From the Department of Energy, some good news and some bad news for renewable energy advocates.

First, the good news: The DOE released a list today of the dozen projects currently participating in the Department’s energy loan programs. The loans and guarantees total more $19 billion and will “create or save” 50,000 jobs, according to DOE figures. So, what could be bad about that? Nothing, unless you look carefully at the details. (Not that the DOE is trying to mislead anyone — it’s a matter of definitions.)

The Devil is in the Definitions

The Arizona state legislature recently tried to pass a bill that would have defined nuclear power as a “renewable” source of energy, despite federal regulations to the contrary. (I’ve written about the details elsewhere.) No such purposeful dis-information is contained in the information coming from Secretary of Energy Steven Chu’s office. It’s just that Chu, like his boss, defines “clean energy” very narrowly — referring only to sources that emit little or no-CO2.

Shippingport Atomic Power Station

This definition excludes the 2,200 tons of radioactive waste produced annually by the nation’s 104 nuclear power plants. A half century after the first commercial nuclear power plant went on-line (the Shippingport Atomic Power Station in Pennsylvania), there is still no long-term solution for what to do with this dangerous waste.

Still, even the enthusiastically pro-nuclear Secretary of Energy doesn’t claim nuclear is “renewable” since it runs on a fuel supply (uranium) that has to be mined and is finite.

Of the dozen loan recipients, nine are clearly renewable. One (Ford) is a combo — the loan goes “to transform factories…to produce more fuel efficient models,” according to the DOE (pdf file). The increased efficiency comes from a variety of changes, including adding electric vehicles (which can be “renewable” depending on the energy source) and design changes that allow more complete energy capture from combustion — which is a good thing, but doesn’t make it “renewable.”

In addition to the two nuclear power plants (operated by Southern Nuclear), one other project is clearly not renewable — or clean: the construction of a plant in Louisiana to produce activated carbon), used to remove mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. Reducing mercury pollution is clearly a good thing. The coal industry also needs this technology because new, lower mercury emission standards are going into effect. But, is a project “clean” if it allows coal-fired power plants to continue emitting CO2? The DOE’s definition of “clean energy” is not just narrowly defined, it’s also a moving target.

Follow the Money

The DOE’s $19 billion dollar energy pie can be sliced in different ways. Here’s what that pie looks like based on the opening sentence of the DOE press release on the dozen projects: “The U.S. Department of Energy’s Loan Guarantee Program paves the way for federal support of clean energy projects…”

Chart 1 shows all monies as “Clean Energy” because it assumes DOE’s definition.

CHART 1

Chart 2 divides the DOE money based on renewable vs. non-renewable energy project.

CHART 2

[Note: As of Sunday (March 7), the DOE was unable to say how the $5.9 billion loan to Ford was divided between renewable and non-renewable projects. For that reason, Ford is not included in Chart 2.]

Substituting “renewable” for the ambiguous term “clean” gives a much different picture. Loan guarantees for renewable projects account for just over a third of DOE dollars. It’s instructive to look at a similar chart, with one difference — illustrating how funding for renewable energy stacks up against funding for nuclear power in this DOE program.

Chart 3 divides the DOE money based on renewable vs. nuclear power projects.

CHART 3

The non-renewable portfolio is almost entirely devoted to building twin nuclear power plants in Georgia, operated by Southern Nuclear. Removing the single other project in this category (the facility to produce activated carbon in Louisiana) has no effect on the whole number percentages of the renewable and non-renewable categories in Chart 2.

The point of this exercise is to underscore the importance of precision in discussing energy policy issues. In this debate, the words “clean” and “renewable” are often applied to the word “energy” as if they were synonymous. They aren’t.

Whether or not nuclear power should play a major role in our energy future is an enormously important question — but it’s not addressed here. In the DOE’s loan guarantee program, one form of energy is dominant: nuclear power.

Advocates of nuclear power will be happy with this arrangement. Renewable energy supporters, not so much.

Announced Projects in the DOE’s Loan Programs

1. Solyndra, Inc. was awarded a $535 million loan guarantee (pdf) to manufacture innovative cylindrical solar photovoltaic panels that provide clean, renewable energy.
   
   

   Solyndra solar panel tubes

   
   

2. Nordic Windpower USA has been offered a conditional commitment for $16 million (pdf) to support the expansion of its assembly plant in Pocatello, Idaho to produce its one megawatt wind turbine.




