"There is no doubt that the actions of the Obama administration pose a real challenge to Canada," said Robert Hornung, president of the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA), whose members include Toronto Stock Exchange-listed Canadian Hydro Developers Inc, Algonquin Power Income Fund and Innergex Renewable Energy Inc. "The U.S. has sent a very strong signal that renewable energy is going to play a central role in both energy-environment and economic recovery strategies. We don't have the same signals here federally," he told Reuters. Hornung said he had started "hearing stories" of international companies shifting business away from Canada to the United States. Some U.S. companies in Canada were also pulling back, he said, without mentioning any names. The United States plans to invest $59 billion of its $787 billion economic stimulus plan in green energy to help create jobs, double America's supply of renewable energy and reduce its dependence on foreign oil. That comprises $39 billion for projects at the U.S. Department of Energy and $20 billion in tax incentives for industries such as solar energy, wind power and geothermal. [1]
Southwest Airlines Co.' s Houston and Dallas operations have been recognized for their green power by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Both of the locations together purchased nearly 16 kilowatt-hours of green power as of July 7 -- enough to meet 30 percent of the facilities' purchased electricity use. Dallas-based Southwest (NYSE: LUV) buys renewable energy certificates for the Houston and Dallas operations from Houston-based Reliant Energy to cover the rest of their energy use. Southwest received the award as a result of its participation in the government agency's Fortune 500 Green Power Challenge, a program which encourages the country's largest corporations to collectively exceed 10 billion kilowatt-hours green power purchasing by year-end 2009. The City of Houston continues to lead in the local government category, using 438 million kWh of wind energy as of July 7, or 34 percent of its total energy use via Reliant Energy.[2]
The group's February 2005 report calculates that a large wind farm can deliver electricity at a nearly 40 percent lower cost than a small one. It also can take advantage of economies of scale in lower operational and maintenance costs. The bottom line is this: Decades ago, when widespread use of alternative energy was still only a dream, building one's own private source of home power was the only way to get off the carbon-intense grid and ensure that your own energy needs left little footprint. [3] A February 2009 report summarizing the costs of PV from 1998 to 2007 concluded that larger systems averaged a 25 percent lower cost than the smallest ones. The same is true for wind power, says the American Wind Energy Association.[3] "We all want to create jobs," said Elizabeth Salerno, director of industry data and analysis at American Wind Energy Association.[4] The American Wind Energy Association more than tripled lobbying budget, spending $1.83 million in the second quarter.[4] The stimulus package included $118 million for wind energy and $400 million for geothermal companies.[4]
Q. I'd like to know the relative electricity cost of utility scale solar and wind plants versus rooftop residential solar. A. Making such a determination is complex, but you could start with "In My Backyard," a new online tool by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. [3] You first need to know your electricity usage and what size solar photovoltaic system or wind turbine you could install.[3]
Using Google Earth maps and data on the amounts of sunshine and wind at your location, the tool will estimate the electricity you could get from a certain size wind turbine or PV array installed on your property.[3]
RANKED RECOMMENDED SOURCES
(4 source documents numbered in order of appearance in text)
Shame on Mary Powell, the CEO of Green Mountain Power to express her company's support of Vermont Yankee as a low carbon energy surce. She should be held accountable for perpetuating nuclear industry lies and lack of full disclosure of the true costs of nuclear fuel production and lifecycle which not only produces lots of carbon emissions but also leaves widespread toxic and radiocontamination on site whereever uranium is mined. Is her support of VY really about the big money coming her way if this aging dinosaur lives past 2012. Entergy is reneging on its signed 2002 agreement to leave the site as a greenfield nor has the funds for minimal decommissisioning required by the Nuclear regulatory Commission. The NRC is the industry's best cheer leader as 90% of its budget is bank rolled by the nuclear industry. The nuclear industry exists only because of the enorous government subsidies and their cleanup coming at taxpayer expense. [1] There were some panelists endorsing energy projects outside of solar or wind. Mary Powell, the CEO of Green Mountain Power, expressed her company's support for the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, saying officials there hope it is relicensed if there are no safety concerns. "We support relicensing of the plant, which has a carbon profile similar to renewable resources, but we will ramp down our purchases over time as we ramp up renewable resources," she said.[1]
