Just a quick note, which I may expand on later… It is an encouraging sign that coal-fired power additions are finally slowing in China (though still growing in absolute numbers), with 2013 being the first year that there has been less than 50 gigawatts of coal capacity addition, and with China Electricity Council’s 2014 projection, it looks like it may stay that way moving forward. Certainly, the rainbow “fan” that is replacing these additions is also encouraging in some respects. Wind capacity additions should remain steady in the years ahead, while solar continues to have a couple of aggressive years ahead of it. Nuclear power should be picking up the pace in the lead up to 2020, while hydro will have a couple more years of >10GW additions before slowing down, as China reaches the technical hydropower potential of nearly all of its rivers. Whatever it can dam, it is damming, including the Nu River, which I made a short film on in 2008. My last point for now is that China has now had six consecutive years of ~90GW capacity additions, but since the growing majority of these additions (hydro, wind, solar) run at lower capacity factors than coal, the overall power generation (and consumption) is slowing too, due to slower economic growth, some energy efficiency efforts, and perhaps some structural change as well.
In January, I attended a “data science and sustainability” meetup held at OPower. The topic was “Driving Behavior Change with Energy Insights”. To make a long story short, one of OPower’s business models is to take over a given utility’s billing structure and provide customers with easy to understand information on how much energy you use compared to neighbors with similar homes. This method is based off of a study where statisticians hung signs on people’s doorknobs to save energy. One said, “Save energy, it saves you money.” Another said, “Save energy, be a good citizen.” And the last one said, “Save energy, it’s good for the environment.” Apparently, none of them worked in convincing people to use less energy. They tried one last doorknob hanger: “Your neighbor uses less energy than you.” And voila! Statistically significant energy savings were realized over time, simply because of this message. OPower has used this concept in their billing. If you access your PG&E bill online, you will see something like the graph above (note: this is only for electricity, and not for gas), comparing you to “all similar homes” (for me, it was single family homes of a similar size that use natural gas for heating and are within half a mile). The “efficient similar homes” are apparently the lowest quintile of energy consumption. It may well be that those homes have less people living in them. Or perhaps they are simply greener than Sustainable John.
But not for long! Let’s see if we can save some energy around the house. PG&E was actually one of the first utilities to take on the “Green Button” initiative, an effort to release basic household energy data to customers in usable formats. The initiative was supported by the Department of Energy and even the White House. Essentially, you can have data about how much power your house uses in 15 minute, hourly, daily, and monthly increments. However, the data is not in real-time, rather it’s a few days old (on a Tuesday night, I can have access to data through Sunday night). DOE supported a bunch of hackathons around this initiative, which launched dozens of app ideas and a couple companies along the way, one of which is Bidgely. Bidgely has a service where you can input your utility log-in information, and it will analyze your home energy usage in more ways than PG&E’s site can. It’s easy to pull up your monthly energy use, broken out by each day.
And then you can click on a particular day and see hourly interval data, with some helpful daily average consumptions. Now, you can begin to see the patterns of roommates bustling to get ready in the morning and coming home in the evening, which is when utilities commonly hit their peak loads.
In fact, the smart meters that PG&E has installed in nearly all of their service territory are collecting many more data points than this. And now, due to a device called a Home Area Network (HAN) device, customers can now get now get access to this data. I just installed my HAN device this past weekend, and now am collecting real-time energy use data in 5-minute intervals (seen below), which is a big improvement over the hourly interval above. I can now know how much energy the house is using at any given time. At 7:20AM, I was in the kitchen using the lights and the toaster. At 8PM, I was using the clothes washer and dryer. As this data is captured, Bidgely is analyzing it using different algorithms, to understand how much of my usage is due to the various appliances in our household: refrigeration vs. vampire loads vs. clothes dryers, for example. The granular data will eventually help me to sort out where I can focus my energy efficiency efforts, whether it’s in more efficient lighting, tackling vampire loads, or getting rid of that old, clunky fridge.
If you would like to track your energy usage, a good place to start would be to make sure you have your PG&E online profile set up. Then, you can sign up for a service like Bidgely. They even have a mobile app (iPhone and Android), so it’s easy to track your hourly interval data. If you want to buy a HAN device, you can find more information on PG&E’s recently launched HAN device portal. The one I bought was pretty steep, about $100 in cost. But, you could maybe convince Bidgely to send you one for free, and hopefully they’ll come down in cost over time. If you don’t live in PG&E territory, check to see if your utility is signed on to the Green Button initiative and whether or not they have deployed smart meters.
In OPower’s presentation, they revealed that their comparison methods had resulted in verified 2-3% energy savings on average per customer in the territories where they are working with utilities. While this number is certainly nothing to cough at, it does suggest that there is a still a huge potential for energy efficiency out there. And companies are piling in to the residential and small commercial energy efficiency space to capitalize on this influx of data and see if customers will act on it. Besides Bidgely, there’s Simple Energy, PlotWatt, Ohmconnect, and also WattTime (a winner in last year’s hackathon). BERC is also beginning to participate in this data revolution. Stay tuned for forthcoming information on two new BERC Communities, Cleanweb and InfoEnergy Nexus, as well as the second annual Berkeley Cleanweb hackathon to be held on April 18-20, 2014.
LBNL’s China Energy Group has released the 8th version of its China Energy Databook. I was the co-editor for this version, and learned a lot about how to hunt for different kinds of energy related data on China. We usually do an update only every couple of years, but hopefully we will be doing more regular updates as we streamline our processes. Certainly, this project has a legacy that we must continue. This is one of the spreadsheets from the databook, started 13 years ago by Yang Fuqiang, who at the time was a scientist at the lab but is now an adviser to NRDC’s China program.
Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions for the databook. I’m currently working on a Sankey diagram for China’s energy consumption and production (a la LLNL’s famous versions for the U.S.) and hope to show that off in the coming weeks.
