公開日: 2012/12/10
http://www.cadallas.com
============================================================
CrossTalk: ChernoShima
アップロード日: 2011/05/05
Twenty-five years after the Chernobyl disaster and more than a month since Fukushima... Should nuclear really be seen as the last resort? Russia Today presents CrossTalk with William Tucker, Benjamin Sovakool and Robert Bryce.
============================================================
Future of Nuclear Power
アップロード日: 2011/06/03
Author Robert Bryce discusses whether America should rely more on nuclear power or alternative energy sources.
Dept. of Energy Plans $168M Investment in Offshore Wind Farms
公開日: 2012/12/17
Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Robert Bryce on government spending on wind energy.
White House Announces 7 New Solar, Wind Projects
公開日: 2012/08/08
Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Robert Bryce on the Administration's plans for further spending on green energy.
Robert Bryce on Energy Independence at The Cato Institute
アップロード日: 2010/04/22
In 1974, Richard Nixon promoted the possibility of U.S. energy independence in six years. In 1975, Gerald Ford promised it in ten. And in 2007, Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, John Edwards and John McCain all trumpeted energy independence as an essential priority for the next president. In 2007, six books were published hailing energy independence as the answer to everything from global warming to terrorism. But what is energy independence? Is it possible? In Gusher of Lies (2008) Robert Bryce breaks down and debunks the myth of energy independence.
This video was produced by Caleb Brown ( http://www.twitter.com/cobrown ) and Austin Bragg ( http://www.twitter.com/habragg ).
This video was produced by Caleb Brown ( http://www.twitter.com/cobrown ) and Austin Bragg ( http://www.twitter.com/habragg ).
Wind Farms Killing Wildlife Without Repercussions
公開日: 2012/03/12
The Manhattan Institute's Robert Bryce breaks down the double standard for the green-energy creators.
Energy Efficient Buildings
アップロード日: 2011/06/28
The potential opportunities and pitfalls of energy efficient building are debated in an effort to determine what will make American cities become more sustainable.
Keystone PipeLIES Exposed
公開日: 2014/02/28
This film, produced by the Center for Media and Democracy, debunks the claims of proponents of the Keystone XL pipeline regarding jobs, energy security, gas prices, safety, and climate change. More information about this film and research project, "Keystone PipeLIES Exposed," at http://www.pipeliesexposed.org.
============================================================
Robert Bryce
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bryce_(writer)
Robert Bryce is an American author and journalist who lives in Austin, Texas.[1] His articles on energy, politics, and other topics have appeared in numerous publications, including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Counterpunch, and Atlantic Monthly.
Career
Bryce has been writing about the energy business for more than two decades. He spent 12 years writing for The Austin Chronicle.[1] In 2006, he began working as the managing editor of the online magazine, Energy Tribune.[2] From October 2007 to February 2008 he was a fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, and is now a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute,[3] a conservative think tank. He regularly appears on TV and radio shows ranging from the BBC to PBS and CNBC to Fox Business.
Writing on the Energy Industry and Species Protection
Bryce has written frequently about the infeasibility of the United States becoming energy independent.[4][5]
In March 2009, he testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to discuss the limits inherent in renewable energy, saying "no matter how you do the calculations, renewable energy by itself, can not, will not, be able to replace hydrocarbons over the next two to three decades, and that’s a conservative estimate".[6]
Bryce writes regularly about energy and power systems. In 2007, he criticized the dangers of cheap oil.[7]
In an opinion piece (op-ed) in the Wall Street Journal in March 2009 he denounced the energy polices of former United States President George W. Bush and the current president Barack Obama, claiming their rush for renewable energy will not be sufficient to cover the country's future energy needs.[8]
He took issue with James Hansen — who wrote in The Guardian that "coal is the single greatest threat to civilization and all life on our planet" and that trains carrying coal were "Death Trains"[9] — responding (also in The Guardian), "Hansen doesn't offer a single idea as to what the world will use to replace the coal that he abhors. Coal currently provides about 28% of the world's total energy use. And it is the cheapest source of fuel for electric power production. That's why developing countries – China and India in particular – are using so much of it."[10]
Bryce has criticized special exceptions to wildlife protection laws given to renewable energy facilities in the United States. Oil producers and electric utilities have repeatedly been charged and fined under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for killing birds; meanwhile, wind-power companies are not prosecuted despite routine violations of the MBTA. In the Wall Street Journal, he wrote,
"Yet there is one group of energy producers that are not being prosecuted for killing birds: wind-power companies. And wind-powered turbines are killing a vast number of birds every year. A July 2008 study of the wind farm at Altamont Pass California, estimated that its turbines kill an average of 80 golden eagles per year. The study, funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency, also estimated that about 10,000 birds—nearly all protected by the migratory bird act—are being whacked every year at Altamont."
