Energy diversity is not some tree-hugger dream; its also the wish of the military brass

According to a new briefing by the Military Advisory Board comprised of high-ranking retired military leaders: Ensuring America’s Freedom of Movement: A National Security Imperative to Reduce U.S. Oil Dependence. , the US needs “immediate, swift and aggressive action over the next decade to achieve the 30 percent reduction in U.S. oil consumption.” This report

“We have seen oil shocks before. And they have been immediate and far-reaching. But at today’s level of US consumption, a sustained disruption would be devastating – crippling our very freedom of movement,” said General Paul Kern, USA (Ret.) who chairs the MAB. “Our enemies know this fact and they exploit it at will.”

Citing the diverging trajectories of oil supply and demand, with countries such as China, India and other developing countries stepping on the accelerator, the leaders write, “Worldwide demand for oil is increasing at an alarming rate… Our military experience tells us transitional moments such as these are important and they come and go quickly. When the moment is ripe, we must act or fight our way out of the consequences of inaction.”

“You could wake up tomorrow morning and hear that the Iranians sense an attack on their nuclear power plants,” General James T. Conway, USMC (Ret) said. “And so they preemptively take steps to shut off the flow of oil in the Gulf. The U.S. would likely view this as a threat to our economy, and we would take action. And there we are, drawn into it.”

CNA analyzed the potential economic impact of a future oil disruption in one critical industrial sector that is heavily dependent on petroleum: the U.S. trucking industry. The analysis measured the effect of four different theoretical blockages in the flow of oil, each lasting 30 days, in the Strait of Hormuz, the Suez Canal, Bab el-Mandeb, and the Panama Canal.

Under a worst-case scenario 30-day closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the analysis finds that the U.S. would lose nearly $75 billion in GDP. But cutting current levels of U.S. oil dependence by 30 percent, the impact would be nearly zero. Oak Ridge National Laboratory found complementary results when measuring the impact of oil flow disruptions on other sectors.

MAB Vice-Chair Admiral Lee Gunn, USN (Ret.) adds that a meaningful reduction in U.S. reliance on imported petroleum over the next decade would provide substantial economic as well as security benefits. “Currently, our collective national conscience is focused on jobs, and rightly so,” he says. “Our economy is in serious trouble. But rather than divert us from the task, moving away from oil could contribute to restoring our economic strength.”

The military could benefit significantly from a 30 percent reduction in U.S. oil consumption, according to the report. Achieving a 30 percent reduction would undoubtedly require new methods of efficiency that would translate directly to the battlefield. In addition to greater efficiency resulting in saving lives by decreasing dangerous battlefield fuel convoys, a 30 percent reduction would spawn diversified power sources other than oil. Less oil use equals less oil we are required to import and greater flexibility for military presence in dangerous parts of the world. This flexibility could translate into putting fewer American troops in harm’s way and keeping more dollars at home.

 

Sen. Sessions is wrong; even Forbes Mag. recognizes that replacing Eisenhower-Era Power Plants will create jobs.

Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions wants to allow Big Business to pee in our cisterns for a little longer, just until the economy recovers.

He began a Op-ed  this weekend opposing public health rules:

A storm cloud over the economy briefly lifted this month when President Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency to withdraw its proposal to tighten the nation’s ozone standards.

I hate to tell him that like the smog cloud over Birmingham, this supposed “storm cloud over the economy” was created by his Big Business cronies. “Today’s forecasts of economic doom are nearly identical — almost word for word — to the doomsday predictions of the last 40 years,” EPA chief Lisa Jackson said in a September speech. “This ‘broken record’ continues despite the fact that history has proven the doomsayers wrong again and again.”

To begin his argument, Sen. Sessions actually tries to downplay the danger of high-ozone levels in his op-ed. When reading his argument, remember that Birmingham, out of 277 metro areas natiowide, has the 21st highest ozone levels. So he may be right; Alabama metro regions may be in “non-attainment” and for good reason.

Despite that fact. he says:

Ozone is a naturally occurring gas.

