Coal may be the most expensive fuel on the planet

Studies show coal to be one of the cheapest electricity-producing fuels.

At 4 to 6 cents per kilowatt hour, who can argue? Solar is dropping from reports of 12 cents (and up) per kWh to an estimated parity with fossil fuels, according to a study by Queen's University. And wind power is getting cheaper. There's also something I just discovered called atmospheric cold megawatts technology, but I digress.

However, coal and its fellow fossil fuel compatriot natural gas and nuclear still have the edge since they're not dependent on weather or the Earth's rotation.

Boiled shoe theory

Coal accounts for more than half U.S. energy production. It's easy to transport, ignite and burns hot. Great stuff if you're a shivering Charlie Chaplin in his classic silent film "The Gold Rush." Key scene is where he eats his boiled shoe.

But coal extraction has become controversial. Mountaintop removal is not pretty. In addition, the nation's 491 coal-fired plants contribute an estimated 48 tons of mercury into the air each year. And dealing with the leftover toxic ash has proved dangerous. Just look at what happened at the Emory River in Tennessee on Dec. 22, 2008 when 1.1 billion gallons of fly-ash slurry burst a containment levy surrounding an 84-acre pond.

Merry Christmas. It was the biggest such spill in the nation's history. And there's potentially more where that came from. Wait for a good 100-year rain.

Cost accounting

Few corporate supporters of fossil fuels ever mention the environmental cost of their preferred energy sources. Most prefer to shuffle that concept to the background. Until recently it's been limited to the fringe -- a rallying cry for only the most hard-core greenies.

Little by little, other groups and individuals are realizing we can't keep burning stuff and get away scott free. The representatives at the Durban Climate Change Conference didn't pass any binding agreements, but most didn't mince words either.

Ban Ki-Moon, United Nations general-secretary, in a speech at the event says governments and the private sector are working together on sustainable energy and extolled it as a way to cut greenhouse gases while reducing poverty and creating economic growth. "Let us prove that we not only know where we are going – and how to get there – but that we are prepared to take collective action that will move us down that road," he says.

Point of no return

Apisai Ielemia takes it even further. As the minister of foreign affairs, trade, tourism, environment and labor for the tiny Pacific island state of Tuvalu, he's well aware of the potential threat behind climate change. "We have no time to wait, and we are only a few inches from the point of no return," he says. Listen to his speech on Democracy Now.

As much as I love Americaspower.org's recent TV advertising campaign, coal does have serious drawbacks. Nothing about untold millions of particles of mercury billowing into the atmosphere each year from coal-fired power plants is cost-effec­tive. The dust settles across the country and U.S. waters and works its way into the food chain. Should user groups begin to sue coal producers and utilities for damage compensation, I imagine the cost of electricit­y via the fossil fuel will rise significan­tly.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency this year has proposed the first-ever national standards for mercury, arsenic and other toxic air pollution from power plants. The move is meant, officials say, to "cut harmful emissions of mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel and acid gases, while preventing as many as 17,000 premature deaths and 11,000 heart attacks a year."

Health effects from coal

The proposed standards are meant to prevent 120,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms and about 11,000 fewer cases of acute bronchitis among children each year, the EPA says. In addition, the rules are expected to prevent more than 12,000 emergency room visits and hospital admissions and 850,000 days of work missed due to illness.

The 1990 Clean Air Act was supposed to deal with coal emissions. The delay took more than two decades. President Obama is expected to rule on the issue Monday.

"This is not an issue of jobs versus the environment. It's an issue of the American people's public health versus a narrow special interest," writes New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg in a piece on Huffington Post. Bloomberg does say, however, that more than half coal plants already have installed measures to control their mercury emissions.

Mercury the neurotoxin

An October 2003 report by Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants says mercury is a "potent neurotoxin particularly damaging to the development of the fetus, infant and young child." And while coal-fired plants, according to the EPA, are the largest producer of mercury in the environment, they are not the only airborne mercury source.