He also wrote about the health problems caused by low-frequency noise emitted from wind turbines.[8]
In June 2010, in an article for Slate he expressed dismay at the corn ethanol industry's attempts to use the blowout of the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico as an basis to pursue more subsidies.[11]
Bryce is an advocate for increased shale gas consumption in the US. In a June 13, 2011 piece published in the Wall Street Journal he posited that the "shale revolution now underway is the best news for North American energy since the discovery of the East Texas Field in 1930."[12]
Bryce opposes federal corn subsidies for ethanol, citing high costs.[13][14] He has argued that American farmland should be used to grow food rather than fuel.[15] In addition he has opposed the EPA’s considerations to raise the volume of ethanol mixed in gasoline, arguing that vehicles could be damaged by higher ethanol blends, and warranties would be voided.[16]
He has criticized the Obama administration for “attempting to pick winners in the car business” with electric vehicles subsidies.[17] He has also argued that electric vehicles have failed to date due to the lack of energy density in batteries, safety concerns, and relatively few sales.[18]
Writing on Climate Change
Bryce describes himself as an agnostic about global warming and climate change. He frequently points out that the climate "alarmists" have no credible plans to replace the hydrocarbons that now provide the overwhelming majority of the world's energy. In chapter 15 of 'Power Hungry: The Myths of "Green" Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future, Bryce writes: '"There’s no question that carbon dioxide plays a significant role in the atmosphere. Just how significant, we don’t know...For me, in many ways, the science no longer matters because discussions about the science have become so vituperative and politicized. Thus, my position about the science of global climate change is one of resolute agnosticism. When it comes to climate change, the key issues are no longer about forcings, albedo, or the ideal concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Instead, the key question is about policy, namely: if we are going to agree that carbon dioxide is bad, what are we supposed to do? And that question – as the Duke of Bilgewater memorably put it in Huckleberry Finn – 'is the bare bodkin.”
In an October 6, 2011 op-ed published in the "Wall Street Journal" and entitled "Five truths about climate change"[19] he wrote: "The science is not settled, not by a long shot. Last month, scientists at CERN, the prestigious high-energy physics lab in Switzerland, reported that neutrinos might—repeat, might—travel faster than the speed of light. If serious scientists can question Einstein's theory of relativity, then there must be room for debate about the workings and complexities of the Earth's atmosphere".
N2N
Bryce recently argued that renewable energy remains unready to meet real-world energy needs at a scale that can save the climate.[20]
Accordingly, he has long favored "N2N" (natural gas to nuclear), as the logical way forward for energy policy and insurance against the potential risk of climate change.[21]
Carbon Capture and Sequestration
In May 2010, he published an op-ed in the New York Times that underscored the difficulties associated with large-scale carbon capture and sequestration.[22] He has recently extended this line of argument in National Review Online[23]
Writings on politics and current events
George W. Bush
In 1993, Bryce wrote a piece for the Christian Science Monitor about George W. Bush’s jump into the Texas gubernatorial race arguing that Bush would “pose a formidable challenge” to then Democratic Governor Ann Richards. Bryce also referred to Karl Rove a “savvy political consultant.”[24]
Bryce predicted that Bush would win the White House in a 1999 piece for The Austin Chronicle,[25] and was the first journalist to report on how Bush’s ownership of the Texas Rangers would become a financial asset.
