What's the big (energy) idea?
November 2, 2010 9:30 AM Subscribe
Say a group of citizens in a fairly progressive US state wanted to run an initiative campaign [i.e., pass a law by popular vote] that would implement one big, state-wide renewable energy effort. What should it be?
Think, what's attainable and effective today, that needs mostly political will rather than technological wizardry. Ideally, the program would be straight-forward and explainable in its details, measurably promote renewable power, and subsidize job-creation -- a sort of state-level Apollo Project. Something, in other words, which is game-changing, and feasible, and defensible to your cranky uncle who doesn't believe in climate change.
Example: Raise the state's gas tax by 25 cents/gallon and use the funds to provide tax credits of up to, say, $5,000 for people installing residential solar panels.
----
What are your thoughtful (brilliant?!) concepts for this Big (Energy) Idea?
Think, what's attainable and effective today, that needs mostly political will rather than technological wizardry. Ideally, the program would be straight-forward and explainable in its details, measurably promote renewable power, and subsidize job-creation -- a sort of state-level Apollo Project. Something, in other words, which is game-changing, and feasible, and defensible to your cranky uncle who doesn't believe in climate change.
Example: Raise the state's gas tax by 25 cents/gallon and use the funds to provide tax credits of up to, say, $5,000 for people installing residential solar panels.
----
What are your thoughtful (brilliant?!) concepts for this Big (Energy) Idea?
I should add that large-scale energy storage (to level out supply) and/or ways to level out demand are important adjuncts to pretty much any alternative way of generating electricity.
posted by Good Brain at 9:47 AM on November 2, 2010
posted by Good Brain at 9:47 AM on November 2, 2010
i-937 in Washington might be a good place to start your research.
posted by Ideal Impulse at 10:14 AM on November 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Ideal Impulse at 10:14 AM on November 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
Public ownership of power generation and distribution.
posted by rhizome at 10:53 AM on November 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by rhizome at 10:53 AM on November 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Seconding (strongly) what Good Brain says about current resources, because without knowing that, you're dead in the water.
One widely applicable concept that recently is getting a lot more attention and implementation is the concept of a smart grid. It would be an update to the largely antiquated systems in the US, work well with the idea of renewables and selling back to the grid etc, and be applicable to industrial users that can time their consumption based on demand across the network (i.e. rates and optimizing production). Among other things.
It can take a bit of background reading to get your head around the technology and the possibilities, but you might find it worthwhile. Some of the best information I have seen is on the Jeju Test Bed in Korea (wikipedia, website) - there are lots of pictures. But these are being considered or implemented in some parts of the US.
posted by whatzit at 11:07 AM on November 2, 2010
One widely applicable concept that recently is getting a lot more attention and implementation is the concept of a smart grid. It would be an update to the largely antiquated systems in the US, work well with the idea of renewables and selling back to the grid etc, and be applicable to industrial users that can time their consumption based on demand across the network (i.e. rates and optimizing production). Among other things.
It can take a bit of background reading to get your head around the technology and the possibilities, but you might find it worthwhile. Some of the best information I have seen is on the Jeju Test Bed in Korea (wikipedia, website) - there are lots of pictures. But these are being considered or implemented in some parts of the US.
posted by whatzit at 11:07 AM on November 2, 2010
WA also requires that energy utilities buy electricity from subscribers at premium rates. Ie, if a person installs enough solar panels that they're generating more power than they're using during the day, the excess gets sold to the utility (deducted from the home owner's power bill) at the premium price, rather than the base price. This means that solar installations pay for themselves much quicker.
My understanding is that in places where utilities are not required to buy back excess generation, they generally don't bother, which is a disincentive to solar.
I think WA also subsidizes that payback if the panels were purchased from a WA supplier. To the point where a solar array can pay for itself and start turning a profit for the homeowner in less than ten years.
posted by -harlequin- at 11:33 AM on November 2, 2010
My understanding is that in places where utilities are not required to buy back excess generation, they generally don't bother, which is a disincentive to solar.
I think WA also subsidizes that payback if the panels were purchased from a WA supplier. To the point where a solar array can pay for itself and start turning a profit for the homeowner in less than ten years.
posted by -harlequin- at 11:33 AM on November 2, 2010
Thirding strongly what Good Brian said about Government shouldn't be in the business of picking technological winners.