It is also associated with emissions from cars, factories, and power plants, and as each summer reminds us, ozone concentrations are highest on hot days.

As a result of EPA tightening the standards significantly in 2008, allowable ozone concentrations are 40 percent lower now than in the 1970s.

He, at least,  acknowledges here the effectiveness of the EPA and the Clean Air Act, unlike Rep. Mike Rogers, over the years.  However, while “ozone is a naturally occurring gas”, he fails to mention that 40% of unhealthy ozone in Alabama comes from out-dated coal-burning power plants.

He also failed to mention the numerous studies which confirm the numbers of lives saved by reducing unhealthy ozone levels.  For instance, “in 2008 a committee of the National Research Council, a division of the National Academy of Sciences, reviewed the evidence again and concluded that ‘short-term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths.‘ They recommended that preventing early death be included in any future estimates of the benefits of reducing ozone.”

Sen. Sessions does not include such life-saving in his calculus. According to the EPA’s own analysis, the smog standards Sessions now opposes could save over 12,000 lives from heart attacks, lung disease and asthma attacks by implementing the new standards. He fails to consider such despite that Justice Antonin Scalia – one of the court’s most conservative members – himself wrote in a unanimous opinion that the Clean Air Act “unambiguously bars cost considerations from the NAAQS-setting process and thus ends the matter for us as well as the EPA.”

No, he only considers what his industry-masters have told him.  Instead of relying upon the Congress’s own findings, he cites a report from Manufacture Alliance, an industry front group. That report has been utterly discredited:

The methodology used in this report is invalid; no economist worth his or her salt would stand by it. Rather than providing rigorous economic analysis to help improve public policy decisions, MAPI’s sole objective in issuing this report was to generate scary cost estimates and undermine measures to improve public health.

Instead of relying upon such a biased report, he could have read what Congress’ own research had produced. A recent report from the US Congress’s Congressional Research Service debunks some of the Session’s and the  industry scare-tactics over proposed public-health laws.

Seems these days, there are a zillion Big Business leaders, their puppets in Congress and legions of corporate cheerleaders crying wolf over the regulations that keep you, me and our fellow countrymen safe from unchecked corporate greed. The latest example of this is a study by the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), the largest trade association representing the electric utility industry, which concluded that the looming Environmental Protection Agency rules for power plants will create an economic “train wreck.”

Not surprisingly, this prophecy of doom and gloom has been found to be completely overblown, according to a new report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

CRS analyzed EEI’s study and found it was severely flawed and lacked credibility. The discredited EEI study is just another example of the disconnect between the alarmist rhetoric coming from special interests and reality.

Here are the main points of the CRS report:

1. “The primary impacts of many of the rules will largely be on coal-fired plants more than 40 years old that have not, until now, installed state-of-the-art pollution controls…Many of these plants are inefficient and are being replaced by more efficient combined cycle natural gas plants, a development likely to be encouraged if the price of competing fuel—natural gas—continues to be low, almost regardless of EPA rules.”

2. The EEI study was done before most of the EPA rules were even proposed, and it assumed that the rules would be more stringent, with shorter compliance deadlines, than the ones that EPA has actually proposed. Therefore, the EEI study great exaggerates the impact of the EPA rules.

3. The EEI study completely ignores the benefits of the EPA rules. According to the CRS report, “The costs of the rules may be large, but, in most cases, the benefits are larger, especially estimated public health benefits.”

Recently, American Electric Power’s chairman admitted to shareholders that he was not worried about the new EPA rules. His public statements have been dramatically different, stoking fears about the disastrous impact the EPA rules will have on the economy:

“Because of the unrealistic compliance timelines in the EPA proposals, we will have to prematurely shut down nearly 25 percent of our current coal-fueled generating capacity, cut hundreds of good power-plant jobs, and invest billions of dollars in capital to retire, retrofit, and replace coal-fueled power plants,” AEP Chairman and CEO Mike Morris said in a statement last week. “The sudden increase in electricity rates and impacts on state economies will be significant at a time when people and states are still struggling.”

