MIT: how to integrate more renewables

The MIT Energy Initiative is holding a free webinar March 12, broadcast from a live seminar at MIT. The event will discuss the results of the MITEI symposium on how to leverage renewable power sources without relying on storage:

Briefing on the Final Report of the Symposium on Managing Large-Scale Penetration of Intermittent Renewables
Monday, March 12, 2012 12:00 PM - 2:00 PM (Eastern Time)
…
The focus of the symposium was on how renewable energy standards affect power system capacity planning and operations, assuming affordable, scalable electricity storage options will not be available for at least a decade, and probably more. Until such breakthroughs materialize, capacity planning and implementation are still required.

Currently, 29 US states and 27 EU countries have renewable energy standards. As countries increasingly embrace intermittent renewable resources, they will confront the operational challenges this poses for baseload power generation and generators. The results of the symposium, including commissioned white papers and other submitted technical papers, will be included in the report that will be available at the event.

The website for the April 2011 symposium has nearly 30 papers or presentations about how to combine renewable energy with traditional sources to level out electricity supplies — in lieu of relying solely on baseload generation.

I am looking forward to the presentation, which I hope will discuss the forest rather than the trees. Trying to make sense of the papers individually seems like trying to understand a forest from its constiuent leaves and twigs.

In looking up the earlier symposium, I also ran across another MIT study released in December that looks at the impact of renewable energy generation upon the electricity distribution grid. This MIT team concluded that federal preemption is the only way the US will get enough transmission lines necessary to carry this renewable energy.

The MIT press release quotes the study director, former Sloan School dean Dick Schmalensee:

While the grid is not in any imminent danger, he says, “the current regulatory framework, largely established in the 1930s, is mismatched to today’s grid.” Moreover, he adds, today’s regulations are “highly unlikely [to] give us the grid of the future — a grid that by 2030 will support a range of new technologies and consumer services that will be essential for a strong and competitive U.S. economy.”
…
While the grid’s performance is adequate today, decisions made now will shape that grid over the next 20 years. The MIT report recommends a series of changes in the regulatory environment to facilitate and exploit technological innovation. Among the report’s specific recommended changes: To enable the grid of the future — one capable of handling intermittent renewables — the United States will need effective and enhanced federal authority over decisions on the routing of new interstate transmission lines. This is especially needed, the report says, in cases where power is produced by solar or wind farms located far from where that power is to be used, requiring long-distance transmission lines to be built across multiple regulatory jurisdictions.

“It is a real issue, a chicken-and-egg problem,” says John Kassakian, a professor of electrical engineering at MIT and the study’s other co-chair. “Nobody’s going to build these new renewable energy plants unless they know there will be transmission lines to get the power to load centers. And nobody’s going to build transmission lines unless the difficulty of siting lines across multiple jurisdictions is eased.”

Currently, when new transmission lines cross state boundaries, each state involved — and federal agencies as well, if federal lands are crossed — can make its own decisions about permission for the siting of these lines, with no centralized authority.

“There are many people who can say no, and nobody who can say yes,” Schmalensee explains. “That’s strategically untenable, especially since some of these authorities would have little incentive ever to say yes.”

In other words, the MIT technocrats concluded that we need a national policy to address the NIMBY problems that have plagued both solar farms and distribution grids in California. It sounds like a good idea, but (as in the the solar farm example) requires resolving the conflict between RE-loving environmentalists and NIMBY environmentalists.

The cost of German solar policies

Bjørn Lomborg is a controversial PhD political scientist who has questioned the cost effectiveness of various efforts to mitigate global warming.

His Feb. 16 syndicated commentary discusses the implications of Germany’s plans to drastically scale back its feed-in-tariff:

Germany’s Sunshine Daydream
By Bjørn Lomborg

Germany once prided itself on being the “photovoltaic world champion”, doling out generous subsidies – totaling more than $130 billion, according to research from Germany’s Ruhr University – to citizens to invest in solar energy. But now the German government is vowing to cut the subsidies sooner than planned, and to phase out support over the next five years. What went wrong?

