News Archive:

Kosovo must do more for renewables, European Union says

April 27, 2017, PV News.

Kosovo must do more for renew­ables, Euro­pean Union says

Cit­ing a RAEL study, authored by Noah Kit­tner and Daniel Kam­men along with col­leagues from KOSID in Kosovo, the Euro­pean Com­mis­sion has said that Kosovo’s gov­ern­ment needs to increase efforts to improve its energy sys­tem, and to pro­vide more sup­port for renew­ables, although it has recently revised its energy (and renew­able energy) strat­egy up to 2020.

_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​

 

The Euro­pean Com­mis­sion (EC) has said that Kosovo should make more invest­ments in the energy sec­tor, and add fur­ther gen­er­a­tion capac­ity from both ther­mal and renew­able energy sources, in order to become able to plan the decom­mis­sion­ing of the country’s two coal power plants, which cur­rently still cover almost all of its power demand.

In the report on Kosovo’s Eco­nomic Reform Pro­gramme for the period 2017–2019, pub­lished on the web­site of the Aus­trian Par­lia­ment, the EC said that the energy reforms recently imple­mented by the local gov­ern­ment are not suf­fi­cient to improve the country’s trou­bled power mar­ket, which still relies heav­ily on coal and elec­tric­ity imports.

Under its long-​​term energy strat­egy, which was approved last sum­mer, Kosovo is expected to add 240 MW of power gen­er­a­tion capac­ity from renew­ables, of which only 10 MW is for solar PV, while wind and bio­mass will account for 150 MW and 14 MW, respec­tively, with other renew­able sources account­ing for the remain­ing share.

Despite these plans, the local gov­ern­ment is cur­rently putting most of its efforts in the con­struc­tion of the new coal power plant “Kosova e Re”, an invest­ment that the EU itself con­sid­ers nec­es­sary to replace the 40-​​year old Kosovo A Power Sta­tion (345 MW) near Pristina, and upgrade the 27-​​year old lignite-​​fired Kosovo B Power Sta­tion (540 MW) in Obilić. The future Kosovo Power Project (600 MW), which is being backed by the World Bank, includes the reha­bil­i­ta­tion of the Kosovo B power plant, in order to bring it in com­pli­ance with EU standards.

Accord­ing to the EC, Kosovo’s energy mar­ket suf­fers from the above-​​mentioned out­dated pro­duc­tion capac­ity, as well as low energy effi­ciency, a non-​​liberalized energy mar­ket and a tar­iff sys­tem that does not reflect real costs. The EC added that it is not clear if recent reforms of the energy mar­ket are aligned with the reforms included in the Energy Strat­egy. “Progress in 2016”, the EC stressed, “was mainly lim­ited to leg­isla­tive mea­sures and the intro­duc­tion of some energy effi­ciency mea­sures.” The Com­mis­sion also stressed that cost esti­mates of the new planned actions for 2016, which include the future coal power plant, three unspec­i­fied solar projects, 20 hydropower facil­i­ties and two wind power instal­la­tions, “are very rough, and with­out a clear reg­u­la­tory frame­work.” The EC also spec­i­fied that all the work required by these actions was not done, except for the fea­si­bil­ity study for the reha­bil­i­ta­tion of Kosovo B ther­mal power plant.

Accord­ing to a report from Kosovo’s Min­istry of Energy, solar had only a few hun­dred kW con­nected to the grid as of the end of 2015. The first solar PV projects with total installed capac­ity of 102.4 kilo­watt were brought online in 2014. Under the FIT pro­gram run by the Min­istry of Agri­cul­ture (MAFRD), 101 PV sys­tems total­ing 77 kW were installed in 2014, while fur­ther 135 instal­la­tions with a com­bined capac­ity of 364 kW came online in 2015.

Accord­ing to another report pub­lished in Envi­ron­men­tal Research Let­ters by sci­en­tists of Uni­ver­sity of Cal­i­for­nia, Berke­ley on the sci­en­tific research jour­nal IOP­science last year, at the end of 2015 the coun­try had around 3 MW of solar installed under the FIT scheme, which was issued in 2014. The pro­gram is grant­ing a 12-​​year FIT of €85 ($92.5)/MWh.

A strik­ing aspect of Kosovo is its sub­stan­tial solar energy resource, yet com­plete lack of devel­op­ment of solar power,” said the report’s authors. “It receives about 80% of Arizona’s solar inso­la­tion. That’s a higher level of sun­light than Ger­many, which has exten­sive solar energy facil­i­ties.” Kosovo, indeed, has a con­sid­er­able solar poten­tial with an aver­age of 278 sunny days and 2000 hours of sun per year.

The authors of IOPscience’s report also believe that dis­trib­uted renew­able and solar can bet­ter help Kosovo man­age the nec­es­sary growth of installed gen­er­a­tion capac­ity com­pared to large cen­tral­ized projects. While PV sys­tems can be installed incre­men­tally on a per kW or MW scale, a coal plant requires full com­mit­ment to hun­dreds of MW capac­ity dur­ing one invest­ment period, the report explains. “As demand for elec­tric­ity changes,” the US researchers said, “the deploy­ment of dis­trib­uted renew­ables pro­vides investors with increased flex­i­bil­ity to extend capac­ity in smaller sizes as to not leave the investor with large-​​scale stranded assets.”

With 2 mil­lion inhab­i­tants, Kosovo is still a dis­puted land between Repub­lic of Ser­bia, which claims it as it’s own ter­ri­tory after, and the Repub­lic of Kosovo. Cur­rently, 111 out of 193 mem­ber states of the United Nations have rec­og­nized Kosovo as an inde­pen­dent state.

