Environmental News, Articles & Information | Global Warming News | EcoWorld

Almost ten years ago, Time Magazine proclaimed Paul Watson as one of the major environmental heroes of the 20th century. During the 1970s Watson was part of numerous Greenpeace campaigns against whaling, but he always felt that these placid confrontations had little result against saving whales. Some of these graceful animals even died from attacks with Greenpeace Zodiacs swarming around whaling vessels.

According to Watson’s biography, everything came to light in 1975, as he was forced to watch a sperm whale die a few feet from his boat after it had been harpooned by Russian hunters. This was just not acceptable.

Watson didn’t mesh well with Greenpeace and felt that more extreme measures were necessary for actual results, but his strong opinions didn’t win him any favors: He ended up expelled from the board of directors when he was 27, with only a single vote opposing the decision – his own.

Watson used this opportunity to found the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society which, unlike Greenpeace, uses more aggressive tactics to stop whaling. This doesn’t come without a price, though, and Watson has found himself in jail a few times on charges ranging from attempted murder to intentionally sinking a ship. Sea Shepherd does admit to having sunk at least ten ‘pirate’ whaling ships since 1979 and it is no surprise that a few nations look at this group as a kind of terrorist organization.

The newest ship, named after famed Australian conservationist Steve Irwin. (Photo: Sea Shepherd Conservation Society)

If nothing else, the current exploits of the Sea Shepherd is excellent television and it is now part of a more controversial reality TV show airing on Animal Planet. This show, adequately titled ‘Whale Wars’, aired a few months ago and already has millions of devoted fans.

Laws have been set into place to ban whaling, but it remains an issue in countries where whale meat has been a staple for centuries. Japan is one of the major players in the Whale Wars game. Every part of the whale is valued in one form or another by the Japanese, and it is hard for an entire nation to accept a law that interferes with ancient traditions. Japan has tried to find loopholes to allow whaling, such as painting ‘Research Vessel’ on the side of obvious whaling ships, but even these boats seem to turn around when confronted with Watson’s ‘terrorist’ ship.

It will be interesting to see how much of an influence organizations like Sea Shepherd have on the environment where politics have failed. Many people feel that they give environmentalists a bad rap, however it is hard not to respect a man who has given up everything to save a species he cares for deeply.

On nearly the eve of the new year, a couple of noted industry observers have already gone public with their greentech predictions for 2009. On December 4th, Cleantech Group Executive Chairman Nicholas Parker published their “Nine clean technology predictions for 2009,” which, briefly stated, are the following:

1. Energy efficiency infrastructure boom initiated
2. Global climate talks bog down—no serious deal until 2011/12
3. U.S. passes national RPS, but cap & trade bill only in 2010
4. Wind stocks come back; thin film PV shakeout
5. Clean technology VC stabilizes at $7B globally; Private Equity more active
6. Failure rate of cleantech startups doubles
7. IT turns to the energy opportunity
8. R&D stagnates; corporates acquire green growth assets
9. Energy-water-food nexus emerges

One day earlier, on December 3rd, Lightspeed Venture Partners Managing Director Peter Nieh published their “2009 Cleantech Predictions,” which are:

1. Cleantech funding will slow significantly, forcing startups to seek alternative growth strategies,
2. Companies will come under increased pressure to achieve competitive cost economics,
3. Investor interest in energy storage, especially for automotive and grid-scale applications, to grow strongly,
4. Government will play larger role in cleantech, as policymakers around the country increase their support,
5. Cleantech comes of age in China.

Shortly after Nieh’s predictions went public, I had the opportunity to talk with him. The prevailing question underlying all of these predictions, for me, is fairly simple – to what extent is greentech a bubble, and to what extent does reaching the limits of leverage combined with low prices for conventional energy wipe out entire sectors of greentech?

As Nieh put it, “there is the financing chasm where many of the capital intensive cleantech companies will really suffer. The pilot stage, up to about $30 million [invested] is about as far as most VCs want to go – once you go into full scale production you may need $50 million or more, this is where hedge and private equity funds drop in to fill that gap, and those sources are gone. We always knew that was the toughest part of cleantech; the credit crisis has really opened up this chasm again.”