EPA's December 1997 "Mercury Study Report to Congress" estimates the amount of mercury sent up into U.S. airspace to be 158 tons. That's from trash burning, boilers and natural emissions but most from "combustion sources." Quite a pile, and the majority heads out over the ocean where it comes back in fish.

The Northern States report says the most stringent standards for reducing mercury emissions would remove 96 percent from the stacks of coal-fired power plants while the least would remove only 40 percent. The report's authors say it's a difference of 2 and 28 tons.

Solutions exist but they cost

Some coal-fired power plants already have been retrofit with toxic emissions controls that would meet the most stringent reductions, but for others it would be a problem. For instance, biggovernment.com says: "In some cases, these companies simply can’t afford to buy the equipment and for others the needed equipment isn’t commercially available. If this rule is implemented, it would force the shut down of many coal-fired power plants."

According to a Government Accountability Office report from October 2009, some 14 plants with sorbent injection systems installed have complied, "enabling them to meet state or other mercury emission requirements -- generally 80 percent to 90 percent reductions."

The GAO also found that the 14 plants spent an average of $3.6 million on the systems -- "a fraction of the cost of other pollution control devices." The pollution-control systems inject sorbents -- powdery substances to which mercury binds -- into the exhaust from boilers to achieve the reductions, the GAO says. And it says annual cost of buying sorbents is about $675,000, still a modest sum compared to the potential cost to human health down the road.

Health costs bigger

Somebody pays for health effects. Unfortunately when it comes to mercury poisoning, U.S. taxpayers likely will have to pick up the tab.

It's only a matter of time before these not-so-hidden costs begin to be felt and publicized. There will be fallout.

And there will be an accounting of fossil fuels.

Questions will be asked. Just how much does accumulated pollution cost? How much does climate change cost? How much does a fouled Gulf of Mexico cost? How much does that inevitable Arctic Ocean spill cost after an idiot Congress opens the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to massive drilling?

"Climate policy is based on cost-benefit analysis," says Naomi Klein, author of "The Shock Doctrine." "Now it appears we are waiting until the last possible minute to deal with it."

Photo: San Juan Generating Plant, Farmington, N.M. University of California, Berkeley Geo-Images Project.

Setting A Unified Course For Solar Energy In California

The cost of solar energy is falling rapidly as researchers such as this former UC Santa Cruz student discover more efficient technology, and as its use becomes more widespread. But there is another way to help cut costs, and the federal government is spending money to help it along.

Estimates vary, but studies show that planning, siting and the permit process at the local levels could add significantly - as much as 50 percent - to the cost of installing solar. Reducing those expenses would decrease the price of solar even more, and possibly spur its use. Read more here in Environmental Leader.

The government's Rooftop Solar Challenge is looking into ways to do that, and a team led by Washington State Department of Commerce received a grant to find ways to streamline and cut red tape in its region. Read more in this Seattle Post-Intelligencer story.

Varying regulations and cost structures are having an effect on companies eager to cash in on California's ambitious 33 percent renewables standard, which, according to this story by AP reporter Tracie Cone, would require about 100,000 acres of solar arrays. That is why the California County Planning Directors' Association (CCPDA) has a task force of various stakeholders attempting to develop a model "streamline" ordinance that all counties could use. Here's more on those efforts.

A guidance document that is a companion to a draft of the model ordinance notes that, on average, 1 megawatt of solar energy requires approximately six acres of land. (1 MW provides electricity for around 750 homes.) In California, many of the permit applications for development of solar energy facilities are in rural areas and potentially involve agricultural lands and wildlife habitat.

"It was clear that there were a variety of strategies being used by counties that were creating confusion across county lines for the solar industry about the process, Agricultural land conversion/Williamson Act compatibility issues, general requirements and fees involved when applying for permits for the installation of Solar Energy Facilities," the CCPDA says on its web site.

Here's an example: This mydesert.com story notes that the impact fee in Kern County, where solar panel sizes determine the fee, is less than a $640 per acre fee proposed for large-scale projects in Riverside County.

Counties are treading carefully as they prepare individual planning ordinances for solar energy because of the potential conflict with farmers. Maybe a unified planning document would help resolve some of those issues.