Bryce also analyzed how Mr. Bush and his partners used the power of eminent domain to profit off of land they did not own.[26]
"I am Sullied-No More"
In 2007, Bryce featured 44 year-old Colonel Theodore S. Westhusing’s suicide note in an article for the Texas Observer titled, “I am Sullied-No More.” In it he argues that Westhusing chose death over dishonor while faced with the Iraq war’s corruption.[27]
Funeral Industry
In 1999, Bryce wrote about corruption in the funeral industry, reporting on how Robert Waltrip, C.E.O of the world’s largest death-care company, Service Corporation International “used the [Texas] governor's office and a state senator in an effort to crush an investigation into S.C.I.'s operations.”[28]
V-22 Tiltrotor
Bryce has been an outspoken critic of the troubled V-22 tiltrotor, or Osprey, for its safety and cost record.[29]
Controversy
In October 2011 a petition was addressed to The New York Times complaining about Bryce. It asked the paper's public editor, Arthur Brisbane,[30] to address the issue of how op-ed writers are identified and asked that the paper be more transparent with regard to any financial support the op-ed writers may get from various industries.[31] On October 29, 2011, Brisbane responding to the petition, writing "I don’t think Mr. Bryce is masquerading as anything: experts generally have a point of view". Regarding the issue of funding from energy-related interests, Brisbane wrote that "the Manhattan Institute’s dependence on this category of funding is slight — about 2.5 percent of its budget over the past 10 years."[32]
Published books
●Power Hungry: The Myths of "Green" Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future, published April 2010 by PublicAffairs, ISBN 978-1-58648-789-8. Bryce argues that the practical potential of green energy using the currently employed technology is greatly exaggerated and that natural gas and nuclear power are the only realistic alternatives to coal and oil.[33] A review published by the Wall Street Journal called the book "unsentimental, unsparing, and impassioned; and if you'll excuse the pun, it is precisely the kind of journalism we need to hold truth to power".[34]
●Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence, published by PublicAffairs in March 2008, ISBN 978-1-58648-321-0. In this book, Bryce focuses on the desire for energy independence. The New York Times describes it as "a savage attack on the concept of energy independence and the most popular technologies currently being promoted to achieve it".[4][22] Kirkus Reviews' review states, "In a voice ardent and beseeching, Bryce urges Americans to educate themselves about the world’s biggest enterprise, to have at least a modest grasp of thermodynamics, to rationally assess the costs and potential benefits of available resources.[35]
●Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the rise of Texas, America's Superstate, published by PublicAffairs in 2004, ISBN 978-1-58648-188-9.[5]
●Pipe Dreams: Greed, Ego, and the Death of Enron' published by PublicAffairs in 2002, ISBN 978-1-58648-201-5.[36]
Pending books
May 13, 2014: Smaller Faster Lighter Denser Cheaper: How Innovation Keeps Proving the Castrophists Wrong.
External links
●Robert Bryce on Sourcewatch
●Personal website of Robert Bryce
●Robert Bryce: Senior Fellow with the Center for Energy Policy and the Environment at the Manhattan Institute
●List of articles published by Robert Bryce in Energy Tribune
This page was last modified on 15 February 2014
===========================================================
Get Energy Smart! NOW!
Blogging for a sustainable energy future.
http://getenergysmartnow.com/2014/03/09/democratic-senators-to-pull-up4climate-all-nighter/#more-7910
Democratic Senators to pull #Up4Climate all-nighter
March 9th, 2014 · No Comments
Monday night, the Democratic Party Senate leadership will take to the floor with speeches on climate change.
Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has pledged in recent weeks to continue allowing time for anyone who wants to discuss the issue during the weekly Democratic caucus lunch or on the Senate floor. The format planned for Monday is an extension of floor speeches given regularly by Whitehouse that usually begin with him saying that “it’s time to wake up” to climate change.
The majority of the majority will follow, through the night, with speech after speech focusing on climate change issues.
Participating Senators:
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.Here is one of Senator Whitehouse’s 60+ floor speeches on climate … this one about the need for Congress to wake up to reality (text here), that “it is time for my colleagues to wake up.”
Senator Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
Senator Ron Wyden, D-Ore.
Senator Bill Nelson, D-Fla.
Senator Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.
Senator Benjamin L. Cardin, D-Md.
Senator Bernard Sanders, I-Vt.
Senator Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.
Senator Mark Udall, D-Colo.
Senator Tom Udall, D-N.M.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.
Senator Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.
Senator Al Franken, D-Minn.
Senator Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.
Senator Chris Murphy, D-Conn.
Senator Martin Heinrich, D-N.M.
Senator Angus King, I-Maine
Senator Tim Kaine, D-Va.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.
Senator Edward J. Markey, D-Mass.
Senator Cory Booker, D-N.J.
Time to Wake Up: Congress is Being Irresponsible on Climate
公開日: 2013/12/12
December 11, 2013 - In his weekly climate change speech, Senator Whitehouse argued that Congress is being irresponsible for failing to take action on climate change and carbon pollution.