So what is left? Where will serious funding come from, and what greentech sectors are going to win or lose with cheap conventional energy? Nieh had several observations:

On cheap conventional energy: “Our investments never assumed oil staying over $100 per barrel. For example, LS9 claims they can produce diesel fuel from sugar at a cost without subsidies that is competitive with crude oil as low as $45 per barrel.”

On funding: “There will need to be stronger syndicates forming to make bigger initial investments. There will have to be more government support, such as stronger DOE loan guarantees. There may be more interest from corporate partners looking for technology to comply with RPS mandates.”

With oil at $35 a barrel, which greentech schemes will soar onward, and which will become carrion for Cathartes aura? (Photo: EcoWorld)

On what sectors may show continued growth: “There are water treatment technologies that are ‘capital light;’ utility scale solar will yield better economics sooner, because half the installed cost for [distributed] solar is balance of system, but at the utility scale the balance of system as a percent of total cost goes way down; thin film PV has a low cost per watt, but at the utility scale this lower efficiency is not a constraint; energy efficiency technologies will be more interesting, but they are not bringing as much upside and don’t have as much proprietary technology; there is a lot of innovation on the installation side of distributed PV, such as distributed inverters that will get more efficiency out of the panels; there is a real opportunity on the efficiency side since greater panel efficiency means less racking, less glass, and less wiring.”

On energy storage: “Sodium sulpher batteries are still very expensive, we need to get storage down to about $100 per kWh for it to get really interesting. The vanadium redox flow batteries have promise.”

On China: “The Chinese are able to create capital intensive technologies with far less investment, everything is less expensive, parts, machines, labor. The Chinese are pumping money into urbanization, they will continue to promote and drive this. You can apply energy efficiency in a new city or a new building, you can build them in. In China most development is new instead of retrofit, it is a petri dish of innovation where you have the opportunity to leapfrog what went in place in the west.”

From Lightspeed and from the Cleantech Group we see predictions all grappling with the question of where greentech goes in a capital constrained global economy that has returned to the days of cheap energy. In both sets of predictions a greater role for government and corporate partners is envisioned. In both it isn’t perfectly clear which sectors will continue to thrive, if any. Perhaps the worst possible outcome would be if R&D truly does stagnate (Cleantech Group #8). A second gotcha will be if government involvement results in money pouring into sectors and technologies that aren’t necessarily the best solutions.

The momentum greentech has acquired, the innovations that have been accelerated, the awareness that has been awakened and heightened, guarantee the contributions of greentech are already destined to be lasting. But greentech is undoubtedly at a crossroads. How greentech and the larger environmental movement adapt and evolve as the global economy resets over the next few years is a question of more than passing interest to investors – along with the rest of humanity. Nieh summed it up quite well when he said “predictions are hard to make, in our business we try to profit from the unknown. If it were known everybody would be doing it.”

When it comes to testing for contaminants-whether in your lab, production facility, or even in your own body-nothing is more excruciating than the wait. Current testing methods are painfully slow: It takes about a full week to get results from most labs, and there is nothing you can do but gnaw at your fingernails and plan for the worst.

BioVigilant has developed a unique tool that automatically detects a variety of contaminants such as mold, bacteria, dust and smog almost immediately. This is incredible news, since lab testing for the same contaminants is typically time consuming, costly and labor intensive (often requiring the growth of a substance on petri-dishes and identifying contaminants by squinting through a microscope).

While waiting for lab results, companies lose incredible amounts of money since they need to halt production. Not only that, but items such as medicines or water are wasted, since even the slight chance of exposing people to contaminants like bacteria, mold or a biohazard (like anthrax) is not a risk worth taking.

The IMD-A 220-4 can sample 28.4 liters per minute. (Photo: BioVigilant Systems)

BioVigilant explains that their “systems detect-instantaneously and in real time-particulate count, size, and biological status. Unlike other rapid microbial methods, BioVigilant’s optically-based systems require no staining, no reagents, no waiting period, and little human intervention.”

