Painting the Golden Gate Bridge yellow might cause less fuss than trying to install a wind farm off Cape Cod's historic coast.
But when you're trying to build where the wind is strongest or the sun is brightest, you never know what obstacles you may run into.
In Massachusetts, a proposed wind farm called Cape Wind was dealt a blow last Friday that will delay what would be the first offshore wind farm in the U.S. The Massachusetts Historical Commission agreed with local Indian tribes who claim that the location for the wind farm should be considered for listing in the National Historic Register because the Wampanoags' history and culture are "inextricably linked to Nantucket Sound," according to the opinion.
An offshore wind farm in north Wales, U.K.
(Credit: Vestas)"If the tribes are successful, that would have a severe chilling effect (on the entire wind industry) because tribes up and down the coast could make the same claim," said Mark Rodgers, the communications director for Cape Wind. "Never before has an open ocean been caught up in this kind of declaration."
Then again, never before has a rare combination of private and government investment pumped so much into alternative energy projects. As these projects grow in frequency and scale, a new breed of NIMBY (not in my backyard) is emerging: Opponents of wind or solar installations who generally support renewable energy, just as long as they are built somewhere else. Coal and nuclear plants, it turns out, aren't the only energy facilities people don't want built in their backyards...or coastlines.
The Cape Wind fight, in particular, has brought together a testy combination of excellent wind conditions, opposition from well heeled local residents including members of the Kennedy clan, and a surprising assertion of Native American rights.
The National Historic Register is expected to make a ruling on whether the Sound can be considered eligible for protection as a traditional cultural property within 45 days. In its environmental review, the U.S. Minerals Management Service had previously concluded that it should not because the agency found the visual effects from the farm would be minor, and no historical archaeological resources in the Sound were identified. (Click for PDF of report excerpt).
Two tribes of the Wampanoags, who are descendants of the people who greeted the 17th century Pilgrims to Massachusetts, say they have long opposed Cape Wind because an unobstructed view of the ocean is vital to their culture, which calls for them to greet sunrise each day.
If there is a ruling in favor of the Wampanoags, it could delay approval by up to a year, according to reports. So far, Cape Wind, which is run by a group of investors who developed natural gas plants in the past, has spent $40 million over eight years. Developing the project, which would benefit from a tax credit or cash subsidy, is expected to cost more than $1 billion.
The claim is coming to a head at a time when Cape Wind had cleared all state-level environmental and siting permits, despite opposition from well organized local groups and powerful politicians, including the late senator Edward Kennedy. The family's compound would have a view of the 130 turbines, which would be placed five miles off the coast of Cape Cod. The project would supply about 75 percent of the electricity used on Cape Cod with 130 offshore turbines that would be visible as small spikes on the horizon, according to simulations.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said last week that he wanted his agency to make a decision on whether to give Cape Wind federal approval by the end of year--a deadline that is now in question.
On Monday, Massachusetts representative Edward Markey, who heads the House Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, sent a letter to Salazar on Monday, urging his department to approve the project before the start of the U.N. Climate Change Conference in early December because it would "send a strong message to international negotiators about the United States' commitment to developing sources of clean energy and reducing global warming pollution."
Green vs. green
Wind isn't the only form of clean energy that's running into opposition. Earlier this year, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce established a Web site called Project No Project, where it lists dozens of energy-related projects caught up in "green tape." The Chamber blames delays on NIMBY or "radical environmentalism."
The Chamber of Commerce has come under fire by environmentalists and a handful of its members for its opposition to proposed climate change legislation, but a number of renewable energy projects, mostly in wind, are being held up along with coal and nuclear projects, according to the Chamber.
Directly related to renewable energy is the thorny issue of transmission lines. Most of the wind and solar resources are in the middle of the country, far away from the areas of heavy electricity demand, which means that new lines need to be built to take advantage of the country's renewable resources.
There are a number of proposals to carry renewable energy around the country, including high-voltage power lines where less electricity would be lost in transmission. But many face local opposition because of the visual impact from these added wires.
For example, a coalition in Texas has formed called Protect North Palo Duro Canyon, where there is a proposal to string transmission lines across the canyon to carry electricity generated by wind turbines. The group wants to stop the development because of the environmental and historical significance of the place, the group says.