After the fold are extracts from Senator Whitehouse’s 11 December speech (the video) and Senator Warren’s request for supporters’ comments re climate impacts 25 years from now …
Senator Whitehouse’s speech … excerpts … really worth reading …
This is the 52nd consecutive week we’re in session that I have come to the Floor to ask us, please, for Lord’s sake, to wake up to the damage carbon pollution is already doing to our atmosphere, oceans, and climate; and to look ahead, to use our God-given sense, and to plan for what is so obviously coming.Here is the message that Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) sent her supporters:
In those weeks, I’ve talked about all different aspects of carbon pollution: its effect on sports and our economy, its effect on oceans and coasts, its effect on agriculture and wildfires, its effect on storms and insurance costs.
I’ve talked about the measurements — measurements — we can already make of the harm already happening: sea level rise, which you measure with a yardstick, basically; ocean temperature, which you measure with a thermometer; and ocean acidification — the fastest in fifty million years, according to research published in Nature Geoscience — which you can measure with litmus tests.
I have, I hope, to anyone listening with their logic turned on, thoroughly rebutted the deniers’ phony arguments against solving carbon pollution, whether those arguments purported to be based in science, or religion, or economics, or our competitiveness.
I have listed the thoughtful and responsible groups — from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, from WalMart to NASA, from Ford and GM to Coke and Pepsi, from America’s Garden Clubs to just last month our major sports leagues — who understand the truth about climate change and are saying so.
I’ve done my best to expose the calculated campaign of lies that we’re up against, and the vast scandalous apparatus of phony organizations and engineered messages that are designed to propagate those lies. I’ve traced the connections back to — of course — the big carbon polluters and their billionaire owners. And I’ve been obliged to point out that the money of those big polluters and billionaires floods this Chamber, that their lobbyists prowl the outer halls, and that to a sad and disappointing degree this Congress is bought and paid for by that polluter influence.
One factor we have yet to consider is whether, as an institution, Congress has just become completely irresponsible. Maybe this Congress just can’t operate as an institution at an intelligent level. Some Congresses are going to be smarter and more responsible than others — that’s just the natural order of variation. Some Congress is going to be the sorriest Congress ever. Maybe we’re it.
Some organizations, like NASA, for instance, are very smart. That’s why NASA is driving a rover around on the surface of Mars right now. That is a seriously smart organization.
Some organizations take ordinary people and call them to be their very best, to play at a level above their natural talents, to heed a higher calling than their selfish inclinations. At their best, our military and our churches tend to achieve that.
Some organizations, however, take even the most talented people, and drag them down to the lowest common denominator, and stifle the best and bring out the worst in even those very talented people.
Well, I ask people watching: which type of organization do you think Congress is right now? Which type do you think we are?
As an organization, it is hard to say anything kinder of Congress than that it is now a really irresponsible organization. We couldn’t even keep the United States government running. Standard and Poor’s estimated that our Tea Party shutdown foolishness cost Americans tens of billions of dollars, for no gain — none. We can’t sort out the basics of building and maintaining our American infrastructure: our own American Society of Civil Engineers gives our country a D+ for infrastructure.
And that’s not complicated stuff, yet we flub it; like a football team that fumbles the ball at the snap.
….
And that brings us to climate change. Yeah, it’s complicated, when you’re trying to predict and model something as complex as what our climate is going to do in the years ahead. But, it is also simple, when you look at the stuff that everyone agrees on, on the stuff that you can measure, the stuff that you’d have to be a nut or a crank or an eccentric to dispute.
Nobody responsible — nobody responsible disputes the principle that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere raises the temperature of the Earth, and that it does so through the so-called “greenhouse effect.” A scientist named John Tyndall figured that out at the time of the American Civil War. I brought his musty old paper in here several speeches ago. Its old leather binding was flaking and peeling. When that report was first published, Abraham Lincoln had just been elected President. In all the years since then, this principle of science has always been confirmed and validated. It is not some questionable theory. The greenhouse effect is real. It would not just be wrong, it would be irresponsible to deny that.
Nobody responsible disputes that for over a century our modern economy has run on fossil fuels, and that burning those fossil fuels has released gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The Global Carbon Project estimates that mankind has pumped about 2000 gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere since 1870. That’s a pretty solid estimate, and I’ve never even heard anyone dispute it.
