advertisement
About Energy Industry

Business in the energy industry is fast paced and ever-changing. BNET Energy provides daily news coverage for managers and executives in the energy sector, with coverage on the major utilities, energy companies, clean tech and renewable energy businesses. BNET Energy offers in depth analysis of green business, the very latest in energy research, alliances and partnerships, competitive intelligence and a host of other global energy industry issues.

Week in Renewables: Glowing and Grim Reports, a New Bank, and Big Wind

By Chris Morrison | Oct 4, 2009

Start with a bang, end with a whimper. That was the story for green technology this week, after opening with a report that investing in the sector was up 10 percent over last quarter in what looked like the beginnings of a recovery.

By the end of the week, a second report was making the rounds. Cleantech investment, it said, had fallen 9 percent since last quarter.

It’s a testament to how mature renewable energy has become that both reports could be absolutely true. The first referred to venture investment — everything from a company’s seed capital to the money for a pilot plant. The second report was more concerned with the latter stages of funding, when government and big finance step in.

News that cleantech is struggling is not really news at all; any big power project needs bank financing, and the banks have been down for the past year. But like the recent government report that showed unemployment still rising despite reports of recovery, it’s confusing and painful for cleantech companies to see their industry struggling despite its bright prospects.

Still, there were some good spots to the week. US Bancorp, one of the few big banks to navigate fairly smoothly through the financial turbulence, announced a doubling of its solar panel installation fund with SolarCity, to $100 million, and an overall expansion of its clean energy program.

Based on tax equity, the program requires the funding bank to be making a profit before it makes any sense, but other banks are reviving and will likely take an interest.

There’s also some speculation that the government will enact a Clean Energy Deployment Administration, basically an in-house clean energy bank. The number is a bit bigger here: $100 billion in revolving loans. But to pass, the CEDA’s Democrat backers will likely need to attract some Republican support, potentially by buying old coal plants or funding nuclear power.

Even without funding, renewables will see a steady improvement in their outlook — if only from the losses of others.

That’s if the EPA wins its bid to regulate CO2, anyway. It chose the past week to announce that it is considering an endangerment finding on CO2, which would require all carbon-emitting sources to use the best technology available to limit their emissions.

Such a move would indisputably raise costs for most power, but it would also indirectly raise the profit margins for solar, wind, and other non-emitting energy sources.

If not for all the high-level action, the biggest news item of the week may have been the completion of the world’s new largest wind project, encompassing 627 turbines that produce 781.5 megawatts, spread over 100,000 acres in Texas. It’s owned by E.ON Climate & Renewables, which, not content to rest on its laurels, is busy erecting even more turbines.

There was also the introduction of the first dimmable home LED light from Lemnis Lighting, and an announcement from PG&E that it was buying another 830 megawatts of power, including solar — though not from whom.

And finally, First Solar was helped out against the stock bears by being included in the S&P 500. Next stop, Dow 30?

Chris Morrison, a reporter on energy, renewables and climate change, is the former lead cleantech writer for VentureBeat. Follow him on Twitter.

BNET User Analysis

Web Buzz:
  • MarketWatch First Take: Is 'cautiously positive' the best we can do?

    MarketWatch - 73 days 22 hours 32 minutes ago

    So the recession ends, not with a bang, but with a whimper

  • Cash for Clunkers Ends With a Bang and a Whimper

    BNET Auto - 89 days 1 hour 18 minutes ago

    And so Cash for Clunkers ends with both a bang and a whimper. The program, which stopped accepting new consumer applications on Monday, was

  • MarketWatch First Take: Look for charge from Time Warner

    MarketWatch - 319 days 2 hours 46 minutes ago

    NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Time Warner Inc. is opening 2009 with a whimper, not a bang, for investors who have already grown impatient with the progress of the huge media company. Time Warner (TWX:TWXNews , chart , profile , moreLast:Delayed quote dataAdd to portfolioAnalystCreate alertInsiderDiscussFinancialsSponsored by:, , ) noted on Wednesday...

  • Analysis: The end of business-by-litigation?

    BetaNews - 9 days 22 hours 23 minutes ago

    By Scott M. Fulton, III and Carmi Levy , Betanews The largest and widest ranging PC technology dispute, perhaps in the industry's history, came to an abrupt end this morning with Intel and AMD agreeing to set aside most of their differences, and all of their legal disputes. Is this a signal to the various litigators in the information...

