Alternative Energy: A Look Under the Hood
Primary tabs
It's been a while since I've posted on this. Mostly that's because of real life, but also a lack of good sourcing. After a long time looking, I finally found a pretty concise description of how wind and solar energy developments were financed, and how they are going to be financed in the near future. Please read this very carefully if you care about the topic.
Here is the key graph for "the old way" it worked:
"This is how it worked: Large financial institutions like AIG, Wachovia, J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo, Lehman Brothers and others would buy federal tax benefits from renewable energy startups that did not have enough taxable income to use the credits on their own.
In other words, big financial firms traded financing to offset tax liability. So-called tax-equity investors would bankroll a solar or wind project in exchange for a tax shelter, which was effectively pinned to profits. The system worked as long as Congress renewed the federal investment and production tax credits that granted developers a range of incentives, and it was widely viewed as a essential avenue within the renewable energy development community.
No more. The system, like other schemes crafted by insiders, has crumbled as AIG, Lehman and others have collapsed. The big boys no longer have cash to bankroll projects or the means to pull the profits to get credits, so the tax-equity space has turned into a financial dead zone."
Obviously that method is no longer "operational".....
So enter the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (aka,the first stimulus bill):
"Under the previous investment tax credit, renewable energy developers could apply a 30 percent credit only to profits as a deduction. But the stimulus, for a period of two years, has made it possible to get back the 30 percent as cash, under a grant program to be administered by the Treasury Department."
In other words, what had been credits against profits are now direct grants. No profits needed.* But what is (and always was) needed is hard targets for renewables, this is called a "renewable energy standard" or RES.
"The federal stimulus package turned what could have been a disastrous 2009 for the wind industry into its best year ever.
But industry promoters warn that things could get bleak again if Congress does not enact a "renewable energy standard" that orders power companies to use a set percentage of power generated by wind, sun or other renewable sources.
"We thought we were going to lose half our industry," said Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association. "Then the Recovery Act came along, and we were able to create jobs."
Wind farm installations created 1,500 to 2,000 construction, operations and maintenance jobs, according to AWEA. But the uncertainty of federal policy caused manufacturing to drop off and cost an equivalent loss of jobs in that portion of the industry.
The wind industry installed more than 9,900 megawatts of generating capacity, AWEA said. The association says that is enough to serve more than 2.4 million homes, about as many as there are in Washington state. Bode said that meant the United States should edge China for the lead in wind power installation for 2009.
Before the stimulus passed, the industry was projecting that wind power development could drop by as much as 50 percent compared to 2008. The renewable portion of the $787 billion legislation created construction, operations and maintenance, and management jobs, according to AWEA."
The number they use of 1500-2000 construction, operations and maintenance jobs is unrealistically low. Unless they really meant per project. Without wind development, and in my tiny sector, and in my tiny area I personally know well over a hundred people who would not have jobs. The ancillary employment involved in siting, planning, building, maintaining, even one wind farm is absolutely huge. Energy, of one kind or another has been a huge (only?) growth sector of the construction industry.
Via the descriptively named Renewable Energy Tax Credit Resource Center you can read the manufacturing projects which were granted funds as part of the stimulus act, 2.3 billion of it. And that is where things get confusing, because, yes Virginia, nuclear is considered renewable....
Anyway, here is more heavy reading regarding "Community Wind" if you are interested. I would advise printing it out and reading over breakfast. But here is a key graf from that document's executive summary:
More importantly and to the point of this report, the financial crisis spawned two major stimulus
packages in the U.S. that, in combination, have fundamentally reshaped the federal policy landscape for wind power in general, and for community wind projects in particular. Most notably, qualifying wind projects can now, for a limited time only, choose either a 30% investment tax credit (ITC) or a 30% cash grant in lieu of the production tax credit (PTC) that wind has historically received. To qualify for the 30% ITC, projects must be placed in service by the end of 2012. To qualify for the 30% cash grant, projects must either be operational by the
end of 2010, or else must begin construction by then and be placed in service by the end of 2012. It stands to reason that community wind, which has had more difficulty using the PTC than has commercial wind, may benefit disproportionately from this newfound ability to choose among these federal incentives. This report confirms this hypothesis. On the basis of face value alone, the 30% ITC or cash grant – both of which depend on the size of the investment rather than on
the quantity of power produced – will be worth more than the PTC to most community wind projects, which on average may cost more or generate less than their commercial counterparts.
Community Wind is much less efficient to construct and impliment due to the economies of scale that wind developers have confronted from the outset. Hence, I am not a fan of Community Wind, which I think is a bamboozle for local communities. But what do I know.....