So we know those two things: adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere traps more heat; and we have released an estimated 2000 gigatons — 2000 billion tons — of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Let’s go on from there. It is a known principle of science that a significant portion of that multi-gigaton carbon load is absorbed by the oceans, and that the chemical reaction when that absorption happens into the oceans makes the oceans more acidic. No responsible person disputes either proposition. It’s not some theory, it’s something that you can actually do and measure in a lab. Again, it wouldn’t just be wrong, it would be really irresponsible to deny that.
We also know that the oceans do more than absorb carbon — they absorb heat. Indeed they have absorbed most of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases– over 90% of the heat between 1971 and 2010 according to the recent IPCC report. And what happens when the oceans absorb heat? They expand. Thermal expansion is a basic physical property of liquids. It can also be shown in a very simple lab. It is not a theory. Again, it would be not just wrong but irresponsible to deny that, too.
It would not just be wrong, it would be irresponsible to deny what those simple measurements and clear principles tell us.
But we do. We do. We deny it. Congress won’t wake up and address this problem: like those monkeys: see no carbon, hear no carbon, speak no carbon.
Because we are so irresponsible, because we deny this reality, we are failing to take precautions, and as a result many people will suffer.
For those of us who love this country and are proud of it, and are proud of our government, and want this country and its government to be a beacon of hope and promise and rectitude, it hurts a little extra for the United States Congress to be such a failure. It hurts a little extra that we, in our generation, have driven Congress, the hub of our noble American experiment in democracy, the beating heart of this great republic, down to that low level.
It is a harsh judgment that this body is an irresponsible failure. But on climate, this Congress got it the old-fashioned way — it earned it.
I will close with a final observation. Compare the irresponsibility of this “see no carbon, hear no carbon, speak no carbon” Congress with the recent exhortation from Pope Francis. Here is what the Pope said – I’ll quote him at some length:
“There are other weak and defenceless beings who are frequently at the mercy of economic interests or indiscriminate exploitation. I am speaking of creation as a whole. We human beings are not only the beneficiaries but also the stewards of other creatures. Thanks to our bodies, God has joined us so closely to the world around us that we can feel the desertification of the soil almost as a physical ailment, and the extinction of a species as a painful disfigurement. Let us not leave in our wake a swath of destruction and death which will affect our own lives and those of future generations. Here I would make my own,” the Pope continued, “the touching and prophetic lament voiced some years ago by the bishops of the Philippines.” And he quotes them: ‘An incredible variety of insects lived in the forest and were busy with all kinds of tasks… Birds flew through the air, their bright plumes and varying calls adding color and song to the green of the forests… God intended this land for us, his special creatures, but not so that we might destroy it and turn it into a wasteland… After a single night’s rain, look at the chocolate brown rivers in your locality and remember that they are carrying the life blood of the land into the sea… How can fish swim in sewers like the . . . rivers which we have polluted? Who has turned the wonderworld of the seas into underwater cemeteries bereft of color and life?’ Small, yet strong in the love of God, like Saint Francis of Assisi, all of us, as Christians, are called to watch over and protect the fragile world in which we live, and all its peoples.”What is our answer to the Pope, to this great Christian leader? In Congress, it’s the monkey answer: hear no carbon, see no carbon, speak no carbon.
We still have time to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. We can actually do it in painless ways. We can even do it in advantageous ways, in ways that will boost our economy. But we have got to do it. We have got to wake up. We simply have got to wake up.
There are a lot of people in Washington — a lot of lobbyists and a lot of politicians — who are determined to block any new laws that might reduce pollution.
Year after year, evidence grows about the damage we suffer from carbon pollution, and yet, the science deniers stay locked in place. It’s so bad that we can’t even have a serious conversation about the growing evidence that the earth is in real trouble.
So I have a question for you.
If we don’t do anything at all to stop climate change, what do you think the world will look like 25 years from now?
Monday night, several other senators and I are pulling an all-nighter on the floor of the Senate to talk about the importance of pollution and climate change. We are going to do our best to bring attention to a topic that a lot of people in Washington don’t want to talk about.
I’ve been assigned a block of time to talk, and I want to spend a chunk of it talking about as many stories as I can from people like you.
So take the question wherever you want: What do you think the planet is going to look like 25 years from now if we don’t tackle climate change head-on? What small thing will be different? What big thing will change everything?