  • Natural Gas Glut: Stop Me Before I Drill Again

    Wall Street Journal - 122 days 1 hour 18 minutes ago

    North American natural gas producers keep finding new, productive natural gas regions, which raises the question: How will this glut end? With a whimper? Or a bang

 
Reply to Story

BNET TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

  •  
    1

    verycold

    10/06/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Week in Renewables: Glowing and Grim Reports, a New Bank, and Big Wind

    Some month ago, we contacted our energy co-op to get some guidance about erecting a wind turbine on our farm. I know that throughout the state there are a number of contractors putting up these towers for individuals. It seems our co-op doesn't think a lot of wind energy in our neck of the woods. I did some research myself and found out that wind is often associated with winter, but not so much during the summer. Also the higher the tower the more wind that can be captured. It appears that we simply don't have enough wind source which would make any investment a losing proposition.

    Equally I have a friend that spent many thousands installing solar on his farm last year. He will see a benefit of about 15 percent of his total energy bill which means he will be dead before he gets his investment back. Solar is too expensive still.

    Ground heating seems to make the most sense in our region which sees -30 often enough. I know several people that have used this system for many years and are very satisfied. We currently heat ourselves by wood which is a source we have an abundance of. True it takes human energy to split those logs, but it also keeps that human in good condition which for a nation of fatties is a good thing.

    I worry a lot that like corn based ethanol we are jumping to quickly to invest in energy solutions that may never be financially viable without considerable subsidies.

  •  
    2

    clarkm

    10/06/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Week in Renewables: Glowing and Grim Reports, a New Bank, and Big Wind

    "627 turbines that produce 781.5 megawatts, spread over 100,000 acres"

    A simple coal fired steam plant with 3 turbines in my area produces over 2000mW and covers something less than 75 acres of land. It can reliably run and produce this output 24/7/365. I can't get past the belief that we can develop carbon capture technology at a reasonable cost for these plants.

  •  
    3

    Chris Morrison

    10/07/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Week in Renewables: Glowing and Grim Reports, a New Bank, and Big Wind

    Verycold: If you get temperatures of -30, I have to wonder whether it's the best area for standard solar panels.. Wind is more competitive, but very dependent on location.

    Clarkm: Yes, but the wind turbines are rather more pleasant to be around. Also, I wonder what their total area is if you just count the turbine itself. I doubt ~600 turbines cover as much area as the coal plant, loooked at that way.

    Can't say I'm optimistic about CCS. It's not impossible, but the physical and economic challenges are pretty daunting.

  •  
    4

    clarkm

    10/07/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Week in Renewables: Glowing and Grim Reports, a New Bank, and Big Wind

    Chris, yes I realize that the wind turbines don't actually cover the entire area noted and I anticipated that someone may point that out and appreciate you providing an opportunity to expand on the subject.

    Consider this, the transmission and distribution system required to get that wind power to the grid will "cover" that entire area. What happened to all the concern over emissions from electrical transmission lines? I know the studies say there is no correlation to these emissions and cancer but I'd prefer not to be a part of that study. Also, you say wind turbines are more pleasant to be around. Says who? I understand that they emit some significant harmonics that can be quite irritating to many folks. I suffer from motion sickness and inner ear problems and vibrations are rather bothersome. And many, if not most of the coal fired plants that I know of tend to be located in more remote locations. Many people drive past these plants in rather close proximity and never even know they are there. I know this because they are my customers and have been for nearly 20 years.

    I'm not completely down on wind turbines (they're my customers too) but there is far too much glad- handing going on in the industry, combined with total bashing of coal. We aren't likely to ever replace the large capacity plants with a completely distributed solar and wind power system in terms of base load requirements. In fact the based load limitations of solar and wind are significant and well documented, along with the T&D issues I noted above. It will require a good balance that will also require Nukes. The greenies are painting a slanted if not completely false picture and it is important that the public has a better overall understanding of the power generation industry. I read a comment recently from a "Director" of a major industry lobby stating that solar power has zero emissions. That is patently false. He failed to note the significant hazardous waste produced in the manufacturing process of solar cells, the amount of energy and water required to reclaim those waste chemicals as well as the fact that the world's largest producer of these solar cells (China) is simply dumping this waste on the ground, often right next to the villages that neighbor the plants.

    Oh, if it were all so simple. Again, I'm not arguing one side, simply offering a broader view.

