Power Q&A: Amory Lovins
NEWS: The energy-efficiency guru who cofounded the Rocky Mountain Institute advocates feebates, negawatts, and letting the little guys play.
|
|
|
|
Mother Jones: What will it take for renewables to go mainstream?
Amory Lovins: They already have in many places. The U.S. lags badly; only 4 percent of our power comes from micropower—cogeneration, wind, sun, small hydro, geothermal, biomass, and waste fuel. The reason the U.S. lags so badly is that we have obsolete rules that favor big over small, supply over efficiency, and incumbents over new market entrants. It's the very opposite of a competitive market. So a good dose of conservative economic principles would get us even further than trying to give technologies we like subsidies as big as the ones we don't like are already getting. Of course, desubsidizing the whole energy sector would be a wonderful advance. Remember, the subsidies that renewables get are an attempt to catch up with much larger and ever-increasing subsidies that fossil and nuclear already enjoy. And those are permanent, whereas the renewable ones tend to be temporary, doled out a year or two at a time. The U.S. wind industry has been crashed at least three times, quite deliberately, by Congress messing with the tax credits from year to year and in a stop-and-go fashion. You can't run an industry that way and develop the capacity and the jobs. That's why we import most of our wind turbines.
MJ: So if you were king, what would you do to make renewables take off?
AL: Level the playing field, but also let them in. There are many obstacles in most parts of the country to being allowed to hook up generators. Many utilities will pay you an unfairly low price or require high standby charges or require onerous and unnecessary engineering studies and fancy switchgear not required by the relevant standards, so these are simply barriers to competition. The barriers that renewables and efficiency face come less from our living in a capitalist market economy and more from not taking market economics seriously, not following our own principles.
MJ: What energy policies should the next president try to enact right away?
AL: I think the important policies need to happen at a state rather than a federal level. With modest exceptions, our federal energy policy is really a large trough arranged by the hogs for their convenience.
MJ: So how could Washington best cut fuel consumption?
AL: Let me give you one for electricity and one for oil, because they are each two-fifths of the CO2 problem. For electricity, we decouple utilities' profits from sales so they will no longer be rewarded for selling more energy or penalized for selling less, and if they do something smart to cut our bill, we let them keep a small part, maybe a 10th of the savings, as extra profit—so we, and they, are both incentivized. This has been tried in a couple of states very successfully. For cars, the most effective thing would be a “feebate”: In the showroom, less-efficient models would have a corresponding fee, while the more-efficient ones would get a rebate paid for by the fees. That way when choosing what model you want you would pay attention to fuel savings over its whole life, not just the first year or two. It turns out that the automakers can actually make more money this way because they will want to get their cars from the fee zone into the rebate zone by putting in more technology. The technology has a higher profit margin than the rest of the vehicle.
MJ: What's the most promising new energy source?
AL: The first 10 or so on my list are ways to wring far more work out of the energy that we already have much more cheaply than buying it. Typically, if we do that right in our buildings, vehicles, and factories, the capital cost will be comparable to today's or even lower.
MJ: And in terms of supply?
AL: Micropower is now providing about one-third of the world's new electric capacity. To give you an idea of how fast this revolution is going, in 2006 distributed renewables alone got $56 billion of private risk capital while nuclear as usual got zero—it's only bought by central planners. Nuclear added less capacity than photovoltaics and a 10th of what wind power added. Even in China, which has ambitious nuclear goals, they already have seven times as much distributed renewable as nuclear capacity, and it's growing seven times faster.
MJ: Then I suppose you consider nuclear the most overhyped energy source?
AL: Clearly. It's unable to find private investment despite federal subsidies now approaching or even exceeding its total costs.
MJ: If you had $1 million to invest in the energy sector, where would you put it?
AL: Efficient use. I want to do the cheapest things first to get the most climate protection and other benefits per dollar. Buying micropower and “negawatts” [Lovins' term for efficiency measures] instead of nuclear gives you about 2 to 11 times more carbon reduction per dollar, and you get it much faster.
MJ: Would you rather live next to a nuclear plant or a coal-burning plant?
AL: Neither. They are both uneconomic and unnecessary. This is like a stupid multiple-choice-test question: Would you prefer to die of climate change or oil wars or nuclear holocaust? The right answer is none of the above. Because all three of those problems—climate change, oil dependence, and the spread of nuclear weapons—go away if we just use energy in a way that saves money, and since that transition is not costly but profitable, it can actually be led by business, and in its coevolution with civil society is the most dynamic force we have.
MJ: I know you're big on energy savings in your own house. What is your personal favorite?
AL: The R19 window I just installed. It looks like two sheets of glass, costs less than three, but insulates like 19. By using expensive windows, I was able to save even more capital up front by eliminating the heating system.
MJ: Do you have any energy-use guilty pleasures?