Among the Vermont projects touted during the hearing was Middlebury College's $12 million biomass gasification system, which will save the college $700,000 a year in fuel costs; Green Mountain Power's plan to install 10,000 solar panels in 1,000 days, and the Vermont Energy Investment Corp's plan to retrofit 12,000 Vermont homes by the year 2020.[1]
Chevron Corp. spent $6 million in the second-quarter alone. The oil and gas industry spent $44.5 million lobbying Congress and federal agencies in the first three months of this year. Lobbyists for fossil fuels have been a mainstay in the halls of Congress for generations, and they've secured millions in government subsidies as well. They also justify it by delivering most of the power on the American electrical grid. They offer higher paying jobs as well. The solar industry's pitch is that they can spread jobs more evenly across the entire country compared with the traditional energy sector, including coal. "The coal industry only employs a couple hundred thousand people in this country. They make pretty good salaries," he said. [2] Developers also have signed contracts to build massive energy farms around the country that will funnel nearly 7.5 gigawatts of sunshine onto the electrical grid - about 16 times what's currently available - in the next few years. That would power the equivalent of about 2.5 million homes.[2]
Tony Mitchell, chairman of Polaris Geothermal Inc, a Canadian-based energy company, said President Barack Obama's focus on renewables has raised the profile of the once little-known geothermal industry, which generates power through tapping heat from deep underground.[3]
The Canadian government's centerpiece clean energy plan is the C$1.5 billion ($1.4 billion) ecoENERGY for Renewable Power program, which was introduced in 2007. Hornung said it will have allocated all its funding this fall. "For investors who are looking at North America, they look to the U.S. and they see some policy certainty and a strong incentive. They look to Canada they see an incentive that is in essence shutting down and no certainty going forward. That is where our challenge is at the moment," he said.[3] The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, or NYSERDA, is running the auction. It takes bids for contracts from renewable energy power plant developers.[4] The Public Service Commission has given an auction the go-ahead to distribute the money to new wind, solar, biomass or other renewable energy plants.[4]
Australia's Parliament passed a law Thursday that set the country???s renewable energy goals for the next 11 years: the country must draw 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources (for example, sun and wind) by 2020.[5]
The Senate and House of Representatives were able to pass the bill after reaching the following deal with the main opposition party: the government will provide greater assistance to heavy electricity-using industries and create safeguards for existing coal mining industry investment. This deal was met with criticism by some: the minor opposition party maintained that it gave heavy-hitting polluters too much support and that the target should be higher (30 percent). Other critics??? feared that the deal will cost households and small businesses; reaching the target will not curb CO2 emissions; and reaching the goal will deprive Australia of profits from its plentiful coal resources. (Even if Australia does reach its goal, its CO2 emissions will still be 20 percent higher than its 2000 levels.) [5] With wind, the government is investing in a technology that can have a major impact on the electrical grid right now, Salerno said. Both are relatively new when it comes to government arm-twisting, however, and industry lobbyists still struggle to be heard over their well-funded counterparts in the petroleum and coal industries.[2]
A start-up, whether it makes turbines for wind farms, solar panels or electric cars, may think twice before setting up shop in Canada, curbing the country's ability to create jobs and generate tax revenue, and losing technological innovation.[3]
Between federal and state programs, it has become cheaper than ever for Vermonters to weatherize a home or install solar panels. The credit markets are so bad right now that people can't get the loans they need to jumpstart the project, experts told Sanders. "What's halting job growth in this sector is that there is not enough working capital to get these programs going, even when they have excellent payback guarantees," said Jim Merriam, the chief operating officer of White River Junction's groSolar.[1]