Despite Its Oil-​​Industry Past, Energy Transitions Commission Foresees A Full-​​Renewables Future

Despite Its Oil-​​Industry Past, Energy Tran­si­tions Com­mis­sion Fore­sees A Full-​​Renewables Future

by Jeff McMa­hon, based in Chicago. Fol­low Jeff McMa­hon on Face­bookGoogle PlusTwit­ter, or email him here.

Renew­ables could pro­vide nearly all the power in some regions in less than 20 years, reli­ably, and at a cost com­pet­i­tive with fos­sil fuels, accord­ing to a report released today by the Energy Tran­si­tions Commission.

The report’s strik­ing con­fi­dence in solar and wind is likely to sur­prise not only crit­ics of those tech­nolo­gies but also envi­ron­men­tal­ists, who greeted the com­mis­sion with skep­ti­cismwhen it was founded in 2015. The com­mis­sion was launched by Royal Dutch Shell and includes exec­u­tives from Shell, GE Oil and Gas, Australia’s BHP Bil­li­ton, Norway’s Sta­toil and other traditional-​​energy companies.

We believe that close to zero-​​carbon power sys­tems with very high lev­els of inter­mit­tent renew­able pen­e­tra­tion (up to 98% in coun­tries like Ger­many) could deliver reli­able power in many coun­tries at a max­i­mum of $70 per MWh by 2035,” the com­mis­sion states in its flag­ship report.

960x0

 

In 2015, Car­bon Tracker’s Anthony Hob­ley crit­i­cized the ETCbecause of its ini­tial goal to study how to fuel half the power sec­tor with zero-​​carbon energy sources by 2050, a path that Hob­ley said would put the world on course for 4˚C of warm­ing. The ETC appears to have raised its ambi­tions since.

World­wide, zero-​​carbon sources could rep­re­sent 80 per­cent of the global power mix by 2040, the com­mis­sion now says, with solar and wind com­pris­ing the major­ity of that. That still leaves 20 per­cent of the world power mar­ket to fos­sil fuels. But that’s a big drop from the cur­rent state of affairs, in which fos­sil fuels pro­vide about 80 per­cent of pri­mary energy production.

We are ambi­tious but real­is­tic,” said com­mis­sion chair­man Adair Turner, a British busi­ness­man, via email. “Despite the scale of the chal­lenges fac­ing us, we firmly believe the required tran­si­tion is tech­ni­cally and eco­nom­i­cally achiev­able if imme­di­ate action is taken.”

When I con­tacted Car­bon Tracker Mon­day, Hob­ley had not had an oppor­tu­nity yet to review the report or comment.

The report calls for reduc­ing CO2 emis­sions more rapidly than the Paris Agree­ment. Its reliance on solar and wind depends in part on its pro­jec­tion that the cost of bat­ter­ies will con­tinue to drop. But it stresses there are cheaper means than bat­tery stor­age to smooth out the inter­mit­tent per­for­mance of solar and wind. It cites a suite of tech­nolo­gies and tech­niques, including:

  • demand man­age­ment, espe­cially of industry

  • flex­i­ble elec­tric vehi­cle charging

  • load shift­ing between regions

  • auto­mated load shifting

  • bet­ter grid management

  • large-​​scale heat storage

  • dis­trib­uted ther­mal stor­age in the built environment

  • com­pressed air storage

  • hydro­gen storage

  • geo­logic storage

The com­mis­sion mod­eled the use of these tech­nolo­gies in Cal­i­for­nia and con­cluded that if Cal­i­for­nia builds a power sys­tem that relies nearly entirely on solar and wind, these lower-​​cost options could offer the sys­tem reli­a­bil­ity for almost half the cost of the tra­di­tional method of achiev­ing reliability—turning on gas-​​turbine plants.

Uni­ver­sity of Berke­ley energy pro­fes­sor Daniel Kam­men has been out­lin­ing a sim­i­lar scenario:

The dra­matic ramp up in solar resulted in the dra­matic real­iza­tion that a diverse, decen­tral­ized sys­tem can pro­vide the same crit­i­cal fea­tures that we think about with a base­load highly cen­tral­ized sys­tem,” Kam­men said last sum­mer. “Not tomor­row, but in the time frame that we need it, it’s absolutely there.”

It’s eas­ier to see how zero-​​carbon sources can con­quer 80 per­cent of the energy mar­ket, the com­mis­sion con­cedes, than the last 20 per­cent. If the world is to keep the global aver­age tem­per­a­ture from ris­ing more than 2º C, the report says, four energy tran­si­tions have to be pur­sued simul­ta­ne­ously in each country:

  1. Decar­boniza­tion of the power sec­tor com­bined with elec­tri­fi­ca­tion of trans­porta­tion, build­ings and industry.
  2. Decar­boniza­tion of activ­i­ties that can­not be afford­ably elec­tri­fied, by using bio­fu­els or hydro­gen for heat­ing or by cap­tur­ing car­bon emissions.
  3. Improve­ments in energy pro­duc­tiv­ity and efficiency.
  4. Opti­miza­tion of fos­sil fuels within the con­straints of the world’s over­all car­bon bud­get, includ­ing the con­tin­ued replace­ment of coal with nat­ural gas, an end to methane leaks and methane flar­ing at oil fields, and devel­op­ment of car­bon cap­ture and storage.