AL: I take long showers, but they are 99 percent solar, so I guess it's not really guilty.
Michael Mechanic is a senior editor at Mother Jones.
Illustration: Otto Steininger
While it is technically possible to separate plutonium 239 (the fissionable isotope from which a nuclear weapon can be made) from used nuclear power plant fuel, the United States and all other Western countries have never done that. There are far more efficient means to produce plutonium 239 and that is done in government owned facilities. Commercial nuclear power is now actually doing the reverse. Decommissioned nuclear weapons material from both the U.S. and Russia is being converted to fuel for nuclear power reactors.
Furthermore, it must be understood that no commercial power reactor contains fuel that will explode. It is just physically impossible.
Nuclear weapons are a frightening and devastating means to kill and destroy that we all wish would disappear forever. However, misleading statements tying nuclear weaponry to nuclear power is deceitful, erroneous, and pandering to peoples’ fears in order to gain support.
“The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”
The American scientific establishment has failed to protect humanity ever since WWII because as Freeman Dyson said: “The failure of science to produce benefits for the poor in recent decades is due to two factors working in combination: the pure scientist have become more detached from the mundane needs of humanity, and the applied scientists have become more attached to immediate profitability.”
The worst-case scenario proof of Dyson’s statement is Berkeley’s continued production of humanity destroying Hydrogen Bombs for profit and their latest “alliance” with BP oil “hogs” for $500 Million. The fact is that even Edward Teller dreamed of Controlled Fusion power plants to produce enough power to meet the needs of the entire human race by the end of the 20th century, but even he was overruled by the Powers That Be who still choose to work for the “hogs”.
Sadly, even Amory Lovins is one of the “hogs” that he needs to point his finger at. The Rocky Mountain Institute is just one more example of our failures to heed the warnings of President Eisenhower, Freeman Dyson, E.O. Wilson and many others over the last half-century. The truth is that research institutes make a great deal of money off stabilization wedges that are all well and good but not nearly enough, fast enough to prevent tipping points from continuing to topple.
At the rate we are failing today, where we have failed to discover and implement large-scale solutions to our growing century year old global warming problem, our only solution will be to dig very large and deep caves to survive in until the next ice age if the escalating warnings by the world scientific community are truly correct.
It’s time to “fight like hell for the living” at this point during the evolution of our new era of global warming. Either we immediately embark on a Manhattan Project magnitude effort to build large-scale generation plants that eliminate carbon dioxide producing generation plants or quality of life on earth will degenerate to a state where social chaos will be our biggest problem.
Mr. Lovins absolutely ties commercial nuclear power to nuclear proliferation in this article as well as other public forums - “Lovins sees the biggest benefit from the death of nuclear as making it easier to stop nuclear proliferation since suspect nations could no longer claim they were just making electricity.” http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0607-nuclear_debate.html
Basing our national energy policy on what other countries may or may not do is foolish.
If you read enough of Mr. Lovin’s public comments, you will see that his political leanings drive his energy ideas…and that is fine. However, his logic for using “micropower” and “negawatts” to replace the need for base load generation does not add up, especially for the vast majority of citizens and businesses that want and need power on demand.
As far as reducing Green House Gases (CHG), one can compare various generation sources by analyzing their entire cycle from beginning to end, or as some call it, “indirect and direct” CHG generation sources. However, this must be done on a per unit basis, i.e., per kilowatt-hour of production for each source.
A United Nations organization recently completed this research and analysis. Read the facts and draw your own conclusions on which generation sources are in fact, the cleanest.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Ma gazines/Bulletin/Bull422/article4.pdf
I look forward to your questions and/or feedback.
Barry
Number one, it seems that we must focus on the needs of the world as environmental conditions and source options exist today.
The most important reality facing us today is that we are simply running out of time to prevent devastating tipping points from occurring much faster than we are implementing stabilization wedge solutions.
And we must not overlook the potential for out of control worldwide social and economic chaos in the meantime.
Like it or not, we can continue to argue until we lose total control over our environment or accept the number one fact of life today that nuclear generation is our best immediately available large scale solution to meet the worldwide imperative to control greenhouse gas emissions, and to maintain social and economic stability.
p.s. reducing co2 (which rises as a PRODUCT of warm weather, not a CAUSE of it) would kill off our plants and trees (which they require), thereby leading to no more oxygen for us (which they produce). you guys are complete, and very dangerous, idiots.
Please check out the may sources explaining the direct tax credits provided wind and solar generation construction. If the free market were really at work, very few of these projects would be built. Notice the disclaimer provided by Arizona Public Service on their website FAQs describing a 250 megawatt solar generating station... "Like all renewable projects currently under development, successful completion is contingent upon a number of factors, including the extension of the federal renewable energy tax credit, Arizona Corporation Commission approval, and successful siting and permitting."
