Amid all the negative publicity that Solyndra’s failure has brought to the Administration’s cleantech efforts, one cleantech program has received broad bipartisan support: DOE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-e). In 2012, ARPA-e will receive $275 million, a 53% increase from the prior year with both the House and the Senate supporting significant funding for the agency’s third year of operations.

ARPA-e is modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which for over 50 years has funded early-stage research projects that show the potential to develop technologies that could yield disruptive advances for the military. DARPA’s projects have resulted in major leaps including, but definitely not limited to, the Internet, stealth technology and the Global Positioning System. Both agencies operate by soliciting proposals from companies, universities, and labs within broad thematic areas and select the most promising proposals for grant awards.

Readers of my blog know that I am not a big fan of some of the Administration’s cleantech efforts. ARPA-e is at least one exception. Authorized in the last year of the Bush Administration and initially funded through the Obama Administration’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the ARPA-e program may be one government program that can help seed the disruptive advances needed in our energy economy.

Why, given the negative publicity around government funding for cleantech projects, has ARPA-e been able to win bipartisan support?

Focus on early stage R&D
Government-funded R&D has long been an area of bipartisan support. Most members of Congress believe (as do I) that the government has a role in funding early-stage research and innovation in areas of public interest where the private sector is unable to economically justify conducting such R&D given the high degree of risk. Unlike the DOE loan program that funded Solyndra’s factories, the purpose of the ARPA-e grants are to fund high-risk, high-reward R&D projects that industry alone cannot support, but whose success could dramatically benefit the nation.

Grants (of reasonable size) not investments (of enormous size)
The bulk of the Administration’s cleantech investments were funded through the ARRA including the initial funding for ARPA-e. Since ARRA’s purpose was to stimulate the economy, government agencies, including DOE needed to get funds out the door as quickly as possible (unfortunately this failed). That led to many extremely large awards of both grants and loan guarantees. Just a few high profile examples — $527 million to Solyndra (bankrupt), $465 million to Tesla, $249 million to A123, $76 million to Range Fuels (bankrupt), $43 million to Beacon Power (bankrupt) and $25 million to Amyris. Some of these awards were grants; others were loans where the government hoped to get a return on its investment.

Unlike many other programs handing money out for cleantech related efforts, ARPA-e’s awards have all been grants made with the clear understanding that they are for high-risk R&D that often will not work out. In no case is there an expectation of a financial return to the government. Anytime a government program expects to make a return on investment it is, in my opinion, likely to fail both because the government is inherently flawed at making good business decisions and because politics usually won’t allow for even a single failed investment.

ARPA-e grants to date have averaged $2.9 million and have gone to 180 different projects. As a result, ARPA-e largely avoids the minefield of government trying to play businessman as well as the negative PR fall-out from large project failures. In addition, while politics can play a role in any grant process, the smaller the awards the less potential for political influence to outweigh project merit.

Energy Independence & Global Warming
ARPA-e’s guiding legislative mandate is to enhance the economic and energy security of the United States through the development of technologies that reduce energy imports, reduce energy-related emissions including greenhouse gases, and improve energy efficiency in all economic sectors. By combining the goal of energy independence with reduced greenhouse gas emissions the program is able to appeal to a much broader array of elected officials. If the program only focused on reducing greenhouse gases, I strongly suspect there would be much less support from Republicans. By avoiding the polarizing nature of focusing only on global warming or only on energy independence, ARPA-e is able to appeal to a broad audience.

One of the best ways to help solve our energy challenges is through disruptive energy technologies. If ARPA-e can deliver for energy technology even close to how well DARPA has delivered for defense technologies it will ultimately have a large impact on the economy, energy security and the environment. To achieve this, ARPA-e must remain nimble and avoid being sucked into the massive DOE bureaucracy. If it is able to do so, I suspect it will continue to have bipartisan support and will be a long-term shining star in the Administration’s cleantech efforts.

(Note: ARPA-e will hold their annual Innovation Summit February 27-29)

David Gold heads up cleantech investments for Access Venture Partners. He is also the author of the GreenGoldBlog.

Related posts:

• Bipartisan Group of Senators Introduce Renewable Electricity Standard
• Help Consumers Save Money by Saving Energy
• Obama Cleantech Stimulus: Bad Policy, Bad Politics and Bad for Cleantech
• Bipartisan Bill Wants an End to Corn Ethanol Subsidies
• Energy Star’s Video Challenge

There is a lot of discussion lately about domestic energy production and American energy security. For the Obama Administration, moving towards the goal of energy independence has been a clear priority since day one. When President Obama took office, the United States imported 11 million barrels of oil a day. The President has put forward a plan to cut that by one-third by 2025 by strengthening domestic production of our energy resources, making our homes and buildings more efficient, and transitioning to a wide range of clean energy technologies.