To achieve these tran­si­tions, the world needs to change the way it finances energy, and it needs “coher­ent and pre­dictable” pol­icy from gov­ern­ments, the report says, rec­om­mend­ing a price on carbon.

“A mean­ing­ful car­bon price would help drive a faster and more cer­tain transition.”

 

By Jeff McMa­hon, based in Chicago. Fol­low Jeff McMa­hon on Face­bookGoogle PlusTwit­ter, or email him here.

From Alaska to Georgia, Why 6 Scientists Will March on Washington

From Alaska to Geor­gia, Why 6 Sci­en­tists Will March on Washington

APRIL 21, 2017

Thou­sands of sci­en­tists and their sup­port­ers are prepar­ing to par­tic­i­pate in the March for Sci­ence on Sat­ur­day, but the run-​​up to the event hasn’t been with­out con­tro­versy. Some sci­en­tists have charged that plan­ning for the march con­tra­dicted larger goals of diver­sity,while other sci­en­tists have wor­ried that the effort might appear par­ti­san to the pub­lic, and thereby hurt the stand­ing of schol­ars in the field.

Despite the con­tro­versy, the sci­en­tists who plan to attend the main march, in Wash­ing­ton, D.C., as well as hun­dreds of smaller ones else­where, say they’re doing so with a pri­mary goal in mind: to send the mes­sage that sci­ence matters.

The Chron­i­cle spoke to six sci­en­tists who will be trav­el­ing to the nation’s cap­i­tal about their hopes and expec­ta­tions for the day.

Chris B. Schaf­fer, asso­ciate pro­fes­sor of bio­med­ical engi­neer­ing, Cor­nell University:

Cour­tesy Chris B. Schaffer

Mr. Schaf­fer, who has a back­ground in pol­icy and runs a small pro­gram for stu­dents who are inter­ested in advo­cacy, said he would be trav­el­ing to D.C. with three buses of stu­dents. He said he hoped the march wouldn’t just carry the theme of “sci­en­tists against the Trump administration.”“It’s excit­ing to see sci­en­tists want­ing to come out and do some­thing other than plug away at ques­tions in their labs,” he said. “I hope that this is a first step toward a much greater degree of engage­ment between sci­en­tists and the public.”

After the march, he hopes to see more sci­en­tists engage in “sus­tained, low-​​level com­mit­ments” such as reg­u­larly speak­ing in schools, offer­ing pro bono advice to busi­nesses, and lob­by­ing local lawmakers.

Ellen Chenoweth, Ph.D. stu­dent in ecol­ogy and marine biol­ogy, Uni­ver­sity of Alaska at Fairbanks:

Cour­tesy Ellen Chenoweth

Ms. Chenoweth does research on hump­back whales and how they for­age in the marine envi­ron­ment. She said that she’s “not usu­ally much of a marcher” but that the March for Sci­ence “kind of spoke to me — I felt like I could make a difference.“She said that she wanted to go to D.C. to make sure that rural researchers and young women were rep­re­sented, not just “your typ­i­cal lab-​​coat researchers.” Accord­ingly, she will wear what she wears in the field, or at least a mod­i­fied ver­sion of it. “I’d love to wear a full float suit, but I think it would be way too hot,” she said.

Ms. Chenoweth will fly to D.C. alone, but will carry a sign with the sig­na­tures of her friends and col­leagues who couldn’t make it. “I’m hop­ing it’s a really pos­i­tive event,” she said. “I’m com­ing with an open mind. I’m hop­ing to be inspired by lots of other sci­en­tists, and I’m hop­ing that there’ll be a diver­sity of sci­en­tists represented.”

Chris Gunter, pro­fes­sor of pedi­atrics, Emory Uni­ver­sity School of Medicine:

Cour­tesy Chris Gunter

Ms. Gunter, who also leads com­mu­ni­ca­tions at the Mar­cus Autism Cen­ter, in Atlanta, will travel to D.C. from Geor­gia with her teenage son. As a sci­ence com­mu­ni­ca­tor, Ms. Gunter said she feels strongly that engage­ment is an impor­tant part of her job, and she wants peo­ple to see “that sci­en­tists are peo­ple too.” Though she and her son thought about wear­ing cos­tumes to the march, they decided to sport the offi­cial march T-​​shirts so that they would look more “everyday.”“I’m hop­ing the march will ener­gize peo­ple,” said Ms. Gunter. “A sort of paral­y­sis can set in when we hear over and over about threats to sci­ence. I think many of us are look­ing for ideas about what would be the best action to take to make a difference.”

Ms. Gunter recently joined the Atlanta chap­ter of 500 Women Sci­en­tists, a nation­wide group of female researchers who advo­cate for equal­ity in sci­ence. She said she hopes to get ideas from the march about what the orga­ni­za­tion could do in the future, whether that’s fight­ing bud­get cuts, improv­ing sci­ence out­reach and engage­ment, or tak­ing legal action against discrimination.

Bradley J. Car­di­nale, pro­fes­sor of nat­ural resources, Uni­ver­sity of Michi­gan at Ann Arbor:

UM Photo Ser­vices, Austin Thomason

Mr. Cardinale’s research focuses on pro­tect­ing the Great Lakes. Under Pres­i­dent Trump’s pro­posed bud­get for 2018, deep cuts could force Mr. Car­di­nale and many of his col­leagues to aban­don their research, he said. “I see these as per­sonal exam­ples of a cur­rent admin­is­tra­tion that really doesn’t value sci­ence, and doesn’t value facts,” he said. “Attend­ing the march is my way of stand­ing up and say­ing, like many other sci­en­tists, ‘Sci­ence is impor­tant for society.’“Mr. Car­di­nale will attend the march with his wife and two chil­dren. He laughed as he said his 8-​​year-​​old daugh­ter was “very anx­ious to march and insist that politi­cians use evi­dence when mak­ing decisions.”