Photo by Johan Bolhuis

Solar Energy Scientists Descend On UC Merced

Blake Ringeisen stood out at a conference where much of the discussion centered around chemistry and physics. The tall, lanky and bearded graduate student researcher at University of California, Davis, provided the real-world perspective of concentrated solar energy when he showed that a simple solar fruit dryer can change the fortunes of farmers in east Africa.

In a region without electricity and refrigeration, Ringeisen's master's thesis, drawings of which were displayed at a solar research symposium at UC Merced, means that farmers who barely scratch out a living in Tanzania can preserve more of their harvest.

Without the dryer, up to 80 percent of their crop goes bad before it can be sold. With it, more tomatoes are dried faster and sold at higher prices, even during the off season, which means more money for farmers in underdeveloped nations.

Ringeisen tested two prototypes. He kept the designs simple - few moving parts, wood frame and polished aluminum surface - so that one or two people could build and move them using materials found in that region. One dryer had a concave design; the other was W-shaped. Both were built for $40 or less.

Both were effective, but the concave design was a little cheaper to build and dried tomatoes faster. The research showed once again that solar power can be a game changer in many places of the world, especially where electricity is unavailable or unreliable.

Solar power can help solve world problems, as noted in this Merced Sun-Star recap of the UC Merced symposium, and its use is likely to become more widespread as solar cells become cheaper and more efficient. There are some pretty impressive minds attempting to accomplish that, including some at Merced, which is fast becoming a leader in solar research.

Students and researchers from UC campuses in Merced, Berkeley, Davis, Santa Barbara and San Diego, and other universities, are working hard to improve the efficiency of solar cells. Costs are dropping "spectacularly," said Sarah Kurtz, interim director of the National Center for Photovoltaics and principal scientist at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Meanwhile, the industry is expanding at a robust rate. Photovoltaic shipments are doubling every two years, and costs are falling.

Today, researchers are developing solar cells that are at least 40 percent efficient. Kurtz said 50 percent is possible as economies of scale, new approaches and advancements take hold. "The challenge is to make high efficiency with low cost and high reliability," she said.

Many researchers are focusing on making thinner cells that concentrate light in smaller spaces and have the potential to change the market. Meanwhile, the California Energy Commission is boosting research through its Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) program, which helps finance projects related to research in clean energy and energy efficiency. The agency estimates 2,128 Californians were working in early 2011 in jobs directly related to active PIER-funded research, and more than 3,000 other jobs are indirectly related.

PIER funds have aided efforts at UC Merced, where a grant for $75,000 led to the creation of a business in San Jose that has 180 employees and $100 million in investment. Another research grant from PIER for solar thermal technology was the catalyst for two start-up companies.

"We are looking for breakthrough technology," said Prab Sethi, senior project manager at the California Energy Commission.

Breakthrough technology or industrial revolution? Technology is advancing so fast, it's hard to decide.

(Photo of UC Merced solar symposium by Veronica Adrover of university communication)

Solar joins the right-price energy club

Solar parity is here.

Honest. That's what a new study from Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario says.

"Given the state of the art in the technology and favourable financing terms it is clear that PV has already obtained grid parity in specific locations," say K. Brawker, M.J.M. Pathak and J.M. Pearce in the report, "A Review of Solar Photovoltaic Levelized Cost of Electricity."

That and technological innovation, which is driving up solar system efficiencies, could open new markets and spur significant development of projects focused on harvesting the sun's energy. In California's San Joaquin Valley, we're already seeing the results with about 40 projects in the works in Fresno County and at least as many in nearby counties.

Ferocious cost reductions

Sami Grover, from treehugger.com, put it this way: "With the solar industry delivering ferocious cost reductions, falling as much as 11 percent in just six months, it's little wonder that some predict that solar will be cheaper than coal in the very near future."

A cleantechnica.com editor says the findings by Queen's University don't even take into account health, energy security and environmental costs of fossil fuels "and it STILL finds that solar has reached grid parity in many places."