When it comes to domestic energy production, the numbers speak for themselves. Since 2008, U.S. oil and natural gas production has increased, while imports of foreign oil have decreased. Here are the facts: 

• In 2011, U.S. crude oil production reached its highest level since 2003, increasing by an estimated 90,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) over 2010 levels to 5.57 million bbl/d.   
• U.S. natural gas production grew by an estimated 7.4 percent in 2011– the largest year-over-year volumetric increase – and easily eclipsed the previous all-time production record set in 1973. 
• Overall, oil imports have been falling since 2008, and net imports as a share of total consumption declined from 57 percent in 2008 to 45 percent in 2011 – the lowest level since 1995. 

In May of last year, President Obama outlined a series of additional steps to expand domestic oil and gas production as part of his long-term plan to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. More specifically, the President directed the Department of Interior (DOI) to conduct annual lease sales in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve (NPR-A), speed up the evaluation of oil and gas resources in the mid- and south-Atlantic, develop new incentives for industry to develop unused leases both onshore and offshore, extend drilling leases in the areas of the Gulf impacted by the temporary moratorium following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and lease new areas in the Gulf of Mexico.

Significant progress has been made in many of these areas. For instance, in December 2011, DOI held the first oil and natural gas lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico since the oil spill. The sale, which covered over 1 million acres, attracted more than $338 million in total bids – about $100 million more than average for Western Gulf sales over the previous decade. During the same month, DOI held a lease sale in Alaska’s NPR-A that generated winning bids of over $3.6 million and covered 17 tracts on over 140,000 acres.

The Administration has also taken historic action to reduce our dependence on oil by making our cars and trucks more efficient. In July of last year, the President announced the next phase in the Administration’s program to increase fuel economy, which will require a performance equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon for model year 2017-2025 passenger vehicles. Taken together, the standards established under this Administration span Model Years 2011 to 2025. They will save American families money at the pump, for a total of $1.7 trillion in fuel savings over the life of the program. They will clean up our environment, cutting greenhouse gas emissions by more than 6 billion metric tons over the life of the program, while reducing pollutants like air toxics, cause soot, and smog.

These new fuel economy standards will dramatically cut our oil dependence, reducing consumption by an estimated 2.2 million barrels a day in 2025 (eventually reaching more than 4 million barrels a day as the fleet turns over), and saving 12 billion barrels in total over the lifetime of the program. To put that in perspective, it would take a pipeline that carried 700,000 barrels a day nearly 47 years to transport the amount of oil we are saving thanks to these new fuel economy standards.

Of course, the Administration has also been intent on developing and deploying clean energy technologies and positioning the United States as the global leader in the clean energy race. The Recovery Act invested more than $90 billion in clean energy, the largest such investment in America’s history. Those investments have created hundreds of thousands of jobs and spurred thousands of clean energy projects across the country. For example, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Loan Guarantee Program has already supported more than 40 clean energy projects that will ultimately employ more than 60,000 Americans. And because of Recovery Act investments, we are on track to double non-hydro renewable electricity generation from 2008 levels this year.

In short, the Obama Administration’s approach to achieving American energy independence has been a comprehensive and sustained effort, with emphasis on boosting domestic energy production, increasing efficiency, and transitioning to cleaner energy sources.

But what’s abundantly clear is that there are no silver bullets when it comes to this challenge. And the idea, as some in Washington have tried to suggest, that building a pipeline is the ultimate answer to the question of American energy security and job creation is nothing more than a pipe dream. The truth is that just two of the Administration’s programs – the DOE Loan Guarantee Program and the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards – will create more than 10 times the amount of jobs generated by the Keystone XL pipeline, which will only generate a few thousand temporary jobs. In terms of reducing America’s dependence on oil, the Administration’s fuel economy standards alone will save more than twice the amount of oil the Keystone pipeline would deliver.  

