02-05-09
Is giant solar as big a boondoggle as Big Oil? One of the best energy reporters I’ve worked with, Craig Rose of San Diego, has a piece in the latest issue of Nation magazine
(subscription barrier) that argues in complete and understandable
detail why "small solar"–on urban rooftops, near electric substations,
along existing power transmission lines–should be built before
resorting to giant solar arrays that feed new long-distance high-voltage lines planted in virgin deserts and plains.
Rose opens with the big picture:
"As the Obama administration and Congress search for worthy
infrastructure projects to fund as part of the stimulus and
economic-recovery package, there is a growing consensus in support of
major investment in the renewal and greening of America’s electricity
grid. Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens’s plan for a huge new grid to tap
wind energy across the Plains States has attracted the most attention,
but the grandest aspiration is for a "national backbone grid," a
coast-to-coast project tapping renewable energy sources that would cost
hundreds of billions of dollars.
"Big electric-transmission
projects have developed a potent support base that includes large
utility companies as well as many environmentalists, who argue that all
means must be pursued to save the planet by reducing the burning of
fossil fuels. The presumption is that big new transmission projects are
required to reach America’s vast renewable resources, from the strong,
steady winds of the Midwest to the relentless sun of the Southwestern
deserts. Although massive expansion of the electric grid threatens to
despoil the last of America’s undeveloped places, some
environmentalists mistakenly believe the urgency of dealing with
climate change leaves no alternative to large, remotely sited renewable
electric-generation facilities and the transmission lines they need to
get power to consumers. In fact, there is an alternative: "distributed
generation," or smaller solar technology installations on rooftops and
near existing transmission lines, or even scaled-down wind farms sited
closer to consumers."
He cites tough-to-dispute examples:
"Consider
what happened when Minnesota regulators looked carefully last year at
the CapX 2020 project, a proposed cluster of new power lines costing up
to $1.7 billion. A key purpose of the lines was to link Minnesota with
proposed wind farms in the Dakotas. This is just the type of project
favored by Pickens and other supporters of big electric transmission.
But after examination the regulators found that Minnesota could develop
many small 10-40 megawatt wind farms within the state totaling 600
megawatts–equivalent to a modern power plant–without any new
transmission."
And the capper, for both wind and solar
transmission, is that there’s no guarantee the costly new transmission
lines will carry only or even mostly green power. If you build it, you
must fill it, so why not also build a spur to a coal-fired power plant,
and maybe expand it, just to get some cheaper power on board? Utilities
have to make a buck, after all.
The alternative, though, scares the private mega-utilities:
"[E]ncouraging
local ownership of distributed resources would solidify local support
for the projects and increase the economic benefits, because much more
of the spending–and the jobs created–would tay in the community. This
is precisely why big utility companies fear dvances in rooftop solar
technology: it could make every building owner a power generator and
leave utilities with long-term prospects similar o those of Detroit
automakers or the newspaper industry. ‘The big utility companies are
looking at the future, and they’re getting freaked out,’ said Tyson
Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s energy program."
In
addition, what looks like cheap distant power may turn into expensive
power at the light switch. Rose cites a study developed for an Ohio
project that found:
"[I]f Ohio’s electricity came
from North Dakota wind farms 1,000 miles away, the cost of constructing
lines to transport that power and the [power] losses during
transmission would surpass the lower cost of production, resulting in
consumer costs 15 percent higher than those from locally generated
power."A similar conclusion was reached by many who studied the
Sunrise Powerlink, a planned $2 billion transmission line to move
electricity from desert projects 150 miles east of San Diego to the
urban area. Proposed by San Diego Gas & Electric, Sunrise won
approval in December from the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) only after regulators ignored the recommendation of the
administrative law judges who oversaw a three-year review. Those judges
recommended rejection, concluding that it would be cheaper and better
for the environment if SDG&E developed renewable and other projects
closer to home."
After some chicanery by the governor,
the California regulators (appointed by the governor) approved the
project. The one vote against: CPUC commissioner Dian
Grueneich, who was assigned to oversee the Sunrise case.
"In a scathing dissent, Grueneich noted that regulators were approving
the [150 miles of transmission towers and lines] ostensibly to develop
renewable energy but failed to guarantee that it would do so. In other
words, after all the money spent on Sunrise, it could wind up carrying
mostly dirty electricity. This contradiction was ighlighted when
SDG&E–which had insisted the line would be used largely for green
power–characterized as unacceptable a requirement hat the line carry a
fixed percentage of green power. In fact, current federal transmission
rules prohibit restricting any transmission project to green energy
only, a policy the Obama administration should reconsider if it wants
to encourage renewable energy."
The push for Big Solar under
corporate control comes just as the costs of local,
smaller-scale "distributed generation" are coming down:
"The irony is that SDG&E’s parent company, Sempra Energy, has reached what has long been considered a historic milestone in solar energy. Using thin-film photovoltaic panels from First Solar, a fast-growing supplier, Sempra’s recently completed 10-megawatt generating plant outside Las Vegas can produce electricity at rates comparable to or below those of fossil fuel fired plants, according to Mark Bachman, a research analyst with Pacific Crest Securities. The use of thin-film technology will be revolutionary, says Powers, and California regulators apparently agree. In a recent study by the CPUC, analysts concluded that [distributed generation]–in particular, small 20-megawatt installations of thin-film photovoltaics–could satisfy most of California’s aggressive target for renewable energy at competitive cost and without new transmission lines."
Of course, even "small solar" has to be done right. Projects that are loaded with pork and open-ended costs, like the Los Angeles ballot initiative called "GreenEnergy/GreenJobs," are just as bad as big solar, and maybe worse, because their faults will hit customers in the pocketbook much faster. The bottom line is to not just do it small, but do it right, and the public will be on board. That’s truly cleaner and cheaper.