SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Rat's Nest - Chronicles of Collapse -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Wharf Rat who wrote (10260)4/13/2010 11:15:49 AM
From: Wharf Rat  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 24226
 
Chinese Turbines Spun by Texas Winds Spur ‘Buy American’ Push

By Kim Chipman

April 13 (Bloomberg) -- Chinese turbines powered by west Texas winds are sparking a debate over whether “Buy American” rules should be imposed on renewable-energy investments backed by the U.S. government.

A-Power Energy Generation Systems Ltd., based in Shenyang, China, will supply turbines to a joint venture planning to build a $1.5 billion wind farm using equipment made in China. The group, which includes two U.S. partners, says it may seek financial aid from the Obama administration because the project will create at least 1,000 American jobs.

Lawmakers led by U.S. Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, say such assistance amounts to subsidizing green jobs outside the country. They want to slap made-in-America requirements on renewable-energy initiatives aided by the U.S., like those already faced by highway and water-treatment projects helped by President Barack Obama’s $787 billion economic stimulus plan.

“Congress is feeling pressure to make sure they won’t be held accountable for green jobs going overseas,” said Kevin Book, a managing director for Clearview Energy Partners LLC, a Washington-based policy research firm.

Buy-American restrictions may be added to climate legislation that will be introduced in the Senate as early as next week, Book said.

GE’s View

Producers of renewable-energy equipment, led by General Electric Co., the biggest U.S. maker of wind turbines, say such restrictions would hurt their ability to compete in a global clean-energy market that relies on parts from many countries. Buy-American provisions may cause other nations to retaliate by curbing their use of U.S. products, shrinking domestic job creation tied to exports, GE says.

The wind industry will create 20,000 U.S. jobs in the next decade and would generate more if the U.S. adopted clear policies and incentives for clean energy, such as requiring the use of power generated from renewable sources, said Steve Bolze, head of GE’s power and water unit.

“What the U.S. needs, which Europe, China and other countries have, is stable, long-term policy,” Bolze said in an interview.

Fairfield, Connecticut-based GE, the world’s No. 2 maker of wind turbines after Denmark-based Vestas Wind Systems A/S, is planning to invest 340 million euros ($462 million) in developing and expanding wind-turbine operations in the U.K., Germany, Norway and Sweden, creating a total of more than 2,000 jobs in those countries, Bolze said.

A-Power’s Turbines

“We need to be very, very careful about any kinds of protectionist measures” in clean energy, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said in an April 8 interview.

The Texas project’s U.S. partners announced the 600- megawatt wind farm in a statement on Oct. 29. A-Power was “designated as the wind-turbine supplier for this high-profile project,” John Lin, the company’s chief operating officer, said in the statement.

The U.S. Renewable Energy Group, a Washington-based private- equity firm, and closely held Cielo Wind Power LP of Austin, Texas, are in the joint venture with Shenyang Power Group, a Chinese energy alliance that has A-Power as its biggest investor.

Schumer criticized the use of Chinese-made turbines at the time, and last month joined Democratic colleagues in introducing legislation that would make the Texas wind farm and projects like it that are dependent on foreign manufacturing ineligible for stimulus aid.

‘Can’t Sit Idly’

“We can’t sit idly by while China races to the forefront of clean-energy projects at the expense of U.S. manufacturing, U.S. jobs and U.S. energy independence,” Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, a cosponsor, said in a statement March 3. “And we certainly can’t shoot ourselves in the foot by helping to finance Chinese clean-energy production.”

Asia makes more than half the world’s wind and solar energy equipment and is widening its lead. China invested $34.5 billion in low-carbon energy technologies last year, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The U.S. spent $18.6 billion.

Partners in the Texas wind farm will fully fund the project and construct the plant using only American labor, according to Ed Cunningham, a managing partner with the U.S. Renewable Energy Group.

“We will then have the opportunity to apply for incentives,” Cunningham said in an e-mailed statement on March 22. “All incentives would be repaid within just a few years through the federal taxes generated by the wind farm, and this doesn’t include the value tied to the thousands of high-paying, stable American jobs.”

BP, First Solar

The Buy American debate is growing as companies move renewable-energy jobs away from the U.S.

London-based oil company BP Plc said on March 26 that it’s ending U.S. production of solar panels at a plant in Frederick, Maryland, cutting 320 jobs, as it shifts production to joint ventures in China and India.

Tempe, Arizona-based First Solar Inc., which received $16.3 million in federal funds to hire 200 people at an Ohio plant, plans to do 71 percent of its manufacturing hiring in Malaysia, based on a company presentation to analysts in December.

As of mid-March, at least $1.6 billion of $2.7 billion in U.S. stimulus grants for clean-energy projects went to companies based outside the U.S., according to Denise Heckbert, an analyst in Toronto with Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Spain-based Iberdrola SA received $577 million and Germany’s E.ON AG is getting $324 million, she said.

“It doesn’t look good on paper, but actually the funds are supporting a substantial number of U.S. jobs,” she said. That’s a theme sounded by energy companies opposed to Buy American restrictions.

70% U.S.-Made

Partners in the 36,000-acre Texas wind farm, which would power 180,000 homes, have emphasized that the “vast majority” of jobs would go to Americans.

“A minimum of 70 percent of each wind turbine, including the massive towers and blades, will be wholly manufactured in the United States and made of American steel,” the U.S. Renewable Energy Group said in a statement on its Web site.

Half of the parts used in GE wind turbines are made in the U.S., up from 20 percent a few years ago, according to Kevin Walsh, managing director of renewable energy at GE’s financial services unit.