In early June, I had the privilege to attend the European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ECEEE) summer study in Hyeres, France (it’s every other year) and give a paper that I wrote with Chris Marnay and others on microgrid program development and policy. My mom came along with too. We had an outstanding time. A day in Paris on either end, and 5 days in the south of France. Literally, the weather every day was sunny and 70F. Two other awesome things happened on the trip. First, I got to take the high speed train. It only took 4 hours to travel the entire length of France and the scenery was so lovely, just gentle rolling hills until we eventually happened upon the azure ocean in Toulon. The marvels of efficient train travel! The second thing was that I ran into my professor Iain MacGill of UNSW, Australia where I took a summer course on renewable energy 9 years prior (the course still exists!). Here we are happily reunited.
The mornings were filled with great talks and academic exchange on energy efficiency. The afternoons were filled with sunshine, paddleboarding, kayaking, swimming, and bicycling. It really was a perfect experience.
Just a week before my Climate Ride, I put the finishing touches on my new music video, called “Bike Shop/Climate Awesome” featuring Ace (aka Akabar, my little brother with the Big Brothers Big Sisters program). Here it is:
After I posted the video, my fundraising basically doubled from around $3,300 to over $6,600. I believe I ended up in 8th place in fundraising out of over 150 riders. I got a special top ten Jersey as well as the award for the most number of individual donations, the official count was 129, but I think it was around 250 if you count every jian bing I sold to raise money. It was an incredible feeling to have so many people support my ride and this cause and I am incredibly grateful to them. Here are some charts on my fundraising efforts, the timing of my donations, and the size of donations I received. I believe these data can potentially be helpful to note for other climate riders. I should do a longer post about fundraising tactics. I had several.
The ride itself was incredible. We had 5 days of nearly perfect weather. I’d estimate about 4 hours of cloudiness. We had strong tail winds on day 3, which was the day we did 100 miles in one day. It felt incredible! Towards the end of that “century” day, we had the most incredible and beautiful climb in Mendocino county. It was so invigorating and empowering. Just check it out. And yes that is Harry Mud Mudd!
The people on Climate Ride and the organizers were all so amazing. It was a fully supported ride with food and everything. Each campsite we stayed in was a large campsite, so most of them had a general store out front, so when we rolled into camp we could also just grab a six-pack and start kicking back! Though I would ride periodically with people throughout each day, most of my actual riding was by myself. I could stop and take photos. I could just let my mind wander. I could just enjoy this wonderful scenery and experience. I had a great tentmate, my friend and former colleague Puneeth, and on the last day my good friend Nick made it out from Berkeley to meet us for the final leg. He took this great picture of me. I think it’s my favorite from the ride.
As we rolled into SF Civic Center, I got all of the Climate Riders to do a call and answer eco-rap with me. Enjoy!
The DOE Sunshot Initiative aims to get solar PV costs down to $1 per watt by 2020. Module prices have already fallen precipitously and continue to fall. However, an increasing number of companies are focusing on how to bring down the marketing, finance, and installation costs of solar PV systems, which remain stubbornly high. LBNL research has shown that customer acquisition is 10 times more costly in the U.S. than in Germany (see slide 29 in the linked presentation).
Two friends, my former colleagues at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, are pursuing an idea called SolarList, which aims to reduce those customer acquisition costs here in the U.S. One problem is that solar installation companies burn through a lot of sales time educating potential customers about how to go solar, but only a few of those leads end up working out. SolarList is building mobile software that allows students to offer free, third-party home solar assessments through targeted canvassing and their personal networks. For homeowners that are still interested once they have had some education and a free assessment, SolarList can connect them to installers.
A couple weekends ago, some friends and I decided to do some beta testing for SolarList’s mobile solar assessment software in the hills of Berkeley. We wanted to see just how homeowners would respond to some Berkeley students knocking on their doors offering free education on going solar. I was joined by Michael Conti (SolarList), Tim Cronin (BERC’s VP of Law), and Jenny Tang (editor of BERC’s China Focus).
Together, we knocked on a couple hundred doors that weekend and talked to dozens of homeowners. We found that if someone answered the door and had a few minutes to talk, the conversation went well at least 50% of the time. In general, people enjoyed receiving a free solar assessment, seeing how much they could save on their utility bill, and learning more about the different financing and installation options available. Some folks even offered to sit us down at the dining room table and have a longer chat.
At the end of the day, we had actionable leads that we could sell to solar installers. The homeowner receives free education and assessments, solar companies get qualified leads, and we get paid for pounding the pavement and preaching the solar gospel. (One homeowner remarked that she was only willing to talk to us because we didn’t look religious. She gets a lot of evangelists at her door, but I was apparently the first solar evangelist.)
So that’s how you can sell solar to your neighbors in Berkeley (or wherever you live). If you want to try it out, SolarList’s Ground Forces team is ramping up with summer jobs.
Last week, I attended the Berkeley Lab “Science at the Theater Earth Day Event,” entitled “How Hot Will It Get?” featuring five 15-minute talks by four LBNL scientists and one UC Berkeley economist. Overall, the event was a success, and the presentations were very informative, if not a bit frightening. The next “Science at the Theater” event is on May 13, so mark your calendars for “Eight Great Ideas”, where eight LBNL scientists will each have eight minutes to pitch their groundbreaking ideas. Here’s a summary of what was said the other night:
Bill Collins – What do computer models predict about the future of the Earth’s climate?
Since climate science started in the 1960’s, there has been nearly a billion-fold increase in computing power. This has enabled computers to become an increasingly powerful crystal ball for the Earth. Bill spoke about his visit to Australia for an IPCC meeting during the “angry summer”, where it was 120F in Sydney and 123 weather records were broken in 90 days. The 5th Assessment Report of the IPCC (AR5) will be released in 2014, and we can look forward to more well-informed (and more frightening) predictions of what is in store for our global climate. He noted that climate change through 2035 is largely already committed by the greenhouse gases we have emitted to date and the action we take now will dictate climate change in the latter half of the century. To date, this reality has been at odds with what has been politically possible on climate change. He ended with a quote from famous biologist E.O. Wilson: “A very Faustian choice is upon us: whether to accept our corrosive and risky behavior as the unavoidable price of population and economic growth, or to take stock of ourselves and search for a new environmental ethic.”