Related posts:

• The Case for National Security: Clean Energy
• Low-Cost Solar in Nevada
• Data Center Virtualization: Cloud Computing – Ease Up on Security to Keep Carbon Under Check?
• U.S. Military Must End Oil Dependence Within 30 Years, Report Says
• Solar-Powered Irrigation Boosting Household Incomes

The United States has implemented a variety of policies in the effort to cut back gasoline use. For example, the Obama Administration has invested federal dollars into GM’s electric vehicles. The EPA has introduced new fuel economy standards which are to be implemented over time, gradually becoming stricter. The government has also promoted the expansion of biofuels in automobile fuel. However, a new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), has shown that these policies are not only cost-effective, but do not sufficiently curb fuel usage. What is to be done to reduce fuel use and greenhouse gases from vehicle emissions?

Implementing a gasoline tax, by all measures, would be the most cost-effective way to reduce fuel use. Nothing influences a driver more than the effects on their wallet at the pump. In fact, the researchers found that a moderate tax could elicit the same reduction as all currently implemented policies at a sixth of the cost. Unfortunately, a new gas tax is highly unlikely to be adopted in the United States. It is simply politically unfeasible.

The MIT researchers found that implementing multiple policies to curb fuel use is not cost effective. They found that as the costs of the policies add up, the benefits do not. To come to this conclusion, they created a macroeconomic model which included information on advanced fuels and vehicles, ownership characteristics in different regions, and consumer investment in vehicle and fuel prices. It is an economic model in which advancements in technology is a major component.

The results show that the most politically possible solutions are also the most costly. This creates a great challenge for policy makers who must address this imbalance. It cannot be solved instantly, but instead must be a gradual process. MIT researcher, Valerie Karplus, explains:

“We need to find ways to get past the age-old debate, starting with what is possible today but with an eye to what might be possible tomorrow as today’s policies change underlying incentives. Right now, economists push for the most cost-effective measures, and the policy community responds that such measures are politically impossible.”

“Policies that are politically feasible now can be designed to maximize their cost-effectiveness, and every policy should include clear timelines for revisiting its impacts and for assessing the feasibility of moving to more cost-effective policies over time. That will help us achieve our critical energy security and climate goals.”

The study has been published in the Autumn 2011 edition of the journal, Energy Futures.

Article by David A. Gabel, appearing courtesy Environmental News Network.

Related posts:

• Is the Electric Car’s Tax-Free Ride Coming to an End?
• The New Breed of Cars
• Butanol as Gasoline Substitute from Bacteria
• Cane Ethanol Leader Brazil Considers Using Corn
• What Is The Real Environmental Cost of Electric Vehicles?

A recent Bloomberg survey of key energy decision-makers concluded that China shows more government support than any other country for funding renewable energy. It also shows equally high support for transformational clean technologies, like smart grids and electric cars. With the right government backing, China could address its own energy security issues with technology to spare for export.

The graphs charting China’s economic growth and energy demand mirror one another: each resembles the left side of a mountain with no peak in sight. By the IEA’s reckoning, China’s electricity demand alone will nearly triple by 2035. On the surface, this may come across as resoundingly bad news to environmentalists. However, China’s industrial cloud has a strong green lining. And unlike the Olympics, China’s not just using green paint this time.

This year, Bloomberg Businessweek Research Services in partnership with ABB surveyed energy professionals, government officials and CFOs about the future of energy, the opportunities and the barriers. Among the results of this 2011 Energy Survey, China emerged as the strongest government supporter of clean energy technologies.

China’s renewable energy: Readers may remember that China’s wind power capacity surpassed the United States in 2010, and continues to grow. The National Development and Reform Commission estimates that China, the world leader in wind, could generate as much as 1 TW of wind energy by 2050. Similarly, this year China bumped its four-year targets for solar generation up by 50%, and the shear volume of solar panel production from the People’s Republic had US solar manufacturers suddenly in a panic.

Where will the greenbacks for China’s green energy growth come from? The Bloomberg survey shows that nearly 90% of Chinese energy decision-makers believe that the government should fund renewable energy growth. That makes China far and away the most enthusiastic about government support of renewables. By contrast, fewer than 40% of Americans surveyed think it’s the government’s role to fund clean energy. In the ongoing war of words between China and the US over climate change and energy security, those numbers speak volumes.

Smart grids: China will likely soon also be the world’s biggest smart grid market. Last year alone, it invested 3.7 billion US dollars in modernizing its electricity grid, and the so-called “12th Five-Year Plan” calls for wide installation of smart meters, IT software and other components of a smart grid over the next few years. The 2011 Energy Survey reflects the same strong government support of smart grids as for renewable energy. All of the decision-makers surveyed agreed that updating China’s is either somewhat important or very important. Moreover, as with renewable energy, over 90% believe that continued investment in China’s smart grid will come from the government.