A week earlier, Morris had sought to allay investors’ concerns about the plant closures and their effect on AEP’s bottom line at a June 1 investor’s conference.
“On balance, we think that is the appropriate way to go,” Morris said of the closures. “Not only to treat our customers, but also to treat our shareholders, near and long term, with that small amount of the fleet going off-line.”

He not only includes biased reports but Sessions actually misrepresents history these rules though. He wrote:

As a result of EPA tightening the standards significantly in 2008, allowable ozone concentrations are 40 percent lower now than in the 1970s.

Nonetheless, in early 2010, EPA unilaterally announced plans to lower the standard, again, this time by an additional 20 percent. This was a voluntary decision that was not ordered by the courts or mandated by law.

What actually happened:

The currently applicable standard of 84 parts per billion (ppb) was promulgated in 1997. When the George W. Bush administration finally got around to revising the standard in 2008, it proposed a standard of 75 ppb, which was less stringent than the 60-70 ppb range that CASAC had recommended. In an extraordinary act of resistance, CASAC told the EPA administrator that the proposed standard was not supported by the scientific evidence. Not surprisingly, environmental groups challenged the Bush administration standard in court. As mentioned above, they put their lawsuit on hold to give EPA time to write a more stringent standard.

Soon after president Obama was inaugurated, Jackson struck a deal with the environmental organizations, under which EPA withdrew the Bush administration standard and promised to propose a new (and presumably more stringent) standard by August 2010. The agreement effectively left the outdated 1997 standard in place, because EPA told the states not to worry about implementing the withdrawn standard.

EPA missed the August 2010 deadline. Out of an abundance of caution, Jackson asked CASAC to review the scientific information one more time. CASAC did so and once again recommended a standard in the 60-70 ppb range. In January of this year, Jackson said that EPA would propose a standard in that range. The agency then completed its proposal and sent it to the White House Office of Management and Budget in July, where it languished until last Friday.

If Jackson now reneges on her agreement with the environmental organizations and puts the ozone standard on the back burner until 2013 or later, Americans living in cities — where ozone pollution is at its worst — will be left in worse shape than they would have been had the inadequate Bush administration standard gone into effect.

Nevertheless, Sessions conclude his argument with:

For the sake of economic growth and job creation, I believe Congress should enact legislation authorizing the president to delay or forego major new rules in light of significant economic concerns, at least until unemployment rates finally fall to historic average levels.

Does anyone believe Sessions will agree to the scientific evidence later.

In the words of Christian apologist and missionary Francis Schaeffer:

These are the two factors that lead to the destruction of our environment: money and time – – or to say it another way: greed and haste. The question is, or seems to be, are we going to have an immediate profit and an immediate saving of time, or are we going to do what we really should do as God’s children.

. .  .What we, the Christian community, have to do is refuse them the right to ravish our land, just as we refuse them the right to ravish our women; to insist that somebody accept a little less profit by not exploiting nature.

We need to push back against the rhetoric of Representatives Sessions, Rogers and Roby. After all, even that “communist-rag” Forbes magazine has declared it is time to replace Eisenhower-Era Power plants:

Once again opponents are voicing the same tired argument that power companies need a lot more time to comply, even though they’ve known the rule was coming for more than a decade. Some—like American Electric Power—are pulling out all stops to delay the rule, which they say will destroy jobs, raise energy prices and slow economic growth.

That’s nonsense. Studies show the EPA rule is technologically feasible, provides clear economic benefits and offers power companies an opportunity to modernize their aging fleets.

The power plants most endangered by these air pollution rules are the nation’s smallest, dirtiest, least-efficient plants. Most are more than 50 years old.  Continuing to rely on these plants while giving the pollutants they belch a free ride is like driving around in that Model T Ford. Why accept such antiquated technology in the 21st century?  The time to modernize the nation’s generating fleet is now.

While the Senator Sessions, Congressman Rogers and their fellow industry-cheerleaders proclaim that the proposed rules kill-jobs,  just the opposite is true. The new rules will actually spur new jobs and economic activity.