There is a fundamental problem with subsidizing inefficient green technology: it is affordable only if it is done in tiny, tokenistic amounts. Using the government’s generous subsidies, Germans installed 7.5 gigawatts of photovoltaic (PV) capacity last year, more than double what the government had deemed “acceptable.” It is estimated that this increase alone will lead to a $260 hike in the average consumer’s annual power bill.
…
On short, overcast winter days, Germany’s 1.1 million solar-power systems can generate no electricity at all. The country is then forced to import considerable amounts of electricity from nuclear power plants in France and the Czech Republic. When the sun failed to shine last winter, one emergency back-up plan powered up an Austrian oil-fired plant to fill the supply gap.

Indeed, despite the massive investment, solar power accounts for only about 0.3% of Germany’s total energy. This is one of the key reasons why Germans now pay the second-highest price for electricity in the developed world (exceeded only by Denmark, which aims to be the “world wind-energy champion”). Germans pay three times more than their American counterpart.
…
Using solar, Germany is paying about $1,000 per ton of CO2 reduced. The current CO2 price in Europe is $8. Germany could have cut 131 times as much CO2 for the same price. Instead, the Germans are wasting more than 99 cents of every euro that they plow into solar panels.

It gets worse: because Germany is part of the European Union Emissions Trading System, the actual effect of extra solar panels in Germany leads to no CO2 reductions, because total emissions are already capped. Instead, the Germans simply allow other parts of the EU to emit more CO2. Germany’s solar panels have only made it cheaper for Portugal or Greece to use coal.
…
In the meantime, Germans have paid about $130 billion for a climate-change policy that has no impact on global warming. They have subsidized Chinese jobs and other European countries’ reliance on dirty energy sources. And they have needlessly burdened their economy. As even many German officials would probably attest, governments elsewhere cannot afford to repeat the same mistake.

Better ways to spend $100 billion

The $100 billion, 22-year projected cost of the proposed California High Speed Rail system should be enough to kill it. But this week, Governor Brown vested his full support — and personal credibility — in this project, hoping to persuade (or overrule) the sentiments of a majority of the state’s voters.

I am a transit fan, second to none. I spent college taking pictures of mass transit systems in Boston, Washington and San Francisco. The one success of my (brief) career as a UPI photo stringer was a picture of the inauguration of the San Diego Trolley that ran on the front page of the San Diego Union. I’ve ridden high speed trains in Japan and Europe, including the Eurostar from Brussels to London. And — unlike most Americans — I’ve even taken cross-country Amtrak trains overnight, both with and without a sleeping car.

Still, $100 billion is a lot of money for one state to cover. That’s assuming that the system could be built for this price, even though major public works projects always run over budget (cf. the “Big Dig”).

Even if an electric train generates less pollution than an internal combustion engine car, is it necessary to put down a $100 billion bet that the system will be economically viable?

Charles Lane of the Washington Post thinks not:

On the merits, high-speed rail would be a questionable investment even if California could afford to build it.

…[B]oosters marvel at bullet trains in Europe and Japan, insisting simplistically that we need them, too.

But the sprawling, decentralized cities of the United States do not make convenient destinations for train travelers. International experience shows that high-speed rail entails expensive debt service and large operating subsidies. This would likely be the case here as well, since, for better or worse, rail must compete with well-established air and car options. Business travel is one ostensible purpose of bullet trains in California, but increasingly people meet via video conference.

For these and other reasons, high-speed rail in the United States would lower carbon emissions and reduce traffic far less cost-effectively than would alternative solutions.

In the past decade, videoconferencing has made huge strides in replacing business travel. No transit system — in fact, nothing short of teleportation — is going to be able to compete with videoconferencing for efficient use of time for short meetings.

Meanwhile, as Lane says, are there budget priorities that could improve the state’s environment far more cost-effectively? The California Solar Initiative is a $3.35 billion cross-subsidy (1/30th the cost of the CHSR) by electricity users that has already brought the installation of more than 1 gigawatt of renewable energy capacity for the state.

In Memoriam: 2011 solar shakeout victims

As part of updating a research paper I’m writing on solar policy, I’ve been catching up on the state of the solar business. (Regular readers will note that since I joined KGI, I’ve been paying a lot more attention to biofuels).