Margaret Torn – What happens to the Earth’s climate when the permafrost thaws?
The arctic is warming much faster than the rest of the Earth, and there is twice as much carbon in arctic soils as there is in the atmosphere. When the permafrost melts and the frozen organic matter beneath it thaws, the indigenous microbes will decompose that matter much faster, forming carbon dioxide and methane. As a biogeochemist, Margaret studies the dynamics of that decomposition in Alaska and how it will contribute to warming. She noted that the dynamics are complex and yet to be fully understood. Bill Collins’ most powerful climate models don’t yet incorporate potential feedback loops from permafrost melt. One scenario is that the melting permafrost sends loads of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but shrubs also expand to new areas and increase carbon uptake. The overall effect on the “albedo” is yet unknown.
Michael Wehner – What does high performance computing tell us about heat waves, floods, droughts, and hurricanes?
“Climate is what you expect, and weather is what you get,” Michael said as he began his talk, attributing the quote to Edward Lorenz, the father of chaos theory. Michael studies the weather and increased risk of extreme weather (heat waves, cold snaps, drought, floods, hurricanes, etc.) from climate change. He estimates that the 2003 European heat wave, which caused 70,000 excess deaths, will happen in 9 out of 10 summers by the year 2040. That is, the risk change (over a baseline level pre-industrial revolution) for the event in 2003 was 2X. In 2023, the risk change for a similar heat wave will be 35X. In 2040, the risk change will be a startling 154X. This will equate to a probability of 90%. Yikes.
Jeff Chambers – How much carbon do our forests absorb and what if this rate changes?
Only 50% of the carbon we emit into the atmosphere stays there. The other half goes into the oceans, tropical forest sinks, and regular terrestrial sinks (soil and trees). Jeff studies what will happen to the forest and terrestrial sinks over time. There will be the effects a warming world, and the effects of specific weather disasters. He estimated that 320 million trees were destroyed in hurricane Katrina, which normally absorb a carbon equivalent of 105 million tons of carbon dioxide. Other impacts to forests include increased risk of wildfires, droughts, and pest infestations.
Maximilian Auffhammer – What kind of carbon tax might actually work?
“You know you’re at a nerdy event, when they bring out a German economist to close the show,” Maximilian quipped to begin his talk. Maximilian focused on what we might do to slow down climate change and potentially avoid some of doomsday. As a German economist, he is concerned about the costs of three things: 1) direct impacts (think hurricanes and floods), 2) mitigation, such as how to use less energy and produce more clean energy, and 3) adaptation. We can internalize the costs of climate change in three ways 1) regulation and standards, 2) carbon tax, and 3) cap and trade. The problem: about 200 countries have tried to negotiate a global agreement, it has not worked, there is no significant progress on the horizon, and any one country can block action. He proposes that the G20 (which account for about 80% of carbon emissions) agree to charge a significant carbon tax to start, say $20/ton to begin with. It would be enforced to non-compliers at the border (thus creating an incentive for other countries to adopt carbon policy). He says it would be much easier to negotiate than a global agreement, but admits it would still be pretty difficult.
1. California’s AB-32 climate change law: The organizations I ride for are protecting, lobbying for, and implementing the strongest climate change mitigation legislation out there.
2. UC Berkeley: I’ll be a student in a dual master’s program in energy and public policy in the fall, and right now I work on energy efficiency and distributed generation policy at Lawrence Berkeley Lab. The organizations I ride for are fighting for the same outcomes that I am studying and working towards.
3. Bike economy: The organizations I ride for include bicycle coalitions which increase the number of bikes on the roads and decrease the number of cars. They lobby for bike lanes and make sure everyone feels safe on a bicycle. They inspire me to keep expanding my food bike operation!
Donate here, don’t be shy: http://bit.ly/SustyClimateRide
More on the beneficiaries of Climate Ride: http://www.climateride.
Have you seen “Thrift shop” (240 million views and counting)? Well, get ready for “Bike shop”! This new music video will debut on May 11 in support of my fundraising efforts for Climate Ride. If you haven’t donated yet, please do so now at this link! At the heart of Climate Ride are two groups that converge: 1) people that love biking, 2) people working to fight for a clean energy, low-carbon future. To that end, my new video will have one verse focused on how awesome and fun bikes are and one verse focused on how we, as citizens, need to lobby for that low-carbon future. I’m lucky I have such awesome friends to help out with my music video…the shot above gives a little taste of what is coming your way. This will mark my 6th official music video. The preceding five were: Copenhagen Rap (3-5-0), All We Need Is MPG’s, No Love (for the Upton Bill), Occupy Rooftops, and Low-Carbon (低碳) Style.
Tomorrow April 16, BERC, ERG, and CEGA will host a *free screening* of the documentary Chasing Ice in Sutardja Dai Hall auditorium (register here), and I highly recommend you go see it. This film inspires climate change action because of its use of visual evidence and a protagonist hero with whom you feel a personal connection.
The film follows photographer James Balog, who founded the Extreme Ice Survey, the most wide-ranging ground-based photographic study of glaciers ever conducted. National Geographic showcased this workin the June 2007 and June 2010 issues, and director Jeff Orlowski brought this story to the big screen. Beyond showing the startling footage of the disappearance of glaciers over just a couple of years, the movie explains the technical problems that Balog faced in setting up his cameras and the personal struggles he had climbing ice and snow even after multiple knee reconstruction surgeries. His perseverance is inspiring, however, and the visual evidence he presents is beautiful, haunting, and motivating.