He said he would con­sider the march a suc­cess if it resulted in Mr. Trump’s get­ting “a legit­i­mate sci­en­tist as an adviser in his cabinet.”

Mau­rice K. Craw­ford, asso­ciate pro­fes­sor of marine sci­ence, Uni­ver­sity of Mary­land East­ern Shore:

Cour­tesy Mau­rice K. Crawford

Mr. Craw­ford is a fish ecol­o­gist who pre­vi­ously helped to shape the United States Agency for Inter­na­tional Development’s climate-​​change pol­icy. He said he wanted to attend the march in D.C. to send a mes­sage to the cur­rent Repub­li­can admin­is­tra­tion about the impor­tance of using evi­dence in mak­ing pol­icy. “My sense is that they’re aban­don­ing that process,” he said. While he doesn’t think that Pres­i­dent Trump is likely to respond to the march, he hopes that peo­ple in Con­gress might​.Mr. Craw­ford will travel with his wife, but he said he knows a num­ber of col­leagues at his uni­ver­sity will also attend the march. He plans to carry a Star Wars–inspired sign that reads: “Fear leads to the dark side.”

Mr. Craw­ford, who is African-​​American, said he hasn’t fol­lowed the con­tro­versy over the march orga­niz­ers’ han­dling of diver­sity and inclu­sion, but he doesn’t “expect to see many peo­ple that look like me.”

As a stu­dent I could prob­a­bly name every African-​​American in marine sci­ence in the coun­try,” he added. “I can’t do that any­more, so that is progress.”

Daniel M. Kam­men, pro­fes­sor of energy, Uni­ver­sity of Cal­i­for­nia at Berkeley:

Cour­tesy Daniel M. Kammen

As a coor­di­nat­ing lead author for the Inter­gov­ern­men­tal Panel on Cli­mate Change and a sci­ence envoy for the U.S. State Depart­ment, Mr. Kam­men has spent a lot of time think­ing about how clean energy could shape for­eign policy.He said he’s attend­ing the March for Sci­ence because “sci­ence does appear to be under direct threat.” Asked whether he’s allowed to par­tic­i­pate in the march as a sci­ence envoy for the State Depart­ment, Mr. Kam­men said, “No one has told me that I can’t.” He’ll be meet­ing a hand­ful of his stu­dents at the march.

Mr. Kam­men said he thinks the march’s suc­cess will be mea­sured by the num­ber of peo­ple who attend, and by the oppor­tu­ni­ties it cre­ates for sci­en­tists and engi­neers to start con­ver­sa­tions with the news media and to meet their rep­re­sen­ta­tives in D.C.

It pains me that we need to do this,” he said, “but I’m hop­ing those con­ver­sa­tions by a diverse set of researchers will be the really excit­ing out­come from this.”

 

 

UC Berkeley, LBL, IRENA, RAEL team publish paper on renewable energy resources and utility planning in Africa

Renew­able energy has robust future in much of Africa

by Robert Sanders, UC Berke­ley Media Relations

As Africa gears up for a tripling of elec­tric­ity demand by 2030, a new Berke­ley study maps out a viable strat­egy for devel­op­ing wind and solar power while simul­ta­ne­ously reduc­ing the continent’s reliance on fos­sil fuels and low­er­ing power plant con­struc­tion costs.

Ngong Hills wind farm, Kenya

Using resource map­ping tools, a UC Berke­ley and Lawrence Berke­ley National Lab­o­ra­tory team assessed the poten­tial for large solar and wind farms in 21 coun­tries in the south­ern and east­ern African power pools, which includes more than half of Africa’s pop­u­la­tion, stretch­ing from Libya and Egypt in the north and along the east­ern coast to South Africa.

They con­cluded that with the right strat­egy for plac­ing solar and wind farms, and with inter­na­tional shar­ing of power, most African nations could lower the num­ber of con­ven­tional power plants – fos­sil fuel and hydro­elec­tric – they need to build, thereby reduc­ing their infra­struc­ture costs by per­haps bil­lions of dollars.

The sur­pris­ing find is that the wind and solar resources in Africa are absolutely gigan­tic, and some­thing you could tap into for rel­a­tively low cost,” said senior author Dun­can Call­away, a UC Berke­ley asso­ciate pro­fes­sor of energy and resources and a fac­ulty sci­en­tist at Berke­ley Lab. “But we need to be think­ing now about strate­gies for fos­ter­ing inter­na­tional col­lab­o­ra­tion to tap into the resource in a way that is going to max­i­mize its poten­tial while min­i­miz­ing its impact.”

The main issue, Call­away says, is that energy-​​generating resources are not spread equally through­out Africa. Hydro­elec­tric power is the main power source for one-​​third of African nations, but it is not avail­able in all coun­tries, and cli­mate change makes it an uncer­tain resource because of more fre­quent droughts.

The team set out to under­stand where wind and solar gen­er­a­tion plants might be built in the future under a range of sit­ing strat­egy sce­nar­ios, and how much renew­able gen­er­a­tors might off­set the need to build other forms of generation.

