DOD picks winners in energy technology

Picking winners in energy technology competition instead of leaving the decision to the marketplace is not something a free market would dictate. But this is the trend now.

Recent examples shave shown that biofuels, solar and wind could be the handpicked losers. President Obama talks about introducing tax credits for renewable energy developers. The problem is spending billions of taxpayers money to push premature and uneconomic programs. Range Fuels Inc.’s cellulosic ethanol plant in Soperton, Ga, sacked more than $300 million in taxpayer and private money before closing. Another $500 million taxpayer money lost on the Solyndra corporation (see for details at Solyndra Businessweek Solyndra Scientific American , Solyndra what happened).

In Wired, Julie Eilperin writes that clean-technology investment is going bust in the US. Sam Fletcher sums it up quite elegantly: “I wish I could understand how a government guarantee of a $535 million loan to a financially troubled solar-panel manufacturer was "an investment in the future," while taking from oil and gas companies the same tax provisions enjoyed by other businesses is a gutsy move to curb "subsidies." Government financing was supposed to create 4,000 "green" jobs. Instead, the firm went bankrupt, laid off employees, and let taxpayers pick up the bill.”

A recent World Bank Policy Research Working Paper concludes that solar technologies still not economically competitive for electricity generation. It says that despite a large drop in costs, improved technological performance and higher fossil-fuel prices, solar-energy technologies still aren't competitive with conventional ones for electricity production. Many countries have implemented a range of direct and indirect subsidies, as well as regulatory standards, to boost the production of solar energy. But the incentives provided by these measures aren't enough to substantially increase solar energy's share in the global electricity-supply mix. Maintaining policy supports can be costly and inefficient.

And yet, the DOD doesn’t get tired of awarding new contracts. The White Sands Missile Range project in New Mexico, awarded in December 2011, will provide the Army with 4.44-megawatts of installed photovoltaic capacity. When finished, it will be the largest renewable energy project in the Army, more than double the size of the current largest 2-megawatt array at Fort Carson, Colo.  The $16.8 million contract  with Siemens Government Technologies will generate more than 10 percent of the installation's electrical energy consumption via solar renewable energy by the end of 2012. (Army's largest renewable energy project part of $61 million energy contracts)

DOD’s Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan FY 2011 tells us that of all electricity consumed by DoD facilities in FY 2010, 9.6%  was obtained from renewable sources of energy. At the end of FY2010 close to 350 renewable energy projects were hosted on DoD properties. But a handful of them contribute the lion’s share of the Department’s total renewable energy production. The geothermal facility at China Lake in California accounts for over 58% of DoD’s total renewable energy generation. The next six largest sources of renewable energy account for over a quarter of DoD’s renewable energy. All of the remaining 345 projects generate much less energy than these, usually much less.

Output of the Seven Largest DoD Renewable Energy Projects Compared to the Other 345

I wonder how this chart would look like in terms of total costs. My point is that DOD should present these kinds of charts in a context, by using some metrics, like cost per MW installed, or kWh cost etc.

Annie Snider published a very good article on Greenwire (Clean energy doesn't always bring security for military ).  In summary it says the following:

Nellis Air Force Base's 14.2-megawatt solar power plant has been lauded by the military as a showpiece of a sweeping effort to boost energy security and resilience at bases by integrating renewable energy. But the solar panels at Nellis are useless when commercial power is out, thanks to a provision in the project's agreement with the local utility that lets NV Energy turn off the array if the grid goes down. Utilities charge a "disconnect fee" for the right to drop off the grid and continue generation during a power outage.

This is also the case for the Naval Air Weapons Station in China Lake, Calif., where a 270-megawatt geothermal plant produces more power than it uses, and many others.  The idea of using renewable energy to power critical missions wasn't on the Pentagon agenda when the Nellis and China Lake projects were built in 2007 and 1987, respectively. But today, as the DOD undertakes a massive effort to build renewable energy generation for "energy security," there is still no overarching requirement that such power sources be able to support vital national missions if the local power goes out.