To start, I thought I’d look at all the solar firms that died (or otherwise were mortally wounded) in 2011. I traced down the announcements of the firms mentioned in various stories, and here is what I found:

Company	HQ	Stock	Tech-nology	Date	Action	Current Status
Soliant	Monrovia, CA	private	CPV	Mar. 29	Liquidated	Liquidated for 1.5¢ on the dollar
Evergreen	Marlboro, MA	ESLR	ribbon Si	Aug. 15	Chapter 11	Liquidated
SpectraWatt	Hopewell Junction, NY	private	Si	Aug. 19	Chapter 11	In liquidation
Solyndra	Fremont, CA	private	thin film (CIGS)	Aug. 31	Chapter 11	Liquidated
Stirling Energy Systems	Scottsdale, AZ	private	thermal (Stirling engine)	Sep. 23	Chapter 7	In liquidation
Solon AG	Berlin, Germany	SOO1.F	Si	Dec. 13	Insolvency	Seeking a buyer
BP Solar	UK	(division of BP)	Si	Dec. 20	Announced plans to close	Winding down
Solar Millennium AG	Erlangen, Germany	S2M.F	CSP & PV solar farms	Dec. 21	Insolvency	Selling solar farm projects

Most of these were solar system manufacturers, making panels, tubes (Solyndra) or stand-alone thermal generating dishes (Stirling). The mainstream companies (like SpectraWatt) might have IP that’s useful for other PV companies, while the oddball companies (Evergreen, Solyndra, Stirling) had unique technologies of little or no value to other firms.

BP Solar’s decision to get out of PV marks the latest realization by oil companies that biofuels (not solar) fit their existing business model. I hope to blog on this another time.

Solar Millennium is unique in that it was a large solar farm developer, and thus its projects (if they still make economic sense) might be bought by other companies. One of its largest projects is the 1 gigawatt Blythe Solar Power Project that won a $2.1 billion loan guarantee from the DEO and was praised by DOE Secretary Steven Chu and California governor Jerry Brown. It appears that the Blythe and other US projects are being sold by Solar Millennium’s majority owned US subsidiary to SolarHybrid AG.

Biofuels from 5000'

Biofuels are being used at 30,000' as airlines (and aircraft manufacturers) explore options for growing rather than drilling for Jet A feedstock. (They will actually be used at much higher altitudes if the DoD’s efforts to develop bio-JP5 and JP8 for military aircraft bear fruit.)

However, this week I gave a 5,000' overview of the biofuel industry to first year students at KGI, the Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences. Although our college is primarily oriented towards biotech and big pharma, there is a substantial pocket of interest in biofuels.

The one hour talk was intended to help students understand the various economic, technical, and political issues regarding biofuels. It started with an overview of US energy usage, and the factors driving interest in renewable energy in the 1970s and today. It reminded students — some of whom are in their first semester of business classes — that preferences for commodities like energy are usually driven by price.

Why Biofuels? Why Now?

Even more so than solar, biofuels compete directly with oil. As a nice chart from oilism.com illustrates, the big issue is that across the past 40 years, almost every attempt to predict oil prices from the past has failed.

I still need to understand the technology better. My students are helping me learn more here, since our grad students with undergrad biochemistry or chemical engineering majors know far more about the science than I do. (Some of them are leveraging this expertise to get internships and jobs in the industry.)

In pulling together the talk, the one thing that was striking was how dependent the industry is today on policy. For example, on Wednesday Jim Lane of Biofuels Digest listed the 10 hottest topics facing the biofuels industry today — of which only four (or five) are under the control of private industry:

1. RFS. Hold or Fold? Critics want to scrap the Renewable Fuel Standard. …
2. Can Obama find the $510 million? The DOE, USDA and US Navy each pledged $170 million toward scale-up funding of advanced biofuels, for defense purposes. …
3. Elections. … Numerous Republican candidates … have decided to oppose ethanol subsidies.
4. Fuels, or chems, or something else? There’s been such a proliferation this year in target products, it hardly seems apt to call this publication Biofuels Digest anymore. …
5. The EPA’s attitude on waivers. WIll the EPA continue to enforce the RFS mandate for advanced biofuels based on production capacity …
6. RIN prices. Ethanol RINs remain at prices so low they hardly matter, but biodiesel RINs have been on a roller coaster…
7. BRICs and mortar. [interest in BRIC countries.]
8. Freshwater, arable land, potassium, phosphorus, nitrogen. … what about the looming shortages in freshwater, and nutrients such as phosphorus?
9. Feedstock development. … Where is all the low-cost camelina, jatropha, algae and so on? …
10. Money. … [As Phycal’s Kevin Berner said, “at scale, any advanced biofuels project is a capital pig.” For $100 million, you can finance maybe 20 strong pilots

At KGI, we’ve had two biofuels speakers so far this year, and expect another 3 or 4 before the year is out. I’m sure we’ll have more to report in the coming months.

