Denmark's 50 percent wind commitment and a path to fully renewable power

By James Holloway | Ars Technica

Denmark's Horns Rev offshore wind farm as it stands today

Denmark has committed to generating 50 percent of its electricity from wind sources by the year 2020, by which time the country hopes to have reduced CO2 emissions by 34 percent compared to 1990 levels. This renewed commitment to wind forms the central pillar in an energy bill that commits to obtaining 35 percent of the country's energy from renewable sources by that time. And Denmark actively aims to lower energy consumption, with 2020 usage 12 percent lower than that of 2006.

"Denmark will once again be the global leader in the transition to green energy," said Martin Lidegaard, Denmark's Minister for Climate, Energy and Building. "This will prepare us for a future with increasing prices for oil and coal. Moreover, it will create some of the jobs that we need so desperately, now and in the coming years."

The bill passed with a near-unanimous 171 votes out of the parliament's 179 seats.

"Once again" is a telling choice of words from Lidegaard, but it raises a question: if not Denmark, what country was leading the pack with renewable energy prior to the bill's passing? Certainly, wind already makes up a higher proportionate of Denmark's energy mix than it does any other country's—21 percent as of 2010, with Portugal (18 percent) and Spain (16 percent) not far behind.

Indeed, Denmark tops the wind charts whichever metric you care to throw at it: installed capacity per person, per square kilometer, per unit of GDP—as of 2010 (PDF) at any rate.

But when it comes to the contribution made by all renewable sources of energy, Denmark fell into eighth place based on installed power in 2009, behind Sweden, Latvia, Finland, Austria, Portugal, Estonia, and Romania. Even factoring in Denmark's aspirations for 2020 (according to the Renewables Global Status Report 2011(PDF), published prior to this bill), the country would only be elevated to sixth place, assuming it meets its target of a 30 percent renewable energy share. (These figures are for the EU alone.)

EU renewables shares of final energy, 2005 and 2009, with targets for 2020

Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century

But Denmark has only raised the bar by 5 percent of its total energy use, to 35 percent. Sweden met its target for a 50-percent renewable share in 2009, thanks to the gargantuan contribution made by the country's hydroelectric infrastructure. By what measure, then, does the new announcement return Denmark to the top of the league?

The short answer is, it doesn't. The government sees the 2020 targets as stepping stones to the end goal—100 percent of the country's energy to be supplied from renewable sources by 2050. But even that wouldn't leave it on top; Scotland is aiming for a 100-percent renewable energy contribution by 2020.

Wind has a tremendous role to play in Denmark's renewable grand expansion, with 1500MW of new offshore wind capacity due for completion by the 2020 deadline. A third installation, with 400MW of capacity, will be built at Horns Rev; while a 600MW farm will be built in the Baltic at Kriegers Flak (where hurricanes aremercifully absent). The latter has been described as the world's first offshore "supergrid," and will additionally provide electricity to Germany.

But it would be misleading to portray Denmark as a country putting all of its eggs into a windy basket. It isn't so much as placing a "price on carbon" as the OECD has recommended. Denmark seems to be making efforts(PDF) to ban it outright, phasing out coal power generation in favor of biomass energy and investing in geothermal energy.

At the smaller scale, Denmark is banning the installation of oil-fired and natural gas boilers in new buildings from 2013, and providing over $7.5 million to fund the conversion of domestic boilers to renewable equivalents. Further investment is being made available to industries that use renewable energy to fuel manufacture and the like, as well as for the promotion of CHP (combined heat and power) schemes.

The government also recognizes the need to modernize the grid to accommodate intermittent renewable sources (an oft-cited stumbling block for the rollout of renewable energy in the US), with an agreement being put in place with electricity distributors for remotely-readable "smart" electricity metering.

In the arena of transport, the government is making $12.5 million of subsidies available for electric vehicle recharging stations, and mandating that all fuel must be at least 10-percent biofuel by 2020. It has also committed to eliminating fossil fuels entirely from the island of Samsø, a proto-renewable energy community where 100 percent of electricity is already provided by wind power.

If you'll permit a West Wing reference, Denmark might be thought of as adopting one of President Bartlet's theories of economics and applying it to energy policy—at least partially. "Everybody's got a magic lever they want you to push. I studied economics all my life but in this job only a fool is ever certain. You don't push any one lever; you wanna push a little on them all." Denmark's certainly pulling all the levers—not a little, though. A lot.