Electric vehicles: With a smart grid with vehicle to grid technology in place, electric vehicles (EVs) also become a convenient way to store and provide energy to the grid. China’s planning to have one million EVs on the road by 2014. To support these electric cars, it’s building 400 electric vehicle charging stations by 2016. According to the 2011 Energy Survey, over 80% of Chinese decision-makers believe that the Chinese government should support the EV infrastructure, a full ten percent more than the next leading country and a great deal more than the USA, where fewer than 40% agree with government support for EVs. To this tune, the Chinese government is investing 100 billion Yuan (15 bn USD) in alternative fuel vehicles over the next ten years.

The 2011 Energy Survey is still open for participation for members of the public to give their input on the future of energy and compare their views with those of energy market decision-makers. Take the survey. You can also view a detailed list of the survey’s conclusions and watch related videos. For a summary of the conclusions, see this infographic.

Article by Gavin Hudson, appearing courtesy Earth & Industry.

Related posts:

• China Pushes Commitments From Western Nations at Global Climate Talks
• China Named Leader in Green Energy Investing
• Investment in Renewables Outstrip Fossil Fuels in Europe and U.S.
• Wind Energy Could Meet China’s Energy Needs Until 2030
• First Solar Strikes a Global Deal

The good news is that on 8 November the International Energy Agency released its 2011 “World Energy Outlook.”

While it will cheer nuclear advocates, overall the report makes for grim reading.

Pulling no punches, the report states at the outset, “There are few signs that the urgently needed change in direction in global energy trends is underway.”

Stripped of its cautious language, the IEA report essentially noted that should present trends continue, the world’s governments through a lack of progressive initiative embracing alternative energy sources would continue to rely on ‘tried and true” fossil fuels, resulting in increased pollution, more fossil-fuel dependency and increasingly upward energy prices.

For environmentalists, this is all good news, but the report contained a caveat virtually anathema to all green movements, that accordingly, governments should reconsider their reluctance to embrace nuclear power, as it does not generate greenhouse gases.

Like many discussions in Western economies since 2008, when the global recession first began to draw blood, the issue of reliable energy production ultimately devolves down to dollars and cents issues.

The grim reality for environmentalists is that no single renewable energy resource, from wind power to solar energy through biofuels, has remotely become competitive with kilowatt hours of electrical energy generated by coal or oil-fired power plants. The debate pits those opposed to a transition to greener technologies to those considering the bottom line, despite greenhouse gas emissions.

Even worse for the environmentalists, the IEA report advocates that as a short-term solution, governments ought to reconsider nuclear power, as it produces zero CO2 emissions. Projecting into the future the report notes, “A low-nuclear future would also boost demand for fossil fuels: the increase in global coal demand is equal to twice the level of Australia’s current steam coal exports and the rise in gas demand is equivalent to two-thirds of Russia’s current natural gas exports. The net result would be to put additional upward pressure on energy prices, raise additional concerns about energy security and make it harder and more expensive to combat climate change. The consequences would be particularly severe for those countries with limited indigenous energy resources which have been planning to rely relatively heavily on nuclear power”

But while sketching out a bleak scenario should governments remain largely disengaged to the larger issues involved in energy production, the IEA report nevertheless ends on a cautiously optimistic note, with its authors concluding, “International concern about the issue of energy access is growing. The United Nations has declared 2012 to be the ‘International Year of Sustainable Energy for All’ and the Rio+20 Summit represents an important opportunity for action. More finance, from many sources and in many forms, is needed to provide modern energy for all, with solutions matched to the particular challenges, risks and returns of each category of project. Private sector investment needs to grow the most, but this will not happen unless national governments adopt strong governance and regulatory frameworks and invest in capacity building. The public sector, including donors, needs to use its tools to leverage greater private sector investment where the commercial case would otherwise be marginal. Universal access by 2030 would increase global demand for fossil fuels and related CO2 emissions by less than 1%, a trivial amount in relation to the contribution made to human development and welfare.”

Accordingly, what is most notable about the IEA report is two things.

First, energy options beyond dependence on traditional fossil fuels such as coal and oil not only exist, but are available in significant amounts to make a serious contribution.

Secondly, as Germany’s experience in weaning itself off nuclear energy is showing, the alternatives are more expensive than current power production modes.