At the most recent screening in Berkeley hosted by local company Mosaic, Mosaic’s co-founder Dan Rosen explained how he met director Orlowski at the Unreasonable Institute where they inspired each other to continue pursuing their dreams. Orlowski dreamed of bringing the story of the Extreme Ice Survey to the big screen, while Rosen dreamed of fighting climate change by creating a platform for any individual to invest in clean energy projects.
Chasing Ice’s use of visual evidence and a protagonist hero mimics another climate change movie I saw last year, The Island President. I reviewed that movie at length on my personal blog due to its deep impact on me and its amazing storytelling. That movie followed the president of the Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, leading his country’s fight against climate change. It showcased Nasheed’s personal struggles as a civil rights activist (being arrested, tortured, put in solitary confinement) and his true passion for saving his country from the threat of climate change and rising sea levels which will wipe out the country. It is summed up well in one of his quotes in the movie: “How can I promote democracy if there is no country to speak of?”
This level of personal storytelling is in great contrast to tactics used in An Inconvenient Truth, the most well-known climate change movie to date. That movie stumbled in its attempts to make Al Gore a personal hero (a cobbled attempt to make it personal by recounting his childhood on the farm and the tough loss of his mother to cigarettes and cancer), but instead focused on a comprehensive, yet accessible review of the data and science behind climate change. At the end of the movie, Gore called for action based on a moral crisis, but I simply wasn’t as inspired after I saw An Inconvenient Truth as when I saw Chasing Ice and The Island Presient. Gore understands what his previous slideshow lacked, and has recently altered its content to motivate audiences with both aspects of visual evidence and personal connections. It seems these tactics will become the gold standard for climate change movies, as the impacts of climate change begin to be seen and as filmmakers seek to more effectively motivate viewers to take action against climate change.
Representatives of two solar companies (SunRun and Clean Power Finance), two utilities (SDG&E and National Grid), and a smart grid research firm (Pecan Street) sat down for a civilized discussion yesterday at Cleantech Forum in San Francisco. The discussion on distributed solar, power storage, and the evolving role of the utility quickly became a heated debate, dominated by Brian Miller (VP of Public Policy and Power Markets at SunRun) and Lee Krevat (Director of Smart Grid at SDG&E) with ample contributions from Bert Haskell of Pecan Street.
Pecan Street has the most detailed residential energy database on residences in Austin, TX. Data includes what firms have fitted with the metering, rooftop solar, and electric vehicle charging stations. In one of their pilot studies, it was discovered that there are 200 homes with rooftop solar and 70 electric vehicle charging stations within one square mile, all connected to one transformer. This is likely higher penetration than seen anywhere else in the U.S. date.
Krevat from SDG&E noted that there are now cases in their service territory where energy is flowing from the substation and back into to transmission lines in areas with high rooftop solar penetration on very sunny days. This is worrisome for SDG&E, as they will need to pay for transmission and distribution (T&D) upgrades if the grid is to provide functions beyond the original purpose of providing power in one direction. How will this affect customers? Krevat is worried that the customers with rooftop solar are saving on their energy bills, while the lower income customers without rooftop solar will see increased bills as regulated (and decoupled) utilities need to pass distribution upgrade costs onto their entire customer base.
Miller of SunRun came with talking points pre-prepared. He’s worked for the Department of Energy. He’s worked for big utilities, like Exelon and Constellation Energy. He called the utilities out for deliberately blocking solar’s progress with arguments like this:
Utilities are by far the biggest obstacle. Utility lobbyists out in the trenches against solar. It is against their business model. It’s written in legislative and regulatory proceedings… When distributed generation is high, they will sell less power on their wires, so their objective is to push rates as high as possible.
Krevat contended that indeed it was a ratemaking issue. They can’t put the growing cost of distribution upgrades on a diminishing number of lower income customer. A different rate model might be needed. Haskell of Pecan Street chimed in:
Our observation is that utilities need to move away from charging for kilowatt hours and towards charging for quality of service. Grid connection fees for distributed generation, the amount of reliability the customer desires (# of 9’s), and the cost of putting energy back on the grid.
Now this sounds like an environment for commercial-scale microgrids, but it would be interesting to see how such a model might work for residential customers. Miller continued to provide the talking points for a distributed solar future:
Things are working in California because there are good legislators and regulators who believe in a distributed generation vision. The governor has a 12 gigawatt DG goal. Hawaii is a sneak peek into the future. 5% of homes and 3% of power is now from solar. The transformers haven’t blown up and the lights haven’t gone out.
He backed up his points with a white paper produced by Vote Solar and Crossborder Energy that found that even lower income ratepayers will benefit from higher amounts of net metering. Yes, the utilities have to pay for some additional distribution infrastructure upgrades, but the benefits (power delivery savings, lower cost of meeting renewable targets, avoided transmission upgrades, reduced electricity losses, etc.) will outweigh those costs by $92 million in California.
Have a look and decide for yourself! Leave your comments below.
When the final decision is made on Keystone XL this summer, activists are hoping that President Obama will put it in the grave for good. After Obama’s soaring promises on climate change in his second inaugural and state of the union addresses, activists are expecting him to walk the talk and reject it. The latest rallies against the pipeline on February 17, which numbered over 50,000 in Washington, DC and over 5,000 in San Francisco, have continued to bring attention to the pipeline and put continued pressure on Obama. Meanwhile, policy wonks and editorial boards say that the anti-Keystone movement is wasting its energy on the wrong fights. They say the movement should focus on a carbon tax, and that the tar sands will be developed regardless of the decision on Keystone XL. Grist’s David Roberts nicely highlighted why the wonks are talking right past the activists: activism and policy are not the same thing.