Based on the team’s analy­sis, choos­ing wind sites to match the tim­ing of wind gen­er­a­tion with elec­tric­ity demand is less costly over­all than choos­ing sites with the great­est wind energy pro­duc­tion. Assum­ing ade­quate trans­mis­sion lines, strate­gies that take into account the tim­ing of wind gen­er­a­tion result in a more even dis­tri­b­u­tion of wind capac­ity across coun­tries than those that max­i­mize energy production.

Impor­tantly, the researchers say, both energy trade and sit­ing to match gen­er­a­tion with demand reduces the sys­tem costs of devel­op­ing wind sites that are low impact, that is, closer to exist­ing trans­mis­sion lines, closer to areas where elec­tric­ity would be con­sumed and in areas with pre­ex­ist­ing human activ­ity as opposed to pris­tine areas.

If you take the strat­egy of sit­ing all of these sys­tems such that their total pro­duc­tion cor­re­lates well with elec­tric­ity demand, then you save hun­dreds of mil­lions to bil­lions of dol­lars per year ver­sus the cost of elec­tric­ity infra­struc­ture dom­i­nated by coal-​​fired plants or hydro,” Call­away said. “You also get a more equi­table dis­tri­b­u­tion of gen­er­a­tion sources across these countries.”

maps of African renewable energy resources

Together, inter­na­tional energy trade and strate­gic sit­ing can enable African coun­tries to pur­sue ‘no-​​regrets’ wind and solar poten­tial that can com­pete with con­ven­tional gen­er­a­tion tech­nolo­gies like coal and hydropower,” empha­sized UC Berke­ley grad­u­ate stu­dent Grace Wu, who con­ducted the study with fel­low grad­u­ate stu­dent Ran­jit Desh­mukh. Wu and Desh­mukh are the lead authors of the study.

The is avail­able in the Pro­ceed­ings of the National Acad­emy of Sci­ences and on the RAEL pub­li­ca­tions site.

Chart­ing Africa’s energy future

The team set out to tackle a key ques­tion for elec­tric­ity plan­ners in Africa and the inter­na­tional devel­op­ment com­mu­nity, which helps fund such projects: How should these coun­tries allo­cate their pre­cious and lim­ited invest­ment dol­lars to most effec­tively address elec­tric­ity and cli­mate chal­lenges in the com­ing decades?

Ethiopian wind farm

Wu and Desh­mukh gath­ered pre­vi­ously unavail­able infor­ma­tion on the annual solar and wind resources in 21 coun­tries in east­ern and south­ern Africa, and hourly esti­mates of wind speeds for nine coun­tries south of the Sahara Desert.

They devel­oped an energy resource map­ping frame­work, which they call Multi-​​criteria Analy­sis for Plan­ning Renew­able Energy, or MapRE, to iden­tify and char­ac­ter­ize poten­tial wind and solar projects. They then mod­eled var­i­ous sce­nar­ios for sit­ing wind power and exam­ined addi­tional sys­tem costs from hydro and fos­sil fuels.

The team con­cluded that even after exclud­ing solar and wind farms from areas that are too remote or too close to sen­si­tive envi­ron­men­tal or cul­tural sites — what they term “no-​​regret” sites – there is more than enough land in this part of Africa to pro­duce renew­able power to meet the ris­ing demand, if fos­sil fuel and/​or hydro­elec­tric power are in the mix to even out the load. Nev­er­the­less, choos­ing only the most pro­duc­tive sites for devel­op­ment – the windi­est and sun­ni­est – would leave some coun­tries with lit­tle low-​​cost local renew­able energy generation.

If, how­ever, coun­tries can agree to share power and build the trans­mis­sion lines to make that hap­pen, all coun­tries could develop sites that are low-​​cost and acces­si­ble, and have low envi­ron­men­tal impact, while reduc­ing the num­ber of new hydro or fos­sil fuel plants that need to be built.

Ngong Hills wind farm, Kenya

Call­away says that a few coun­tries already share power, such as South Africa with Mozam­bique and Zim­babwe, but that more coun­tries will need to bro­ker the agree­ments and build the trans­mis­sion lines to allow this. Inter­na­tional trans­mis­sion lines are being planned, but pri­mar­ily to share hydropower resources located in a hand­ful of coun­tries. These trans­mis­sion plans need to incor­po­rate shar­ing of wind and solar in order to help them be com­pet­i­tive gen­er­a­tion tech­nolo­gies in Africa, he said.

Other co-​​authors are Daniel Kam­men, a UC Berke­ley pro­fes­sor of energy and resources, Jes­sica Reilly-​​Moman and Amol Phadke of the Inter­na­tional Energy Stud­ies Group at Berke­ley Lab, Kudak­washe Ndhlukula of the South­ern Africa Devel­op­ment Com­mu­nity Cen­ter for Renew­able Energy and Energy Effi­ciency at the Namibia Uni­ver­sity of Sci­ence and Tech­nol­ogy in Wind­hoek, and Tijana Rado­ji­cic of the Inter­na­tional Renew­able Energy Agency in Mas­dar City, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emi­rates.

The Inter­na­tional Renew­able Energy Agency sup­ported much of the ini­tial research. The National Sci­ence Foun­da­tion and the Link Foun­da­tion sup­ported the expanded analy­sis on wind sit­ing scenarios.

New report on green jobs in Africa from UNIDO, LNBL, and RAEL

Down­load the report from UNIDO, LBNL, and RAEL here and access the larger Green Jobs research pro­gram here.