These companies can attest that complying with the air quality rules yields potential economic benefits, including job creation, while maintaining reliability of our electric system.

Studies back them up.

A recent report by the University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute found significant job creation benefits from both the air toxics and cross-state rules, with an especially large boost—nearly 300,000 jobs annually nationwide over the next five years—as Eisenhower-era power plants are replaced with cleaner, more-efficient capacity.

Pipefitters, engineers, boilermakers, construction workers and others will be needed to build new, clean power plants and install pollution control devices on others.

 

Ring. . Ring: Tidal Energy calling Mobile, Alabama

Reasons for developing a diverse and sustainable energy supply stare us in the face: economic and financial dependence on foreign oil producers, the environmental and human devastation following oil spills in the Gulf and now Yellowstone River, and nuclear meltdowns. Alabama is primed to have a resilient and self-sufficient energy infrastructure. We can shore up our local economies against future energy crises by weaning ourselves off foreign oil as a source of energy. And as a consequence, create new jobs:

The United States is currently importing about 70 percent of its renewable energy systems and components,” said Phil Angelides, chairman of the Apollo Alliance. “If that trend continues, we stand to lose out on estimated 100,000 clean energy manufacturing jobs by 2015, and nearly 250,000 by 2030. This country needs a comprehensive clean-energy economic development strategy so we can ensure that jobs being created in the clean-energy sector stay in America

By pursuing diversified energy production, Alabama could become energy independent and self-reliant and, at the same time, become the manufacturing center of alternative-energy capital. Alabama would need employ all our natural resources to accomplish this goal, though. Never again should we become so vulnerable as we are today by being dependent on a single source of energy.

One component for Alabama is tidal energy: the power of oceanic waves. As reported here,

Spain’s first wave power plant has gone into production in the Basque seaport of Mutriku, located between Bilbao and San Sebastian. The Mutriku wave power plant, consisting of 16 units, will generate an estimated 300 kilowatts in power, enough electricity to supply 250 homes. Utility Ente Vasco de la Energia (EVE) inaugurated the wave power plant today in a special event.

While several applications are being tested in Spain, the facility in Mutriku is using an oscillating water column as demonstrated here:

However, other technology for developing tidal energy exists, for instance oscillating bouys:

It is high-time that Alabama develop some 21st Century energy goals like 37 other states already have.

 

Should we be concerned, too?

Keeping in mind what I wrote here about the safety of nuclear power plants, negligent oversight, and Alabama, this report from Yahoo news should be filed under Scary, too.

Officials say that floodwater seeping into the turbine building at a nuclear power plant near Omaha on the banks of the Missouri River is not a safety risk. . .

An 8-foot-tall, water-filled temporary berm collapsed at the plant early Sunday. Vendor workers are at the site to determine whether the berm can be repaired or will require replacement.

 

If you get a WTO challenge, you must be doing something right.

How do you know that a local-job creation bill is working and actually building resilience into a local economy? Multi-national corporations, through the World Trade Organization, want to shut it down. In my previous blog post entitled: Good Ideas into Great Jobs, I suggested that Alabama policymakers should emulate a package of job creation measures enacted in Ontario, Canada. I wrote:

Ontario enacted its Green Energy Act in 2009. Since its enactment, 30 companies have publicly announced plans to set up or expand manufacturing facilities in Ontario that produce equipment for wind or solar power projects.  Ontario’s clean energy program is built around a strong commitment to local manufacturing and it has attracted as many as 43,000 new jobs at a reasonable cost per job.  The two primary planks provide alternative energy producers preferable rates and a local-content rule. Ontario announced the approval of 184 renewable energy projects worth $8 billion under theis Feed-In Tariff program.  The Ontario Green Energy Act includes these major components:

• A Feed-In-Tariff program, which allows individuals and companies to sell renewable energy — like solar, wind, water, biomass, biogas and landfill gas — into the grid at set rates.
•  Domestic content requirements, which would ensure at large percentages (60%) of wind projects and solar projects be produced and manufactured in Ontario.