About a year back, I heard Bill McKibben of 350.org speak in Berkeley and asked him: “What policy proposal does 350.org focus on in Washington?” McKibben politely answered what may have been a dumb question. He said, “350.org’s sole focus is to build a political movement that demands action on climate change now.” He mentioned his interest in good policy proposals, but it is just not his organization’s focus. For someone who has clearly spent too much time in DC (ahem, one year), this was somehow an a-ha moment for me. It’s not about policy A vs. policy B. It’s not about lobbying to pass one big climate policy. It’s about creating a movement that will continue to demand laws, actions, and leaders on climate change no matter what the prevailing political winds or policy proposals are. Even if we do pass a carbon tax or cap and trade bill, that will be just the first battle in a very long fight against climate change.
Right now, a Keystone rejection would symbolize a win for the movement and validate that Obama can be swayed into action by the powerful group of voices that have spoken. And to be fair, the pipeline has so little going for it. Fellow BERCie Reid Spolek asked my 140-character opinion on the project, and I replied on twitter: “With few jobs, no U.S. energy security benefit, & climate consequences, why would Obama pass it? To protect business interests.” At least that’s what Obama’s golf round with oil execs on the day of the latest rallies indicated.
Jobs: The pipeline would create a couple thousand temporary construction jobs, but reportedly only 35 permanent jobs. Energy security: The tar sands shipped to Louisiana for refining would be sold on global markets with no apparent direct benefit to U.S. energy security (so please don’t try any gas price arguments). Climate: Refining and burning tar sands causes 17% more emissions than regular crude, and building this pipeline locks in their development. If you read the thousands of pages of environmental assessment prepared to date by the State Department, you would probably be left scratching your head as to why anyone would approve this pipeline (State makes no firm recommendation for or against the pipeline). Let’s hope that this summer, Obama doesn’t leave us all scratching our heads.
This is a cross post from Green Leap Forward.
Around this time last year, I blogged about some misconceptions on U.S. and China’s installed wind capacity and wind energy generation, highlighting that the U.S. was producing 64% more wind energy than China in 2011 with the same amount of turbines. I explained the reasons for this including China’s difficulties with their Renewable Energy Law, grid connection bottlenecks, and performance gaps due to technology and wind resource issues. In this blog, I’d like to provide a quick update on the U.S. and China wind energy development using newly released 2012 data, and then offer up a prediction for the rest of the decade.
- According to GWEC, the U.S. and China installed nearly the same amount of wind capacity in 2012 with 13.1 gigawatts (GW) and 13.2 GW, respectively. This was a record year for the U.S. (previous record was 10 GW in 2009).
- Of that 13.1 GW installed in the U.S., 5.5 GW was installed in December alone, as project developers rushed to bring their assets online ahead of the expiration of the Production Tax Credit (PTC, which later ended up being extended).
- China now has more grid connected wind capacity than the U.S. with 62 GW compared to the U.S.’s 60 GW, but the U.S. produced 40% more wind energy than China in 2012.
- 83% of wind turbines (or 5 of 6) in China are grid connected now, compared with a low of 63% in 2009, providing evidence that China’s grid connection bottleneck is easing.
- Wind accounted for 3.5% of total electricity generation in the U.S. in 2012, compared to 2.0% in China.
It seems that China is poised to overtake the U.S. in wind energy generation as well. Their year on year growth in installed capacity growth and generation is simply much higher than that of the U.S. Certainly, China has a more predictable development environment with its fixed feed-in tariff for wind, determined wind targets, and consolidated wind manufacturing base. China is expected to continue installing more than 15 GW in the coming three years.
Meanwhile, in the U.S., developers, manufacturers, and financiers alike experience a maddeningly uncertain development environment. To start, the PTC is well-known for its boom and bust cycles, and some say this trend is set to continue. Add to that the threat of low natural gas prices and the layoffs that diminish the political promises of green jobs. Despite these deep uncertainties, there are things to be optimistic about, and there are a number of reasons why I believe the U.S. will continue to produce more wind energy than China through 2020.
First, let me set up the case I am trying to defeat, depicted below, where China overtakes the U.S. in total wind energy generation in 2017. I’ve set up an optimistic case for China and a pessimistic case for the U.S. For China, there will be 16-17 GW of installations a year, as average capacity factors and the proportion of grid connected wind farms both increase over time. For the U.S., there will be a very slow 2013 with only a few gigawatts installed followed by a stellar 2014 with 12 GW installed (the expiration and extension of the PTC will cause this unevenness), then installations will plateau to 8 GW per year (roughly the average seen from 2008-2012). Average capacity factors will stay steady as improved technology yields decent capacity factors for even lower class wind resources.
In reality, I should be more pessimistic for China and more optimistic for the U.S. Through 2020, China will definitely see large amounts of installations and increased grid connection rates. However, poor wind resources, grid integration issues, and contractual violations (see discussion on PPA’s in last year’s blog) will keep average capacity factors low.
And perhaps it’s a bit of American pride in me, but I see significant upside for U.S. wind from 2015-2020. Wind equipment costs continue to fall. Shale gas drilling costs will increase, and natural gas prices will follow. Increasingly, utilities will want to buy wind power, not for RPS obligations, but for reasons of profit (as they already are doing). Offshore wind development will finally start appearing as Cape Wind finally comes to fruition and a mid-Atlantic offshore transmission backbone gets financed and built. Heck, even politicians might get their act together on tax reform and extend the PTC for a few years instead of just one. This time, they would be wise to add a sunset clause, whereby the wind industry is slowly eased off of subsidies for good. Any clean energy standard passed in the coming eight years will provide additional upside. Admittedly, this is a lot of optimism, but even if a number of these developments come true, I believe the U.S. will see 10 GW or more of installations per year out to 2020. The result: China will remain in second place and the U.S. will remain the world’s top wind energy generating country.
