Autonomous Vehicle Consultant

Renewable energy, and solar PV in particular, has enormous societal benefits. Solar PV is about to experience a great leap forward this year. However, Massachusetts has practically little electricity generated from solar PV. The state legislature is in the process of reducing net metering for solar PV, probably in reaction to electric utility industry lobbying. Massachusetts could and should do more to help solar PV for reasons cited below.

Renewable Energy and the Environment: According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, “Renewable energy is a practical, affordable solution to our electricity needs. By ramping up renewable energy, we can:

• Reduce air pollution
• Cut global warming emissions
• Create new jobs and industries
• Diversify our power supply
• Decrease dependence on coal and other fossil fuels
• Move America toward a cleaner, healthier energy future

We have the technologies and resources to reliably produce at least 40 percent of our electricity from renewable energy sources within the next 20 years, and 80 percent by 2050.”

The Booming Solar Sector: The Washington Post noted recently, “New statistics just released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) suggest that in the coming year, the booming solar sector will add more new electricity-generating capacity than any other — including natural gas and wind.”

“EIA reports that planned installations for 2016 include 9.5 gigawatts of utility-scale solar — followed by 8 gigawatts (or 8 billion watts) of natural gas and 6.8 gigawatts of wind. This suggests solar could truly blow out the competition, because the EIA numbers are only for large or utility-scale solar arrays or farms and do not include fast-growing rooftop solar, which will also surely add several additional gigawatts of capacity in 2016.” 

SOLAR PV in Massachusetts: Slow Start

The calculations below show that solar PV does not significantly add to the overall electricity generated in Massachusetts.

1. Comparison: Solar Capacity with Total Electric Capacity

“To encourage both utility-scale and distributed solar photovoltaic (PV) expansion, the state’s governor set a separate 2020 goal of 1,600 megawatts of solar PV capacity. Half of that capacity (i.e., 800 MW) was installed by 2015.”

“The state’s utility-scale solar facilities include an 8,200-panel facility on the site of a former metal foundry in Springfield. At 2.3 megawatts, it was New England’s largest solar PV facility when it opened in 2011, but another Massachusetts solar facility reached 5 megawatts less than 2 years later, and a 13-megawatt solar facility was inaugurated in mid-2014.”

Total solar capacity = (800+2.3+5+13) MW = 820.3 MW

Mass Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity 13,172 MW

Ratio, solar to total electric capacity = 820.3/13,172 = 6.23 x 10 ^-2 = 6.23%

2. Comparison: Total Solar Energy with Total Electric Energy

During 2013 in Massachusetts:

Solar energy produced =   106,457 MWh

Total industry electric energy =    32,885,021 MWh

Ratio, solar to total energy = 106,457/32,885,021 = 3.24 x 10^ -3 = 0.32%

3. Comparison: Homes with Solar – “In 2014, Massachusetts added 308 megawatts (MW) of solar electric capacity, bringing its total to 751 MW. That’s enough clean, affordable energy to power more than 120,000 homes.”

However, there are 2.81 million housing units in Massachusetts.

Ratio, homes with solar to total number of homes = 120,000/2,810,000 = 4.27 x 10^ -2 = 4.3%

* Opinions expressed in this post are strictly mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of the the Town of Reading Climate Advisory Committee where I am a member.

J. H. Everson SBIR Consultant

With the closing of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, a carbon-free source of electricity, Massachusetts may be unable to reduce green house gas emissions, especially if natural gas-fired electric generation is a replacement for the Pilgrim plant. The Conservation Law Foundation is pursuing this matter. However, they may have neglected  natural gas fugitive emissions.

Conservation Law Foundation: “Massachusetts officials will go to court this week to defend against a lawsuit saying they are not doing enough to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The Conservation Law Foundation will argue before the state’s highest court that the administrations of Gov. Charlie Baker (R) and his predecessor Gov. Deval Patrick (D) have not done enough to meet the targets prescribed by Massachusetts’ 2012 climate change law, the Boston Globe reports.”

Natural Gas Fugitive Emissions: Greater quantities of natural gas are being produced for electricity generation in New England. This gas contributes to the greenhouse warming effect far more than carbon dioxide. However, this gas is flowing through aged pipelines, leading to enormous fugitive emissions…Gas companies in Massachusetts own and operate one of America’s oldest natural gas pipeline distribution systems, ranking sixth among state systems in the number of miles of main distribution pipelines made of cast iron or bare steel. These companies have replaced less than 4 percent of their leak- prone pipes per year while billing Massachusetts ratepayers an estimated $640 million to $1.5 billion from 2000-2011 for unaccounted for gas.”

J. H. Everson SBIR Consultant

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) forecasts exciting news for drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by using solar PV and wind. However, history shows that previous energy producing sources (e.g., coal, oil, natural gas) required several decades to register a major impact on society.

