bill foundered. If the president can get millions of Americans, industry and other stakeholders to think about it while also facing opposition from Congress, he’ll be remembered for changing how climate policy is developed and implemented.
As the effects of climate change become more visible, the challenges facing Obama aren’t disappearing like glaciers are. Perhaps surprisingly, some of the president’s loudest critics are on the left. They’re fuming over the Keystone XL pipeline and off-shore oil and gas exploration in the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans.
“With the president’s permission, Shell is now drilling for oil in the Alaskan Arctic, and his administration has authorized the future sale of 10.2 billion tons of coal,” says Annie Leonard, Greenpeace USA’s executive director. “It’s clear that President Obama is serious about cementing his climate legacy, but until he takes steps to ensure the vast majority of fossil fuels remain in the ground, his legacy is as vulnerable as an Arctic ice sheet.”
 

A Wind Turbine That’s Bringing Clean Energy to New Heights

Posted on by robbie

Wind turbines are found on land and sea, but now there’s a new type on the horizon that can tap energy thousands of feet in the air.
As the video below explains, the helium-filled Buoyant Airborne Turbine (BAT) is capable of producing twice the amount of energy of an ordinary turbine because it feeds off the stronger, faster and more consistent winds of higher altitudes. Cables tethered to the machine then send the generated wind energy back to a base station.
Created by MIT startup Altaeros Energies, the tube-shaped BAT can be inflated, set up within a day and transported anywhere by a truck, which significantly reduces the installation costs of a typical tower-mounted wind turbines. This is in sharp contrast to other land-based turbines, which require giant support platforms and lots of material, and offshore ones that need a platform strong enough to withstand punishing ocean waves, which is tremendously expensive to anchor to the seafloor.
MORE: Texas Breaks a Record, But Not the Kind You’d Expect
Another potential of the BAT is that it can cheaply and efficiently power remote and off-grid communities (as well as areas struck by disaster). As Popular Science reports, one such off-grid locale has already been piqued by this new technology.
Thanks to a $740,000 grant from the Alaska Energy Authority, Altaeros will be testing out the first commercial BAT near the city of Fairbanks starting next year. The 30-kilowatt system is poised to provide power and even WiFi to a dozen families living off the power grid. If the 18-month trial is a success, it could reduce the area’s diesel consumption by 11,000 gallons annually.
[ph]
DON’T MISS: 5 Inspiring Green Initiatives Moving America Towards a Bright Future

If You Think Dirty Energy Always Wins, Think Again

Posted on by robbie

Great news for renewable power in South Dakota!
Following intense outcry, the state’s electric company, Black Hills Power, has withdrawn a proposal that would have penalized customers who generate their energy through solar or wind systems, the Rapid City Journal reports.
The rate increase, called the “Residential Demand Service,” would have added an additional $5 to $20 on top of what a non-generating customer pays, Think Progress writes.
The decision to nix the extra charge is especially important because the state isn’t exactly friendly towards renewables. As one South Dakota solar family tells the Journal, “Thanks to years of consistent lobbying by utility companies that fear the growth of homegrown generation, the South Dakota Legislature has avoided creating the solar-power incentives other states have.”
As it happens, the state is one of only seven in the country that does not require net metering (which allows solar users to sell the energy they create back to the utility). Instead, the utility sets the rate — meaning South Dakota solar or wind users could potentially get much less money for what they put back on the grid compared to market prices.
However, Black Hill’s concession means that those interested in solar or wind power in the state no longer have to fear they will be penalized for making clean energy choices.
MORE: This Is What Happens When a County Bands Together to Get Cleaner Power
Still, other non-generating customers in South Dakota could see their bills increase. The solar surcharge was coupled with a proposal of a 13 percent rate hike for its 66,000 customers across the board, which would amount to an extra $13 per month to the average bill. Black Hills had asked to increase rates in order to cover repairs on the grid following an October blizzard. South Dakota’s Public Utilities Commission will decide on the rate proposals by early next year. But as we’ve said before, if anything, it’s likely that this increased fee will make more people want to make the switch to renewable energy.
And as we previously reported, unfortunately, Arizona and Georgia already levied this so-called “sun tax” on solar users, even though their homes use less power and return excess power to the grid with the energy generated by their panels. These extra charges stifle and discourage renewable alternatives, which doesn’t help us in this fight to curb our dependence on fossil fuels.
The good news is, however, more and more people are standing up to Big Power, just like South Dakota. Last month, when Utah’s Rocky Mountain Power similarly tried to propose a sun tax, residents fought back and the company abandoned the plan.
As climate change causes more Americans to embrace and shift towards renewable energy, the future of the planet is only looking bright.
DON’T MISS: The United States’s First Carbon-Neutral City Is…
 

