About jrogers

Josh has worked in the energy sector for the past three years. He is currently interning for CEA, and prior to that, worked for an economic consulting firm. Josh has researched issues in the electricity and oil & gas industries, including energy price hedging strategies and commodity market manipulation, and is particularly interested in electricity transport and electricity market restructuring.

Cambridge Solar Power, by the Numbers

Posted on April 14, 2010 by jrogers

The city of Cambridge is home to 33 solar electric (PV) systems that provide 267 kilowatts of clean, renewable energy generating capacity. Assuming ideal conditions of 12 hours of cloudless bright sunlight per day, they could generate 1.2 megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity per year. A little less than what a typical wind turbine is capable of producing in an hour. Of course, this is a hypothetical maximum.

There’s no way that Cambridge’s 267 KW of PV could generate 1.2 MWh/yr of electricity because the sun don’t always shine! Especially here in New England… but if we assume the sun shines for an average of 3 hours each day, the existing PV installations would produce 292 MkWh of electricity per year. This is still a substantial amount of power. The Energy Information Agency reports that the typical Bay State household consumes 7.6 MWh of electricity per year. This means that the 33 PV systems in Cambridge are offsetting the electricity consumption of about 38 homes.

As you are probably aware, the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere by the production of electricity varies based on the type of generating technology, i.e., coal-fired power plants produce more carbon per kWh of electricity generated than gas-fired power plants, which in turn produce more carbon per kWh of electricity than solar PV systems. The City of Cambridge states that each year, local solar power avoids the creation of 300 tons of carbon dioxide that would have been produced had the demand been met from the grid.

A July 2000 EIA report I stumbled upon estimated that on average, coal-fired plants produce about 2 tons of CO₂ per MWh of electricity, while, on average, gas-fired plants produce about 1.3 tons of CO₂ per MWh of electricity.

Well, I hope you have all enjoyed this little electricity thought-experiment as much as I have! I began this blog-post with the intention of writing about local solar-power contractors and solar-power rebates and incentives, but wound up rambling on about kWhs…. So please, if interested, stay tuned for the next post when I’ll delve into the details of how to plan your own personal solar PV system!

Time to get Specific about Renewable Energy

Posted on March 17, 2010 by jrogers

In Last October’s issue of Scientific American, authors Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi plan how the world could derive all of its energy through a combination of renewable wind, water, and solar resources, by 2030.

But what does this report add to the discussion on how to make real increases in world-wide renewable energy production? I think that scientists and a large portion of the energy-investment community realize there’s a lot of wind and water in the world, and that the sun shines a lot; the real questions is how to increase the replacement-rate of traditional power systems with renewable power systems. A plan to power the world with 100% renewable energy by 2030 is a nice thought experiment, but it would be nearly impossible to complete in the real-world because existing coal, gas, oil, and nuclear plants represent long-term investments that aren’t going anywhere fast.

Rather than continuing to tout the quantities of potential energy that could be derived from millions of wind-turbines, solar, and geothermal plants built across the world, I think the time has come for scientists, economists, environmentalists, and other activists to focus on regional power systems, and ask where capital investment in renewables could make real in-roads.

Thinking big-picture is wonderful, but to really grab public attention and galvanize investment, the activist community must get more specific. The Rocky Mountain Institute—which assisted in laying some of the groundwork for CEA’s formation—have published several interesting reads on the matter including Negawatt Revolution and Winning the Oil Endgame.

An example of an apparently effective strategy for increasing investment in renewable energy are very large tax incentives. The Modified Accelerated Cost-Recovery System is a depreciation tax incentive that has been on the books for 15 years, but it has not lead to sufficient levels of investment in renewable energy infrastructure. On the other hand, it could be argued that a provision in the Economic Stimulus Package of 2008 which allowed even greater depreciation rates of 50% or more in the first year helped spur the recent growth in wind deployment. Unfortunately, this capacity is largely supplementary and limited by restrictions of an aging grid. It will take even more novel incentives and considerable investment to reach the point where renewables—or efficiency—begin to displace existing power systems.

Discussing “Our Energy Policy”

Posted on January 4, 2010 by jrogers

OurEnergyPolicy.org is a relatively new and really neat website. The purpose of this website is to establish an open dialogue between all energy experts, including policy-makers, businessmen, and academics, on our country’s most pressing energy issues.

The website sets up a series of straw-man arguments that all registered experts are free to comment on. The really cool part about this website is that it provides a wide array of commentary, on a wide array of issues, from lots of different experts. From quickly perusing the website, I found comments from Professor Daniel Kammen from UC Berkeley, David Goldstein, President of the Electric Vehicle Association, and Gal Luft, Executive Director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, on issues ranging from electricity transmission planning to nuclear energy policy.