"Wind energy generated in the Texas Panhandle can serve the needs of populous cities such as Dallas and Austin and is important to the future of this state, but not at the cost of natural treasures such as the north Palo Duro Canyon and other beautiful areas in Texas," said Bob Currie, a coalition member.
In addition to drawing opposition from local landowners, the national push for clean energy is raising a "green vs. green" debate between the environmental benefits of renewable energy versus preservation of valuable ecosystems.
An illustration of the proposed Ivapah project in the Mojave Desert shows how much land is needed for utility-scale solar. This project, still being pursued by BrightSource Energy, would take up six square miles to supply electricity to 140,000 homes per year, using mirrors arrayed in a circle around a tower. Using less than 2 percent of the Mojave Desert's land would supply electricity for all the homes in California and cut carbon emissions by 30 million tons a year, according to the company.
(Credit: BrightSource Energy)Driven by a California state mandate that utilities get a significant portion of their electricity from renewable sources, there's a land grab going in the desert areas of the U.S. Southwest that get the direct sunlight suitable for concentrating solar power.
These machines, which concentrate the sunlight to make steam for an electricity turbine, require large tracts of land for utility-scale power generation. As a result, most of these project developers have submitted project proposals to the Bureau of Land Management for siting and environmental reviews, which has created a backlog of applications.
BrightSource Energy, which has been picked to supply hundreds of megawatts of electricity to utilities, last month had to scrap a plan to build a solar power plant in a region of the Mojave Desert that had been set aside for conservation by the environmental group Wildlands Conservancy. California senator Dianne Feinstein said that specific location is not suitable for wind or solar development because it would lead to destruction of the desert ecosystem. Although she supports solar and wind development, she is proposing added protections for the region near other conservation lands, including Joshua Tree National Park.
Common sense?
With the list of clean-energy projects growing, there are efforts to speed up reviews. The Interior Department said last week that it would fast-track environmental reviews of six solar power plant proposals in California. Altogether, these projects would occupy 28,000 acres of land--almost the same area covered by the City of San Francisco--and generate 2.5 gigawatts of electricity, or enough for two million homes, Salazar told reporters.
In Massachusetts, which is encouraging development of clean energy businesses, state officials are considering a way to unblock reviews of a number of stalled wind energy projects.
Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick said last week's decision on Nantucket Sound and historic preservation listing was "ridiculous." In a statement, he said, "We are going to have to get serious about alternative energy installations where they make sense, and every environmental and regulatory review has concluded that Cape Wind makes sense."
The project's well organized opposition group, the Alliance to Save Nantucket Sound, says that placing turbines offshore will damage the environment and hurt tourism. It even recruited regular Martha's Vineyard visitor Walter Cronkite to record radio and TV spots, but he later changed his position, saying he "hadn't done his homework."
Meanwhile, environmental groups are trying to find ways to distinguish NIMBY sentiment from the real need for environmental protection. In general, groups like the Sierra Club favor renewable energy development, even though wind turbines, for example, do pose a danger to birds and bats. Even the Massachusetts chapter of the Audubon Society, which counts many birders in its members, has given conditional support to Cape Wind.
What's needed is data to rule out specific locations that pose too many risks, environmental groups say. Environmental advocacy group the National Resources Defense Council earlier this year developed an online mapping tool to choose the sites best suited for renewable energy. The point of the application is to show people the most suitable sites, which should avoid roadblocks during the review process.
"We need to develop our renewable resources if we are to address the challenge of climate change, but that development must be carried out in an environmentally responsible way," said Johanna Wald, a senior attorney at the NRDC in a blog post. "If it is done right, informed environmentalists will, I believe, stand up in support."
Lithium ion batteries used as energy storage for utilities will be a $1 billion industry by 2018, according to a report released Wednesday by Pike Research called "Energy Storage Technology Markets."
Much of the lithium ion battery development has been geared toward perfecting the batteries as power sources for electronics, and in recent years, cars. But the alternative energy industry is going to benefit from that research, too. Once that happens, there will be a surge in the sales of industrial-scale lithium ion batteries for power utilities, according to Pike research.