I have been using the very accurate numbers provided by the Energy Information Agency... www.eia.gov ...
and have in fact been emailing their analysts to validate data and conclusions.
Without state and federal tax credits, alternate energy generators would be a very lousy investment. Why?
First, their construction cost per kilowatt is about the same or more than nuclear power. However, a nuclear power plant produces power 24/7 365 days/year, a real benefit both economically and pragmatically to its customers.
Wind and solar do not provide this economic and customer centered focus. In fact, according to EIA data by state and averaged for the entire US, wind generators produce only 25% of the time over a year. That means you would have to build four times the number of wind mills to equal one nuclear power plant...only when the wind blows. And imagine how many square miles of land surface must be covered with wind mills to to generate 1700 megawatts, which one nuclear power plant can produce on about 60 acres of land?
The EIA provides a graphic showing each part of the country's potential for wind generation... and it ain't that great. Solar is even "worse" when it comes to geography and generation costs per kilowatt.
So you have a few options:
1. Generate baseload power via burning coal
2. Generate baseload power via burning natural gas
3. Generate baseload power via nuclear power
4. Accept rolling blackouts based upon weather conditions
And yes, I am a conservative. Here is what I have found after 50 years of observation regarding liberals and conservatives... typically liberals make decisions based upon feelings and conservatives make decisions based upon logic.
Both decision models are valid, and when applied appropriately, one is superior to the other. For example, your well behaved, respectful daughter breaks curfew one time by ten minutes. Do you throw her in the Curfew Jailhouse... rule are rules!! Or do you say "That's understandable, Dear, I know how it feels to be with your friends and time flies by."
When it comes to national energy policy however, facts and logic are the superior decision bases. Let's apply facts and use common sense, the bywords of a logic based person like myself...and most conservatives.
Here's an economic analysis that reinforse his comments.
Excerpted below is the Executive Summary of a Brief that lays out free-market plan (zero subsidies required) to make San Diego County renewable electricity net-metered-out -- by installing PV panels on roofs and over parking lots and combining the quick payback of electricity use efficiency improvements with renewable energy development. The plan’s strategy is to spend 97% of the start-up capital on efficiency improvements until all the improvements at an average cost of $1,000 per kW saved are installed. Once this level of efficiency is achieved, most of the income from the efficiency improvements and the small amount of renewals installed up to that point are shifted to the installation of devices like PV panel.
The 30 page Brief is co-authored by Dr. Honea, Faculty, SDSU College of Business and me. It shows that it is much more cost-effective for the County to become renewable electricity net-metered-out (virtually renewable electricity self-sufficient) than continuing its dependence on imported electricity, whether via the Sunrise Power Link, a locally contentious transmission line, or via imported natural gas burnt in local power plants.
Other benefits to the County (and world) include:
+ Eliminating all greenhouse gas emissions related to the use of electricity in San Diego County.
+ Real electricity supply and price security.
+ Adding an average of $500 million to $1 billion to its economy each year.
+ Adding 2 to 4 billion dollars of economic multiplier benefit each year once completed.
+ The ideas and strategies used in the plan can easily be adapted to work statewide and nationally.
Jim 619-758-9020
The whole Brief is free at www.jimbell.com, click on “Green Papers.”
Electricity Supply and Price Security in
San Diego County
Comparison of Strategies for the Production/Procurement of Electricity and Elimination of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Research Brief Submitted To:
The San Diego Regional Apollo Alliance
By
Jim Bell and Dr. Heather Honea
8/28/2007
Copyright © 2007 Jim Bell & Heather Honea, PhD
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This research brief compares two energy production and procurement options in terms of their ability to make San Diego County electricity price and supply secure. Both options require that San Diego County fully meet its electricity requirements.
· Net-Meter Option – San Diego County passes Community Choice Aggregation Ordinances and invests ratepayer dollars into becoming renewable electricity net-metered-out* by increasing its electricity use efficiency by 40% and by installing photovoltaic (PV) systems on 20.5% of its roofs and parking lots. *Net-metered-out means that San Diego County will be putting as many kWh into the Western States Grid each year as it uses from the grid each year.
· Power Link Option – SDG&E invests ratepayer dollars in building the Sunrise Power Link and Diego County continues to purchase imported electricity from SDG&E. In this Brief the Power Link is analyzed as being a continuation of the County’s current dependence on imported electricity or imported natural gas or nuclear fuels to produce it in the County.
To determine which option best meets San Diego County’s electricity supply and price security needs, each alternative was evaluated in terms of its contribution or threat to economic security and opportunity, energy security, public and environmental health, and social good. Our analyses indicate that the Net Meter Option provides the greatest benefit across all of these factors.