The Obama administration shares Schumer’s goal of ensuring that government aid creates U.S. jobs, said Matt Rogers, a senior adviser at the Energy Department.

“The good news is these programs have worked to create jobs and bring in a lot of foreign investment to the U.S.,” Rogers said in an interview. Two programs under the stimulus act aimed at promoting renewable energy have created or saved more than 20,000 U.S. jobs, according to the Energy Department.

Tax Credit

Obama’s request to extend a manufacturing tax credit for renewable-power companies is aimed at ensuring the industry moves in the same direction as automakers, which “run at about 70 to 75 percent U.S. domestic content,” Rogers said.

Concern that most wind-power jobs will flow overseas is exaggerated because of the heavy equipment required, said Walter Hornaday, president of Cielo Wind Power.

“It doesn’t make sense to haul 400,000 pounds of equipment around on the open ocean,” Hornaday said.
bloomberg.com



To: Wharf Rat who wrote (10260)4/13/2010 2:37:37 PM
From: Wharf Rat  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 24226
 
southern utility don't want him around, anyhow

With so much potential for energy efficiency, why is the South so inefficient?
by David Roberts

12 Apr 2010 7:00 AM


When it comes to energy reform, the American South has often been a deadweight, anchoring the country to the status quo. There are any number reasons why: It's oil, coal, and nuke country. It's heavily Republican. Many of the affluent white men who dominate its politics view energy as part of the culture war, another attack by hippies on the American way of life. Plus they like trucks.

But one phenomenon more than any other shapes the South's attitude toward energy policy. It lies beneath all the others, yet it's the least well-understood and the most rarely discussed. What is it?

Instead of ruining the surprise, let's take a quick detour that will help make the point.

Energy efficiency in the South

According to a report released this morning, for every dollar the South invests in energy efficiency, it will receive an average of $2.25 in benefits over the next 20 years in jobs, economic growth, and lower bills.

“Energy Efficiency in the South" is a detailed new study from researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology and Duke University's Nicholas Institute; it uses models based on U.S. Energy Information Administration forecasts to estimate the benefits of various energy efficiency policies across three sectors: residential, commercial, and industrial. The conclusions, while in keeping with past research on the subject, are nonetheless pretty jaw-dropping.

According to the study, an aggressive set of energy efficiency policies in the region could:

1. Prevent energy consumption from growing over the next 20 years. In the absence of such initiatives, energy consumption in these three sectors is forecast to grow by approximately 13 percent between 2010 and 2030.
2. Generate new jobs, cut utility bills and sustain economic growth. Overall utility bills would be reduced by $41 billion each year in 2020 and $71 billion in 2030; the average residential electricity bills would decline by $26 per month in 2020 and $50 per month in 2030; electricity rate increases would be moderated; and 380,000 new jobs would be created by 2020 (annual job growth increases to 520,000 new jobs in 2030). The region's economy is anticipated to grow by $1.23 billion in 2020 and $2.12 billion in 2030.
3. Reduce the need for new power plants. Almost 25 gigawatts of older power plants would be retired and the construction of up to 50 gigawatts of new plants (equal to the amount of electricity produced by 100 power plants) would be avoided.
4. Result in substantial water conservation. The reduction in power plant capacity would save southern NERC regions 8.6 billion gallons of freshwater in 2020 and 20.1 billion gallons in 2030.
(Left off this list are the incredible health benefits of reducing fossil fuel use.)

The reason efficiency has such potential in the South is that it's the least efficient region of the country and the most fossil-fuel dependent. Low-hanging fruit abound. And it's not just that the region as a whole would benefit, it's that the benefits are incredibly egalitarian. Virtually everyone in the region would see their fortunes improved.

So, let's see: Create jobs, save ratepayers money, save businesses money, save state governments money, save lives, spur economic growth ... seems like a no-brainer! A case study for forward-looking public policy. And yet, despite their obvious benefits, such policies are not forthcoming in the South, and they're unlikely to appear any time soon. Why is that?

Southern means Southern Company

Here we return to the single biggest factor in the South's energy intransigence: the energy companies that dominate it are not participants in a competitive market. Most of the region's utilities are regulated monopolies, which means their customers and their profits are guaranteed by law. They don't compete; they manage state regulators, which is a whole different kind of skill. They are involved in cozy, good ol' boy relationships with those regulators that in some cases stretch back generations. They have their way of doing things and it works for them. Why would they want change?

In particular, regulated monopoly utilities have one way to make more money: build more power plants and sell more power. They convince regulators to offer a set return on capital, and then they deploy the capital to get the return. So all that decreased consumption? All those savings on power bills? All those avoided power plants? That's all bad news for southern utilities. It translates directly into lost revenue for them.

That's why Southern Company, the region's largest utility, has more lobbyists in D.C. than any other energy company, almost double the runner up. Its position has always been secured through influence over politicians. It's got a bunch of dirty old power plants grandfathered under the Clean Air Act. It's got guaranteed access to a growing rate base. It's trying its damndest to keep any hint of market competition or other radical changes as far away as possible. And the last thing it wants is for its customers to start using less of its product.

It's a damn shame. If we treated efficiency as an energy source, we would see that the South has access to an enormous reserve of it. It's an abundant supply, and it's cheap -- cheaper than coal, cheaper than nukes, cheaper than natural gas. The South is a veritable ... dare I say it? ... no, I shouldn't ... but I must ... Saudi Arabia of energy efficiency.

But the presence of huge demand and cheap supply means nothing unless there is a market set up to bring the one to the other. And there's no market in the South. Energy incumbents control policy in the region, and they've been publicizing costs and privatizing profits for decades. They don't want a new competitor. It's that simple.
grist.org