3. Beacon Power, an energy storage company, has been offered a conditional commitment of $43 million (pdf) to support the construction of its 20 megawatt flywheel energy storage plant in Stephentown, New York that will help ensure the reliable delivery of renewable energy to the electricity grid.




4. Red River Environmental Products has been offered a conditional commitment for $245 million (pdf) to build an activated carbon (AC) manufacturing facility near Coushatta, Red River Parish, Louisiana.




5. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (operated by Southern Nuclear) has been offered conditional commitments for a total of $8.33 billion in loan guarantees (pdf) for the construction and operation of two new nuclear reactors at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Burke, Georgia.
   
   

   Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant

   
   

6. BrightSource Energy, Inc. has been offered conditional commitments for more than $1.37 billion in loan guarantees (pdf) under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to support the construction and start-up of three utility-scale concentrated solar power plants.




7. First Wind – Kahuku Wind Power has received a conditional commitment for $117 million to install twelve 2.5 MW wind turbine generators along with a battery energy storage system for electricity load stability.
   
   

   Wind turbines

   
   

8. Sage Electrochromics has received a conditional commitment for $72 million to support the financing of the construction and operation of a 250,000 square foot, high volume manufacturing facility to produce SageGlass®, an energy-saving switchable window technology for commercial and residential use.




9. Ford Motor Company has closed on a $5.9 billion loan (pdf) to transform factories across Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, and Ohio to produce more fuel efficient models.




10. Nissan has closed on a $1.4 billion loan (pdf) to produce electric cars and battery packs at its manufacturing complex in Smyrna, Tennessee. The loan will aid in the construction of a new battery plant and modifications to the existing assembly facility.
    
    

    Nissan Leaf, EV

    
    

11. Tesla Motors has been offered a $465 million loan (pdf) to finance a manufacturing facility for the Tesla Model S sedan and to support a facility to manufacture battery packs and electric drive trains.




12. Fisker Automotive has been offered a $528.7 million conditional loan (pdf) for the development of two lines of plug-in hybrids that will save hundreds of millions of gallons of gasoline and offset millions of tons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2016.

[Source: DOE press release via email, 5 March 2010]

The Anti-Solar Debacle

HB 2701 — Arizona newspapers editorialized against it. “Lawmakers, don’t clip solar’s wings,” was the Arizona Republic’s headline. Now, the Arizona Star advises, “The bill should be killed, and quickly.”

The Phoenix Sun has been critical of the bill, too. Why, we wondered, would the state legislature go from being an advocate of our growing solar industry to trying to squash it like a bug?

There are lots of theories, and more information on this dreadful bill is forthcoming.

Today, we’re giving a new chorus of voices a chance to be heard.

Stupefaction in 140 characters

Twitter campaigns for or against legislation aren’t exactly new. Ever since HB 2701 was announced, however, the “tweets” against it have grown with no discernible coordination. In our experience, it’s pretty remarkable to have this kind of outpouring on a state issue. Reading the tweets as they came in, it became clear that with this one bill, the legislature was turning Arizona into a national joke. (After the Vermont Senate voted against keeping a leaking nuclear power plant open, a friend tweeted me asking if maybe Vermont would be willing to pack up their 37-year-old nuke plant and send it to Arizona — where we clearly appreciate such things. Grrrrrr.)

The Arizona state legislature hasn’t shown much capacity for common sense lately. Still, we hope it hasn’t forgotten how to listen. Voters have a way of dealing with tone-deaf politicians: elections.

RES at Work: Grand Canyon Ntl. Park (AZ)

UPDATE: Read updated version “Arizona Set to Abandon Leadership on Solar Power. Big Winner: China” in OnEarth magazine

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

Just seven months after Arizona enacted a law that supporters said would help make the state the “solar capital” of the nation, new legislation has been introduced that opponents maintain could kill the nascent industry.

House bill 2701 “would surely be the death knell for advancing solar energy in the state,” Kris Mayes, chair of the Arizona Corporation Commission, told the Phoenix Business Journal on Friday.

The bill would define “renewable” to include nuclear power (despite the fact that nuclear plants need to be refueled periodically). That change would end what many experts consider the most effective incentive for installing solar and wind generation: the Renewable Energy Standard (RES).