Make it personal or make it public. Do some research or talk about what worries you. But however you want to do it, write it up — maybe a paragraph or two? — and send it to me. I want to post some of your answers online and read some of your answers on the floor of the Senate because I want other people to think about this question: If we don’t act, what could happen?
I think about what we could lose. I think about our natural treasures here in Massachusetts, from the Cape to the Berkshires, from hidden away gems to defining features of our great state. I think about what a more acidic ocean will mean for our fishermen, and whether we can sustain great oceanfront cities if sea levels continue to rise. I think about increasing rates of asthma and toxins that work their way into our food chain. I think about the threats to our economy and to our safety.
I also think about my three little grandchildren, and what kind of world we will leave to them. Are they going to live in a world where it’s not safe to breathe the air or drink the water because powerful corporations and their lobbyists blocked real change?
Twenty-five years is not such a long time. In 25 years, what will you be doing? What about your family and friends? And what about our earth?
I’m hopeful that if we think more about the future — if we really think hard about the path we’re on and the place it leads — then the urgency to change will be stronger and change will be within reach.
So back to my original question: If we don’t make serious changes, what happens to our world? Take a minute to answer that question now.
Remember, I’m going to read as many of these stories as I can on the floor of the United States Senate, so please make them good! If you find some good research, add a link. If you want to add a picture, I’ll include as many as I can. And if you want some friends or family to think about this question too, please forward the email and ask them to write. More voices will make us stronger.
Thank you for being a part of this,
Elizabeth
============================================================
http://energy.gov/articles/update-national-offshore-wind-strategy
An Update on the National Offshore Wind Strategy
December 17, 2012 - 11:27am
Principle Power's wind float prototype in Portugal. The company was recently awarded an Energy Department grant to support a 30 megawatt floating offshore wind farm near Oregon's Port of Coos Bay. | Photo courtesy of Principle Power.
Off the shores of the United States and the Great Lakes is a power source with four times the energy potential of the entire U.S. electric power system: the wind.
Offshore winds blow stronger and more uniformly than on land, resulting in greater potential to generate energy. The development of the United States’ plentiful offshore wind resources could deliver large amounts of clean energy close to cities and towns ready to use it.
That’s why the Energy Department has been investing in the emerging industry of offshore wind energy. Guided by the Energy Department’s national offshore wind strategy, we’ve been supporting innovations that will reduce the costs and speed up the deployment of American-made offshore wind energy technologies designed for U.S. coastal conditions and provide valuable opportunities to test these innovations in real offshore environments.
And over these past months, there’s been a lot to talk about.
•Last Wednesday, the Department announced awards of up to $168 million in funding for seven offshore wind advanced technology demonstration projects. These projects are the first of their kind in America, intended to spur installation and validation of innovative offshore wind systems in U.S. waters, and reduce uncertainties for developers of U.S. offshore wind projects.
•That same day, we released two Department-funded reports on the potential of the U.S. offshore wind industry. The first report, U.S. Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis, looks at growth scenarios for the industry, which could potentially support up to 200,000 manufacturing, construction, operation and supply chain jobs and drive more than $70 billion in annual investments by 2030. The second report looks at the potential size and value of the U.S. offshore wind supply chain and manufacturing base, as well as the unique challenges and opportunities facing the development of an offshore wind market in the United States.
•To speed up the development of offshore wind technologies, the Department has funded wind testing centers at Clemson University and the Massachusetts Wind Technology Testing Center. These facilities offer manufacturers the ability to test higher-capacity turbine components, innovative drivetrain designs and longer blades than those currently in use for land-based wind. By validating new technologies, these facilities help pave the way for offshore installations with larger turbines that can capture more of the energy from offshore winds and direct it to shore.
•We’ve also funded the development of innovative technology designs, like the wind turbine drivetrain designs created by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Advanced Magnet Lab, which require less maintenance and are more reliable, consequently lowering the costs of offshore turbines.
•Our strategy has also driven Department-funded efforts to gather and share data on offshore meteorological and geophysical conditions, and wildlife populations in potential offshore development zones. These resources will help project developers site offshore turbines with less risk.
•We’re also studying the potential regional economic and job creation impacts of offshore wind development, and how integrating offshore wind capacity will affect the nation’s existing electric grid.
Assessing the potential, providing crucial data, offering funding and technical assistance, and facilitating technological innovation and deployment are all part of the Department’s ongoing strategy to bring affordable offshore wind energy to American consumers.