America Becoming an Idiocracy

Sunday, May 22, 2011 by CommonDreams.org
by Brian Moench

In the 2006 satirical science fiction comedy, Idiocracy, the protagonist Joe Bauers, “Mr. Average American", is selected by the Pentagon for a top-secret hibernation program. Forgotten, he awakens 500 years in the future, to discover a society so incredibly dumbed-down that he's easily the most intelligent person alive and their only hope for survival.

With the Republicans bullying their way through state and federal legislation, the movie has become prophetic to the point where the only thing that isn't believable is that this devolution will take another 500 years. Idiocracy already has its living, fire-breathing poster child, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the ranking Republican and former chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

You may remember Rep. Barton as the Congressman who on behalf of the American people apologized to the CEO of British Petroleum, Tony Hayward, for having our Gulf of Mexico get in the way of Hayward's oil spill:

"I apologize. I do not want to live in a country where any time a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong, is subject to some sort of political pressure. [It] amounts to a shakedown, so I apologize."

How about Barton’s grasp of CO2 as a greenhouse gas?

“It’s odorless, colorless, tasteless, doesn’t cause cancer... there’s nobody that’s ever been admitted to a hospital because of CO2 poisoning. Hell, “CO2 is in our Coca-Cola!"

Even better is Barton's explanation of how wind power could speed up climate change:

"Wind is God’s way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it’s hotter to areas where it’s cooler. Wouldn’t it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I’m not saying that’s going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale. I mean, it does make some sense. You stop something, you can’t transfer that heat, and the heat goes up. It’s just something to think about.” 

Yes, Joe, that sure is something to think about!

If Barton's awareness of why we must stop building wind turbines isn't enough to blow you over, how about his penetrating insight into just how innocuous air pollution is. At a Congressional hearing in April, Barton insisted that an EPA estimate that pollution controls on coal power plants would prevent 17,000 premature deaths a year had been “pulled out of thin air.”

Unfortunately, the air coming out of coal smoke stacks is hardly thin, but Barton's understanding of medicine certainly is:

“To cause poisoning or a premature death, you have to get a large concentration of mercury into the body. I am not a medical doctor, but my hypothesis is that is not going to happen. You are not going to get enough mercury exposure or SO2 exposure or even particulate matter exposure.”

The only remotely true part of Barton's statement is that he is indeed not a medical doctor. Real medical doctors from the American Lung Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association and other health groups were so outraged and stunned at Barton's statement they sent him a letter pointing out decades of medical research contradicting everything he said.

Mercury is the second most toxic substance on earth, after only plutonium, and is capable of causing brain damage in fetuses and children at unimaginably small concentrations. One out of every six women of child-bearing age has enough mercury in her blood to cause measurable brain damage in any child she might conceive.

The largest source of this mercury contamination is the emissions of coal fired power plants. Nonetheless, industry lobbyists and their allies in Congress, like Barton, have vowed to fight any attempt by the EPA to correct this deplorable public health disaster. Without a shred of supportive evidence, pollution control and environmental protection of any kind is suddenly being smeared as "job-killing", ignoring all the while that science clearly proves that pollution itself is “heart-killing, lung-killing, brain-killing and people-killing". Which Joe could argue does create job openings.

If Rep. Barton was just your crazy uncle who everyone avoids at family reunions, this would just be entertainment. But he is only the most outspoken of an entire legion of Republican politicians from their Presidential contenders on down who are strutting their disdain for science and the environment like a fully spread peacock’s tail. Even many Democrats are tagging along with this menacing flock.

In a normal world people who repeatedly lose their arm wrestles with reality would also lose the next election, their careers, and the right to leave the house without their medication and a chaperone. But in an idiocracy, they rise to power, ignore the facts, re-write the laws, cash the lobbyists’ checks, and force us all into their asylum. Idiocracy has indeed come to America, 500 years ahead of schedule.

Wind Power Can Change the World -- Why Aren't We Investing In It?

A lack of continuous federal support cripples emerging clean energy industries in the United States.
By Melinda Burns, Miller-McCune.com
July 26, 2010

Jim Dehlsen, America’s most successful wind power innovator and entrepreneur, has been tilting at windmills since the early 1980s.

Back then, he installed one of the largest wind farms in the world in the mountains near Mojave, Calif., where a strong gust could snap a windmill blade in two. He called it his “Victory Garden.”