The instruments developed by BioVigilant work non-stop (hence the name). They continuously sample the air in a specific area and screen for particles as small as 0.5 microns. Real time data is then presented on a computer screen for easy viewing. The fact that data can be analyzed and viewed over real time is important: This way, it is easy to determine the precise time an area became contaminated or to analyze how air quality has changed over time.

The Biovigilant systems come in two varieties: The portable version weighs only 30 pounds and draws in around 1 liter of volume per minute, while the larger version can sample around 30 liters per minute and is specifically designed for larger testing areas.

The technology was originally developed for the U.S military who used the systems for the sole purpose of testing the air for bio-agents like anthrax. This is definitely an important cause, but the technology can now be used for other purposes as well. For one thing, they ensure that production is taking place in the cleanest of environments. Not only that, but the technology is also essential in keeping surrounding environments stable by ensuring that no contaminants escape.

At this point, waiting for results is no harder than turning on a monitor, and hopefully what you see is good news.

Washington Post correspondant Juliet Eilperin, in her 12-26-08 report entitled “New climate change estimates more pessimistic,” dutifully surveys the latest bleak findings of the climate change community. Her primary source is a recently released survey comissioned by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program – expanding on the findings of the 2007 4th IPPC Report on Climate Change. Apparently this “new assessment suggests that earlier projections may have underestimated the climatic shifts that could take place by 2100.” One of Eilperin’s primary examples of alarming new data is reported as follows:

“In one of the reports most worrisome findings, the agency estimates that in light of recent ice sheet melting, global sea level rise could be as much as 4 feet by 2100. The IPCC had projected a sea level rise of no more than 1.5 feet by that time, but satellite data over the past two years show the world’s major ice sheets are melting much more rapidly than previously thought. The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are now losing an average of 48 cubic miles of ice a year, equivalent to twice the amount of ice that exists in the Alps.”

This indeed sounds ominous, until one recalls the data from just over two years ago, released and reported with similar overtones of dreadful urgency. Our October 20th, 2006 report entitled “Greenland’s Ice Melting Slowly” referenced then recent findings from NASA indicating that Greenland’s ice was melting at “a net loss of 27 cubic miles of ice per year.”

In our above-noted critique of this 2006 NASA report, we correctly noted 27 cubic miles of new water in the world’s oceans per year would result in a net rise of sea level of 1.2 inches per century. The calculations for this claim are fairly straightforward and are outlined in that post. Now in this new 2008 report in the Washington Post, not only Greenland, but Antarctica as well are only combining to contribute 48 cubic miles of net ice-melt per year into the world’s oceans on average during the last three years. That is about 2.0 inches per century, and clearly these datapoints don’t indicate a trend towards faster melting, when Antarctica’s ice mass is nearly 10x that of the Greenland ice cap.

It would help if Eilperin and others would have included links to the original just-released study from the USGS Climate Change Science Program, “Abrupt Climate Change.” Using the key words “USGS faster climate change feared,” the many, many links found on Google, including the Washington Post story’s own link to the study, only reference the Washington Post story itself. And despite the overwhelming intent of all these posts spawned by Eilperin’s latest dispatch, to crow yet again that our worst primal diluvian fears could come true, the most supposedly alarming data they themselves have cited suggest strongly otherwise. Three years ago what NASA quantified as an alarming loss of annual ice loss from Greenland was easily demonstrated at that time to be an insignificant loss, and today NASA’s updated data appears to suggest the annual rate of global polar ice loss has actually decreased since then.

Read Arctic Cooling on Schedule, “Hottest Year? 1934,” “Greenland’s Ice Melting Slowly,”Greenland’s Ice Cap”,” and “Antarctic Ice,” for more on the relationship between land-based polar ice mass and sea level rise.

Greenland’s Riviera – their green southwest. Will another Maunder minimum grip the region in cages of ice again, or will bells ring in the portside squares, as they did in the 1300′s before that cooling came, and ships sailed the fiords? (Source: NASA)

An interview with Dr. David Mills, Chief Scientific Officer and Founder of Ausra:

Dr. David Mills has worked in the alternative energy field for over 30 years. He was born and raised in Canada and educated in Australia. In his University of Sydney lab he developed and licensed the evacuated-tube solar water heater technology, which consists of about 60 percent of the world’s solar collectors and created an advanced double cermet selective absorber coating, which is used in tube receivers by Chinas largest solar company. He also invented or co-invented the Prism solar concentrator (Sol X) and the S evacuated tube reflecting system (Solahart). He’s saved his best for last however, with his pioneering Compact Linear Fresnel Reflector (CLFR) technology, which is what is presently being manufactured for utility-scale thermal solar power.