* And since nobody anticipated anyone making a profit last year, that was a good call.

- okanogen's blog


- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Almost lost this
to a "posting" crash. Thank god I saved it to notepad first, I wouldn't have had the time to rewrite it!
"Almost lost this to a "posting" crash"
"Almost lost this to a "posting" crash" - By okanogen on Mon, 02/01/2010 - 5:00pm
But that allowed Okanagem to delete a comment posted by S Brennan who pointed out that Okanagem has a business that directly profits by what Okanagem advocates.
Hence the FULL DISCLOSURE! remark above which glosses over my private interests. Sorta like immigration lawyers who write letters tot he editor for L-1 & H1-B's but leave out what they do and how they work with HR departments to circumvent US labor laws.
Better supervision is needed at this Web Site
This is silly
1. Users don't have the power to delete comments.
2. There was a duplicate post (same content, different headline) that I deleted. That's probably where your comment was lost.
3. Since there were server problems yesterday, double posts happened several times.
Please don't go off half-cocked, mkay?
UPDATE As far as the disclosure goes, yes, we should disclose. (I hereby disclose that I support single payer because it might get me life-saving medical care.) On the other hand, we can hardly confine contributions from writers to areas where they have no expertise. Surely it should not be a qualification to fail in the energy business, to write about the energy business? And if people want to sell their products or services, we have ad space for that.
Conflicts of fucking interest
There you go again S Bennen, clearly talking bullshit. Again, because you lack either the comprehension to understand what I write, or just choose to ignore anything which doesn't conform to your preconcieved notion of me as teh evil. Although I don't give two shits about your opinion about me, let me state the following for the record (a-fucking-gain)for others who may be conned by your bullshit line of "questioning" my integrity:
For the record, I work on the following projects:
Dams, bridges, levees, wind projects, light rail, roads, ethanol plants, bio-diesel plants, nuclear power plant sites, coal plant sites, tower foundations of every kind including transmission lines and communication towers, building foundations, airport runways, carbon sequestration sites ("clean coal"), oil pipelines, refineries, oil pumping stations, remedial investigative sites (factories, etc.), slope stability, mine tailings dams, etc., etc., etc.. Some of these I advocate for, some (like community wind, "clean coal", anything oil) I advocate against. My business is unaffected by which choice is made, I am the house, I will always "win". I advocate for one or the other based on my liberal viewpoint, regardless. I take that back, I also advocate for solar, and (strongly) for geothermal energy, although we do not work in either field.
So, given the breadth of our involvement in the economy, if I had to disclose every fucking thing I do, that is all I would be doing. But really, all you are doing is trying to discredit what cannot be discredited (investment in alternative energy) by attacking me personally. Your own little lame-ass brand of STFU. Sorry, na ga, happen.
So quid pro mother-fucking quo, what exactly do you "manufacture", so I can know you don't have a "conflict of interest" when you write about visas, etc.? Strike that, I don't give a shit.
Oh, and stop stalking me.
shorter okanogen:
as long as americans consume energy and use infrastructure, green or not, i'll most likely be able to make a living.
i'm in roughly the same boat. i'm for green energy because of my environmentalist background, but the skills i've gained from working in various petro-industries are directly transferable to a lot of the green industries too. so yes, i do hope those take off in the near future, as i'd rather work in something green than not-green. also, i'd like to be able to advocate for green energy, and for environmentalist policies in general, even though more environmentalism might get me more work.
question on geothermal: what's with the earthquakes/geothermal connection? yea or nay?
Thanks hipparchia
I'm for green energy, I went into environmental work initially and worked in the field for a very long time. Mostly I now view that as enabling the pertro-industry, I've been in plenty of nasty places. Shit, I've sited plutonium reactors for nuclear bombs for god's sake.
Now I have a chance to do something I can actually be proud of (not always, but enough). Sometimes it pays me and my employees. I advocate for that which I think is a benefit to society. Small wind projects are a joke, you need economy of scale to get the true benefits. Having said that, I've worked on small wind too. I just think it's a raw deal and kind of flim flam. But others disagree since it can bring (mostly tax) benefits to small rural communities that have a tough enough time with unstable (and tight margins) income inherent in agriculture. So there is debate on that.
Regarding geothermal, we aren't involved in that, but I think small scale (i.e. home level) geothermal is one of the most fabulous advances out there, especially the horizontal systems and mainly the small scale (home or small building sized) systems. I don't know much about the earthquake connection. Not sure what size that applies to.