With time, and additional comments from an increasing number of experts, this website could prove to be a valuable information resource, and is definitely worth checking out.

Give Those Ugly Wires Some Love

Posted on December 16, 2009 by jrogers

The U.S. electric grid–the wires that connect power-plants to homes and businesses–could use a major facelift. In general, control over the flow of electricity on the grid has not kept pace with burgeoning communication improvements made in other areas of the economy, and the National Academies of Science and Engineering have characterized the U.S. grid as an “amalgamation of outdated technologies” (America’s Energy Future: Technology and Transformation).

Implementation of “Smart Grid” technology at the distribution level could provide real-time information on electricity pricing to customers, who could then adjust electricity consumption patterns according to a varying price for electricity. On the long-distance electricity transmission end, the Co-chairs of the National Commission on Energy Policy, in an open letter to Senator Harry Reid, affirm that modernization of the long-distance electricity transmission system would encourage development of renewable wind and solar power resources.

Title IV of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act commits $4.5 billion in federal funding for stimulus projects related specifically to electricity delivery and reliability, and it is critical for government agencies to allocate these funds effectively, and follow-through with policy to encourage further investment. Wind farms and distributed generation solar panels have the potential to provide lots of clean power, but they need a robust, technologically-advanced, and well-funded electricity grid to fully connect supply with demand.

EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Society

Posted on December 8, 2009 by jrogers

Yesterday, December 7th, the EPA formally declared that greenhouse gases threaten public health and the environment. In its news release, the EPA stated that greenhouse gases are “the primary driver of climate change, which can lead to hotter, longer heat waves that threaten the health of the sick, poor or elderly; increases in ground-level ozone pollution linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses; as well as other threats to the health and welfare of Americans.”

The EPA’s finding of “endangerment” opens the possibility for the EPA to limit the output of carbon dioxide and other pollutants produced by large-emitters such as power plants, oil refineries, chemical plants and metal smelters.

According to Jeff Holmstead, a former EPA air administrator under the George W. Bush administration, this is the first time the EPA has ever made a standalone endangerment finding – without a corresponding rule-making. The timing of the EPA’s decision may be political – as the Senate is still deliberating on a national climate bill, and international climate conferences open in Copenhagen – but that does not discredit the science behind the EPA’s determination.

The EPA’s decision, if nothing else, demonstrates the current administration’s deep commitment to enacting serious climate change policy.

Cambridge Climate Emergency Congress; Sign-up by December 4th!

Posted on December 1, 2009 by jrogers

Cambridge’s Climate Emergency Congress is quickly approaching, and the deadline to to sign-up to participate in this open congress is Friday, December 4th. This public meeting will give Cambridge organizations, businesses, and individuals a voice on what to do about mounting concerns regarding climate-change and its consequences. While world leaders are set to meet in Copenhagen to debate global strategies to reduce climate-change this December, Cambridge community members can make a real impact in our own city, and we strongly encourage all groups and individuals interested in this important cause to join us in this open discussion.

The City of Cambridge will hold the Climate Emergency Congress on Saturday, December 12, from 8:30 a.m. – 3 p.m., at Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue, in Central Square, and there will be a follow-up session on Saturday, January 23. For additional information, please view Mayor Simmons invitation to the public to participate in the Climate Emergency Congress. All interested parties and individuals are invited to sign up. And please remember, the deadline to sign-up is December 4th.

We hope to see you all for this important community event!

Wind Electricity in Denmark

Posted on November 13, 2009 by jrogers

In honor of the upcoming climate change conference in Copenhagen, I have decided to write a bit about the highly-evolved Danish wind-generation network. Danes – it’s OK if you thank me later.

The Danes generate a higher percentage of their electricity from wind than any other nation. Currently, wind supplies 20% of electricity in Denmark. Spain comes in second, and generates 12% of electricity from wind¹. The U.S. generates 1% of its electricity from wind.

So what’s the deal? Why do the Danes have such a large lead in wind? There are two main reasons:

Denmark is a small, geographically homogenous country with substantial wind resources and very limited solar and hydroelectric resources.
As the video below explains, the Danes have chosen to design an electricity system that favors wind generation.

Reason #1 isn’t too complicated… Denmark is small and flat. No location is further than 52 km (32 miles) from the coast .

Reason #2 is more complex. As the video explains, the Danish government subsidizes wind generation and allows wind turbines to connect to the grid for free. Additionally, the Danish Grid is connected to Europe, so Danish power companies have the ability to sell excess wind-generation during times of surplus into an expanded network.