Solar thermal uses fields of special mirrors to shine the sun’s energy on water-filled piping, which then boils and turns it into steam to run turbines that produce electricity. There is no pollution or use of photovoltaics (solar panels). This technology is literally changing the way our planet will supply its every increasing need for energy free of fossil fuels or dangerous by-products. It provides green jobs, helps stop global warming, is cost effective and can be on the ground running within the next few years. All of North America and Europe’s electrical power needs (day and night) can be generated with this system, by using a desert land area less than 92 by 92 square miles. The parts for solar thermal power plants will soon be available for the world’s leading polluters (China, India, Europe and the U.S.), as well as other continents.
post resumes below image

Ausra’s revolutionary solar field design consists of several mirrors sharing a receiver. This lowers the cost of the mirrors while greatly reducing overall plumbing required.

Dr. Mills and his company (Ausra) have already signed contracts with one of the largest power companies in North America (Pacific Gas & Electric) to deliver 177 megawatts; are building the first U.S. manufacturing plant for solar thermal power systems in Las Vegas, Nevada; and plan on having a pre-commercial demonstration project up and running by the end of this year. One of the other largest utility companies in The States (Florida Power & Light) and its parent (FPL Group), have also taken a close look at Dr. Mills solar thermal technology. Their chairman and CEO, Lewis Hay, states, “As the operator of the largest solar energy facility in the world, we view this breakthrough technology as a promising option.”

I recently interviewed Dr. Mills at Ausra’s headquarters in Northern California. He shared some of his thoughts and insights about the environment, our energy needs and the quickest way to transform our fossil fuel economy to a solar and all-electric society.

Gabriel Constans (GC): It appears that the technology you are using at your present and future power plants can literally change the world and the way it obtains its energy needs. Do you realize that you are someone who, in many respects, could be seen as one of the great scientists and innovators of the century?

Dr. David Mills (DM): This kind of technology will certainly change how we produce and generate energy. This technology can be the big gorilla of generating energy. Presuming the electrified auto sector, it will soon be electricity and oil, not the other way around. There are already 3 battery companies that have batteries which can recharge electric car batteries in minutes. If you put that together with generating technology which is readily available on the grid, you have the ingredients to say we don’t need oil anymore, we don’t have to import oil.

GC: Is there enough private, organizational and government interest to adopt this technology?

DM: These things are world changing in many ways. The common term would be disruptive technology. It isn’t necessarily that way, in a negative fashion, but it does change things. It is positive disruption, though there will be winners and losers. If you look at the rail traffic in the U.S., 80% of it involves carrying fuel. If you don’t need it to carry fuel anymore, than you’re going to have to re-evaluate that industry. On the other hand, if you look at glass (used for solar reflecting mirrors, parts and tubing), it will probably double or triple that industry. Steel will stay about the same, but turbine production will be bigger than ever. There will be a lot of impacts on the economy, but in the end, in terms of employment and energy efficiency, the economy will be a superior economy.

GC: At what point are you in the process? When will you figuratively turn on the switch?

DM: We have developed a proprietary system to store energy. We’ll be developing and demonstrating this storage unit at a pre-commercial test facility in California this year. We anticipate that we’ll have energy storage commercialized by 2010. Having a turbine built and delivered is presently between 2-3 years. It’s the turbines which may cause some delay, not the know-how or technology. Similar companies, (such as Sterling) are facing the same issue. What convinces people is a plant on the ground. One can wave their arms around a lot at conferences, but the real deal is to have it working, having it connected to utilities and having it operating reliably. At that point people will get it.

Dr. David Mills

GC: How is thermal solar technology being accepted in the rest of the world?