Consider this scenario: The commercial grid is down, so the base is running its cogeneration plant and photovoltaics at full tilt. Then, clouds pass, and suddenly power is gone. DOD energy officials say renewable power can be an important piece of a base's overall power portfolio, but there are limits to how much of the load it can shoulder.

So if you cannot get electricity from these green power generations if the commercial grid goes down, then what is their role in providing security benefit to the military?

Pentagon's Love with Helios and Anemoi

In an Opinion Article (An unfair fight for renewable energies) appeared in Washington Post on 5 October 2011, former governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger argues that “More energy from the sun hits Earth in one hour than all the energy consumed on our planet in an entire year.” Apparently this statement doesn’t seem absurd to him.

But he adds that “It is absurd that our federal government spends tens of billions of dollars annually subsidizing the oil industry, which pulls diminishing resources from underground, while the industry focused above ground on wind, solar and other renewable energies is derided in Washington…. We need a level field on which the United States allows renewable energies to develop by the same rules as oil.” No, Mr former governor, all subsidies should be eliminated in a free market economy.

What really absurd is his following argument: “When the oil, gas and nuclear industries were forming, federal support for those energies totaled as much as 1 percent of federal spending. Subsidies available to the renewables industry today are just one-tenth of 1 percent.” This twisted logic reminds me of the DoD budget talks. Remember, the Pentagon officials have been saying that the DOD budget represents only 4% of the US Gross Domestic Product.  Right, only $700 billion dollars.

By the way, Helios and Anemoi are the Greek Gods of the sun and wind.

I am quite surprised to see solar energy being promoted as a miraculous solution. For instance, I suppose you heard already that Project SolarStrong is worth more than $1 billion under which developer SolarCity will install, own, and operate rooftop solar systems on up to 160,000 privatized military residences on as many as 124 military bases across 33 states. The project would double the current number of residential rooftop solar systems in the U.S. It calls for installing a total of 371 megawatts of solar PV systems on military housing. U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced the offer of a conditional commitment for a partial guarantee of a $344 million loan to help secure financing for the project. Unfortunately, in no such news you read anything about the backup system.

Moreover, supporters of a “green” military often claim that it will lead to the creation of jobs and reduced expenditure on imported fossil fuels. In other words, they misplace hopes that “green” energy will produce “green” jobs.

This is said to justify the massive state handouts to renewable energies. Subsidies, grants, tax exemptions, feed-in tariffs with state guaranteed prices, and other aids such as renewable fuel mandates have nothing to do with the free market.

Andrew Barr says “In reality, renewable fuel mandates are little more than subsidies to a select group of companies (with governmental connections like SunRun, Solazyme and Solyndra) that are often long on promises but short on results.”

For two more recent critics see the latest DoD Inspector General’s report which mentions that The Department of the Navy Spent Recovery Act Funds on Photovoltaic Projects that Were Not Cost-Effective, Geothermal Energy Development Project at Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada, Did Not Meet Recovery Act Requirements.

Kevin Rosner recently published an excellent article (Post Mortem on Germany's Nuclear Melt-Down). Below I repeat two good examples from Kevin.

According to a 2009 study since the year 2000 renewable subsidies have created less than 50,200 jobs in Spain. The average subsidy per worker added in these three sources of renewable energies [mini-hydro, wind, and solar] is more than half a million Euros (€571,138), ranging from €542,825 per worker added in or by the mini-hydro sector and two-thirds of a million Euros per worker added in or by the photovoltaic sector, to well over €1 million per worker added in or by the wind industry.

The UK’s experience with wind-power in December 2010 is another example. In December the UK’s 3,153 turbines produced a mere 0.2 % of the needed power during a time of bitter cold. Operating at peak efficiency the turbines should have been able to provide almost 10% of the needed power, but unreliable wind had the turbines functioning at less than 2.5 percent of their capacity. Germans might want to consider this experience as potentially part of their own Nein Danke nuclear future.