"Utilities will be the downstream beneficiaries of innovation and investment in lithium ion batteries for the transportation sector," Pike Research analyst David Link said in a statement.
The energy storage industry in general is poised to grow as more private and public organizations embrace wind and solar energy worldwide. Because wind and solar systems provide energy in bursts and their cycles are not usually in sync with local peak energy usage hours, power storage when using wind or solar will become an obvious necessity for utilities, according to Pike Research.
Out of eleven methods of energy storage, Pike Research found that lithium ion batteries for utility use will be the fastest growing segment of the storage industry.
Sodium Sulfur (NAS) batteries and kinetic storage systems like pumped hydro and Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) were seen as the next likely leading utility energy storage solutions.
Can a $1 billion help save the environment? George Soros hopes so.
The billionaire financier and philanthropist plans to invest part of his wealth on clean tech to fight global warming. In a speech at the Project Syndicate editors' forum in Copenhagen, Denmark, on Saturday, Soros gave the keynote address announcing his new plans.
Soros said he will invest $1 billion in clean-energy technologies and will provide $100 million--$10 million each year for the next 10 years--for the new Climate Policy Initiative, a watchdog-type foundation to promote measures to combat climate change.
"Global warming is a political problem," Soros announced to the meeting of editors in Copenhagen, the same city where representatives from around the world will meet in December to try to hammer out a new climate agreement. "The science is beyond dispute," he added, "but how do we achieve the objectives we all know are necessary? That is a political problem."
The need for cleaner coal has been a critical issue for Soros, who has invested in so-called "clean coal" technologies. In April, he was part of a consortium that funded $50 million toward PowerSpan, a firm researching and developing methods for cleaner coal.
On another front, Soros announced last year that his investment fund would pour $25 million in funds toward Qteros, a company that can make cleaner ethanol from a single microbe.
Soros offered few details on where he plans to invest the $1 billion. But he said he will look for profitable opportunities, and also "insist that the investments make a real contribution to solving the problem of climate change."
Clean energy has been a key issue for Soros. The billionaire has given speeches and interviews promoting development of alternative energy as not just a necessary goal but one that could revive the global economy.
Of course, clean energy has become an increasingly popular sector all around. A recent report on venture capital funding found that more money is being invested in green tech than in software or biotech.
Born in Budapest in 1930, Soros survived both the Nazi and Communist occupations of Hungary. After fleeing to England where he studied economics, he eventually settled in the United States. Soros amassed his huge fortune as the chairman of Soros Fund Management. He was recently ranked by Forbes as the 15th richest American, with an estimated net worth of $13 billion.
T. Boone Pickens addresses members of the press in San Francisco Wednesday.
(Credit: Erik Palm/CNET)For oilman turned wind-power enthusiast T. Boone Pickens, the future is a bit up in the air.
The "Pickens Plan" for energy independence, launched in July 2008, now has 2 million supporters signed up online. It aims to make the U.S. less dependent on foreign oil by--among other measures--replacing imported oil with wind power and natural gas (two areas in which he has business interests).
His own wind project, however, has problems finding a grid to deliver power from his newly bought wind turbines. If it comes to fruition, the project, Mesa Power, would be the world's largest wind farm, potentially able to produce 4,000 megawatts--enough to power 1.3 million homes .
His company purchased 687 wind turbines from General Electric for $2 billion that can produce 1,000 MW and will be delivered in 2011. But there aren't yet any transmission lines from his wind park to the Texas grid to deliver the electricity to the Texans.
Initially he was going to build the transmission lines himself, but now that's "questionable," he said during a stop in San Francisco Wednesday, part of a tour to promote his alternative-energy plan. A transmission line to the west or east from the Texas Panhandle, he told members of the press, is "a little bit big for us."
Beyond that, Boone has interests in the water rights on his own land and the land he currently leases for his wind project, Mesa Power. With a Texas drought, and water increasingly being seen as the "oil of the 21st century" with peaking supplies, according to some observers, he's not sure whether wind or water will be his most profitable investment. "Where I'll make the most money, I don't know. I haven't made any money yet."