DM: The entire field is going to progress very quickly. The greatest development is taking place right now, especially in the U.S. In Europe that isn’t so much the case. They set up a system called “feed in law” which is giving a comfortable amount of income to companies. They could continue to take the old designs and run with it for security. Here (in the U.S.) the market is tougher and more competitive, which means costs are kept down, so were seeing real development going on here. In my opinon, they aren’t lowering the feed in laws fast enough in Europe. For it to work around the world, you have to set up parallel corporations that can be competing in markets using these technologies. There are already other companies in the U.S., as well as other countries and companies that are interested. This will happen, but to manage this great of growth is going to be a serious challenge. There are many places that need electricity for social betterment, but social betterment is not the same thing as environmental rescue. They both have to be done. It’s a matter of prioritization.

GC: How did this all come about?

DM: I came up with this design and system independently, but once I did research I discovered that at least 2 other groups had attempted to go down this path before. One in the 1960′s built a small unit, including an Italian that built one in Southern France and another in the U.S. that tried but didn’t get very far with funding. We basically resurrected the idea. Other companies that are doing similar projects descended from us in one way or another. They’re all people that were involved with us or came in contact with us.

GC: What will it take to get power from companies using solar thermal technology to the public?

DM: We don’t have to put in an entirely new infrastructure for this technology, in the short term. In about 10 years you’ll get to the point were you need new power lines and new cross-continental low-loss DC lines to get that power to heavy population centers, like in the North East. People are going to have to get used to the idea that just like we have a trans-continental highway system, we need a trans-continental transmission system. Similar discussions are going on in Europe, such as the transmission of power from North Africa into Europe. We can build these things very quickly. What is generally the limitation is the present infrastructure, which people tend to like to run until it dies. Most of the existing plants will be gone in 40 years. If we decide on a Marshall Plan for energy, it’s possible to have it completed in 25 years. It would have to be global and would be the biggest thing ever. It would be an infrastructure that benefits everyone all the time. No matter what happens, its going to be a profitable exercise for people.

GC: Aren’t people reluctant to trust large corporations and power companies? Isn’t that why there has been such a push over the last 20 years for people to be independent and to have individual sources of energy for their own home or business?

DM: People sometimes confuse their dream of autonomy and independence from utility payments with the desire to be free of entanglements. The fact is, our economy involves a lot of people, a lot of transport, there is a lot of industry and community activity that goes on. It isn’t just an individual home owner off by themselves. The home is not the major part of electricity consumption or source of pollution. We shouldn’t be afraid of a utility scenario. From a practical point of view, it’s easier to put in a number of large plants very quickly, compared to convincing everyone individually that this is a good idea. In the end, both kinds of societies are possible, but I think this one can go much more quickly. It’s not to say the small scale won’t work, it’s simply a matter of time. Right now, we can change the amount of green electrons flowing through everyone’s circuits instead of a few. The source will be different, though the electricity is the same and we don’t have to change a lot of infrastructure. People shouldn’t be afraid of the large utility companies just because they’re large.

It only takes about 92 miles by 92 miles of a solar thermal plant to fulfill the energy requirements for North America and Europe. That’s not big. That’s smaller than a mining footprint for coal. It’s a benign system. People living next to this type of technology don’t mind them. We’re finding its more acceptable than wind power. Thermal solar power already exists. We can also store the energy created, so it carries us throughout the year and in all kinds of weather. It’s possible here and now and throughout the world.

Sitting on a beach is the last thing most of us think about in the cold month of December, but it is an appealing escape. Beaches are the most popular destination spot and who could blame the millions of tourists whose tension is washed away by warm waves, exotic drinks and sunny skies. Nothing is ever perfect, though. The ocean may be too cold, and the sand is often scalding hot. It is just the nature of the beast and humans have to accept the fact that we cannot control everything. Yet, designers in Dubai may disagree.

The Palazzo Versace Hotel, breaking ground on Dubai’s coastline, is planning on creating its very own climate. The hotel’s sand will never burn sensitive soles thanks to a network of heat absorbing pipes under the beach and 820sq foot refrigerated pool will always refresh guests trying to escape the rising temperature. Not only that, but whenever temperatures become uncomfortably hot, fans may be placed around the hotel’s beach to force a cool breeze towards lounging guests.