The recent Durban Climate Summit clarified the dangers of allowing pollution to continue without restraint. The cost and potential damage of unparalleled production of greenhouse gases is impossible to determine. But one thing's for certain, it will be huge.

The rapid innovation of solar technology offers a way to cut into reliance on fossil fuels. Whether it will make a difference is anybody's guess.

Solar interest high

A solar research symposium at the University of California, Merced, Dec. 9, 2011, draws students and researchers from UC Merced's program, which is fast becoming a leader in solar research, and University of California campuses of Berkeley, Davis, Santa Barbara and San Diego as well as other universities. All report that their programs are working hard to improve the efficiency of solar cells.

At the symposium, Sarah Kurtz, interim director of the National Center for Photovoltaics and principal scientist at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, tells my co-worker Sandy Nax that costs are dropping "spectacularly."

Nax also reports in a recent post that the industry is expanding at a robust rate with photovoltaic shipments doubling every two years.

Gaining efficiency

While many photovoltaic cells on the market range between 12 and 20 percent efficient, moves are being made to increase that number significantly. However, those technologies also cost more. "The challenge is to make high efficiency with low cost and high reliability," Kurtz says.

Some in our sun-drenched valley are concerned about seeing solar panels everywhere, especially on prime farmland. Nax tells me that efficiencies reduce solar's footprint and likely will improve its image, especially amongst concerned farmers.

That and estimated $1 per watt equipment costs will go a long way toward influencing standards that include photovoltaic panels as part of nearly every newly constructed building or major retrofit and remodel. Toss in escalating electricity rates, and solar may become as common as flat-screen television sets in American households.

But rather than offering entertainment, this electronic device will create a new era of distributed energy.

Nothing's easy

There will be challenges. For instance, what happens when the sun falls below the horizon? Cheap solar provides options that weren't otherwise available. Perhaps production of hydrogen will become more widespread that either can be used in fuel cells or in other applications.

Political leaders also will have to knuckle under and institute more laws like California's Global Warming Solutions Act, which seeks to reduce the state's greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels, and the requirement that utilities get a third of their energy from renewable sources by 2020. Otherwise, the incentive by the private sector to start figuring out cleaner alternatives might not great enough to foster widespread change.

It can be done. Even at Durban, which drew representatives from 190 countries, leaders in the final hours of the Climate Summit put together what some media sources call a road map to a legally binding climate treaty by 2020.

We'll see.

Climate change? Imagine what a penguin thinks

I sent a penguin to Durban, South Africa. Not a real one, just a cartoon.

It's part of an effort launched by four Belgians to drum up international interest in the largely ignored Climate Summit.

Why? Here's what the site says, "Penguins are very peaceful animals. They want to be in Durban in a peaceful way. That’s why the penguins organize parties, parties against global warming."

Grassroots pollution control

The penguins are the latest of a barrage of efforts to rein in pollution. And since little materialized from the 190 nation summit, expect more like it by increasingly disillusioned groups and individuals.

Of course, many are already quite active. There's the sophisticated activism of groups like 350.org and Bill McKibben targeting efforts to pipe tar sands oil from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico. There are authors like Naomi Klein electrifying audiences with her talks on reckless risk taking with the future of the planet. But possibly the most important development is the evolution (think of the transformation in "Altered States") of American corporate thinking -- that going green might not be so bad.

More on that in a bit.

Durban deadlock

Little was expected of the Durban talks. World leaders talked but took little action. Analysts weren't impressed and believed talks will achieve far less than the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, which set targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, according to the United Nations.

Global warming got lip service. China's not into setting limits while in expansionist mode, and the United States doesn't want to jeopardize whatever economic recovery this may be.

Durban did show some progress. Negotiators tackled the concept of forming a Green Climate Fund, which Reuters reporters Nina Chestney and Barbara Lewis say is "designed to help poor nations tackle global warming and nudge them towards a new global effort to fight climate change." Rich countries would capitalize the fund with up to $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poor countries deal with the effects.