An initiative needs to be simple and quickly grasped. Anything complex will just get reduced to sound bites anyway. So you should focus on a single big idea that will drive good behavior. I think that the issue is reducing carbon emissions. California's AB32 (Global Warming Solutions Act) may be a good place to start looking for ideas.
posted by Long Way To Go at 1:17 PM on November 2, 2010
An initiative needs to be simple and quickly grasped. Anything complex will just get reduced to sound bites anyway. So you should focus on a single big idea that will drive good behavior. I think that the issue is reducing carbon emissions. California's AB32 (Global Warming Solutions Act) may be a good place to start looking for ideas.
posted by Long Way To Go at 1:17 PM on November 2, 2010
Have a look at the Australian REC scheme, which requires energy generators to purchase a certain number of RECs (renewable energy certificates) for each MWh of energy sold from non-renewable sources. RECs are created by generators of renewable energy and then sold at market-prices to the non-renewable generators. Non-renweable generators who surrender insufficient RECs to the govt are fined about 2x the REC market price on their shortfall.
That way if there are lots of renewable installations, the REC price falls and otherwise it rises, so the market for RECs brings the renewable/non-renewable energy prices closer to being aligned. In other words, it's a means of both bringing externalities back into the market and getting coal-burners to subsidise the creation of renewable energy sources. Contrary to a bunch of whingeing from the former, it is not a tax but a direct redistribution of cash from one energy sector to another.
We also have stuff like smart-grid initiatives, off-peak reductions in electricity pricing, rebates (additional to RECs) for solar HWS installations, bans on new electric HWS installations, mandated sell-back prices for renewable energy (so you can sell your PV output to the grid at about 2x the normal retail price), etc.
posted by polyglot at 4:45 PM on November 2, 2010
That way if there are lots of renewable installations, the REC price falls and otherwise it rises, so the market for RECs brings the renewable/non-renewable energy prices closer to being aligned. In other words, it's a means of both bringing externalities back into the market and getting coal-burners to subsidise the creation of renewable energy sources. Contrary to a bunch of whingeing from the former, it is not a tax but a direct redistribution of cash from one energy sector to another.
We also have stuff like smart-grid initiatives, off-peak reductions in electricity pricing, rebates (additional to RECs) for solar HWS installations, bans on new electric HWS installations, mandated sell-back prices for renewable energy (so you can sell your PV output to the grid at about 2x the normal retail price), etc.
posted by polyglot at 4:45 PM on November 2, 2010
I'd have a look at the AWEA Legislative Pages before trying to reinvent the wheel. You may be surprised at just how many renewable initiatives already exist. Many states have mandated REC systems with near-term (for the industry) deadlines.
Wholesale electricity (generation, transmission, distribution) is *hard* and very expensive. These things take time. Transmission is a huge issue, as is an aging workforce. These days electricity just isn't sexy like electronics (or the internet) is.
posted by clicking the 'Post Comment' button at 6:17 PM on November 2, 2010
Wholesale electricity (generation, transmission, distribution) is *hard* and very expensive. These things take time. Transmission is a huge issue, as is an aging workforce. These days electricity just isn't sexy like electronics (or the internet) is.
posted by clicking the 'Post Comment' button at 6:17 PM on November 2, 2010
Response by poster: Thanks to everyone for your insightful comments. (Given that this is somewhat more than a hypothetical, your comments have a small (small, small) chance of making some a positive change in energy, climate and pollution. So, thanks!) I'm not convinced that picking a winner is actually a bad idea, entirely; government (our state gov't, e.g.) already does so with a variety of tax credits, namely, for wind power, and, of course, in subsidizing coal power. I do take the point, however, that perhaps the most effective approach will be to set incentives such that a variety of renewable projects could be employed to reach some specific goals.
So one approach might be tax credits to subsidize residents installing RE systems (solar, wind, whatever) coupled with legislation mandating utilities purchase it at generous minimum sell-back prices. Potential gain on both sides for the resident (reduced, low-entry cost RE installation on the front end; market-plus credit for the RE generated, on the back end).
Again, thanks.
posted by slab_lizard at 9:19 PM on November 2, 2010
So one approach might be tax credits to subsidize residents installing RE systems (solar, wind, whatever) coupled with legislation mandating utilities purchase it at generous minimum sell-back prices. Potential gain on both sides for the resident (reduced, low-entry cost RE installation on the front end; market-plus credit for the RE generated, on the back end).