Making outdoors indoors…

In addition to the one-of-a-kind beach, the 10-story hotel will incorporate indoor pools in some of the 213 rooms. For a more detailed list of the hotel’s guest features click HERE.

It comes as no surprise that environmentalists are not happy with the situation. It is also a slap in the face to countries facing the current economic crisis. A climate controlled beach seems like a waste of money, and the energy required to control an outside environment is immense. Not only that, but it is not even necessary: certain variables may be unappealing but they add to the charm of visiting a natural area.

Soheil Abedian, founder and president of Palazzo Versace, argues that luxuries like this can also be sustainable. Rather than forcing cool air onto the sand which requires more energy, for example, the heat will get sucked out. Unfortunately, the exact plans for the project are still unknown.

Dubai is already home of the world’s top resorts and countless luxury hotels, the most famous of which is Burj al’Arab-the first hotel ever to boast a 5 star rating. Abedian is simply following UAE tradition and attempting to compete with countless other hotels that have offer such amenities as private butlers in gold plated rooms that can cost up to $40,000 a night. He hopes that the climate controlled beaches will provide the edge to lure high class tourists through his hotel’s doors which are planned to open in 2010.

via The Australian News

In the aftermath of the defeat of Proposition 7, the ambitious citizen’s initiative that would have required California’s utilities to deliver 50% renewable electricity by 2030, where is the golden state in terms of increasing its production of renewable electricity, and what factors are likely to help or hinder implementation of large scale electricity projects in California?

Prior to the election on November 4th, California’s 2002 renewable portfolio standard (RPS) called for 20% renewables by 2010 – a tough challenge at this point since in 2007 California was only up to 12.7% renewable electricity (ref. CPUC). Immediately following Prop. 7′s defeat, California Governor Schwarzenegger issued an executive order calling for the state’s utilities to deliver 33% renewable electricity by 2020.

According to a spokesperson for PG&E, one of the utilities who, improbably, joined a formidable coalition of environmental groups in opposing Prop. 7, “We commend the Governor for taking action to address the long term challenge of developing renewable resources and transmission infrastructure so that meeting a 33% renewable goal may be attainable.”

One of the ironies of Prop. 7 was that environmental groups opposed the streamlining and expediting provisions in the initiative designed to speed the construction of plants because they failed to adequately address environmental issues, whereas the utitities remained concerned that getting to 50% renewables by 2030 was a logistical impossibility, regardless of relaxed siting and permitting standards. Even one of Prop. 7′s proponents, the noted Dr. Donald Aitken, agreed in a recent conversation “they would have to go flat out” just to get to 33% by 2020.

Aitken’s assessment of how to bring California’s RPS successfully up into the 30% range and beyond included some useful insights and recommendations. For example, Aitken pointed out California’s current RPS doesn’t include conversion of solid waste into energy. According to a July 6th report in the New York Times, there are currently 87 waste-to-energy plants operating in the United States, continuously generating 2.7 gigawatts. While these plants are arguably already clean-burning, even more advanced thermochemical and biochemical processes to turn municipal solid waste and construction debris into electricity are moving rapidly forward, as evidenced by pilot plants using various technologies already in operation by companies such as Ze-gen, Plasco Energy Group, and BlueFire Ethanol, or nearly operational, ala companies such as POET, RangeFuels, and Coskata. Given the extraordinary challenge presented by transforming a third of California’s electricity generation to renewable sources, it isn’t obvious why waste-to-electricity solutions aren’t allowed to be counted towards fulfilling RPS goals.

The question of relaxed siting and expedited permitting requirements for renewable electricity generation isn’t trivial. Most of the renewable energy solutions available now – enhanced geothermal is still several years off – consume large amounts of land. Transmission lines also require large corridors of land. Anyone who has ever tried to develop property in California in recent years will attest to the difficulties obtaining permits. Literally dozens of Federal, State, County and City agencies require various permits to develop land – they are never uniform, they are all extraordinarily complex, they take years to complete, they are incredibly expensive, and all along the way there are also a host of powerful environmental nonprofits whose lawyers will throw additional obstacles in the way of a developer. It is almost impossible to develop land in California – a reason why Texas is now the nation’s leading producer of wind generated electricity – in Texas it is literally orders of magnitude easier to develop land in terms of time and expense. If California is to have any chance of achieving their current RPS goals, let alone even more ambitious ones, significant changes will need to occur in terms of what it takes, and how long it takes, to develop land.