Today, at 73, Dehlsen is producing one of the most advanced and efficient windmills in the world, employing 300 people at a plant in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. And he is building a plant in England to manufacture the largest offshore windmill in the world, creating 500 green jobs.

Like Don Quixote of La Mancha, the errant knight of windmill fame, Dehlsen is on a life’s quest, propelled by the vision of a moral world — by his definition, a planet that is much less dependent on coal and oil.

Now, he is drawing on his expertise in wind to explore the untapped energy of the sea. With his son Brent, Dehlsen has designed an underwater “windmill” to harvest the unstoppable flow of the Gulf Stream off Florida. For the wind-whipped waters off the U.S. West Coast, the Dehlsens have designed a grid of floating pods equipped with pistons to capture the energy in the rise and fall of the waves.

In his lifetime, Jim Dehlsen hopes to see the ocean powering American homes and providing American jobs.

“We’re determined to make it happen,” he said. “I really want to see this in deployment. The continental shelf off the coast of Florida extends out 20 miles, and flowing over it is a river that has a constant flow equal to 50 times all the rivers of the planet. It’s just tremendous. It’s always there.”

What’s not always there, Dehlsen said, is government support in grants and subsidies for pioneers who, like him, struggle to come up with the millions needed to invest in new technologies in renewable energy. Federal support for wind blows hot and cold: During the past decade, tax credits for wind power have expired and been extended -- usually for one or two years at most -- on seven different occasions, creating uncertainty in the market and scaring investors away. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or stimulus fund, gave wind power big boost with cash grants covering 30 percent of construction costs, but the time frame, as usual, was short: To qualify, projects have to begin construction by the end of this year.

By contrast, the U.S. government showers support on fossil fuels for electricity.

Most of Dehlsen’s early competitors went bankrupt in 1985, when the first round of subsidies dried up. After giving birth to the wind-power industry, the U.S. lost its position as the top producer of wind power in the world for more than two decades. It holds the No. 1 spot for now, but China is the world’s leading manufacturer of wind turbines.

The U.S. also has ceded a global market in offshore wind to Europe, where generous government subsidies, higher energy prices and $7-per-gallon gasoline provide a more favorable climate for renewables. Denmark built the first offshore “wind park” in 1991, and as of last year, according to one report, there were 67 in operation or pending in Northern Europe.

The first offshore wind farm in the U.S., a 131-turbine project off Cape Cod, was approved by the U.S. interior secretary in April. The turbines themselves will be manufactured by Siemens, Europe’s largest engineering conglomerate.

“In Europe, the oil and gas industries have much less influence on government policymaking,” Dehlsen said. “That kind of environment is crucial for wind.”

Likewise, in the field of marine renewable energy, the U.S. is roughly a decade behind Europe, where 15 tidal energy and 13 wave energy plants are in operation or pending, primarily in the British Isles. By contrast, the U.S. has installed only a few pilot projects, including a “power buoy” off Hawaii and tidal energy turbines in New York City’s East River. As noted in a special issue of Oceanography this month on marine renewable energy, the industry doesn’t even have the proper infrastructure to test new devices.

Dehlsen hopes the country will learn from its past mistakes.

“The real subsidies are going to carbon fuels,” he said. “How can we turn this around in the U.S.? It’s ingrained in the whole system.”

Wind is the world’s fastest-growing energy source: In the U.S. alone, the wind-power industry expanded by 39 percent last year.

But in the early days of modern windmills, Dehlsen recalled, investors wouldn’t even look at wind farms. “It was just too far out,” he said. “The response was, ‘You’re going to do what?’ You could see their eyes glaze over.

“Early-stage technology is really the appropriate place for government support to be involved, because traditional financing can’t deal with new concepts. They put a risk premium on it.”

When the government began offering tax credits and grants for emerging wind technologies, Dehlsen was able to test his design, attract investors and compete with oil, an industry that has been heavily subsidized in the U.S. since the 1920s. By 1985, he employed 600 people at his windmill manufacturing plant in Mojave. But the nation’s memories of the 1973 and 1979 oil embargoes faded, and the government allowed the subsidies for wind to expire.

“It really killed off the industry,” Dehlsen said. “We managed to survive, but we were one of the few.”

Dehlsen later sold his wind farm to Enron, which sold it to General Electric. To date, he said, GE has produced 13,000 of the Mojave-style windmills, with some refinements to his design.

