June 8 - BP reports China passes US in energy consumption

As China's economy grows, it appears to have passed the U.S. in terms of total energy consumption.

Back in July 2010, I noted that the International Energy Agency claimed that China had passed the U.S. in terms of total energy consumed.  That IEA report showed that China used 2.252 billion tons of oil equivalent, whereas the U.S. used only 2.170 billion tons of oil equivalent.

Now, another observer (and key energy player) has confirmed China's leap to being the top energy consumer.  BP’s 60th annual Statistical Review of World Energy corroborates the IEA's findings, placing China in the top consumer slot as of 2010.  According to BP, China consumed 20.3% of total global energy demand last year.  This beats the U.S., which BP reports consumed 19% of the total global energy demand for 2010.

This reverses the trend for more than the past 100 years, when the United States has been considered to consume more energy than any other country. While energy consumption has traditionally been viewed as directly correlated to GDP, this shift breaks that trend as well. Commentators point to China's increased industrial activity, particularly significant in light of the current state of the American economy.

Interestingly, American energy intensity remains high: the average U.S. citizen uses five times as much energy as does the average Chinese citizen. What will happen when China reaches the energy intensity of the U.S.?

July 23, 2010 - no Senate energy bill for now; wind gets boosts

A bit of New Meadows eye candy:


Sure enough, the Senate climate bill is dead. Instead, we'll get a weak energy bill addressing the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, promoting building energy efficiency through the HomeStar program, and promoting the use of natural gas as a fuel for large trucks.

In Maine, the Fort Halifax dam removal saga continues. Prior to removal of this dam on the Sebasticook River, the town of Winslow, Maine and residents had voiced concerns about erosion, and had appealed (without success) the Department of Environmental Protection's orders approving dam removal. After the dam was removed, portions of the former impoundment's banks suffered severe erosion. The town had to spend over $725,000 to demolish six homes on Dallaire Street that were threatened by the newly eroded banks. The affected areas also included the river bank below the historic (mid-1700s) Fort Hill Cemetery, eroding the bank back much closer to the cemetery fence and grave sites. Former dam owner FPL Energy Maine Hydro commissioned a study of why this erosion happened. FPLE's study concluded that the dam removal and drawdown "did not play a significant role"; instead, the study pointed to unstable soils, steep slopes, heavy rain, and an earthquake. Both the town and the state expressed doubts about this conclusion. Now the town has officially asked the DEP to perform its own study, and to enforce the conditions in its dam removal order that require FPLE to monitor and remediate erosion.

The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee has approved Susan Collins's request for $10 million in funding for the University of Maine's development, deployment and testing of deepwater and offshore wind turbines. The funding must now be approved by the full Senate, but the parallel House bill still lacks such an appropriation.

Wind is big in California too. It looks like Terra-Gen's Alta Wind Energy Center near Tehachapi is going forward, as it has placed an order with Vestas Wind Systems for 190 3 MW turbines. The Alta Wind project represents the largest financing of a North American wind-energy development to date. Part of the financial picture includes a 1,550 MW power purchase agreement with Southern California Edison for part of the project output. The project will have domestic economic benefits as well: Vestas will manufacture the blades in Windsor, Colorado, and most of the towers in Pueblo, CO.

A growing storm in the Gulf of Mexico has put BP's efforts at the oil well site on hold.

June 1, 2010 - market theory of policy, and the madness of crowds; FPL's 75 MW solar thermal

BP shares are taking a hit today. One estimate suggests BP has lost $50 billion in market value based on share price. Meanwhile, another estimate suggests the true cost to BP of the massive oil release from its Deepwater Horizon well is on the order of $20 billion.

From the policy level, it's interesting to observe the market perform its assessment of BP's liabilities. If the large-cap stock market is the product of the "madness of crowds", what is the gap between share price and true value? How does the size of this gap vary with time and conditions?

This inquiry has implications for the policy world as well. What is the absolute value, in economic or preferential terms, of a given policy outcome -- for example, affordable electricity, or reduced CO2 emissions? How does society value that policy outcome? What is the size of the gap between the value we place on an outcome, and its true value? What choices should we as a society be making that we don't find "worth it", but that are truly the lowest-cost and best path forward?



More grid-scale solar: FPL is building a massive solar thermal plant near Lake Okeechobee, Florida. At up to 75 MW, FPL's Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center is on track to be the second-largest solar plant in the world. This solar thermal plant has a unique design. The plant will use mirrors to concentrate the sunlight 80 times, and then heat water up to 700 degrees. To get over the limitations of Florida's humid and often cloudy weather, the Martin facility is unique because it is co-located with an energy campus that already has 13 oil and gas-fueled generators. The heat exhaust steam from four natural-gas generators will be combined with the solar plant's steam to spin an existing generator. This saves the significant capital cost of installing a new generator, and seems like an efficient use of existing untapped capacity.

What's the cost? About $420 million, or about 16 cents a month to the average FPL residential bill.

May 27, 2010 - TransCanada sues Massachusetts over local aspect of renewable portfolio standard

In Massachusetts: TransCanada has sued the Commonwealth (and named officials) over the Green Communities Act. Specifically, TransCanada is asserting that the statute's requirement that utilities enter into long-term contracts to buy power from Massachusetts generators including local solar PV projects is unconstitutional. TransCanada claims that this discrimination against out-of-state renewable energy producers not only violates the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, but results in higher prices to ratepayers. The New England Power Generators Association agrees that it is illogical to insist that clean energy originate locally, given our regional transmission grid and unpredictable electron flows.

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley is trying to negotiate a settlement with TransCanada.

Interestingly, TransCanada is challenging the Green Communities Act: the same statutory framework into which the Cape Wind contract with National Grid fits.

Are electrons a fungible commodity? Are the electrons produced by a renewable project inherently more valuable than electrons produced by (for example) coal-fired generation? Even if they are, doesn't the great mixing bowl that is the transmission grid eliminate any uniqueness those renewable electrons had? Is there any real meaning to the kind of financial (contractual) fictions that Consumer A is buying Generator B's renewable electrons?


Weather news: NOAA predicts an "active" to "extremely active" hurricane season this year, with between 14 and 23 named storms forming in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico.

BP's top kill of the Deepwater Horizon oil well appears to have worked.