Sinking under rising waters

Just imagine island nations with very little elevation, disappearing under water like the final scene of "Son of Kong." In the movie, an earthquake causes Skull Island to sink. Kiko, the ape, dies saving filmmaker Carl Denham, an image etched into my brain when I watched it as a kid.

The situation is so overwhelmingly dire, that most of us would rather not think of it. That fits with U.S. policy, which is all about kicking payment down the road.

But events have a way of making themselves known. Call it massive foreshadowing for the epic movie of all time.

Political sea change?

My coworker Sandy Nax points out that even though anything environmental or climate-related has become a dirty word in the nation's capital, a groundswell is moving under their planted feet. Sandy, a veteran reporter with a great sense of forecasting trends, says this movement, which is coming from corporate America no less, could force a renewed focus on clean energy and the environment.

Honest. It's happening. Companies have seen the light when it comes to energy efficiency and are jumping on the renewable band wagon in increasing numbers. The fact that solar's gone down to near parity with fossil fuels is a big deal that will play out in the next few years.

But author and environmental activist McKibben believes we have maybe five years before the earth hits the point of no return and carbon dioxide levels push the climate change button. It's hard to believe Wall Street will go green that fast and shove projects like the Keystone XL pipeline into the dust bin.

Many say we should try. What would Montgomery Scott do? Seriously? He'd pull a miracle from somewhere. It won't be easy, "The star drive is junk, Captain."

Taking a big dirty risk

In a speech for the nonprofit idea-generator TED (for Talks, Entertainment, Design), Naomi Klein paints a clear picture of where we're headed environmentally. She says the push for dirty fuel isn't diminishing a bit. Big oil is "slamming its foot on the accelerator at the exact moment they should put on the brakes." She says we need a new narrative one that isn't about growth for growth's sake but one that says what goes around comes around.

Klein says we simply have our priorities reversed, that many nations' climate policies are based on a cost-benefit analysis and that politicians are waiting until the last possible minute to deal with the issues. "Why do we take these crazy risks?" she asks.

Klein calls our foray for fossil fuels today a quest for extreme energy, mentioning mountain-top removal for coal mining, fracking and deep-water drilling as increasing the stakes. She says the worst appears to be the tar sands, which requires a tremendous amount of water to unlock the crude oil. That leftover slurry is stored in massive contaminated ponds that Klein calls the "biggest black hole in the planet."

Solar friends in corporate places

But the news from corporations isn't all bad. Sure, Keystone XL developer TransCanada doesn't plan to install solar panels along its proposed pipeline. But plenty of other companies have seen the benefits to installing a clean energy source that some say is already as cheap as fossil-fuel generated power.

New Jersey-based Royal Wine Corp., which operates Herzog Wine Cellars in Oxnard, Calif., has installed a 1.15-megawatt solar system at its headquarters to provide 65 percent of the company's electrical power needs. The roof-top solar adds to the company's sustainability practices and energy efficiency efforts -- much like those of fellow New Jersey companies Fed Ex, McGraw Hill, M&M Mars and Johnson & Johnson, Royal says in a statement.

Other companies are also seeing the light. Sure, some of the motivation is image related. But many companies that launch sustainability efforts realize the dollar-for-dollar cost savings and expand the programs. Beats continual layoffs to trim costs.

Recycling less CO2

A move is afoot by one of my favorite Stockton, Calif. energy efficiency activists to keep the majority of recycled content in the state of California, thereby avoiding all the greenhouse gas production that goes into shipping it over seas to Asia and back again as product. He's working with politicians and entrepreneurs to create incentives to boost domestic manufacturing. "Anything can be made of recycled content," he says.

As I write this, I realize all my examples of progress to a green future hardly scratch the surface of the realities of climate change. I can see the smog in Fresno, but I can hardly imagine the impact of a rising Pacific Ocean on some of the most beautiful island beaches in the world.

My solution? Do what you can, even if it is simply sending a penguin.
Penguin economics

The idea engages your social media muscle. Those interested sign up and send a social media message to as many people as you can via facebook, twitter or whatever else. The penguins are cute and can be customized to taste. Currently, most participation on Pissed Off Penguins is coming from Germany.