In the 1990s, as U.S. support for wind picked up again, Dehlsen received $32 million in federal grants to create three generations of wind turbines, each the largest in the world when they were built. He also won an additional $9 million federal grant to develop a windmill that could operate in variable wind speeds. This model was a significant technological advance that opened up new areas for the industry, places where the wind was not perpetually howling. The blades of variable-speed wind turbines accelerate in gusts of wind, retaining their momentum when the gusts pass.

It’s the kind of breakthrough that would not have been possible without government support, Dehlsen said. Plus, he added, “you got to have crazy people like me who think they can do it.”

In testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Environment in December, Dehlsen told how the $9 million grant had helped attract $150 million in private investment for his Liberty wind turbine. It is now being manufactured in Cedar Rapids by Dehlsen’s company, Clipper Windpower Inc.,which recently sold 49 percent of its stock to United Technologies Corp. Clipper has 700 employees worldwide and has produced 500 windmills for 17 projects in the U.S. and Mexico.

“But there is the other side of the coin,” Dehlsen told the committee. He related how the government abruptly ended its support for offshore wind projects in 2006, just as Clipper was trying to partner with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory on a project.

“Perhaps the hardest policy lesson that has come out of the American wind effort has been the repeated crippling effect on the industry from discontinuity in government support,” Dehlsen testified.

In 2007, finding no support for offshore wind in his own country, Dehlsen turned to United Kingdom and was received with open arms. To date, Clipper has received nearly $30 million from the royal family’s Crown Estate and the British government to develop and manufacture what will be the largest offshore turbine in the world. The Crown Estate owns the rights to the offshore regions of the British Isles and is advancing the price of Clipper’s first commercial windmill. The manufacturing plant for the blades is under construction in Newcastle, once best known for its coal; production will begin in 2013.

Dehlsen’s views on government support are shared by entrepreneurs and investors alike.

Peter Grubstein, the founder and managing member of NGEN Partners, a Santa Barbara, Calif.-based firm that bills itself as “one of the most active cleantech venture investors in the world,” with $500 million under management, said that government grants are “extraordinarily important” for emerging technologies to succeed. Without that help, Grubstein said, “a lot of little companies will not get funded, particularly given the dearth of capital in the financial sector.”

NGEN typically invests in early-stage companies that have developed proven prototypes for the products, a process that can take five years, Grubstein said.

“Companies that are small and not well-financed are unlikely to get our financing,” he said. “Taking a chance on the new technologies that are unproven is very, very hard for an investor to do.”

Sidney Tassin, the founder and president of Carta Energy LLC, a Dallas-based investment firm, and a director of Clipper Windpower, oversaw an $11 million investment in Clipper in 2001 when the Liberty turbine, then the world’s largest, did not yet exist. It was in very early design stages. Dehlsen needed the money to launch Clipper, develop the turbine and purchase options on land. It was not a traditional investment for Energy Spectrum Capital LLC, the Dallas firm that Tassin headed at the time, and, he said, his partners were initially reluctant to take the risk.

Dehlsen’s stature as a pioneer in the U.S. wind industry helped change their minds, and so did the government’s $9 million grant to Clipper, Tassin said.

“It definitely helped attract the capital,” he said. “It said that our equity dollars would go further because we would be matching these federal government dollars.”

“I tend to be a strong free-market oriented person,” Tassin added. “I’m not looking for the government to decide who’s going to get the money and who’s going to have the better idea. But I think a nascent industry like renewables is an appropriate place for government research dollars to help prime the pump of innovation.

“We can always find another deal somewhere. Deals are like streetcars; one comes by every 15 minutes. But government funding helps energize the entrepreneurial part of it.”

Zachary Solomon, a project manager for American Ventus Energy LLC, an Austin, Tex.- based company that develops wind farms, put it this way:

“Without government subsidies, I wouldn’t be in this business,” he said. “Private industry can only invest so much. If you look at Europe’s successes in this area, you have to recognize the fact that the governments there have been very open-minded when it comes to investing in renewable technologies for the past two decades. Europe has a better understanding of the potential applications of renewable energy.”

Robert Thresher, a research fellow at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a facility of the U.S. Department of Energy, and a former director of the lab’s National Wind Technology Center, said that Europe first “started to get religion” about renewable energy after the nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986. In 2007, the European Union set a goal of supplying 20 percent of its energy needs from renewable sources by 2020. The U.S. clean energy bill passed by the House last year set a similar target, but the Senate last week shelved plans for a broad energy bill.