In sum, Pentagon energy officials must learn that solar and wind systems cannot provide reliable, base-load electricity. These systems have to be supported by the backup baseload, provided by fossil fuels or nuclear. So much with the zero net installations! Pentagon officials must also keep in mind that we waste much of the electricity we generate because we do not have the sufficient technology to store all the electricity generated. This is why we need more R&D and innovation for energy storage solutions. In the absence of a storage solution, installations will continue to rely on civilian grid (unless power is generated by small nuclear plants inside the installations). I hope before the New Year starts all senior DOD energy officials will find some time to read more on basics of energy. My reading will be on gardening.

A happy, healthy and peaceful new year!

Solar Power Dispute at Nellis Air Force Base

Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada is not only home to the largest advanced air combat training mission in the world but also home to the North America’s largest solar photovoltaic power plant. Designed and built by SunPower Corporation, it intends to meet an average of 25% of the electricity requirements at the base, where 12,000 people live and work. The single-axis solar tracking system maximizes solar electrical generation by following the path of the sun. MMA Renewable Ventures, LLC, has financed this $100 million solar energy system, and will own and operate it by selling power to Nellis Air Force Base at a guaranteed rate for 20 years, as well as selling Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) to Nevada Power. (see the end of this article for the technical details)

A Washington Post article on 20 June 2009 (Solar Project Meets Bigger Foe Than Cloudy Skies: The Air Force) reported that the Air Force has objected to SolarReserve, LA, to build one of the largest solar plants in the world in Nevada citing potential interference between the project’s 600-foot tower and radar used to guide flight training.

In 2007 SolarReserve proposed the construction of a $700 million solar thermal power plant with a capacity of 200 megawatts, covering two square miles, near the Nevada Air Force base. (see SolarReserve website for the explanation of their technology).

Solar tower plants use an array of mirrors to focus heat onto a single point — a tower. That heat is used to create steam to power a turbine. The company selected a site near Tonopah, about 25 miles from the testing range, because it is near power lines. Another company, BrightSource Energy wants to do a similar project near Primm and on private property at Coyote Springs.

But apparently Col. Howard D. Belote, installation commander at Nellis, is urging the government to turn it down. The company has been negotiating with the Air Force for 18 months and has already revised its plans once to move the plant away from the base, at the Air Force's suggestion. According to WP news piece Col. Belote said the solar plant would compromise classified aspects of the Air Force's training range and would interfere with radar. An Airforce Time news piece (Base: Solar project would hinder radar) adds that officials at Nellis Air Force Base are asking the Department of Interior to reject the SolarReserve Project because “the plant would be incompatible with our vital national security interests, Col. Howard Belote, commander of the 99th Air Base Wing at Nellis, wrote in a June 3 letter to Interior’s Bureau of Land Management.” On another occasion the same Col. Belote said that “Nellis AFB is a proponent of compatible renewable energy initiatives both on and off DoD lands. DoD is a stakeholder, not an approving authority, for non-DoD lands.” Also, DoD is not in the business of selling power to the grid.

This may sounds strange. This is not the first time that concerns are raised about certain types of renewable energy technologies possible interference with air and ground radar systems if they’re located too close to the range. And a tower could disrupt radar systems if installed in some places within 100 miles north and west of the site.

Mission impacts of solar and wind systems vary. For solar systems the issues are centered on height; radar; glare; noise/boom damage; heat. For wind energy the issues are height and radar. Wind farms may also have potential negative impacts to military operations - Electromagnetic Interference, Flight Obstruction, Security, Thermal Signature, Lighting, and Reflection. In Radar performance impacts wind turbines are of primary concern. The issues include target detection (degrades the radar’s ability to identify a target, ie, doppler aspect), Clutter (reduces operator’s ability to track targets), Screening (reduces radar coverage volume), Beacon false targets, Screening and beacon false targets.

US Solar Resources and DoD Ranges and Special Use Airspace (Source)


In the past, Nellis AFB had objected to tall hotel projects in nearby Las Vegas and to wind turbines. But the base sits well above the height of the tower proposed by SolarReserve. Nellis is about 200 miles from the proposed solar tower but Nellis AFB suggests SolarReserve move the plant another 200 miles southeast.