Here’s What Happens When Communities Demand Green Energy

Posted on by robbie

There’s a green revolution happening in Illinois, and we’re not just talking about citizens recycling cans and bottles, buying organic fruits and vegetables, or even driving hybrid cars. We’re talking about an environmental movement that’s happening on an unprecedented scale.
Statewide, 91 communities are using 100 percent renewable energy, according to a report titled “Leading from the Middle: How Illinois Communities Unleashed Renewable Energy” from the Environmental Law & Policy Center, Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, LEAN Energy US, the Illinois Solar Energy Association and George Washington University Solar Institute.
All of this has happened because of one small thing: Electric deregulation (aka allowing communities to choose their own electricity supply). As a result, Illinois utility providers are competing on the open market for customers, rather than one large entity dictating how much power costs. Each of these 91 local governments voted to purchase power through renewable energy providers (wind, solar, and geothermal sources). And because there is power in numbers, these individual towns were able to leverage their size in exchange for discounts from the energy providers. It’s a winning scenario for all the stakeholders — clean energy companies get more customers while residents get sustainable energy for cheaper prices — and one that more communities should follow.
MORE: How One State Is Making It Easier and Cheaper to Use Wind Power
All told, Illinois customers saved as much as $37 billion over the past 16 years. Additionally, these communities have saved more than 6 terawatt hours, which is the stunning equivalent of taking more than 1 million cars off the road or 250,000 homes off the grid.
“The findings of [the March 7] report are an example of Illinois leading our country’s movement to a more sustainable future from the community level,” said Dick Durbin, a U.S. senator from Illinois. “Communities up and down the state have banded together to pursue renewable electricity, reducing both their utility costs and the state’s environmental footprint. Illinois is showing what can happen when change at the local level is harnessed to create a collective movement, and I hope other states take notice.”
We couldn’t agree more.

How One State Is Making It Easier and Cheaper to Use Wind Power

Posted on by robbie

Wind power is one of the cleanest sources of renewable energy on the planet, and now it’s more affordable than ever. An Oklahoma utility company is offering its customers a chance to buy Oklahoma-produced wind power for a lot less money. The Public Service Co. of Oklahoma (PSO) has cut the price of its WindChoice program by 40 percent, allowing its half-million customers the choice of buying wind power for part or all of their energy needs, the company announced in a news release. All told, a customer can allot half of their energy needs to wind for an extra $5 a month.
MORE: This Is What Happens When a County Bands Together to Get Cleaner Power
“By providing a lower price and greater flexibility, we’re making it easier than ever for our customers to take advantage of and promote the tremendous energy resource that is our Oklahoma wind,” said Bobby Mouser, PSO’s director of customer services and marketing.
Although wind energy can be costlier in the short term, it’s has actually caused the overall price of electricity to drop in several high-wind states. According to a report from the American Wind Energy Association, in the past five years, Texas, Wyoming, Oregon, Oklahoma, Idaho, Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Iowa saw their price of electricity fell 0.37 percent. Every other state, in contrast, saw their electricity go up by 7.79 percent. That should be energizing news to proponents of wind power.