Abstract:

The ongo­ing debate over the cost-​​effectiveness of renew­able energy (RE) and energy efficiency

(EE) deploy­ment often hinges on the cur­rent cost of incum­bent fossil-​​fuel tech­nolo­gies versus

the long-​​term ben­e­fit of clean energy alter­na­tives. This debate is often focused on mature or

indus­tri­al­ized’ economies and exter­nal­i­ties such as job cre­ation. In many ways, how­ever, the

sit­u­a­tion in devel­op­ing economies is at least as or even more inter­est­ing due to the generally

faster cur­rent rate of eco­nomic growth and of infra­struc­ture deploy­ment. On the one hand, RE

and EE could help decar­bonize economies in devel­op­ing coun­tries, but on the other hand, higher

upfront costs of RE and EE could ham­per short-​​term growth. The method­ol­ogy devel­oped in

this paper con­firms the exis­tence of this trade-​​off for some sce­nar­ios, yet at the same time

pro­vides con­sid­er­able evi­dence about the pos­i­tive impact of EE and RE from a job cre­ation and

employ­ment per­spec­tive. By extend­ing and adopt­ing a method­ol­ogy for Africa designed to

cal­cu­late employ­ment from elec­tric­ity gen­er­a­tion in the U.S., this study finds that energy savings

and the con­ver­sion of the elec­tric­ity sup­ply mix to renew­able energy gen­er­ates employment

com­pared to a ref­er­ence sce­nario. It also con­cludes that the costs per addi­tional job cre­ated tend

to decrease with increas­ing lev­els of both EE adop­tion and RE shares.

 

Project part­ners:

Cli­mate Pol­icy and Net­works Divi­sion, United Nations Indus­trial Devel­op­ment Organization

UNIDO,

Energy Tech­nolo­gies Area, Lawrence Berke­ley National Laboratory 

The PACE of clean energy development featured in Science

The PACE of clean energy development

The Prop­erty Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) pro­gram is a national ini­tia­tive designed to pro­mote invest­ment in solar pho­to­voltaics by com­mer­cial, non­profit, and res­i­den­tial prop­erty own­ers. Its cen­tral fea­ture is to pro­vide low-​​cost, long-​​term fund­ing, which is repaid as an assess­ment on the property’s reg­u­lar tax bill, as is done for side­walks and sew­ers, for exam­ple. Spurring such invest­ment clearly is a good goal, but is the pro­gram effec­tive? Ameli, Pisu, and Kam­men in Applied Energy used a nat­ural exper­i­ment in north­ern Cal­i­for­nia to test the capac­ity of PACE, find­ing that it has been a great suc­cess, more than dou­bling res­i­den­tial pho­to­voltaic instal­la­tions in the region at no cost to the tax­pay­ers. —HJS

Appl. Energy 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.01.037 (2017).

Why the Democrats and Republicans are Both Right on Climate

March 2, in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN

Why the Democ­rats and Repub­li­cans are Both Right on Climate

 

Daniel M. Kammen

Over the past two years, two thought­ful, inno­v­a­tive, and dra­mat­i­cally dif­fer­ent plans to address global warm­ing have been pre­sented to the Amer­i­can pub­lic by the Demo­c­ra­tic and the Repub­li­can Par­ties.  Both plans would move the nation sig­nif­i­cantly toward a sus­tain­able future.

The first, the Clean Power Plan[1] (CPP), intro­duced by Pres­i­dent Obama, calls on states to reduce car­bon pol­lu­tion from the power sec­tor by 32 per­cent below the 2005 base­line by 2030.  The CPP fur­ther makes $8 bil­lion avail­able to retrain and aid coal-​​workers and their fam­i­lies.  This is a size­able tran­si­tion fund for an indus­try now val­ued in total at less than $50 bil­lion, a tenth of what it was just a few decades ago.

The sec­ond is the Car­bon Div­i­dend Plan[2] (CDP) which was recently pro­posed by the Cli­mate Lead­er­ship Coun­cil which is head­lined by for­mer Repub­li­can Sec­re­taries of State James Baker and George Shultz, as well as for­mer Trea­sury Sec­re­tary Paul­son, two for­mer Chair­men of the President’s Coun­cil of Eco­nomic Advis­ers, and a Chair­man of the Board of Wal­mart.  The CDP calls for a mod­estly ris­ing car­bon tax, with div­i­dends paid directly back to Amer­i­can fam­i­lies amount­ing to roughly $2,000 per year for a fam­ily of four.

Both plans have a great deal to like.  The home run strat­egy for Amer­i­can job cre­ation and indus­trial lead­er­ship is to imple­ment both the CPP and the CDP.

The fed­eral gov­ern­ment esti­mates that the CPP will yield cli­mate ben­e­fits to the U. S. econ­omy of $20 bil­lion, and health ben­e­fits of $14 – $34 bil­lion, and to each year avoid 3,600 pre­ma­ture deaths, 1,700 heart attacks, 90,000 asthma attacks, and 300,000 missed work and school days[3].  With so many of these ill­nesses in lower-​​income areas and in minor­ity com­mu­ni­ties, the CPP is of tremen­dous ben­e­fit to poorer Amer­i­cans and to the national bud­get as well.  To be fair, some, but not all, of these ben­e­fits would also come from the CDP, although they are less clear-​​cut because emis­sions reduc­tions could come from other sec­tors of the econ­omy beyond electricity.

The CDP includes a pro­vi­sion for bor­der taxes on for­eign imports from nations that do not imple­ment some form of car­bon pric­ing, pre­sum­ably with a dis­pen­sa­tion for the world’s poor­est nations.