According to the IEA’s scenarios then, the issue of global power production over the next two-three decades devolves upon two major issues.

The first is cost, which will undoubtedly be an uphill struggle for many governments seeking to meet the population’s rising energy demands, who will be loathe to endure increasing energy bills.

The second consideration is the contentious issue of global warming, and the impact of traditional fossil fuel-fired power plants belching vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

While even the most diehard proponents of traditional power plant electrical generation to not deny that their facilities emit significant amounts of carbon dioxide, they denigrate the concerns of environmentalists as ‘fuzzy science.”

So, at the end of the day, the two fundamental issues facing the world’s nations seeking to satiate their population’s demand for reliable and inexpensive power devolve down to cost and scientific projections. We’ll leave the final word to the IEA, which laid out three scenarios, ranging from best- to worst-case – “The wide difference in outcomes between these three scenarios underlines the critical role of governments to define the objectives and implement the policies necessary to shape our energy future.” Accordingly, the major question is whether global governments will have both the cash and political will “to shape our energy future” to the best possible ends.

Article by John C.K. Daly, appearing courtesy Oilprice.com.

Related posts:

• Renewables Provide Greater Share of U.S. Power Than Nuclear
• Is Belgium the Next Country to Switch Off Nuclear Power?
• Smaller Nuclear Reactors Recommended as Good Option for U.S.
• Japan Signals Move Towards Renewable Energy
• Countries Shelve Nuclear Plans In Wake Of Accident

At events such as the recent EV Roadmap 4 conference in Portland, panelists quibble about when plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) will be ready for mass adoption, and how best to roll out the charging infrastructure. But to understand why the PEV movement is here to stay, it only takes two words: energy security.

The idea of reducing dependence on foreign oil has been a political stalking horse for at least the past decade. But its impact is starkly demonstrated in Oil Shockwave, a war game-like simulation that enlists former cabinet members and other top-ranked officials to devise strategies to react to disruptions in the global oil market. Sam Ori of the Electrification Coalition presented an abbreviated version of Oil Shockwave to the attendees of EV Roadmap. The exercise, which explores a reduction in the flow of oil that causes the cost of to spike near $200 a barrel, was created by the group Securing America’s Future Energy and has been played out for the past 5 years at meetings of policymakers and business executives.

In the current scenario, a terrorist attack on a major fuel processing plant in Abqaiq, Saudi Arabia, slows global oil production, and Venezuela and Iran decide to exacerbate the situation for the US and other dependent nations by simultaneously reducing their production. None of the responses devised by the big brains during an energy summit this summer, which included political pressure on Saudi Arabia or releasing some of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, had a tangible impact on the global price of crude oil. The market power of OPEC, Ori explained, outweighs even the military might of the United States and exposes the country to a further potential economic crisis.

The demonstration did not detail the local impacts of the near doubling of the cost of a tank of gas and reduced availability, but it’s safe to assume that owners of conventional cars would feel the sting much more than those who plug in for power. In places like Hawaii, which has just a six-day supply of oil on hand, a temporary disruption of the oil supply would be devastating since the fossil fuel is used for both power generation and transportation.

The Oil Shockwave demonstration leads to the inevitable conclusion that the only way to prepare the country for this sort of event is to reduce our dependency on oil. Since transportation accounts for the majority of the oil consumption, electrifying the vehicle fleet is an effective means of doing so.

This sobering assessment clarifies why the federal government has dedicated thousands of hours and billions of dollars on developing alternatives. That PEVs today are in some cases cheaper to operate than petroleum powered cars and can provide environmental benefits that are significant but secondary side-effects.

Government leaders from China to Canada have recognized this risk and are using a combination of incentives and mandates to ignite PEV demand. In a free market economy, though, it’s ultimately up to the auto industry to develop vehicles that are worthy of consideration, and for consumers to buy the vehicles. The conference also included a focus group of average consumers who were mostly clueless about PEVs. The lack of understanding made it clear that the industry has made little progress in outlining the benefits to consumers of the convenience and fun of driving a PEV as average consumers – much less in underlining the national security risk of not shifting to electric vehicles.

Article by John Gartner, appearing courtesy the Matter Network.