Sanders, a Vermont Independent, brought a bit of Washington, D.C. to Montpelier Thursday as the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works' subcommittee on Green Jobs and the New Economy met with local environmentalists. The two-hour session at the Statehouse featured more than a dozen leaders in the clean-energy sector in Vermont discussing the projects they are working on ? and what Washington, D.C. can do to make it easier.[1]
Despite some pessimism over how the recession is affecting clean energy projects, many of the panelists said Vermont has a lot to be proud of, especially in the area of energy efficiency. Blair Hamilton, the co-founder of Efficiency Vermont, said that since the program began, Vermont had reduced its energy needs by about 10 percent ? and he thinks that trajectory will continue. It's cheaper to improve efficiency, he pointed out, noting that the cost of these programs is three-quarters less than the cost of additional sources of energy on the market. "Another way to look at the savings is consider the cost of extra energy to Vermont if we were less efficient," he said.[1] Today, with considerably more renewable energy sources coming online or about to do so in quantum-leap measures -- and at much greater efficiencies than can be achieved privately -- the best bet may well be to forego the "go it alone" path and support your utility's efforts to generate green power, not just for your own household but for everyone.[6] The 20 percent target is quadruple that of the country???s 2001 target. It is also the same percentage already established by the European Union (in 2007) ??? the world???s green power technology leader.[5] Comparing the cost of going it alone to that of simply buying green power through your utility is not a simple equation, either.[6]
The risk is that we lose the jobs and the innovation," said Jonathan Rhone, chief executive of Nexterra Energy, a small Vancouver-based company making gasification systems that convert waste fuels into clean heat and power.[3]
"If there is capital, you will see hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the Northeast alone." David Blittersdorf, the CEO of Williston's Earth Turbines and the founder of Hinesburg's NRG Systems, told Sanders that his and other companies in the field are "poised for major growth ? there is a transition happening and we are in the middle of it." He added that every time the companies have a job opening, they get 200-500 applications from interested people. "Everyone wants to work in this field," Blittersdorf said.[1] Speakers included Caridad Sanchez, Director, San Diego and Imperial Counties, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer; Congressman Bob Filner, United States House of Representatives, Congressional District 51; Staff Representative Antonio Ortega, Assemblymember Manuel Perez, California State Assembly, 80 th District; Al Shur, Business Manager, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 569 and Andrew Berg, Executive Manager, National Electrical Contractors Association, San Diego Chapter.[7] Andrew Berg of the San Diego Chapter of NECA remarked, "IBEW Local 569-NECA's apprenticeship program develops the best quality people in the industry, giving our contractors the competitive edge.[7]
The emissions trading scheme was voted down on Thursday in the upper house Senate where the conservative Liberal-National coalition hold the largest block of votes and joined with Greens and independents to oppose the legislation.[8] Five employees are assigned to Baker Renewable Energy full-time, with another 15 or so Baker Roofing employees trained and available to help on "green" projects. The subsidiary is led by Jason Epstein, who joined Baker in April when his company, Outer Ring, was purchased by the roofing giant.[9] "We're demonstrating that our renewable energy expertise complements the reputation built over the past 90 years as Baker Roofing." The subsidiary was launched earlier this year, but its Raleigh-based parent didn't formally announce its creation until this week. That gave Baker time to complete several projects it could tout.[9] MONTPELIER ? Consumers have a strong interest in renewable energy and efficiency projects, but lack the money to take advantage of such efforts even when they pay off very quickly, a panel of experts told U.S. Sen. Bernard Sanders Thursday.[1] We have dozens of projects in the planning and development stages to utilize what the Imperial Valley has to offer lots of Sun, Wind and Geothermal, Biomass.[7]
Reaching the 20 percent goal would allow Australia to provide enough clean energy to power all 21 million Australians??? households, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.[5]
RANKED RECOMMENDED SOURCES
(9 source documents numbered in order of appearance in text)