Before the terrible tsunami and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster in March 2011, Japan produced 30% of its electricity from nuclear and had plans to increase it up to 50%. In the wake of the disaster, Japan shut down all but two of its reactors and sought to completely phase out nuclear power by 2040, according to the new energy plan that was released by the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) in September of last year.
Yet, the plan which was promoted by the DPJ was reportedly a “desperate election gambit” in the run up to December’s election – an attempt to cater to the anti-nuclear voting public. It was the Liberal Democratic Party’s Shinzo Abe who won the election to become Prime Minister, however, and he is in favor of turning the reactors back on.
This move speaks volumes of the power of the business lobby, which does not want to see increased power prices and would like to keep as much cheap nuclear power online as possible. Post Fukushima, electric utility giant Tepco is in an enormous amount of debt, and Japan is in a dangerous position in terms of energy security and costs. It has to import the large majority of its fuel, be it coal, natural gas, or oil. Bloomberg reported last November that Tepco would invite bids for 12.5 gigawatts of new coal fired power. UC Berkeley’s Richard Muller, author of Energy for Future Presidents, relayed to me the danger of such a move in a recent interview:
Switching to coal is terrible is many ways from the mining pollution to the coal ash pollution to the global warming issues. The dangers of coal are far worse than those of a nuclear reactor. And they would have to import the coal, too. They lose on the national security issue… It makes so much sense for Japan to turn its nuclear reactors back on, and that is what I believe Japan will do. They will do it quietly… They give the impression it’s only temporary, but I think the alternative of coal would be far, far worse.
Indeed, reliance on imported coal and natural gas will remain an expensive option, running up Japan’s trade deficit while continued consumption cuts hurt its recovering economy.
One promising alternative is renewable energy, namely solar and offshore wind. The world’s largest offshore wind farm may be built off the coast of Fukushima. Japan’s new feed-in tariff scheme for wind and solar could see a cumulative 20 gigawatts of wind and solar capacity by 2014, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. While Japan benefits as a “latecomer” in solar PV deployment with prices having fallen precipitously in recent years, a significant penetration of offshore wind and solar will still be a costly option. Turning on idle nuclear units in the short-term may buy some time for further cost reductions and technological advances in the renewables arena.
As the world’s third largest economy and an island nation, Japan is certainly providing an intensified test-bed for the energy policy decisions many countries will face as energy security and climate change become center stage issues.
Environmental groups were pleased when President Obama dedicated a whole paragraph to climate change in his second inaugural address. They are now eager to see what executive actions he might take in his second term, after he spoke strongly on the dangers of climate change and the need for action in last night’s State of the Union address, but did not cite any specific plans.
Most immediately, green groups will be watching Obama’s decision on the Keystone XL pipeline (very large rallies are planned in DC and around the country this Sunday by 350.org) and the use of the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 from existing power plants, an executive action to which the Natural Resources Defense Council recently devoted an entire campaign.
Energy and climate analysts seemed divided as to whether or not Obama will reject the Keystone XL pipeline, given his recent focus on domestic energy development, a large feature in both his 2012 and 2013 State of the Union addresses alongside his mainstay manufacturing and education blocks. He proposed an Energy Security Trust funded by “some of our oil and gas revenues…that will drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good.” This worries me as it seems like a trade he might offer while he approves Keystone. Also, wasn’t Obama leading the fight to get rid of subsidies for oil and gas companies? What happened to that initiative?
Of course, everyone is focused on executive actions since “Congress is no help as long as right-wing Republicans have veto power” according to Grist’s David Roberts. Obama had a hat tip in his speech to the cap and trade and bill that was once in the Senate, and he encouraged Congress to pursue a “market-based solution to climate change”.
Green groups are not holding their breath for this in the near term. In fact, the World Resources Institute just published an update of their report on the emission reductions that can be made using existing federal laws and state actions (no congressional action). The report outlines regulation of CO2 from existing power plants, a phaseout of HFC gases, reduced methane emissions, and increased efficiency standards as part of a “Go-getter scenario” that would get us a 17% emissions reduction from 2005 levels by 2020. Meeting this reduction could help the U.S. maintain some credibility in the ongoing international climate negotiations while new political coalitions are built (or elections change the composition of Congress) such that a long-term climate change or clean energy bill with market mechanisms can be seriously considered.
The road to an 80% emissions reduction is not yet forgotten, but we still rarely acknowledge its technical difficulty. As National Journal points out: “Today, 95 percent of the nation’s cars are fueled by petroleum, while fewer than 5 percent are electric or hybrid vehicles. Fossil fuels generate 80 percent of our electricity, while only about 5 percent comes renewable sources such as wind and solar.” Of course, those 5 percent might have only been about 1% if not for the actions in Obama’s first term, including the $90 billion clean energy stimulus, doubling of fuel economy standards, creation of ARPA-E, mercury standards for power plants, and increased energy efficiency standards for appliances and equipment. Credit is due to Obama, but we expect more action on one of the most important issues of our time.
While green groups lobby Obama to take meaningful executive actions, Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations reminds us of the unpredictability of energy markets. No one knew that Fukushima, Deepwater Horizon, Keystone XL, or the Arab Spring were going to happen when Obama came into office in 2009, and who knows what may happen during his second term to shake up the energy and climate sphere. Levi notes: “There is a tendency to focus on tactical decisions, but when circumstances change, it’s leaders’ much broader strategic outlooks that shape how they respond.” Indeed, we are going to need both near-term tactical decisions as well as a long-term strategic outlook to shape future actions.
Crosspost from Green Leap Forward
China’s clean energy targets are usually just temporary placeholders. Targets for wind and solar power installed have been met, surpassed, and updated numerous times. New research from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), however, suggests that China’s 2015 and 2020 targets for electric vehicle (EV) rollout will not be met due to “weak capability throughout the supply chain.” China has become a dominant force globally in wind and solar manufacturing and deployment; their supply chains are capable albeit recently consolidated with wavering demand in an oversupplied market. So why is that EV’s may not find similar success?