Related posts:

• Exploring Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture
• Nukes or Fossil Fuels? Germany Rejects False Choice
• World Energy – Where Are We Going?
• Nokia Tests Solar Power For Cell Phones
• Solar Company Develops Plant-Based Solar Modules

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has just approved the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm, a 550-megawatt (MW) solar power project to be built in the California desert east of Palm Springs. The solar-photovoltaic facility will create more than 630 jobs at peak construction and infuse an estimated $336 million into the local economy. When built, Desert Sunlight will generate enough energy to power over 165,000 homes.

“The Desert Sunlight Solar Farm is the largest photovoltaic facility Interior has approved thus far and, when built, will help power our nation and economy,” Secretary Salazar said. “With 12 large-scale solar projects approved in the last 18 months, we continue to make significant strides in spurring innovation, job-creation, and investment in the private sector while strengthening America’s energy security.”

The facility will use thin film photovoltaic (PV) technology, which generates electricity with low visual impact, no air emissions, waste production or water use, and has the smallest carbon footprint of any PV technology. An on-site substation and a 230-kiloVolt (kV) generation tie line will connect the project to the Red Bluff substation which will convert the power from 230 kV to 500kV for transmission on Southern California Edison’s regional grid.

There are several existing solar power plants in the Mojave Desert which supply power to the electricity grid. Solar Energy Generating Systems (SEGS) is the name given to nine solar power plants in the Mojave Desert which were built in the 1980s. These plants have a combined capacity of 354 megawatts (MW) making them the largest solar power installation in the world. Nevada Solar One is a solar thermal plant with a 64 MW generating capacity, located near Boulder City, Nevada. The Copper Mountain Solar Facility is a 48 MW photovoltaic power plant in Boulder City, Nevada.

The Blythe Solar Power Project is a 968 MW solar thermal power station under construction in Riverside County, California. The Ivanpah Solar Power Facility is a 370 MW facility under construction which will consist of three separate solar thermal power plants. There are also plans to build other large solar plants in the Mojave Desert.

Insolation (solar radiation) in the Mojave Desert is among the best available in the United States, and some significant population centers are located in the area. These plants can generally be built in a few years because solar plants are built almost entirely with modular, readily available materials, although financing has been difficult and the projects typically receive government-backed financing.

In June, the U.S. Department of Energy granted Desert Sunlight a conditional commitment of a $1.88 billion loan guarantee. The project, about six miles north of the rural community of Desert Center, is expected to generate $336 million for the local economy from indirect benefits, including $197 million in wages. More than three quarters of the total impact will be occur during the construction period, with the remainder taking place over the project’s 25-year operating period. The project will also generate about $27 million in sales and property tax revenue to Riverside County.

The present decision authorizes the BLM to offer Desert Sunlight Holdings a right-of-way grant to use these public lands for 30 years if all rents and other conditions are met. The Record of Decision also approves amendments to the BLM’s California Desert Conservation Area Plan, identifying the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm site as available for solar energy development and identifying 14,500 acres in the Project Study Area as unavailable for solar energy development. The BLM oversees more than 1.5 million acres in Riverside County, including nearly a million acres managed for conservation.

The Desert Sunlight project is part of Interior’s priority approach to processing existing applications for renewable energy development on public lands in a coordinated, focused manner with full environmental analysis and public review. It is the 12th solar project to advance since Secretary made renewable energy a priority for the Department in March 2009, and the 3rd solar project in 2011. In July, Salazar approved two utility-scale solar developments in California, a wind energy project in Oregon, and a transmission line in Southern California that together will create more than 1,300 construction jobs and provide a combined 550 megawatts of electricity.

Article by Andy Soos, appearing courtesy Environmental News Network.

Related posts:

• World’s Largest Solar Plant Nears Approval in California Desert
• Schwarzenegger’s Legacy: California – A Green Hub
• Israel Electric Corp. to Build $1.3 Billion Chinese Solar Project
• Major Solar Power Farm in Austin Under Construction
• French Loan to Finance South African Eskom Wind Project

The idea that electric vehicles could be used as power storage for the home is not new, but in current blackout-prone Japan, the country needs to find ways to secure some level of energy security.

Enter the Nissan LEAF. Recently, in Japan, Nissan unveiled a system for using its LEAF electric vehicle model to feed power back to a house at moments of power outage or shortage.

The two-way system made of lithium-ion batteries can help ease load on the grid during peak hours and allows EV owners to buy their power during the cheaper night hours. The system operated from a 200V single-phase three wire AC input. A switch on the display panel gives users the option to either charge the battery or supply power to the home. A display shows battery power level and information about current.