The policies are exceeding expectations:

By most accounts, the plan is working. Reuters reported in March that Ontario’s green energy strategy was making the province “a magnet for global heavy hitters in the green energy sector, drawn by alluring subsidies at a time when incentives are being scaled back elsewhere.” Said one energy analyst, “I’m sure any major player in the clean energy space is looking at Ontario, now that they’ve put the sign out that they’re open for business and willing to have attractive incentives.

Clearly not everyone is impressed. Japan is a major exporter of solar technology with well known brands such as Sanyo, Mitsubishi and Sharp. Many Ontario solar power firms use these brands in residential or larger-scale business installations. But when local content quotas go up to 60 per cent in March, it will be difficult for companies not producing solar modules in Ontario to qualify for high feed-in tariffs.

Japan filed a complaint via the WTO; it is now being reported that the Obama adminsitration is deliberating whether to get involved in the WTO attack by Japan on Canada’s green jobs program. (Could it be that Japan is miffed that their chief competitor, South Korean Samsung was awarded a a 7 billion dollars contract?)

Japan’s trade challenge Monday of the McGuinty government’s green energy program could mean lost jobs and higher clean energy rates for Ontarians.

Tokyo took its fight against the Ontario Green Energy Act, introduced in May 2009 and focusing on solar and wind power, to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Geneva. The provincial Liberal program promises creation of 50,000 jobs for Ontarians within its first three years, and aims to make Ontario “a leading green community in North America.”

While Ontario is the target, the Japanese challenge is against Canada. Tokyo is expected to argue the Ontario plan violates international trade law by providing subsidies for solar and wind power development and unfairly favouring local companies for procurement.

If Japan’s challenge succeeds, it could derail green programs across Canada.

Calling it a “test case globally,” Council of Canadians chair Maude Barlow told the Star it threatens policies designed to decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

“Why should the Ontario taxpayer be paying high rates for clean energy if it is going to the profit margins of big corporations from Japan or Europe?” she asked.

The challenge is the latest in a series of attacks on the ability of Canadian governments to set independent policy, without interference from foreign states, influenced by their corporate lobbies. It’s a pile-on that potentially puts every aspect of procurement, job creation and social policy under the microscope and derails “Made in Canada” programs.

These type policies enable communities to provide some level of economic resilience. I hope the Obama administration decides not only to not weigh heavily on the side of Japan, but actually oppose their WTO challenge in favor of local communities.

 

File under: Scary

Known US Nuclear Reactor Sites

Following the unprecedented release of radiation into the ocean that began March 11 at the Japanese Fukushima nuclear power plant, per an AP investigation, we learn that US nuclear reactors are recklessly under-supervised.

Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation’s aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.

Time after time, officials at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins could be eased without peril, according to records and interviews.

The result? Rising fears that these accommodations by the NRC are significantly undermining safety — and inching the reactors closer to an accident that could harm the public and jeopardize the future of nuclear power in the United States.

Examples abound. When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed — up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards.

Failed cables. Busted seals. Broken nozzles, clogged screens, cracked concrete, dented containers, corroded metals and rusty underground pipes — all of these and thousands of other problems linked to aging were uncovered in the AP’s yearlong investigation. And all of them could escalate dangers in the event of an accident.

How close is your home to a nuclear plant? Search here.

EVEN MORE SCARY: Per this report on May 11, 2011:

“The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a rare red finding against the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant near Athens, Ala., after it investigated how a valve on a residual heat removal system became stuck shut. Safety regulators said only five red findings — the most severe ranking the agency gives to problems uncovered in its inspections — have been issued nationwide in the past decade.”