============================================================
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/10/clean-energy-investment-opportunity-offshore-wind
Clean Energy Investment Opportunity: Offshore Wind
Harris Roen, The Roen Financial Report
A significant alternative energy investment theme with potential for growth over the next few years is offshore wind. This article looks at the promise of marine based wind, potential pitfalls, and names three investments that could benefit from large-scale offshore wind development that is likely coming.
The Potential of Offshore Wind
In 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Interior jointly published anational offshore wind strategy. According to the report, in areas with less than 100 feet of water the generating potential of offshore wind equals the entire generating capacity of the current U.S. electric system. If you include all of the potential offshore wind capacity, marine-based windmills could generate four times the current U.S. electrical demand!
A big plus is that some of the best offshore wind sites are near major population centers of New England, the mid-Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and mid-Pacific coasts. The strategy estimates a deployable offshore resource that could generate 10 gigawatts of electricity in less than 10 years, at a cost of $0.10/kWh. This projection increases five-fold by 2020, to 54 gigawatts generated at $0.07/kWh. This would make offshore wind very competitive with both fossil fuel and renewable based generators.
So far, there have been two successful auctions of offshore wind leases in the U.S. — in Virginia and Rhode Island. Together, these auctions have generated $5.4 million by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), leasing out 277,369 acres that could generate gigawatts of clean power. The fact that these two auctions generated positive action is a very good sign. Accordingly, BOEM plans to auction off leases in New Jersey, Maryland and Massachusetts in 2014.
Offshore Wind Challenges
Pun intended, but there are some significant headwinds to successfully executing offshore wind in the U.S. and abroad. The farther off the coast you go, the stronger the wind speeds. However, this means deeper depths, which increases technical challenges. Even at a large scale, offshore wind costs more to build and maintain than its land-based counterpart.
Another limiting factor pointed out by PennEnergy Research is the shortage of suitable operation and maintenance vessels. In order to tug large payloads, secure offshore towers, lay cables and the like, you need costly specialty ships. The competition for these ships is especially acute because of the increase in new offshore oil and gas fields. Oil and gas can offer better prices to gain access to this limited specialized fleet.
Another concern is that federal tax credits favorable to wind are set to expire at the end of 2013. Though there is a real risk that these credits will dry up, I believe there is a good chance the tax credits will be extended. Developing domestic sources of clean energy is a white-hat issue for both parties. Even during the fierce budget battles at the tail end of the Great Recession of 2012, congress had the votes to extend the credit.
Offshore Wind Investment Strategies
Two companies and an Exchange Traded Funds (ETF) are worth a look at as investments in offshore wind. Keep an eye on price, though, given the current frothy condition of the market.
ABB Ltd. (ABB) is a Swiss company whose products and services include power transmission, distribution and power-plant automation. Its systems are key in addressing the challenges of constructing, transporting and connecting large, distant offshore wind platforms. As a result, ABB recently secured a large offshore wind order. ABB has solid earnings and growing annual sales, but looks overvalued at current trading levels in the mid 20s. This stock looks more like a buy in the mid to high teens.
Parker-Hannifin (PH) is a large, diversified industrial manufacturing company that has a wide array of products. Of interest here is that Parker-Hannifin is a key supplier of underwater high-voltage power cables. We believe it is well positioned to take advantage of the growth of offshore wind with its subsea power cables. This well run, profitable company has excellent cash flow, but seems overpriced at current trading levels. The stock would look more interesting if it traded back down in the low to mid 80s.
Since there are very few publically traded pure-play wind companies in the U.S., a good way to add wind to a portfolio is by investing in an alternative energy ETF. A good wind-oriented ETF is First Trust ISE Global Wind Energy Index Fund (FAN). Compared to other alternative energy ETFs, this fund has a relative low expense ratio and management fee structure. On the other hand, FAN has a high potential capital gains exposure. Though this fund has been beat up in the past, it has posted an astounding 74 percent return in the past 12 months.
Summary
Even though the price of solar photovoltaics continues to drop dramatically, wind power is still one of the most economical forms of clean energy. Though offshore wind is much more expensive to develop than its onshore cousin, the potential for large amount of steady generation cannot be ignored. The long-term clean energy investor would be wise to have a strategic position in this sector.