  •  
    5

    Chris Morrison

    10/07/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Week in Renewables: Glowing and Grim Reports, a New Bank, and Big Wind

    Glad to help make your point! And yes, I do believe some people have a problem with turbines. I've never been bothered by them, but I don't live under one, either.

    Your thoughts on scale are probably correct. I'm pessimistic about the scale both terrestrial wind and coal carbon capture can reach, personally.

  •  
    6

    applehillbilly

    10/09/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Week in Renewables: Glowing and Grim Reports, a New Bank, and Big Wind

    ClarkM, you wrote "I can't get past the belief that we can
    develop carbon capture technology at a reasonable cost for
    these plants." and "I understand that they emit some significant
    harmonics that can be quite irritating to many folks. I suffer
    from motion sickness and inner ear problems and vibrations are
    rather bothersome."

    Yes, carbon capture technology is being developed that
    promises to be cost effective but to think this is the answer for
    the future energy requirements for the US is very short-sighted.
    And to complain about the noise which by the way is much
    quieter that coal plants is ludicrous. I know, not in my back yard
    but they can be located in areas so not to bother people just
    like coal plants, nuclear plants, oils derricks and not to mention
    energy consuming factories, highways etc that no one wants to
    live next to.

    Fossil fuels only jump started the modern age but aren't going to
    be around forever. Renewable energy sources such as wind,
    solar, geothermal, wave etc are the future and not something
    "greenies" are pushing.

    Any energy source will ultimately go over power lines (until we
    find a way to go wireless..i.e.Tesla) so there's not much of an
    argument there. There are costs (dollars and environment)
    associated beyond just the running of your local coal-fired
    plants. The coal must be mined, processed and shipped..and
    there is limited supply. Maybe enough for your lifetime but what
    about your kids and grandkids etc? Is what you want to leave
    them is a gas tank that's empty or almost empty?

    With american ingenuity we can create renewable energy and
    the jobs that come along with it - if we don't Europe or Asia will
    and we'll be playing catch up instead staying the leader.

    Imagine if we started this 50, 75 or 100 years ago the kind of
    world we'd have. Cleaner air, landscapes not tore up with strip
    mining or unsitely oil derricks. No dependency on oil producing
    countries that would have us wiped-out if not for the constant
    flow of our hard earned dollars into their pockets. Or the many
    brave soldiers lost protecting our interests (oil) around the
    world.

    There are going to be a lot of new billionaires, millionaires and
    jobs created as we move towards the future as well as a better
    place for our kids to rise their kids - but we can't get stuck in
    fear and doubt because there are transmission lines...criminy,
    look at all the damage done to earth and it's people from fossil
    fuels (and nuclear energy) with wars, oil spills, air polution and
    on and on and on...

    Your argument wind energy is noise and transmission lines? They
    already exist and there are more of them near any power source
    whether it's a coal plant, nuclear reactor and dam - and not as
    noisy and don't polute. Your argument is just a smoke screen for
    avoiding a better, cleaner and less dependent America that
    keeps it's jobs and money right here where they belong.

    My opinion is that anyone who buys into these so called
    arguments has already made up their mind and is just looking for
    something to help them justify their beliefs in their own mind. Oh
    well, not much can be done about except try to educate those
    who aren't familiar with the new technologies and their benefits.

    I'm afraid it's going to happen because it's a win-win-win-win
    solution. Cleaner earth, more jobs in the US, less dependency on
    those who don't like us and finally less wars fighting to keep the
    oil supply coming (and will not last forever anyway).

    Progress can't be stopped, only slowed down here and there,
    but not stopped. Instead of complaining or fighting it, be part
    of the solution, the future. Good ideas also make good money...

  •  
    7

    clarkm

    10/12/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Week in Renewables: Glowing and Grim Reports, a New Bank, and Big Wind

    applehillbilly; you missed my points entirely and also assumed that I am against progress in the power generaton industry based on a few negative comments regarding renewables. I believe you read far too much into my response to Chris, something quite common on these blog sites. I was, in no way, defending the status quo but rather, simply making the point that all is not perfect on the green side as many people continue to propogate that myth. In regards to your NIMBY comment, I said no such thing. My point was that Wind power is location dependent and that it may frequently be located in closer proximity to people and their distributed nature will mean great growth in our current transmission and distribution system, soemthing that is a consistent issue in the power generation industry, if you pay any attention to it. These are technical facts. Your response feels emotional to me, my comments were not intended to address the emotions of this debate but simply to point out some real and technical issues that often get left out of emotional debates. I never complained or suggested fighting "progress", I simply questioned if our current form(s) of renewable energies is true progress. Just wait till you have to pay for the actual cost of that progress BTW. On the other hand, I did specifically note that I benefit either way, the fossil plants and the wind farms are both customers to me. I support all power generation facilities and I do know a little bit about the industry. And I love the bit about how renewables are going to solve all the ills of the world; energy, polution, jobs, even war! Wow, it's utopia.