Under current law, the Arizona Corporation Commission’s RES mandates that utilities must generate 15 percent of electricity from renewable sources by the year 2025. Since the state’s largest utility, APS, already gets approximately 27 percent of its electricity from a nuclear power plant outside of Phoenix, HB 2701 would allow the company to stop adding any new renewable power sources.

Sean Seitz, president of American Solar Electric, one of the largest solar installers in the valley, agreed with Mayes’ assessment of HB 2701. “If this bill passed in its current form,” predicted Seitz, “the current program…would be a skeleton of itself.”

The bill would make Arizona the only state that includes existing nuclear power plants in an RES.

Sponsors say that solar projects would continue even without the RES. A 2007 study from the Berkeley National Laboratory, however, appears to contradict that claim.

The report compared actual solar installations made between 2000 and 2006 in states with and without an RES supporting solar (California was excluded from the study because of its other progressive solar policies).

The difference is clear in the chart below. States with an RES had more than double the solar installations of states lacking such a mandate. (Currently, 32 states and Washington DC have some form of RES.)

The Role of RES in Installed Solar

RES Boosts Arizona Jobs, Technology Innovation

Saguaro Solar Thermal Plant

In 2001, Arizona was one of the first states to adopt an RES. The policy has taken new solar technologies from the drawing board to reality and attracted jobs in solar manufacturing, installation and R&D.

The Saguaro Solar Generating Station

On Earth Day, 2006, APS dedicated the first solar trough system built in the US since 1990. The 1-MW Sagauro station uses giant mirrors to concentrate sunlight on a tube filled with mineral oil. That oil boils an organic liquid, which turns turbine to produce electricity. The Saguaro facility uses six rows of 15-foot-tall mirrors.

According to an APS spokesman, Arizona’s RES “was a major catalyst for the for the solar trough project. We realized that we needed something on a large scale if we were going to meet the goals.”

The maker of the solar receivers used at Saguaro underscored the important role the RES played in developing the solar thermal station.

“The Saguaro Power plant is a significant step forward for Arizona as it seeks to reach its goal of generating 15 percent of its electricity from renewable resources within the next 20 years,” said Udo Ungeheuer, chairman of the Schott Management Board.

The Department of Energy’s Western Area Power Administration called the Saguaro project “the solar comeback story of the year.”

Now, by removing the RES incentive, HB 2107 could be Arizona’s solar fall-behind story of the year. A look at the reasons behind a recent Arizona industry victory shows why.

In November, 2009, Chinese solar manufacturing giant, Suntech Power, announced plans to build the company’s first North American plant in Arizona, with production to begin later this year. In a press release, the largest manufacturer of solar panels in China said it “selected the Greater Phoenix area for its plant because of Arizona’s leadership in research through Arizona State University, and statewide renewable energy policies, particularly its Renewable Energy Standard…”

Arizona Jobs and Renewable Energy Growth

Nationally, several studies have shown the potential for job growth through expanding renewable energy — providing cleaner air, fighting climate change and expanding employment at the same time. Last year, a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists examined the link between states with strong RES requirements and the growth of renewable power (and, so, jobs).

RES Powers Megawatts

The study found that if states achieve their RES targets, 76,759 MW of new renewable power capacity will be in place by 2025 — enough electricity to power 47 million homes. HB 2701 would remove Arizona from this pattern of growth.

Fast-tracked

Click on image to download bill (pdf)

Despite the considerations above, the bill appears likely to pass in both the Arizona House and Senate. HB 2701 has 52 sponsors and co-sponsors, including Senate President Robert Burns and Speaker of the House Kirk Adams. (Both are primary sponsors of the bill.)

HB 2701 will almost certainly sail through the two committees to which it’s been assigned: Government and Rules.

The House Government Committee is chaired by Representative Judy Burges (R), one of the bill’s sponsors. Five of the remaining eight members are also Republicans — and also sponsors of HB 2701. None of the Democrats on the committee are sponsors, but there are only three of them.

The committee will take up HB 2701 this Tuesday, February 23, at 2:00 PM Mountain Time.

Next it moves to the House Rules committee where the track appears to be just as fast:

The chairman is Rep. Warde Nichols (R), a sponsor of the bill. The House Speaker, Kirk Adams, a sponsor, sits on the eight-member committee. That leaves six members — three are Republicans (and sponsors). One of the three Democrats, Rep. Jack Brown, is a co-sponsor of HB 2701, leaving only two non-sponsors on the committee.

Check back for updates; The Phoenix Sun will continue to cover HB 2701.