Considering the laxness of the regulators, how bad of a problem was this to merit a “red finding? Brown’s Ferry sets astride the Tennessee River in north Alabama. What would occur to the entire Alabama system of watersheds should leakage occur into that River from Brown’s Ferry? What if the waters of Alabama were contaminated like the oceans around Fukushima:

In addition, according to Prof. Takashi Ishimaru of Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, plankton near the surface probably absorbed radioactive substances near the sea surface, and thereafter sank to the seabed. The plankton are then ingested by shrimp and crab who are in turn consumed by larger fish. The radioactive substances then travel up the food chain in a process known as bioaccumulation. All this means that because radioactive substances are easily moved through this process, the monitoring area of Fukushima’s fallout will need to continue into the future, and the monitoring radius will need to be expanded.

Fukushima is a terrible and costly lesson for Japan for which they appear to have learned; last month, Prime Minister Naoto Kan announced that Japan would scrap plans for new nuclear reactors, saying that the nation would need to ‘start from scratch’ and create a new energy policy. Following the Fukushima disaster, Germany and Switzerland have also announced plans to exit from nuclear risk. Unwisely, President Obama and the US seem to be forging ahead with expanding nuclear energy production.

We need an energy policy which diversifies the states energy portfolio. Alabama can become largely energy independent with clean energies while creating new jobs. As I wrote here,

An infrastructure for resilience to “energy crises” includes multiple sources of energy and power production. Alabama can lead the way by shoring up our local economies against such crises by weaning ourselves off foreign oil as a source of energy.

The United States is currently importing about 70 percent of its renewable energy systems and components,” said Phil Angelides, chairman of the Apollo Alliance. “If that trend continues, we stand to lose out on estimated 100,000 clean energy manufacturing jobs by 2015, and nearly 250,000 by 2030. This country needs a comprehensive clean-energy economic development strategy so we can ensure that jobs being created in the clean-energy sector stay in America

By pursuing diversified energy production, Alabama could become energy independent and self-reliant; at the same time becoming the manufacturing center of alternative energy capital.

Alabama would need employ all our natural resources to accomplish this goal. Never again should we become so vulnerable as we are today by being dependent on a single source of energy.

 

Turning Good Ideas into 3126 Great Teachers

I wrote earlier how Ontario’s policies are creating around 50,000 new jobs by incentivizing alternative energy manufacturers and producers to locate or expand there operations to their province, here. I suggested within that article that

In addition to these two policies, we should advocate that newly constructed government buildings be fitted with alternative energy with “buy-local” preferences for parts and equipment; old government buildings such as schools and jails can be retrofitted accordingly.   We should follow the example of Lee County which has unveiled a roof-mounted, 36- panel, solar-powered system that will supply up to 90 percent of the hot water used at the county jail.

It was announced today that Duke Energy had acquired the 4,400 ground mounted photovoltaic (PV) module solar farm on the grounds of Martins Creek Elementary School in Murphy, N.C.

Solar Array at Martin Creek Elementary School in NC

According to accounts,

The solar farm is believed to be the only one of its kind located on school property in North Carolina and the third largest solar farm on school property in the states. The 10-year power purchase agreement with TVA is set up to allow the school to share in any revenue created by electric generation. They believe the revenue generated will equate to the cost of salary and benefits for two full-time teachers at the school.

There are 1,563 public schools in Alabama. If costs savings were achieved similar to Martins Creek employing each Alabama school’s roof  as a solar panel array platform, Alabama could hire and additional 3126 teachers.

In Toms River, N.J., all of the schools, including the high school, above, have solar panels

 

Good Ideas into Great Jobs

What if Alabama Democrats would lead the charge for creating 50,000 new jobs, gaining Alabama energy independence, and empowering local communities all by one set of policies?

It can be done and now is the time to strike. Of course, the Republican leadership and their corporate sponsors would never let this happen, however, Alabama Democrats will be branded with for whatever we fight. Let next-generation energy and energy independence be one brand.

As I referenced here,

The United States is currently importing about 70 percent of its renewable energy systems and components,” said Phil Angelides, chairman of the Apollo Alliance. “If that trend continues, we stand to lose out on estimated 100,000 clean energy manufacturing jobs by 2015, and nearly 250,000 by 2030.

Currently, Alabama maintains no goals for renewable energy. Alabama Democrats must take the lead on this issue and propose forward-looking initiatives; the Republicans will continue to rant “Drill, baby, drill.”