  •  
    8

    exaviator

    10/16/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Week in Renewables: Glowing and Grim Reports, a New Bank, and Big Wind

    Hear, hear, Clark M. Thanks for reasonable comments and technically-sound rationale.

    Apple, I could not engage your arguments better, so will demur to Clark?s post. I will say two things:

    (1) The out-of-hand belief that "renewable" technologies will not foment contention for resources or will somehow eliminate war and strife is typical of the new-energy visionary. Intensity of demand (and thus competition) for rare earth materials, economically available alkali metal sources, alloying materials for corrosion-resistant material, etc. will be just as fierce as for oil in your idyllic future-world. To think otherwise is as na?ve as the nuclear proponents of the late 40?s, imagining a world where fission sources would be so cheap as to be unmetered. (I am a nuke fan, mind you, but this was absurd; so is the peaceful Solar/Wind/Baby?s Breath universe.)

    (2) There should be something akin to Godwin?s Law for internet energy discussion threads. To refresh our memories, this rule states: "As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." A corollary in the energy realm is the name Tesla. What exactly the average poster believes he invokes with this auspicious name I?m not certain. But things usually get pretty mystical.

    I won?t go all, like, ad hominem here -- nor should you -- but would ask that you have a stronger technical perspective when accusing someone of a "smoke screen" argument.

  •  
    9

    verycold

    10/17/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Week in Renewables: Glowing and Grim Reports, a New Bank, and Big Wind

    Well, I will respond to the "greenie" that pleads emotion over facts which is why many of our environmental problems today have escalated. I feel "entitled" to respond because I have walked the walk and risked my life doing so in the name of the environment. I know exactly how it feels to be shunned for taking the side of nature over man. I had an entire town hate me and lived there while working to do the right thing. I lost a lot of sleep, found it hard to be hated so much, and it was hard every day to push through all the negativity. I was to a large degree before it was vogue to care about the environment. Even the EPA spit on me. My focus was a huge water source that was being contaminated by the furniture and textile industry back in the 70s and 80s. Keep in mind that the water issue is even more pronounced today and so we have solved nothing since we won't address a growing population.

    We speak of oil being finite, but what about our water source? How about the idea of reducing demand instead of once again latching on to an idea that might solve one problem but contribute to others we haven't yet determined? The Al Gore's in the world latched on to corn based ethanol because they figured we can grow corn in abundance, and the subsidies would benefit the farmers, we could create a whole new industry and jobs, and we would wean ourselves off oil and perhaps the need to keep fighting in the ME. So how is that working for everybody? See...unintended consequences keep be just as daunting as the original problem.

    When this entire stupid stimulus bill was being penned, I wrote my representatives and suggested a full court press to replace all the old appliances sucking up our energy sources with news ones through tax credits. Each municipality could have had a lottery program with a set amount of money in that fund provided for through the stimulus bill to replace refrigs, washing machines, freezers, dryers, etc. Looking around my town the number of roofs that need attention ASAP is huge. Yes, I live where the temps can get as low as -30 during the winter. Imagine how much energy is being wasted in my town? It is downright scary. Yes, the federal government is giving energy credits for windows, doors, etc. which I immediately took advantage of. It cost me a lot to get that credit. What I was talking about was a program to upgrade America even those with lack of funds to do the right thing. It is a win win. Nothing emotional. No debt to the consumer, and in fact money back in their pocket with reduced energy costs. Having rehabbed many homes in my life I know the process and it could work. I would have been glad to step up to the plate and helped my town put together a program. Instead our stupid government allowed mayors to make up wish lists that included dumb stuff like turtle crossings, repairing bridges to nowhere, repaving roads that were still o.k., building planters in the mediums which my town now has. No commonsense at all. It is like building a home with a lousy foundation but using cherry cabinets and granite counter tops. Yup, looks good for a while but the core is rotting.

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
advertisement