The Nissan Leaf batteries can store up to 24kWh of electricity, which is enough for an average Japanese home for two days. But, as BNet notes, this level of capacity wouldn’t work in the U.S.

In Japan, however, it does and it’s necessary. The country has been plagued with blackouts since the earthquake and tsunami in March. With the government’s decision to phase out nuclear, it needs to make the most of its power capacity while authorities think up and implements viable alternative energy systems.

Article by Antonio Pasolini, a Brazilian writer and video art curator based in London, UK. He holds a BA in journalism and an MA in film and television.

Related posts:

• New Electric Car in Israel Includes Battery Swap Subscriptions
• Analysts Say Battery Prices Are Key to Lower Electric Vehicle Prices
• Anxiety Over The Range of Electric Vehicles
• New MIT Battery Design Could Double Range of Electric Cars
• New Battery Uses Seawater and Freshwater to Produce Electricity

Chevron is a multinational energy corporation located in the United States but active in over 180 countries worldwide. Chevron is engaged in a number of industries, including gas, oil and geothermal energy. Chevron is known as one of the six “supermajor” oil companies in the world. In the last five years, Fortune 500 has listed Chevron as one of the five largest corporations in America. Forbes Global 2000 listed Chevron as the sixteenth largest public company in 2011. Even though they deal with oil and gas exploration, Chevron has been involved in a number of clean technology initiatives.

1) Chevron Energy Solutions. A national leader in clean energy development and innovation, Chevron Energy Solutions established a variety of sustainable energy initiatives that will increase energy efficiency and renewable energy, reduce energy costs, and ensure reliable, high quality energy for education, business, and government facilities. The objectives of Chevron Energy Solutions initiatives are to reduce harmful environmental impacts, reduce taxes, improve energy efficiency in public buildings, support sustainability objectives, advance energy security, and increase economic growth on a local level.

2) Chevron and Solar Power. In the state of California Chevron is known as the largest developer of solar photovoltaic projects. Chevron is credited with being the top installation company of solar products in different educational institutions. To date, Chevron has installed more than 128,000 solar panels. The San Jose k-12 Unified School District was the recipient of the largest solar power program and the Contra Costa Community College District, through Chevron, has the biggest solar power system of all higher education institutions throughout America. Lastly, Oakland, California’s Postal Service office has the largest rooftop solar energy system of all federal systems in the United States.

3) Chevron Uses a Solar Plant for Steam Generation. To build a solar thermal plant in California, Chevron employed solar startup company BrightSource for assistance. However, this will not be used for electricity but for steam generation. This energy will be used to get oil from below ground level. Sergio Hoyos, a business developer with Chevron Technology Ventures said that even thought natural gas cannot be replaced by solar thermal power when it comes to steam production, it will provide the oil company with a beneficial opportunity to decrease carbon dioxide emissions and utilize a good source of renewable energy.

4) Chevron Looking to Tap Geothermal Energy in Indonesia. A number of utility, energy, gas, and oil companies are entering into Indonesia and looking for geothermal energy – Chevron is one of them. To date, Chevron has drilled more than 80 wells, with each one going down approximately two miles. The energy that is trapped is able to provide enough electricity for Jakarta. The Indonesian president has offered a number of subsidies to Chevron and other companies that are drilling for clean energy.

5) Chevron Offers Energy Solutions for Schools. Chevron was asked by the University of California, Davis to assist them in making their West Village campus a net-zero energy user. Aside from passive solar technology and other energy efficiency designs, the developers at Chevron are looking to use onsite solar panels as well as a biodigester. “What we valued that Chevron Energy Solutions provided is a comprehensive input on an evolving area, both in energy conservation and renewable energy generation,” says Nolan Zales of Carmel Partners, the co-developer of UC Davis’ West Village. “Within their shop they have skills that address a whole array of issues: technical, financial, regulatory. … They’re the most comprehensive.”

6) Chevron a Part of Completing Hawaii’s Largest Solar Parking Canopy Project. Chevron Energy Solutions has partnered with Oceanic Time Warner Cable and Tioga Energy to create an 856 kilowatt solar system at the Mililani Tech Park. This will be the largest solar parking canopy project in the state of Hawaii. Chevron Energy Solutions are attributed with designing, engineering, and constructing the solar project, which includes solar photovoltaic panels placed on two building and parking canopies. This project is expected to decrease carbon dioxide emissions equal to the carbon sequestered annually by over 225 trees. This new instillation is expected to assist Oceanic Time Warner Cable with achieving Gold Certificate LEED status with the USGBC.