NOAA Claims: “According to… NOAA, the United States could cut electricity-produced greenhouse gas emissions by 78% below 1990 levels within 15 years, while still meeting increased electricity demand across the country. The new study, published online in the journal Nature Climate Change, is based on a sophisticated mathematical model that evaluated future cost, demand, generation, and transmission scenarios. Specifically, the model found that improvements in transmission infrastructure would allow weather-driven renewable energy resources such as wind and solar to supply most of the United States’ electricity demand at costs similar to today’s.”

History Shows: In a recent blog post, I wrote, “A professor at the University of Manitoba, Dr. Smil has published 35 books and over 400 papers on energy, technical innovation, environment, risk assessment and public policy. In a Scientific American article (January, 2014), he stressed the fact that any new energy producing technology requires several decades before achieving a significant impact on society. That was true for coal, oil and natural gas in terms of share of world energy supply. (Please see page 29 of this reference for graphs of energy production as a function of years starting at the 5 percent energy level.) Why should renewable energy technologies, such as wind and solar, be any different?”

Who is correct? NOAA or history?

J. H. Everson SBIR Consultant

SBIR Consultant – Market Analysis: There are many issues of importance to be stressed in writing a competitive SBIR proposal. One of these is market analysis: urgent need for your innovation, your competition, showstopper issues, cost, and policy/legal impediments. The blog below is an example of a snapshot market analysis that illustrates the long time typically required for an innovation to reach high market penetration. Does your innovation face this type of problem?

This post is directed to those who accept the reality of climate change and believe that CO2 emitting fossil fuels must be sharply curtailed to avoid further greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. Expanded use of renewable energy technologies is one such approach.

According to Bloomberg News, December 2015, “The clean-energy boom is about to be transformed. In a surprise move, U.S. lawmakers agreed to extend tax credits for solar and wind for another five years. This will give an unprecedented boost to the industry and change the course of deployment in the U.S.”

To what extent will these extended tax credits help the wind and solar industries achieve wide spread usage? There are two sources of information on this question: Dr. Vaclav Smil and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) from the Department of Energy (DOE).

A professor at the University of Manitoba, Dr. Smil has published 35 books and over 400 papers on energy, technical innovation, environment, risk assessment and public policy. In a Scientific American article (January, 2014), he stressed the fact that any new energy producing technology requires several decades before achieving a significant impact on society. That was true for coal, oil and natural gas in terms of share of world energy supply. (Please see page 29 of this reference for graphs of energy production as a function of years starting at the 5 percent energy level.) Why should renewable energy technologies, such as wind and solar, be any different?

The second source of information regarding renewable energy deployment ‘progress’ is given by the NREL table below. (Please see p. 27 of this reference). It shows the U.S. renewable electricity generation as a percentage of total generation. Hydropower, geothermal and, biomass electricity generation exhibited no growth from 2000 to 2013. Solar electricity production ‘grew’ from 0.0 percent to 0.5 percent during this period. Electricity from onshore wind went from 0.1 percent to 4.1 percent. There was no contribution from offshore wind in the United States. These data show that Dr. Smil is correct about the ‘snail’s pace’ progress towards deployment of renewable energies, especially in United States.

From 2000 to 2013, the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for renewable energy was 2.6 percent. My previous post calculated that renewable energy would produce 25 percent of the U.S. electricity in another 30 years. These predictions assume a ‘business as usual’ policy by the U.S. Congress and the President (i.e., Energy policy dictated by the fossil fuel industry). Please see OpenSecrets.org for political campaign contributions to members of Congress and the President.

Summary: In the absence of any large-scale coalition formed by the U.S. Government, industry and academia to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy technologies, Dr. Smil’s prediction about renewable energy technologies is correct (i.e., another energy technology requiring decades to implement.) Without timely, large-scale renewable energy, what is ‘Plan B’ to achieve a reduction in global warming?

SBIR Consultant – Market Analysis: There are many issues of importance to be stressed in writing a competitive SBIR proposal. One of these is market analysis: urgent need for your innovation, your competition, showstopper issues, cost, and policy/legal impediments. The blog below is an example of a snapshot market analysis where oil holds a firmly established market position and is not fading any time soon, no matter how noble the cause (e.g., saving the planet from global warming). Does your innovation face this type of problem?

How will renewable technologies replace 137 oil refineries? What is the plan?

“350.org is building a global climate movement…The number 350 means climate safety: to preserve a livable planet, scientists tell us we must reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from its current level of 400 parts per million to below 350 ppm… We believe that a global grassroots movement can hold our leaders accountable to the realities of science and the principles of justice.”

A technique employed by 350.org involves fossil fuel stock divestment by individuals and organizations. Getting people to sell their fossil fuel stock may force that industry to ‘retool’ and pursue renewable energy technologies to sustain their revenue stream. However, a reduction in the U.S. dependency on oil is a herculean problem. There are 137 operating refineries in the U.S located in the map below. Do you really expect fossil fuel companies to abandon these refineries in favor of renewable energy technologies?