Analysis
Return On Investment – (ROI). Of the two Options, only the Net-Meter Option generates a return on investment to ratepayers and actually becomes self-funding after initial start-up capital sets it in motion.
Energy and Economic Security. The Net-Meter Option provides San Diego County the most economic security and opportunity by changing its current negative-electricity-purchase-cash-flow into a positive-electricity-purchase-cash-flow. The Net-Meter Option keeps the majority of the money the County currently exports to pay for imported electricity or imported natural gas to produce it locally -- in its local economy. This dollar export exceeded $1 billion in 2005.
The Net-Meter Option is fueled by inexhaustible solar energy which is delivered free. Therefore, it will protect San Diego County from economic shocks related to rapid rises in the cost of natural gas or other nonrenewable fuels whether such price hikes are real or contrived.
In contrast the Power Link Option will deliver imported electricity. Regardless of whether this electricity is produced renewably or with nonrenewable fuels, it will continue the current negative-electricity-purchase-cash-flow out of the County’s economy.
If the average retail cost for electricity in the County is $.10 per kWh the County’s 2010 negative-electricity-purchase-cash-flow will exceed $1.6 billion and grow to over $2 billion in 2050 assuming the County’s population grows to 3.92 million by 2050. If the cost of natural gas doubles or triples as it did during the 2001-2002 energy crisis the negative cash flow related to purchasing natural gas to produce electricity locally or purchasing imported electricity produced by burning it would grow proportionally. This level of negative-electricity-purchase-cash-flow would adversely affect the economy.
The Net-Meter Option is the only strategy that can provide San Diego County with true electricity supply and price security. This is because solar energy in its various forms is our County’s primary indigenous energy resource. All we have to do to harness this resource is to install sufficient efficiency improvements and devices to convert free solar energy into electricity. If the County were to net-metered-out, for all practical purposes it would become renewable electricity self-sufficient. Similar to power plants that depend on the grid for power when they are down for repairs and overhauls, solar generation would depend on the grid when there was insufficient local renewably generated electricity to meet the County’s electricity needs. Once the County is renewable electricity net-metered-out, its PV system output would substantially exceed the County’s need for electricity during the majority of its peak demand hours, when the sun is shining. This would reduce transmission congestion.
The Power Link Option is highly dependent on increasingly costly, politically vulnerable, finite supplies of natural gas and other non-renewable energy resources. It is difficult to predict the cost of natural gas and other nonrenewable energy resources -- especially, if liquefied natural gas is imported from terrorist and earthquake racked Indonesia to the Power Links terminus in Mexicali, Mexico. This is SDG&E’s current plan. Therefore, the Power Link Option does not provide real energy price and supply security.
Social and Environmental Good. The Net-Meter Option will be virtually health and environment benign because solar generated electricity produces no pollution or greenhouse gases. It will also stimulate local business and employment
The Power Link will deliver electricity produced in distant power plants primarily by burning natural gas or some other nonrenewable and polluting energy sources. While this will minimizes local pollution, it will increase it globally because of transmission losses.
Proof of Concept
As the first step toward making the Net-Meter Option a reality, this brief proposes that San Diego County begin with a modest Proof of Concept Project. This project would consist of the County Board of Supervisors issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) to qualified bidders to make the County 2% renewable electricity net-metered-out by mid 2010. Specifically, we propose that the San Diego County in partnership with the San Diego Apollo Alliance develop a Proof of Concept Project that would mirror the County’s current electricity use profile of 4% large commercial, 28% medium commercial, 7% small commercial, 7% agriculture and 54% residential. By maintaining this ratio, the success of the Proof of Concept Project would validate the security, economic, health, and public good benefits outlined in this brief and provide an economic model that the County could apply to becoming completely renewable electricity net-metered-out.
San Diego County would issue an RFP for the Proof of Concept Project to qualified bidders. Qualified bidders would include Energy Service Companies (ESCOs) and SDG&E. ESCOs are companies who help clients reduce energy costs by improving their energy use efficiency and developing their renewable energy resources. ESCOs typically supply the working capital to perform the work they do. They pay back their capital investment and make their profits by sharing in the savings on energy costs that the work they perform makes available. Once finance costs are paid and profit margins are met, the ESCO’s role ends. After that, all the savings generated by the improvements go to the client, which in this case would be San Diego County, its residents and resident businesses.
p.s. for those of you who disagree with JD as most of the world does, but resent my being insulting, don't you think it's time to stop even trying with nut jobs like this to reason? they're just blogging, writing to get emotional attention and gratify their egos which way down deep underneath it all, they have some issues with the "political" take on global warming so they reject all pure scientific data and just go for the us vs. them hatred thing (thanks rush limbaugh, bill o'blarney, sin hannity, ann colt 45, etc.). so why waste time responding intelligently and respectfully to unintelligent, disrespectful garbage like JD's?!