Together the CPP and the CDP build a vibrant, intensely job-​​creating energy sec­tor that would be far larger than either plan accom­plishes alone. The CPP does not pit one state against each other, but pushes each state to develop its own car­bon reduc­tion plan.  Both red and blue states are find­ing this eas­ier and more prof­itable than pre­vi­ously imag­ined.  The power sec­tor reduced its car­bon emis­sions 21 per­cent between 2005–2015, pri­mar­ily by switch­ing from coal to gas. It is well on the way to com­ply­ing with the Clean Power Plan.

The CPP will accel­er­ate the tran­si­tion to money-​​saving energy effi­ciency, and to a job-​​rich renew­able energy sec­tor[4].  Coun­tries such as China, Bangladesh, Den­mark, Ger­many Kenya, Korea, and Por­tu­gal have seen tremen­dous man­u­fac­tur­ing and job growth as they made their elec­tric­ity sec­tors more diverse, clean, and job-​​producing.

As inno­va­tions spread in the energy sec­tor, the ben­e­fits of the CDP come into play.  The car­bon div­i­dend to U. S. fam­i­lies is esti­mated by the U. S. Trea­sury to directly ben­e­fit finan­cially the poor­est 70 per­cent (some 223 mil­lion peo­ple) of Amer­i­cans.  A fed­eral infra­struc­ture invest­ment would fur­ther stim­u­late this deal, bring­ing jobs to the capital-​​intensive energy sec­tor across the country.

Of equal or greater impor­tance, how­ever, is the fact that the U. S. and EU energy sec­tors are grow­ing by less than 1% per year, but in many other nations energy demand is grow­ing by 5% per year or more.  The CDP pushes other coun­tries to adopt car­bon poli­cies, mak­ing them ready-​​markets for the prod­ucts that the invig­o­rated U. S. energy sec­tor will deliver.

Because the energy indus­try is about sys­tems inte­gra­tion, not sim­ply indi­vid­ual tech­nol­ogy com­po­nents, coun­tries need com­pany part­ners that are expert and trusted to deliver inte­grated pack­ages.  This is a hall­mark of the U. S. energy sec­tor, from the com­plex and exten­sive oil and gas indus­try, to com­pa­nies like Bech­tel and John­son Con­trols, to the fastest grow­ing part of the U. S. econ­omy, the clean energy innovators.

The real beauty of the two pro­pos­als is how well they can work together for the ben­e­fit of all Amer­i­cans, and at the same time, the global environment.

_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​

Daniel M. Kam­men is a pro­fes­sor of energy at the Uni­ver­sity of Cal­i­for­nia, Berke­ley, direc­tor of the Renew­able and Appro­pri­ate Energy Lab­o­ra­tory, and Sci­ence Envoy for the U. S. State Depart­ment. Twit­ter: @dan_kammen; URL: http://​rael​.berke​ley​.edu

 

 

 

 

 

[1] https://​www​.epa​.gov/​c​l​e​a​n​p​o​w​e​r​p​l​a​n​/​f​a​c​t​-​s​h​e​e​t​-​o​v​e​r​v​i​e​w​-​c​l​e​a​n​-​p​o​w​e​r​-​p​lan

[2] https://​www​.clcoun​cil​.org/​w​p​-​c​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​u​p​l​o​a​d​s​/​2​0​1​7​/​0​2​/​T​h​e​C​o​n​s​e​r​v​a​t​i​v​e​C​a​s​e​f​o​r​C​a​r​b​o​n​D​i​v​i​d​e​n​d​s​.​pdf

[3] https://​www​.epa​.gov/​c​l​e​a​n​p​o​w​e​r​p​l​a​n​/​f​a​c​t​-​s​h​e​e​t​-​o​v​e​r​v​i​e​w​-​c​l​e​a​n​-​p​o​w​e​r​-​p​lan

[4] http://​rael​.berke​ley​.edu/​g​r​e​e​n​j​obs

In Memory of Paul Baer: champion of climate protection and equity

Paul Baer (1962 — 2016) – Memo­riam 

Paul was one of the first, and one of the most pas­sion­ate, stu­dents I met upon my move from Prince­ton to Berkeley.

Paul played a cen­tral role – along with Bar­bara Haya and Nate Hult­man – in work­ing through the sci­ence, pol­icy and legal story around an idea that was of some inter­est then, eigh­teen years ago, and is now very much on the global agenda: the need to fight for equity at a time of increas­ing inequality.

In fact, our team effort – the ‘cli­mate lab­o­ra­tory’ – was a won­der­ful and pro­duc­tive[1] fusion of the inter­ests, pas­sions, and skills of a num­ber of ERG stu­dents, post-​​doctoral fel­lows, and fac­ulty.  We were able to work between the­ory and prac­tice on how equity and envi­ron­men­tal jus­tice could evolve a project that that I had recently com­pleted at Prince­ton with – another ERGie – Ann Kinzig[2] – into an oper­a­tional pro­posal for the cli­mate nego­ti­a­tions.  Paul and Tom Athana­siou pub­lished Dead Heat two years later; a book that a decade of cli­mate cam­paign­ers car­ried and cited regularly.

In our cli­mate lab­o­ra­tory, and in the sub­se­quent years of work­ing, trav­el­ing, and debat­ing a wide range of top­ics with Paul one thing always stood out: his unflag­ging pas­sion for the project in the form of the peo­ple impacted by the lack of atten­tion to jus­tice and equity.

It is heart­en­ing to me that while Paul’s career and life stops after ERG were not always happy, they were always mean­ing­ful and cho­sen to bet­ter the lives of others.

I do, and will always miss you, Paul.

To down­load a copy of this memo­r­ial note, click here.