7) Chevron Partners with High School for Two Megawatt Solar Project. San Dieguito Union High School announced with Chevron Energy Solutions in February 2011 the completion of a two megawatt solar project that is expected to save the school district over $10 million during the course of the project. The solar project is producing an estimated 70 percent of all electricity needed. Because the district is reducing how much utility power it buys, the district has been able to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 2,200 metric tons. The cost of this project was offset by over $4.7 million which was obtained through a rebate from the California Solar Initiative and additional funding was provided by the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

8 ) Chevron Completes Solar Project at Santa Monica College. Santa Monica College in California partnered with Chevron Energy Solutions in October 2010 for the construction of a new solar and energy efficiency project that will save the college over an estimated $14 million throughout the life of the new project. This project included a 408 kilowatt solar system that will generate power for two garages and a significant amount of the Business Education Building. Chevron designed, engineered, and installed the system and they operate it as well.

9) Chevron Works on a Number of Energy Efficiency Initiatives in Orange County. Chevron Energy solutions currently has a number of projects being worked on in Orange County, California. These projects are expected to save the local City of Brea and two school districts in the county over an estimated $40 million throughout the life of these projects via energy efficiency improvements as well as the installation of over three megawatts of solar power generation. These projects are expected to reduce carbon dioxide emission by over an approximated 88,000 tons.

10) Chevron Works with City of Brea for 1.8 Megawatt Solar Project. Chevron Energy Solutions and the California City of Brea announced the beginning of construction of a solar and energy efficiency project that is expected to save the city over $13 million in net energy savings throughout the life of the project. Brea will soon become the largest municipal production of solar energy within the entire Orange Country once 1.8 megawatts of solar panels are installed throughout the Reservoir City Pump Yard, Civic and Cultural Center, and Community Center. These projects are expected to reduce energy use by over 40 percent and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by over 86,000 metric tons. As well, the project is slated to stimulate the local economy by creating over 100 jobs.

Article by Shawn Lesser, Co-founder & Managing Partner of Atlanta-based Watershed Capital Group – an investment bank assisting sustainable fund and companies raise capital, perform acquisitions, and in other strategic financial decisions. He is also a Co-founder of the GCCA Global Cleantech Cluster Association ”The Global Voice of Cleantech”. He writes for various cleantech publications and is known as the David Letterman of Cleantech for his “Top 10″ series. He can be reached at shawn@watershedcapital.com

Related posts:

• Chevron Ordered to Pay Ecuador $8.6 Billion for Environmental Damages
• Big, bad oil companies and energy efficiency
• Oil Spill in Brazil Bigger Than Chevron Admits, NGO Says
• Environmental Change: If I Were the New CEO of Chevron…
• Waxman-Markey’s Chevron Redux?

Jordan’s growing economy has been hobbled by the fact that it currently imports 95 percent of its energy needs.

During the “Energy Security in the Middle East and the Gulf Region” seminar held in the capital Amman earlier this week, a number of analysts stated that the country could benefit by shifting its resources to embrace the renewable energy sector.

Ahmad Azzam, heading a World Bank-financed study estimating potential renewable energy sources and their costs for Jordan told attendees that Jordan’s theoretical potential to benefit from wind and solar energy surpasses that of the U.S., Britain, France, China and Russia combined, quipping, “So if we utilize our renewable energy resources, we may be able to secure a permanent seat in the UN Security Council,” the Jordan Times reported.

Energy Charter Secretariat senior expert Patrice Dreiski commented that Middle Eastern nations are “the most promising” in the field of renewable energy, emphasizing in particular solar power as a significant resource and “potential for cooperation,” observing, “Sunshine is abundant in Jordan. It offers great prospects as a resource that can be exploited.”

The seminar was organized by the Arab Institute for Security Studies, in partnership with the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS) and the Energy Research Program. KAS Resident Representative Martin Beck said that the purpose of the two-day forum was to survey regional examined energy problems from the region’s “point of view,” away from Western interests and influence.

Article by Charles Kennedy, appearing courtesy OilPrice.com.

Related posts:

• Israeli Desalination Researchers Receive NATO Money to Set Up Pilot Sites
• Value of Conserving Habitats Could be Worth $500B Annually to World’s Poor
• Clean Energy Market Emerges for India’s Rural Poor
• Higher Demand for Biomass Can Drive Up Land Grabs
• Climate Change Inaction is the Real War on the World’s Poor