China’s medium to long-term development plan for renewable energy had a 2010 wind target of 5 gigawatts (GW) installed and a 2020 target of 30 GW. China had already surpassed this 2020 target by 2010, with 31 GW of grid connected wind. Knowing the target would be surpassed early, China updated its target to 100 GW by 2020…or rather by 2015. Well now, BNEF forecasts that China will hit 100 GW slightly before 2015, while Greentech Media predicts that China will have more than 150 GW of wind capacity by 2015. In solar, an original 2020 target of 1.8 GW was updated to 20 GW, but that also was temporary. Facing weakened demand abroad for solar modules, China has increased the near-term 2015 target to 35 GW. Although China continues to face problems with grid connection and grid purchase of energy produced from all of these wind and solar farms being constructed, the fact remains that China is hitting its targets about 10 years early and increasing its targets by at least fivefold based on revised expectations of industries that have grown mature supply chains and reduced costs precipitously.
In the field of EV’s, China apparently skipped the setting of meaninglessly small targets that would need to be later upgraded. They have set a target for production and sales of EV’s to reach 500,000 by 2015 and 5 million by 2020. Actually, China may find that this target will need a downgrade not an upgrade, if the industry does not make some serious changes. BNEF predicts sales of only 1 million by 2020.
Even with generous consumer rebates offered for EV’s, sales numbers are dwindling. In the second quarter of 2012, apparently only 235 EV’s were sold in China. BNEF estimates “just 13,000 EV’s were sold between 2009 and 2011, including buses and public utility vehicles.” BNEF cites lack of consumer interest, lack of charging infrastructure, and lack of technological expertise as the three main factors plaguing the Chinese EV industry.
Lack of consumer interest is easy to understand. Just take a look at Exhibit A above, the “QQ EV” fromChery. Would you want to drive this toy? Kandi’s 28E looks equally as bad. China’s new car consumers want status in their vehicle purchase. They are not going to find that from these second-tier manufacturer EV offerings. Coda, a U.S. EV company with manufacturing joint ventures in China, has had bad press lately on their mediocre offering, poor sales, and unpaid bills.
BYD’s main EV offering, the E6, is more attractive, perhaps one reason why BYD recently got pimped out with a Zayed Energy Future Prize nomination in Abu Dhabi. Even if the car is attractive and affordable, a number of fires and accidents with electric vehicles in Shenzhen and Hangzhou have been well-reported in the media, decreasing consumer interest in EV’s further.
Forbes reports that a research institute under China’s State Council has published a white paper addressing how Chinese consumers might more quickly adopt EV’s. Given that battery costs are not coming down very quickly (a point echoed in last week’s interview with Richard Muller), the white paper suggests a business model of cheaper, swappable batteries. It also suggests fleet purchases, rental services, and local government promotion as the main near-term avenues for EV adoption.
Indeed, business models will likely play a critical role in the fate of the Chinese EV industry. While BNEF suggests that China needs to import foreign technology expertise to improve the industry’s prospects, I’m not sure that expertise exists yet. EV sales in the U.S. are nothing to write home, not even reaching 0.5% of total vehicle sales in 2012, and again, that’s with the generous rebates. Charging infrastructure, high battery costs, consumer interest, and business models remain wild cards in all EV markets globally. They just happen to be more pronounced in the immature Chinese market.
2012 was a great year for me. It also marks the first full calendar year that I’ve lived in one place since 2008. In fall 2009, I moved from Beijing to NYC. In fall 2010, I moved from NYC to DC. In fall 2011, I moved from DC to Berkeley. And in fall 2012, well, I stayed right here in Berkeley! Although I didn’t move anywhere, I did do a fair amount of traveling as well as exploring here in the bay area. The highlight of the year was definitely my trip to Mozambique and Malawi, a 16 day journey alongside Peace Corps volunteer and silly friend Jama Joy Bernard. If you missed the photos, check em out here (one of my best photos previewed below). I also got to see Istanbul for a day in transit, and I visited Beijing three times for work in July, October, and November.
Aside from all that foreign travel, I visited Tahoe, Park City, Telluride, DC, Chicago, Austin, Bozeman, and NJ/NYC (home for Mom’s bday in June, and two weeks at home for the holidays). I had epic jian bing brunches, started a Kubb coalition in Berkeley, got a little brother, fell in love with the Oakland A’s (and doing the Bernie lean), went to many great concerts (SF Symphony, Paco de Lucia, Outside Lands, local band Shake Your Peace, Wilco at the Greek Theatre in Berkeley, The Bad Plus, and the list goes on…), grew and strengthened many friendships here in the bay, went on great hikes in the East Bay and Marin, lectured at my alma mater Northwestern, hosted a bunch of friends here in SF (Amit, Matt, Theresa, Mom + Dad [x2], Tyler, Chris + Nicole, Ella), led a van of 10 friends to Reno on my birthday to canvas for Obama (wooo 4 more years!), and sometimes I went to work. All the while, I was able to maintain this blog, and in total I made about 47 posts (almost one per week on average). I’m gonna break it down for you.
The Hike: I made 32 posts this year in The Hike, my clean energy and climate change thought-dumpster. The year started off with a series of deep analyses on the climate negotiations in Durban, the U.S. China clean energy trade cases (an epic satire in the flavor of Star Wars), and a comparison of U.S. and China in wind energy deployment. Later in the year, I enjoyed writing movie reviews of The Island President and Beasts of the Southern Wild, both of which address the issue of climate change, albeit the former one much more directly. In the fall, clean energy hacking was definitely the theme as I participated in Cleanweb hackathons in Austin (great city) and San Francisco (shorter commute), learning about developing new web apps using clean energy data. After the SF hack, I launched a new category on my blog, The Byte, which only has 1 post so far (I’m working on it!). I was able to convert a lot of my “hike” posts into posts for Berkeley’s clean energy blog too, which helped give me focus and extra exposure.