Pickens' wind plans call for spending $150 billion over the next 10 years to install turbines in the "wind corridor" of the Midwest, from Texas to Canada. A transmission line there would cost an estimated $70 billion, according to a 2007 Department of Energy study. The federal government must provide corridors for the transmission lines before private companies can build them, Pickens says. He hopes he can lobby to get government support, with the help of his Pickens Plan supporters.
That plan attracted a lot of attention when oil went to almost $150 a barrel and gasoline prices roared upward in 2008 with pump prices of more than $4 per gallon. Speaking to members of the press Wednesday, he said his plan "stays intact," though the oil prices are down to about $50 a barrel and gasoline is hovering nearer $2 per gallon.
Most of his ideas are now on their way in the Obama stimulus bill, he said. But that doesn't mean he's always thrilled with the way things get done--or don't get done--in the nation's capital.
"When I was a rich guy going to Washington to try to get something done, I got in to see everybody and they were all nice, " Pickens told members of the press before giving a public presentation at the Intercontinental Mark Hopkins hotel. "But not much happened. With 2 million people behind me, I am a hell of a lot more important when I go to Washington, than I was with money."
If he doesn't get transmission lines, Pickens is considering moving the turbines outside Texas where there is access to the grid.
"I'm not going to end up having 687 wind turbines in my garage," he asserted. "They are going to be spinning somewhere."
Flexenclosure is trying to wean the cell phone business in Africa off of fossil fuels.
The Swedish start-up has designed a base station for mobile networks that would run on sun and wind power. It all started with a request from telecom company Ericsson three years ago. The company needed an energy source for a potential project in Africa and wanted a more environmentally friendly solution than the conventional diesel generators that usually power base stations out of reach from electricity grids.
(Credit:
Flexenclosure)
Right now, there are 40,000 base stations for mobile networks in Africa, most of them running on diesel. Each diesel base station consumes approximately 20,000 liters (5,283 gallons) of diesel per year. Soaring energy prices and falling prices for phone plans put mobile network operators in a difficult position. So the phone companies started looking for ways to reduce the cost of operating their base stations.
Flexenclosure's base station, called E-site, comes with a wind turbine in the network tower and solar panels on the roof. The renewable energy sources charge a battery that can then power the base station during the night. As a complement, it has a small diesel generator. E-site runs on an intelligent operating system, which learns and adapts to the local conditions.
"If the battery tension is low, but the system knows from experience that the sun will be rising soon, it won't use the diesel generator," says Stefan Jern, CEO of Flexenclosure in an interview. Hence, the E-site will use the best available energy source. This will reduce the use of diesel by up to 80 percent, according to Flexenclosure.
Base stations have also evolved enough so that they don't need additional cooling to operate in tropical climates like Africa. This lightens the power demands and makes solar and wind more viable options.
The solar panels on the roof are made from traditional silicon. The wind turbine is developed by Flexenclosure, and sits at a height of about 197-230 feet. It is more sensitive to lower wind speeds than the conventional turbines placed along sea shores.
There is a significant potential market for Flexenclosure's base station. Every year, 120,000 new base stations are added, catering to the 300 million to 400 million new mobile phone users adopting mobile services around the world.
For operators, there is a lot of money to be saved. The cost of running a base station on diesel amounts to $30,000 per year, according to Flexenclosure. And the fuel has to be physically brought to the site. In some remote places, it is even transported by helicopter.
A traditional base station costs $120,000 to build. An E-site is slightly more expensive, but the additional cost is won back in operational savings after 15 to 18 months, according to Flexenclosure. And after that, a company can save $120,000 to $150,000 in reduced operating costs over a five-year period.
Then there is the environmental side of it. "In a 'business as usual scenario,' the emissions from the telecom sector around the world equates to the emissions drawn from the entire traffic in London," said Jern. That can be dramatically reduced.
The largest problem when setting up E-sites in Africa is the lack of climate data. This makes it difficult to determine the optimal site for the stations.
Flexenclosure will start to sell their E-sites by the end of the year. They are not the only ones developing green base stations. Motorola has showcased a similar product in Namibia.
- prev
- 1
- next