Individuals involved with the Roen Financial Report and Swiftwood Press LLC do not own or control shares of any companies mentioned in this article. It is also possible that individuals may own or control shares of one or more of the underlying securities contained in the Mutual Funds or Exchange Traded Funds mentioned in this article. Any advice and/or recommendations made in this article are of a general nature and are not to be considered specific investment advice. Individuals should seek advice from their investment professional before making any important financial decisions. See Terms of Use for more information.
This article was originally published on the Roen Financial Report and was republished with permission.
============================================================
A big plus is that some of the best offshore wind sites are near major population centers of New England, the mid-Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and mid-Pacific coasts. The strategy estimates a deployable offshore resource that could generate 10 gigawatts of electricity in less than 10 years, at a cost of $0.10/kWh. This projection increases five-fold by 2020, to 54 gigawatts generated at $0.07/kWh. This would make offshore wind very competitive with both fossil fuel and renewable based generators.
So far, there have been two successful auctions of offshore wind leases in the U.S. — in Virginia and Rhode Island. Together, these auctions have generated $5.4 million by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), leasing out 277,369 acres that could generate gigawatts of clean power. The fact that these two auctions generated positive action is a very good sign. Accordingly, BOEM plans to auction off leases in New Jersey, Maryland and Massachusetts in 2014.
Offshore Wind Challenges
Pun intended, but there are some significant headwinds to successfully executing offshore wind in the U.S. and abroad. The farther off the coast you go, the stronger the wind speeds. However, this means deeper depths, which increases technical challenges. Even at a large scale, offshore wind costs more to build and maintain than its land-based counterpart.
Another limiting factor pointed out by PennEnergy Research is the shortage of suitable operation and maintenance vessels. In order to tug large payloads, secure offshore towers, lay cables and the like, you need costly specialty ships. The competition for these ships is especially acute because of the increase in new offshore oil and gas fields. Oil and gas can offer better prices to gain access to this limited specialized fleet.
Another concern is that federal tax credits favorable to wind are set to expire at the end of 2013. Though there is a real risk that these credits will dry up, I believe there is a good chance the tax credits will be extended. Developing domestic sources of clean energy is a white-hat issue for both parties. Even during the fierce budget battles at the tail end of the Great Recession of 2012, congress had the votes to extend the credit.
Offshore Wind Investment Strategies
Two companies and an Exchange Traded Funds (ETF) are worth a look at as investments in offshore wind. Keep an eye on price, though, given the current frothy condition of the market.
ABB Ltd. (ABB) is a Swiss company whose products and services include power transmission, distribution and power-plant automation. Its systems are key in addressing the challenges of constructing, transporting and connecting large, distant offshore wind platforms. As a result, ABB recently secured a large offshore wind order. ABB has solid earnings and growing annual sales, but looks overvalued at current trading levels in the mid 20s. This stock looks more like a buy in the mid to high teens.
Parker-Hannifin (PH) is a large, diversified industrial manufacturing company that has a wide array of products. Of interest here is that Parker-Hannifin is a key supplier of underwater high-voltage power cables. We believe it is well positioned to take advantage of the growth of offshore wind with its subsea power cables. This well run, profitable company has excellent cash flow, but seems overpriced at current trading levels. The stock would look more interesting if it traded back down in the low to mid 80s.
Since there are very few publically traded pure-play wind companies in the U.S., a good way to add wind to a portfolio is by investing in an alternative energy ETF. A good wind-oriented ETF is First Trust ISE Global Wind Energy Index Fund (FAN). Compared to other alternative energy ETFs, this fund has a relative low expense ratio and management fee structure. On the other hand, FAN has a high potential capital gains exposure. Though this fund has been beat up in the past, it has posted an astounding 74 percent return in the past 12 months.
Summary
Even though the price of solar photovoltaics continues to drop dramatically, wind power is still one of the most economical forms of clean energy. Though offshore wind is much more expensive to develop than its onshore cousin, the potential for large amount of steady generation cannot be ignored. The long-term clean energy investor would be wise to have a strategic position in this sector.
Individuals involved with the Roen Financial Report and Swiftwood Press LLC do not own or control shares of any companies mentioned in this article. It is also possible that individuals may own or control shares of one or more of the underlying securities contained in the Mutual Funds or Exchange Traded Funds mentioned in this article. Any advice and/or recommendations made in this article are of a general nature and are not to be considered specific investment advice. Individuals should seek advice from their investment professional before making any important financial decisions. See Terms of Use for more information.
This article was originally published on the Roen Financial Report and was republished with permission.
============================================================