The Mic: I was not as prolific here as I would’ve liked, with only 8 posts this past year. But the main result was two seriously strong new music videos to add to the eco-rap repertoire: Occupy Rooftops (filmed in Oakland, Berkeley, and SF) and Low-carbon Gangnam Style (aka “Ditan Style”, filmed in Beijing). All I gotta say is: Do you know how many arms I had to twist to get people to dance on an Oakland rooftop for two hours about solar power? It’s not ironic that the most eager participant was my Chinese friend Hongyou, because when I went to film Ditan Style in Beijing, I had 25 volunteers for a couple hours in the morning and a dedicated crew of about 10 friends, committed and excited to film all day, dance in the streets, look like fools, etc. All I’m saying is that Chinese people know what’s up when it comes to getting your freak on for renewable energy and low carbon lifestyles. And my friends here in the Bay are mostly too conservative, not in the political sense but rather in the boring sense.
The Trike: I did it! I set out in January 2012 in pursuit of delicious jian bing and by September, I had launched my trike and sold 60 jian bing in one night! Many of you endured the early taste tests and cheered me on as I brought this dream to fruition step by step. Interestingly, this section of my blog is what drives the most outside traffic to my website via Google search. That just goes to show you that food blogging is popular, and every American that goes to China takes a video of jian bing and puts it on YouTube. Then when they come home, they can’t find jian bing anywhere. Hopefully, I can change that. I’m currently researching Berkeley permits so that I can operate at the Berkeley Farmers’ Market or Ashby Flea Market (right in between the used CD rack and the Chinese massage booth). I’ve got 100 Twitter followers and 150 likes on Facebook. Additionally, the twitterati have helped me discover jian bing popping up in London and in Hong Kong. Finally, I’ll just note that the idea of starting a food bike has opened my eyes to the amazing bike culture of the bay: Rock the Bike, the Bicycle Music Festival (which I blogged), East Bay Bike Coalition, East Bay Bike Party (every 2nd Friday of the month), Hot Bike etc. Thesis: you can do anything on a bike. Try and prove it wrong!
So what lies ahead for 2013? Well, I have put in my second application for the master’s program in the Energy and Resources Group at UC Berkeley. I should hear next month. Wish me luck! I’ve got a bunch of great blog posts in the pipeline and my first for 2013 is out already, an interview with Richard Muller, a MacArthur genius who knows a lot about energy. Next weekend, I’m hitting the slopes with my brother Chris and sister-in-law Nicole in Bozeman. Big Sky baby! Lastly, I’d like to announce that I am training for the Climate Ride, a 300-mile bike ride from Eureka, CA back down to San Francisco. It takes place over the course of five days in mid-May, and all the money goes to 50 different organizations working on climate change activism, clean energy support, or bike advocacy. I’ve already had 25 donations, with my total standing at $1,343. Thanks to everyone who donated! Special shoutouts to Julia and Michelle who each donated $100 and Matt who gave the epic $1-per-mile, $320 donation! My goal is to raise twice the minimum of $2,500 or $5,000. So, expect an email or call from me. Every person who donates will get a Jian Bing Johnny’s certificate and free eco-raps (the first one is below). Who could say no to that?
Dr. Richard Muller is well-known for his popular science book and UC Berkeley course “Physics for Future Presidents”. While that volume explores a number of science and technology topics that a president might face including bio-terrorism, nuclear war, and space exploration, his latest volume “Energy for Future Presidents” focuses solely on energy through the lenses of energy security and climate change. Muller, a professor of physics at UC Berkeley and Faculty Senior Scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, has devoted much of the past five years to understanding our climate problem and our global energy system.
Last week, I had the opportunity to sit down with Dr. Muller and ask him a set of questions related to the transport sector and U.S. energy security. While his book is entitled “Energy for Future Presidents”, I also asked him to ponder “energy for current presidents” as well. The video embedded above shows Muller’s responses to the following questions:
1. Who killed the electric car?
2. What is the potential for hybrid vehicles and natural gas vehicles?
3. What was Obama’s best policy in his first term for energy security?
4. What should Obama’s policy priorities be in his second term if he puts an equal emphasis on energy security and global warming?
A flavor of skepticism is consistently present in Muller’s book, and as it should be. Muller advocates for a good dose of skepticism in all scientists, and indeed it was his climate skepticism which drove him to complete an ambitious study of surface temperatures to confirm that climate change indeed was occurring and was caused by humans. He also frequently reminds the reader to be wary of “optimism bias” in the field of energy. We all have our favorite technology, something we prefer even if we know deep down it may not be the silver bullet to affordable, clean energy for all. He warns strongly against support for electric vehicles, due to the question of battery cost and lifetime. And yet, I wonder if he doesn’t also play favorites himself. Given his avid support of California’s climate change bill AB32, you might think he would have highlighted a carbon tax or national cap and trade program as Obama’s top policy priority in his second term. But Muller highlighted incentives for increased natural gas infrastructure instead. Perhaps, this is a stroke of political realism and not technology favoritism.
Throughout the book, Muller also keeps the reader aware of public perception of politically risky energy policies, say for instance the support of nuclear power in the wake of Fukushima or support of energy technology cooperation with a rising China. Yet, he remains a science adviser in this volume, and nothing more. Science has all the answers, but it is the job of the president to communicate these answers — often a delivery of tough medicine amidst a range of misconceptions or mixed priorities. On solar, he says in his book:
Already US solar companies are being driven out of business by the cheaper Chinese cells. What’s the solution? How do you balance the value of a vigorous Chinese industry with the value of a vigorous US industry? Whatever the answer is, it’s beyond the ability of a science advisor to advise. Good luck with this one.
Even if Muller doesn’t have all the answers, you won’t regret reading this book. And all in good preparation because, hey, you might be president one day.