In a June 17 hearing before the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on readiness and management support, Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said the resistance of military training ranges to alternative energy plants had a “chilling effect on renewable energy projects.”

Now both SolarReserve and Nellis AFB are doing separate research on the impact of the project on radars. The military has commissioned scientists from MIT to study this issue.

Solar power sstem at Nellis Air Force Base


Source: USAF, for more pictures see here.


On 27 May 2009, Col. Belote hosted President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who toured the solar facility. When he gave President Barack Obama a tour of Nellis’ 14 megawatt photovoltaic solar array, he said the military needed more of a voice in the administration’s solar planning.

At Nellis AFB Obama announced two new American Recovery and Reinvestment Act programs aimed at doubling America's capability to generate renewable energy. "Right now, we're standing near the largest solar electric plant of its kind in the entire Western Hemisphere ….It's a project that will save the U.S. Air Force, which is the largest consumer of energy in the federal government, nearly $1 million a year," President Obama said following a tour of Nellis' solar photovoltaic array.

Some of the specific provisions of the act called for promoting energy independence, with $7.2 billion dedicated to "green" projects and programs. Capitalizing on Nellis' example, the president announced the availability of Recovery Act funding for two such programs. "The first is a solar energy technologies program that will help replicate the success of the Nellis project in cities and states across America. We'll invest in the development and deployment of solar technology wherever it can thrive and we'll find the best ways to integrate solar power into our electric grid," President Obama said.

At first sight, I am a bit puzzled with this objection of Ellis AFB to new solar projects “close” to the base. As far as I know solar thermal projects are much more competitive than Solar PV projects. Therefore I wonder whether some financial issues play a role on this dog fight. How much does Nellis pay per kWh to MMA Renewable Ventures. What would be the selling price of SolarReserve per kWh? Or the issue is really purely adverse effect on military capabilities? If that is the case why DoD has not conducted any detailed study and set the clear constraints concerning solar and wind projects close to military bases?

I guess it is time for the US military to restudy the meaning of the word “strategy” before going ahead with renewable energy projects. DoD is failing with its vision. Synthetic fuels derived from coal is not happening, biofuels are still focused on non-tactical vehicles use only. Data management has not been improved. Senior DoD official on energy matters has not yet been assigned. And now, voices are raised against wind and concentrated solar power projects. What is left is energy efficiency and conservation. I hope DoD will not loosen the efforts and ambitions on those fronts. Note that more than 80% of the USAF energy consumption (in monetary terms) is for aviation and 15% is for installations. The rest is for ground equipment.

By the way, the new solar panels on rooftops at the California Air National Guard base in Fresno are a first for any air guard base in the US. In the beginning of July 2009 a solar company finished installing 3,819 solar panels at the Fresno air guard base, home to the 144th Fighter Wing. The 660-kilowatt system was built on three newly constructed carports and a rooftop at the McKinley Avenue base. The project was installed by San Francisco-based Akeena Solar, and was completed in phases, starting in 2006. It cost about $6 million and covers almost 40,000 square feet. The installation is eligible to receive an estimated $1.1 million rebate from the California Solar Initiative. Unlike some other projects in which the solar company owns the panels and leases them to the location, the air guard owns the panels.



=================================================================
Some technical details on Nellis Solar PV Power Plant:

Project surface area: 140 acres (owned by USAF)
Solar plant capacity: 14.2 megawatts (DC) peak output
Date of completion: December 2007 (constructed in 26 weeks)
Annual energy output: 30,100,000 kWh
Estimated annual Air Force savings: $1 million
Technology: SunPower T20 Tracker
Number of Trackers: 5,821
Number of solar panels: 72,416
Number of solar cells: 5,891,328
Number of watts per panel: 200
Number of transformers: 18
Number of inverters: 54
Total length of power cables: 5,550,000 ft .
(For further info click this link)