BrightSource Energy’s pilot plant. (Photo: BrightSource Energy)

One large scale renewable electricity plant that is about to break ground is Bright Source Energy’s recently announced Ivanpah Solar Power Complex, using solar thermal technology, and scheduled to begin construction in late 2009. As we’ve reported in our post “Bright Source’s Power Tower,” Bright Source Energy commissioned a 1.5 megawatt pilot plant earlier this year in Israel. Their technology relies on a solar field of two axis mirrors that track the sun and focus the sunlight onto a single central boiler. This results in superheated steam – more easily condensed for reuse – and eliminates the need for plumbing being installed throughout the solar field. Bright Source’s Ivanpah complex, in its first phase, will generate 100 megawatts at peak output, or about 250 megawatt-hours per day.

Another company close to developing large scale solar thermal power plants is Ausra, who commissioned a 5.0 megawatt pilot plant in late October of this year in California’s south San Joaquin Valley. As reported in our post “Ausra’s Kimberlina Solar Thermal Plant,” Ausra’s innovative design uses several single axis, rectangular tracking mirrors to focus sunlight onto a single overhead receiver where water is turned into steam. Having several mirrors share one receiver reduces the amount of plumbing needed in the solar field, and Ausra has also developed a very low cost process for manufacturing these mirrors. Also, single axis tracking of very large rectangular mirrors is less expensive to install and maintain than two axis tracking using many much smaller square mirrors. Ausra may begin construction of a 177 megawatt (peak) solar thermal electricity plant in San Luis Obispo County sometime in 2010.

Ausra’s pilot plant. (Photo: Ausra)

The fact that large scale solar thermal electricity is here, as evidenced by the projects Bright Source, Ausra, and others are developing right now, is quite inspiring. But if you evaluate exactly how much these two very large plants will contribute to California’s overall electricity production, it is clear how serious the need is to streamline siting and permitting requirements if there is to be any hope of reaching the ambitious RPS goals being set.

California produces, on average, about 800 gigawatt-hours per day. By 2020, even with vastly improved efficiency, because of population growth, economic growth, and growth in all manner of electronic appliances, from consumer electronics to electric automobilies, expect that figure to rise to at least 1,000 gigawatt-hours per day. If 12.7% of today’s 800 daily gigawatt-hours are currently coming from renewables, and the goal by 2030 is to have 33% of 1,000 gigawatt-hours coming from renewables, then about another 228,000 megawatt-hours per day will need to come from renewables. Assuming 400 megawatts for BrightSource’s Ivanpah power complex (taking into account planned expansion), and 177 megawatts from Ausra’s proposed plant in San Luis Obispo county, at a yield of 20%, these two power plants fully built out will produce 2.5 gigawatt-hours per day. It will take 88 times this much new renewable power to get California to a 33% renewable portfolio standard by 2020.

Whatever means technological and political developments emerge to meet or exceed this goal, a few things might be helpful:

(1) Streamline siting requirements.

(2) Allow waste-to-energy projects to qualify.

(3) Move transmission lines underground using HVDC technology.

(4) Require utilities to purchase surplus energy from small scale systems (negative metering).

(5) Be realistic about the costs and flexible in implementation. Californians can’t always afford to pay to be on the bleeding edge.

(6) Partner with the utilities instead of demonizing them – there are a lot of reasons why rapid conversion to renewable electricity isn’t easy.

(7) Lay off the scare tactics – California isn’t going to single-handedly solve whatever alleged global warming problem may exist.

Some Related Posts: Costing California’s Proposition 7, California Prop. 7, Both Sides of CA Prop. 7, Bright Source’s Power Tower, Ausra’s Kimberlina Solar Thermal Plant, Optisolar’s Thin Film, Photovoltaic vs. Thermal, Utility Scale Photovoltaics, Acciona’s Nevada Solar One, Ausra’s Solar Thermal Power, Megawatt Storage Farms.