Again, thanks.
posted by slab_lizard at 9:19 PM on November 2, 2010
Response by poster: PS: I stopped picking favorite answers because pretty much you're all winners. No, really, a page of light green "favorited" blocks of text looks dorkish.
posted by slab_lizard at 9:21 PM on November 2, 2010
posted by slab_lizard at 9:21 PM on November 2, 2010
I think, in general, governments and policies do better when they don't pick winning technologies, but set clear goals and regulations (to avoid encouraging undesirable side-effects) and provide incentives for those achieving those goals.
I disagree strongly with this. Efforts to support RE in Europe have seen policy enacted which has taken two routes. The older concept of the feed-in tariff (FIT) and the more recent quota mechanism. The roughly half of US states that have Re policy use a form of quota mechanism known as the Renewable Portfolio Standard. A few EU nations use it, bbut most use a FIT. The quota was held to be more market oriented since it compels companies to compete to buy green certificates but allows them to do so from the cheapest available source. The tariff fixes a price for renewable energy, typically a different price for each technology this allows a basket of technologies to be developed. The theory underlying the quota is that it would be the cheapest way to develop RE. However, now that quotas have been in use for some time the evidence is that the FITs are cheaper. This is thought to be because FITs offer a reduced degree of price, volume, balancing and probably regulatory risk than quotas. The upshot this is lower capital costs associated with RE technology developed with the support of a tariff than a quota and susequently lower prices. This was suggested a few years ago by various academics but even the International Energy Agency (not a bunch quick to condemn the free market typically) has come round to the idea that the instrument which appears to be less intrinsically competitive offers the best value.
The American Wind Energy Association, after long compaigning for a nationwide RPS has begun to campaign for a tariff instead as a result of the European experience.
Some work by Finon and Menanteau suggested that the quota might demonstrate better static efficiency, ie be better at enabling particular targets to be hit for RE installation (eg 10% by 2010) while FITs might have better dynamic efficiency, ie be cheaper in enabling long term cost reduction of technologies. However, I would regard it as implicit to the eivdence gathered since, as described above, that FITs are likely to be more efficient in both regards than quotas.
It is also worth pointing out that acccessing and maximising new industrial capacity is likely to be more difficult in a policy framework which declines to pick winners as it reduces the potential to maintain a steady domestic demand which will discourage plant investment.
posted by biffa at 5:10 PM on November 27, 2010
I disagree strongly with this. Efforts to support RE in Europe have seen policy enacted which has taken two routes. The older concept of the feed-in tariff (FIT) and the more recent quota mechanism. The roughly half of US states that have Re policy use a form of quota mechanism known as the Renewable Portfolio Standard. A few EU nations use it, bbut most use a FIT. The quota was held to be more market oriented since it compels companies to compete to buy green certificates but allows them to do so from the cheapest available source. The tariff fixes a price for renewable energy, typically a different price for each technology this allows a basket of technologies to be developed. The theory underlying the quota is that it would be the cheapest way to develop RE. However, now that quotas have been in use for some time the evidence is that the FITs are cheaper. This is thought to be because FITs offer a reduced degree of price, volume, balancing and probably regulatory risk than quotas. The upshot this is lower capital costs associated with RE technology developed with the support of a tariff than a quota and susequently lower prices. This was suggested a few years ago by various academics but even the International Energy Agency (not a bunch quick to condemn the free market typically) has come round to the idea that the instrument which appears to be less intrinsically competitive offers the best value.
The American Wind Energy Association, after long compaigning for a nationwide RPS has begun to campaign for a tariff instead as a result of the European experience.
Some work by Finon and Menanteau suggested that the quota might demonstrate better static efficiency, ie be better at enabling particular targets to be hit for RE installation (eg 10% by 2010) while FITs might have better dynamic efficiency, ie be cheaper in enabling long term cost reduction of technologies. However, I would regard it as implicit to the eivdence gathered since, as described above, that FITs are likely to be more efficient in both regards than quotas.
It is also worth pointing out that acccessing and maximising new industrial capacity is likely to be more difficult in a policy framework which declines to pick winners as it reduces the potential to maintain a steady domestic demand which will discourage plant investment.
posted by biffa at 5:10 PM on November 27, 2010
« Older Follow the bouncing iPhoto icon. | What "life skills" do you wish you had been taught... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
I think, in general, governments and policies do better when they don't pick winning technologies, but set clear goals and regulations (to avoid encouraging undesirable side-effects) and provide incentives for those achieving those goals.
posted by Good Brain at 9:44 AM on November 2, 2010