 

[1] Paul Baer, John Harte, Anto­nia Her­zog, John Hol­dren, Nate Hult­man, Daniel Kam­men, Bar­bara (Kresch) Haya, Richard Nor­gaard, and Leigh Ray­mond “Equal per capita emis­sion rights: the key to a viable cli­mate change pol­icy”, Sci­ence 289, 2287 (2000).

[2] Ann Kinzig and Daniel Kam­men (1998) “National tra­jec­to­ries of car­bon emis­sions: Analy­sis of pro­pos­als to fos­ter the tran­si­tion to low-​​carbon economies”, Global Envi­ron­men­tal Change, 8 (3), 183 – 208 (1998).

Nuclear Plant ‘Doesn’t Fit’ In The Future Grid, Utility Executive Says

From Forbes Mag­a­zine, Decem­ber 7, 2016

Arti­cle link.

Pacific Gas & Elec­tric Co. decided to close its Dia­blo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant because its base­load power—often cited as nuclear’s best asset—doesn’t fit into the dynamic grid Cal­i­for­nia is devel­op­ing, a PG&E exec­u­tive said today at the U.S. Energy Stor­age Sum­mit in San Francisco.

Steve Mal­night, PG&E’s senior vice pres­i­dent for reg­u­la­tory affairs, was speak­ing specif­i­cally of mar­ket con­di­tions in Cal­i­for­nia, but many con­sider Cal­i­for­nia a trail­blazer for the nation on energy and cli­mate issues, so his com­ments will res­onate in the ongo­ing debate over nuclear’s role in a clean-​​energy future.

Con­sid­er­ing a shut­down was a dif­fi­cult deci­sion for us,” Mal­night said, “but as we really looked at the chang­ing dynam­ics in Cal­i­for­nia, given the choices we’ve made in Cal­i­for­nia, and the pol­icy direc­tion in Cal­i­for­nia, there was a clear recog­ni­tion that Dia­blo was not going to be a good fit for the future needs of the system.”

Screen Shot 2016-12-07 at 4.53.12 PM

Fig­ure cap­tion: Aer­ial view of the Dia­blo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, which sits on the edge of the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach in San Luis Obispo County, Cal­i­for­nia. (Photo by MARK RALSTON/​AFP/​Getty Images)

Nuclear advo­cates argue that nuclear plants can pro­vide reli­able power to bal­ance the vari­abil­ity of renew­ables, but base­load power turned out to be Diablo’s Achilles’ heel.

With 50 per­cent renew­ables on the sys­tem, the idea of a large base­load gen­er­a­tor that runs pretty much all the time, every day, 24 hours a day, just doesn’t have as good a fit to the mar­ket con­di­tions we expect to see,” Mal­night said.

PG&E announced this sum­mer it would close Diablo’s two reac­tors after their oper­at­ing licenses expire in Novem­ber 2024 and August 2025, replac­ing the plant with a suite of greenhouse-​​gas-​​free tech­nolo­gies, includ­ing renew­ables, energy effi­ciency, and energy stor­age. Today, Mal­night said half that job is already done.

“When we looked for­ward, what we really saw is that only about half of Dia­blo Canyon in terms of the gen­er­a­tion that came out of that facil­ity was even going to be needed. In other words, half is already effec­tively being replaced with the poli­cies we’re march­ing down on clean energy and on dif­fer­ent energy choices that our cus­tomers are mak­ing,” Mal­night said.

When you looked at the other half that needed to be replaced, base­load gen­er­a­tion just wasn’t a good fit. The plant would be turn­ing on and turn­ing off all the time. And in a mar­ket­place with really abun­dant resources in the mid­dle of the day, that’s not a good way to run a nuclear plant.”

PG&E intends to “buy” the renew­ables, effi­ciency, and stor­age that will replace the plant soon, so that they’re in place before it closes. He told the audi­ence of energy-​​storage inter­ests that the stor­age pur­chase would have been nec­es­sary even if Dia­blo stayed open.

We antic­i­pate we’re going to need to bring on more stor­age onto the sys­tem to help inte­grate those diverse resources. Which, by the way we would have needed if we kept Dia­blo run­ning, too.”

Mal­night did acknowl­edge the seem­ing irony of clos­ing a nuclear plant dur­ing a fran­tic quest to develop an energy sys­tem free of car­bon emissions.

As a com­pany we’re really com­mit­ted to achiev­ing the state’s—and hope­fully the world’s—ambition for car­bon reduc­tion, and Dia­blo is a vital resource for us today in our exist­ing fleet for how we are able to deliver as much clean energy as we do.” But, he said, it proved too awk­ward a piece of the puz­zle in an energy future based on a diverse, dynamic, decen­tral­ized set of resources.

PG&E’s deci­sion sup­ports an argu­ment artic­u­lated by Berke­ley Energy Pro­fes­sor Daniel Kam­men in a debate this sum­mer [to watch the debate, click here] with for­mer Energy Sec­re­tary Steven Chu: “The dra­matic ramp up in solar resulted in the dra­matic real­iza­tion that a diverse, decen­tral­ized sys­tem can pro­vide the same crit­i­cal fea­tures that we think about with a base­load highly cen­tral­ized sys­tem,” said Kammen.

Main Menu
RAEL Info

Energy & Resources Group
310 Barrows Hall
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720-3050
Phone: (510) 642-1640
Fax: (510) 642-1085
Email: ergdeskb@berkeley.edu


Projects

  • Open the Main Menu
  • People at RAEL

  • Open the Main Menu