Also, although the video states that wind is cheap, Danish residents pay among the highest prices for electricity in the World. So now the question is, can other countries use the Danish experience with wind as a template for their own plans?

And the answer: Yes… and No. Countries can’t choose their natural resources, but they can choose to incentivize wind-farms as the Danes have. Of course, that choice can and will have a financial cost at-least in the short term, which a majority of a country’s citizens will need to decide to bear. Danes, we salute you.

^{1. Although Spain momentarily surpassed 50% last week due to high winds, and the integration of weather forecasting data into grid operations.}

How much wind does your cape have?

Posted on November 3, 2009 by jrogers

On January 16, 2009, Governor Patrick announced his goal for 2,000 MW of wind-powered electricity generating capacity to be installed in Massachusetts by 2020. To put that number in perspective, the commonwealth currently houses about 13,500 MW of electricity generating capacity – of which wind makes-up a negligible amount. Assuming that the installation of 2,000 MW of wind-powered electricity would be completely additional, i.e., no plant was retired, wind-turbines would account for about 13% of total generating capacity in Massachusetts.

The installation of such a large amount of wind-power, in such a public and popular location, would attract substantial international attention. Currently, the world’s two largest wind farms, Denmark’s Horns Rev 2 and England’s Lynn and Inner Dowsing plant, are capable of generating 209 MW and 194 MW of electricity, respectively. The installation of so much wind-power by the Commonwealth would send a clear message that our state is serious about renewable energy.

That said, there are always two sides to an argument. The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound – the largest group opposing Cape Cod wind-power – states that potential adverse impacts on the economy, the environment, and Native-American heritage rights, outweigh the benefits of Cape Wind. Time will tell if Massachusetts will meet its renewable energy goals, but it appears that the pendulum is shifting… slowly. Governor Patrick’s announcement comes on the heals of legislation passed last year that encourages state-wide increases in renewable energy. Stay tuned.

Coping with the Cold

Posted on October 27, 2009 by jrogers

If you’ve tried all of the of the recent tips on how to keep warm while saving energy, but are still shivering in your boots (you may or may not be wearing boots), then here are some more resources to check out: Continue reading →

Nuclear Waste and the Future of Nuclear Power

Posted on October 14, 2009 by jrogers

Nuclear power has elicited strong controversy since its beginnings. The public first learned of the power of splitting an atom when the U.S. military devastated targets in Japan during World War II. In the midst of the nuclear power era, the public was shocked again in 1979 by the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island, in Middleton Pennsylvania, and the 1985 Chernobyl Disaster in Ukraine, which caused immediate deaths and has been linked to cancers found in local residents.

Although nuclear technology has an infamous history, today, nuclear power plants generate 20% of the the electricity produced by the U.S. electric power industry. There are currently 104 licensed to operate nuclear power plants in the United States, and the electricity sold by these reactors accounts for billions of dollars in revenue each year. Nuclear power is heavily embedded in the U.S. economy, and cutting nuclear electricity production would require massive investment in other generating technologies.

That said, there are fundamental problems with nuclear power generation that have brought construction of nuclear power plants to a halt. There are various reasons why construction of nuclear power plants has stalled – among them: availability of financing, insurance costs, state and federal regulatory hurdles, and the threat and perceived threat of a meltdown. But perhaps that most straightforward debate, and maybe the most important is that which concerns the disposal of nuclear waste. The United States doesn’t know what to do with it. By cutting funding, the Obama administration has effectively axed the Yucca Mountain project, which, up until this year, was the country’s number 1 option. Currently, most nuclear power plants keep spent nuclear fuel in temporary-storage steel-lined concrete casks…

…But is this an acceptable solution? Academics and anti-nuclear groups have questioned the ethics of temporary-storage because it places a significant burden on future generations, and also assumes some form of continued institutional control. Should we continue to generate electricity from a source of power that generates extremely hazardous waste, and for which, we have no means of disposing of? These are hard questions – especially hard since our society continues to use greater amounts of electricity – but this doesn’t seem like the time to eliminate a major source of energy.

Since passage of the Nuclear Policy Act of 1982, but U.S. goverment has failed to develop a functioning program for nuclear storage. The U.S. capitalist economy allows informed investors to decide what technologies to go forward with, but these decisions do not necessarilly coincide with long term societal interests or negative externalities. So what to do? Well, the decision on whether to increase or decrease the use of nuclear power is too big for this blog, and therefore, I open it up for debate! All readers are invited to post there opinion on this important issue, and I look forward to hearing your responses!

Warm Home Cool Planet

Sustainability begins at home

Author Archives: jrogers