Putting eggs in the wrong basket

The DOE’s loan guarantee program is coming to a close — going out with a bang and not a whimper. Today particularly it’s proving to be “news that’s fit to print,” as the old Grey Lady motto goes.

The political posturing in Congress over the Solyndra ”scandal” has its latest act today when the Solyndra CEO and CFO are scheduled to take the fifth today rather than tell what honestly happened. Meanwhile, the DOE Loan Programs Office is rushing to process the remaining Section 1705 applications in hopes of giving away $9.4 billion before the program expires a week from today.

The New York Times covered both stories on Friday, with Solyndra on the front page — above the fold — and an update on the LPO buried on page B7. Going with the politics angle, the NYT got its priorities backward — as did the LPO.

The article inside was the real bombshell:

First Solar Says It Won’t Meet U.S. Loan Guarantee Deadline
By Matthew L. Wald

First Solar, a major solar panel manufacturer, said Thursday that it would not be able to accept a partial loan guarantee of $1.93 billion for a giant solar farm in San Luis Obispo County, Calif., because it could not meet the statutory deadline of Sept. 30 to complete the Energy Department’s requirements.

To be fair, the NYT may have buried the story because it was scooped by TheStreet.com.

As the NYT and others reported, First Solar still expects to be funded for two other projects: Desert Sunlight (500MW) and Antelope (350MW). However, the 550 MW Topaz Solar Farm is one of the largest (global) PV installations ever planned, and is also an important project for California (specifically PG&E’s) efforts to meet RPS quotas). It would be located near the existing Diablo Canyon transmission lines, and also would also increase geographic diversity as one of the most westerly solar farms in a state that since the 1980s has sited generating capacity in the southeast (Mojave) desert.

First Solar shares are down 25% in the past week — both because of the specific concern about the loss of the loan guarantee and hit to projected earnings, but also the pall over the entire industry caused by the Solyndra scandal.

Testifying last week before Congress, LPO head Jonathan Silver emphasized that the DOE was emphasizing solar (and other RE) generating facilities over manufacturers (35+ vs. 4 IIRC) because the former have more predictable cashflows and thus are better investments. Particularly with power purchase agreements in place, once completed there is no market risk akin to what took out Solyndra.

Perhaps First Solar wasn’t going to get the loan for other reasons (such as environmental controversies). Still, leaving unfunded major solar farms is a big problem for industry, for society, for taxpayers and for greenhouse gas reduction.

It’s not that the Page One Solyndra story was uninteresting, as it noted all the warning signs available to the administration before the loan guarantee was issued. The online version released a series of documents showing various doubts about Solyndra’s application, impending commoditization, and then concerns by career officials about the process being rushed both in March and September 2009 for political reasons. It also shows the doubts that arose after the loans were granted, as well the successful efforts by Solyndra execs and lobbyists to convince officials to ignores these warning signs.

However, the DOE is rushing out the projects it can most quickly review which are not necessarily not the best projects. The problem of the frantic rush in the final month to commit half the loan balances — after badly investing the first loan guarantee — suggests a problem of prioritization.

A VC, startup or even a multinational knows that it can’t do everything and thus has to prioritize its efforts. Perhaps with the heady funding of stimulus windfall — plus an academic as department secretary — the DOE failed to have the market discipline and realism to focus its attention on the most important priorities. (Or maybe Congress just screwed up, by not allocating it as $6 million/year over three years.)

There’s the old saying: “put all your eggs in one basket — and then watch that basket.” With $18 billion available to invest, the LPO was not limited to a single basket, but there were other, safer investments it could have made that would have supported the cleantech industry.

Who lost Solyndra?