American support for renewable energy has been driven by crises and the high cost of oil, Thresher said. “It’s a classic American way of doing business. We do everything sort of piecemeal, so there’s no stable policy. That’s been the key problem. Every administration changes its energy plan. It’s been very difficult for people like Jim Dehlsen to know what the ground rules are so that they can make a rational investment.

“But no matter what happens, I don’t think this industry can be stopped. It may have slowdowns and speedups, but it’s the cheapest form of very low-carbon energy. And people want jobs.”

On Dehlsen’s hypothetical energy map of the U.S., there are land-based wind farms in the Midwest and offshore wind farms along the East Coast north of North Carolina. As previously reported by Miller-McCune, the combined output of a fleet of offshore wind farms could provide more than enough electricity for the heavily populated East Coast, without interruption, because when the wind dies down in one spot off the Atlantic coast, it’s invariably kicking up in another spot.

Florida has no good wind resources, but it could get power from the Gulf Stream, Dehlsen said. The U.S. Minerals Management Service has calculated that harvesting just one one-thousandth of the Gulf Stream’s energy flow could supply Florida with 35 percent of its electrical needs. Ocean current speeds are lower than wind speeds, but because water is 835 times denser than wind, a 12 mile-per-hour water flow packs the same amount of energy as 110-mile-per-hour hurricane.

As for the West Coast, Dehlsen said, wave energy could be harnessed along the windy shores north of San Francisco and at Point Conception in Santa Barbara County.

“It’s all stuff to be done,” he said.

Palpable federal support for marine renewable energy began in 2008, the first year of a $250 million five-year appropriation for research in the field. At the House committee hearing in December, Dehlsen and others requested a reauthorization of those funds. In its report, the committee noted that approximately 10 percent of U.S. national electricity demand “may be met through river in-stream sites, tidal in-stream sites and wave generation,” not including ocean currents.

A 10-year reauthorization has been included in a Senate energy bill, but the upcoming House version does not yet include those funding levels. Meanwhile, the proposed Marine Renewable Energy Promotion Act, legislation that would accelerate federal tax breaks and technological aid, has been stalled in Congress for more than a year.

This spring, in a “roadmap” drawn up by Thresher and modeled after the U.K.’s, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory proposed setting a goal of 23 gigawatts from marine renewable energy in the U.S. by 2030. That’s the equivalent of 23 nuclear power plants – an aggressive plan, Thresher said, but attainable, in part because the technology of wind is transferable to marine energy.

“It reminds me of where wind was in 1985,” he said. “But it doesn’t have to take 30 years for marine renewables to mature. There’s a potential for a much more stable market with climate change and the rising cost of carbon fuels.”

In a recent survey, the department found that most entrepreneurs in the field, including Dehlsen, were operating on small amounts of money – between $2 million and $10 million – and were struggling to find the capital to test their expensive designs beyond the lab. They said they needed between $4 million and $25 million each to build demonstration projects and get certified by an independent engineering firm. That’s how an emerging technology proves that it is “bankable” and can borrow money.

“In the early stages of an industry, the support has to be continuous,” Jim Dehlsen said. “You can’t build projects if it takes three years to put it together and the support expires and you’re not going to get financing.”

The Dehlsens have patented their design for the Aquantis Current Plane, or C-Plane, a series of “windmills” that would be suspended about 150 feet underwater, tethered to the ocean floor about 12 miles offshore. The Dehlsens also have patents for the Centipod, which can be installed in waves 6 feet high between offshore wind turbines or along the coast, a mile from shore.

Dehlsen has received $3 million in federal funding for the Aquantis and about $150,000 for the Centipod for preliminary engineering expenses. He estimates there will be two more years of engineering costs before prototypes can be built. For Aquantis alone, Dehlsen says he’ll need $26 million, primarily in government funding, to get it ready for the market.

For this undaunted entrepreneur, it’s not just clean energy: It’s the way to rebuild America.

“There really needs to be consistent support for these projects, or you kind of waste your money,” Dehlsen said. “Ten years ago, we had the luxury of being frivolous about supporting this type of thing. We don’t have that luxury anymore. We have so much loss of industry, we’d better find a way to start building it back. How will we ever regain our position as an economic force in the world?”