This is no tree-hugger pipe dream. “There are no technological or economic barriers to converting the entire world to clean, renewable energy sources,” according to Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering. “It is a question of whether we have the societal and political will.”

We can look to other states, regions, and countries that have already experimented with various policies; we will not be proceeding blindly.

For example, we can look to Ontario for lessons.

Alternative Energy Manufacturing Plant Applications since its Green Energy Bill in 2009

Ontario enacted its Green Energy Act in 2009. Since its enactment, 30 companies have publicly announced plans to set up or expand manufacturing facilities in Ontario that produce equipment for wind or solar power projects.  Ontario’s clean energy program is built around a strong commitment to local manufacturing and it has attracted as many as 43,000 new jobs at a reasonable cost per job.  The two primary planks provide alternative energy producers preferable rates and a local-content rule. Ontario announced the approval of 184 renewable energy projects worth $8 billion under theis Feed-In Tariff program.  The Ontario Green Energy Act includes these major components:

• A Feed-In-Tariff program, which allows individuals and companies to sell renewable energy — like solar, wind, water, biomass, biogas and landfill gas — into the grid at set rates.
• Domestic content requirements, which would ensure at large percentages (60%) of wind projects and solar projects be produced and manufactured in Ontario.

These two policies should be modified for implementation in the Alabama. (Several other countries and cities have employed the Feed-in Tariffs such as  Germany, Vermont, Australia, Switzerland, Gainesville, Florida, and Sacramento, California.)  For instance, the priority for wind and solar projects reflects Ontario’s region; Alabama might expand its list of priorities to include tidal, geo-thermal, hydro, and biomass because of our unique geographic.

Solar Array at School

 

In addition to these two policies, we should advocate that newly constructed government buildings be fitted with alternative energy with “buy-local” preferences for parts and equipment; old government buildings such as schools and jails can be retrofitted accordingly.   We should follow the example of Lee County which has unveiled a roof-mounted, 36- panel, solar-powered system that will supply up to 90 percent of the hot water used at the county jail.

Solar Array on a Residence

Finally, the feed-in tariff should be offered to anyone that is a renewable energy producer, no matter how small. Think 100,000 mini-power plants instead of a few centralized dams and nuclear plants. The goal would be that that majority of residences and small businesses will shift from mere energy consumption to actual energy production.  This can be accomplished with the feed-in tariffs,  net-metering, and on-site consumption rules.

The core of these policies would create a reason for alternative energy producers to locate to the Alabama and cause alternative parts manufacturers to locate to Alabama as well. For me, most importantly, it decentralizes energy production (no brown outs), builds greater resilience to our regional economies, and empowers ours local communities.

 

The Clean Energy Race

According to this G-20 report, Who’s Winning the Clean Energy Race?, China certainly is outpacing us by investing in next generation energy production.

As I wrote before:

The definition of infrastructure will include more than roads and bridges in the twenty-first century. It will likely include telecommunications, water sanitation and food distribution assets. However, it will certainly include energy production and distribution.

Do you remember the energy crisis of 2008 when the price of gas was around 4 to 5 dollars per gallon in the United States and companies and farms were failing left and right. Our country has relied on fossil fuels as the main source of energy for centuries. This dependence has produced a very fragile economy, the opposite of resilient.

An infrastructure for resilience to “energy crises” includes multiple sources of energy and power production. Alabama can lead the way by shoring up our local economies against such crises by weaning ourselves off foreign oil as a source of energy.

The United States is currently importing about 70 percent of its renewable energy systems and components,” said Phil Angelides, chairman of the Apollo Alliance. “If that trend continues, we stand to lose out on estimated 100,000 clean energy manufacturing jobs by 2015, and nearly 250,000 by 2030. This country needs a comprehensive clean-energy economic development strategy so we can ensure that jobs being created in the clean-energy sector stay in America

By pursuing diversified energy production, Alabama could become energy independent and self-reliant; at the same time becoming the manufacturing center of alternative energy capital.