The interesting thing about geothermal is that that type of cooling system really came about in the 1920's for the large skyscrapers. They used to call it "once-through" cooling*. They would sink a large diameter well into a deep aquifer, where the temperature was typically just over 50 degrees and just pump and pump and feed it through heat exchangers to cool off buildings. Those systems wasted millions of gallons every year per system to cool a building. The cleanest, most pure groundwater in the world was wasted in this way for decades and decades.
Oopsie.
*Once-through cooling is still used in many applications, but the source these days is more often surface and sea water. Fights are also being waged to end this practice. Oh, I have no "conflict of interest" whatsoever in my opinions on this.....
It's an ongoing problem.
X has a business that directly profits by what X advocates. >>> DOES NOT EEQUAL<<< I support single payer because it might get me life-saving medical care.
...and you know it Lambert.
As people pointed out on his comment yesterday, Okanagem has misrepresented employment figures for scientist & engineers. It's an ongoing problem.
Where was that
Where did someone say I misrepresented employment figures for scientists and engineers? Learn how to link. If you are going to accuse somebody of something, bring the evidence or admit you have none.
Oh really?
Here is what I wrote Lambert in a private email:
But what you conveniently disregard is that as I have stated numerous times, I benefit financially from the economy regardless. Regarding single-payer health care, as a small businessman, should I "disclose" that it will benefit me financially to not have to either a) pay for my own health insurance, and/or b) pay for my employee's health insurance? Is the fact that I would save tons of money a conflict of fucking interest?
Beyond all that, I'm not really interested in feeding your tin-foil hat theories.
Again, stop stalking me.
So, translated...
... you don't want anybody with a successful business to post here?
What kind of sense does that make?
So, translated...you don't want a successful business to post
Dumb extrapolation Lambert,
I am saying if you are receiving a direct cash benefit from a policy you advocate, you ought to note it. And saying we all benefit from a policy is garbage, Turbo tax Timmy used the EXACT SAME JUSTIFICATION to give trillions to his benefactors.
..but it's okay now.
Also trashing alternatives where you don't needs to have a disclaimer, if you look back Lambert, I make that explicitly clear. Go back to yesterday...for an example.
"So, translated...you don't want anybody with a successful business to post here?"-By lambert on Tue, 02/02/2010 - 2:08pm
Reading comprehension
Above, I clearly explain I also have "a direct cash benefit" in "alternatives" I trash.
Do I need to have a "disclaimer" for that too? Or would that be an "un-disclaimer", like I get a disclaimer voucher or something?
So, for the record, a teacher who advocates increased funding for education has to disclose that? A person below the poverty line has to disclose that before advocating for progressive tax policy? A doctor or nurse has to disclose their profession before commenting on single-payer? A union construction worker has to disclose their affilitation with their union when commenting on fair trade? They might also have to disclose their "conflict of interest" if they are a welder or millwright, or what have you and might work in the construction trades on projects like wind farms?
Get a fucking grip.
BTW, still waiting for you to clearly "disclose" all of your "conflicts of interest".
Not.
Excuse me for advocating for something which is clearly both a) in the public's best interest, and b) according to the general liberal ideology of this blog.
Stop me before I advocate for a better world again!!!
Yeah, he's an expert.
Engineer/Designer Pro-E
los angeles craigslist > jobs > architect/engineer/CAD jobs
http://losangeles.craigslist.org/sfv/egr...
Date: 2010-02-01, 12:07AM PST
Reply to: see below
Engineer/Designer wanted for aerospace engineering company located in Encino. Previous experience/knowledge of Pro-E software preferred. Knowledge of Boeing Satellite standards would be helpful but not required. Part time to start with good possibility of working into full time. $18/hr to $30/hr depending on experience. US CITIZENS ONLY
Please e-mail resumes to info@hamptonscott.com
Compensation: $18/hr to $30/hr depending on experience
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oakanogen says engineers are fully employed [yesterday]:
"Compensation: $18/hr to $30/hr depending on experience" that's part time with no benefits, wohooooo, oh yeah, when others [not me] tell him he's full of it..just go along with it when he pulls stuff out of his backside. Yeah Lambert, he's an expert.
Ho hum
I can't even tell what the point is, here. Or what happened "yesterday." What I do see is big pile of useless meta. Yay!
Ok, one more time, slowly
This is what I wrote yesterday:
Under-paid, under-employed. Got it? That is what I wrote yesterday. So in fact, I wrote the opposite of what you thought I wrote.
Jesus fucking wept.
Hey, but thanks for totally polluting my post and thread (again) because you don't understand the English language! That was awesome fun!