For the second time this summer, I found myself watching a C-SPAN congressional hearing on a major issue of economic policy. This time, the hearing was about the $535 million Federally guaranteed-loan to the now-bankrupt Solyndra, this time before a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The hearing was called by the (obviously hostile) GOP majority to compel testimony by two Obama administration representatives: Jonathan Silver (head of the loan guarantee program for the Department of Energy) and Jeffrey Zients, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Silver, a former McKinsey consultant and private equity manager, didn't want to be bossed around by mere representatives with 1/10th or 1/100th of his net worth, but eventually settled down. Zients — with far narrower legal exposure — was much more cooperative and even a little more sympathetic to fiduciary concerns.

Some aspects of what happened were clear and undisputed:

• January 2009. The final decision of the DOE (under Bush) is to reject the loan without prejudice
• February 2009. After the stimulus bill passed, Obama's new DOE secretary wants to push through funding
• March 2099. The DOE offer a conditional loan commitment to Solyndra
• September 2009. The DOE approves the loan to Solyndra
• September 4, 2009 — Vice President Biden announces approval of the $535 million loan guarantee to allow Solyndra to build Fab 2.
• August 31, 2011: Solyndra declares bankruptcy, laying off 1100 employees

Before the hearing, the Washington Post published leaked e-mails that the approval was rushed so that Biden could make the announcement, although the Democrat majority argued it was quoted out of context. In one memo, a government analysts said the economic models forecast that Solyndra would go broke without additional funding.

The level of questioning by both sides was disappointing. Perhaps it is because both sides are populated lawyers who (mostly) are clueless about economics. Perhaps it’s because I know something about the industry and have been to Fab 2.

The arguments boiled town to a handful of issues, with the two sides were broken records. Republicans were trying to find out who lost taxpayer money and fight against “picking winners and losers.” Democrats (including Silver) tried to argue it was equally Bush's fault (even though Bush never approved the guarantee) and were obsessed with national "competitiveness" of keeping up with Chinese subisides for their solar companies.

In the most quoted statistics of the day, Silver stated that US global market share in PV fell from 40% in 1995 to 6% today (2010) versus 6% for China in 2005 and 54% today.

The two sides argued about whether the government renegotiated the terms of the loan (in violation of Federal law) or allowed Solyndra a workout. (Either way, the government’s interest became subordinated to a new round of private lenders — making it unlikely that the US will see the 20¢/dollar that it would have recieved with a liquidation).

While Solyndra was burning cash at the time of the loan guarantee, Silver (correctly) noted that this was not atypical for a high-growth company. (The point was echoed by far less knowledgeable allies on the committee). But as one of the representatives pointed out, the appropriate risk profile for private equity is different than that for taxpayer dollars.

Both Obama’s friends and foes see this an increasingly embarrassing scandal for the president. Republican moderate (and former CBS news producer) Peggy Noonan wrote

[One thing I’ve admired about Obama] has been a relative absence of deep political scandal. It's been good not to have a Watergate, a Whitewater. But there are signs this week that could change with the Solyndra loan scandal. The White House apparently tried to rush almost half a billion dollars of taxpayer loans to a solar panel manufacturer that later went belly up and took a thousand jobs with it. The reason for the rush: The awarding of the loan would make good PR. This looks bad, and if it's true, heads should quickly roll. It's one thing to be branded as "out of your depth but not corrupt," quite another when it's "out of your depth and corrupt." That is much worse.

Meanwhile, on Thursday night Jon Stewart of Comedy Central told Obama’s enemies “That Custom-Tailored Obama Scandal You Ordered Is Finally Here.”

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
That Custom-Tailored Obama Scandal You Ordered Is Finally Here
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

As ABC quoted Stewart:

“You know, stories about incompetence in government are only going to get you so far though. For this to truly become weapons-grade political fodder, you’re going to need incompetence with more than just a whiff of sinister cronyism,” Stewart said.

If this week’s hearing is any indication, we are unlikely to have any substantive discussion of the issues raised by the Solyndra default. Unlike Watergate, there was no bipartisan approach akin to “what did he know and when did he know it.”

The debate is a crucial one for the future of the American renewable energy industry. One side asks: can (and should) the government pick winners among American firms? The other asks: can the US industry survive without cheap government financing?