The site keeps the statistics: Little flags on an Olympic style podium down in the corner on the home page show first, second and third place. The United States isn't in the top three. By the end of the Climate Summit, about 4,200 sent a penguin.

Clearly that won't clear the air or drop CO2 levels. Still, every little bit helps. And when Wall Street thinks green is viable, watch out.

Corporate America and the Sustainability Tipping Point

Anything environmental or climate related has become a dirty word in the nation's capital, where in the last few days Jon Huntsman, the one Republican presidential candidate who openly acknowledged climate change, suddenly reversed course.

But a groundswell is moving under their planted feet, which ultimately could force a renewed focus on clean energy and the environment. And that groundswell is caused in large part by the big stick of Corporate America.

Climate Counts, a nonprofit that ranks businesses according to their climate policies, says major brands are taking the whole climate thing much more seriously, according to this blog by Marc Gunther.

A tipping point?

In fact, Gunther quotes Climate Counts Project Director Mike Bellamente as saying: "There's evidence to suggest we have reached a remarkable tipping point. Global corporations are increasingly acknowledging climate change as reality and are adopting measures to reduce their emissions and environmental impact.”

Tipping point. Gee, those are words we don't hear used in this context very often in this campaign year.

Corporations such as Unilever, Nike, Southwest Airlines, Hasbro, AstraZeneca, UPS and Bank of America get the best scores from Climate Counts. Many of these businesses are voluntarily launching deeper into sustainability, but Gunther and Bellamente, noting that greenhouses gases increased record levels last year, suggest that voluntary efforts only go so far.

In this Washington Post piece, clean-energy consultant Sunil Sharan says America needs to put the pedal to the metal because it is lagging in the clean energy race, despite the best efforts of corporations. Sharan says, "Congress refuses to budge even as America continues to lose ground, and its intransigence could continue for years."


Call for national RPS

Sharan and Bellamente make the case for a national climate policy, with Sharan recommending that President Obama pass an executive order mandating a nationwide renewable portfolio standard.

California's 33 percent renewable standard is one the most ambitious in the nation - and is one of the reasons why the San Joaquin Valley and the deserts of Southern California are swamped with proposals for solar energy and why Warren Buffett bought a mammoth under-construction solar plant in California. Here is the third quarter RPS report from the state Public Utilities Commission.

An energy and climate policy may be lost in the political chatter now, but with Big Business picking up the mantle, it may not be long before it becomes a bigger part of the national conversation.

Energy efficiency and the Enterprise: I'm giving it all she's got captain

In about three months, most of the energy efficiency work I've been trying to get done the past two years must be complete.

So far, only a fraction has been put in place.

It's making me a little frantic to say the least. I feel like Montgomery Scott in the engine room of the Enterprise in an early episode of the original "Star Trek." Captain Kirk is on the bridge sweating buckets. The ship is surrounded by five Klingon warrior-class vessels pummeling its shields with everything in their arsenals.

Kirk: "Scotty, get us out of here."

Scott: (Without brogue) "I can't change the laws of physics. I've got to have 30 minutes."

Montgomery Scott: Mentor

I'm imagining the scene. Purists would point out how I sloppily combined several events. But Scotty somehow figured to pull a miracle every time even while saying, "I've given her all she's got captain, an' I canna give her no more." Or "The shape the thing's in, it's hard to keep it from blowin'."

He's my mentor when I feel overwhelmed. (Others of my generation likely can relate. I grew up in the 1960s in front of a black-and-white console TV.) And, at least in this case, his coaching via mental reruns appears to have helped.

The project started two years ago with great fanfare. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was meant to immediately inject cash into the economy and put people to work.

Slow, government crossing

Many know it by another name: stimulus money. I work with Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants. They're very specific, targeting retrofits that generate immediate energy savings and instant payback in reduced utility bills.

On my list for the 34 cities and three counties I work with are mostly lights, air conditioning units and pump motors. All told, the savings will amount to 5.4 million kilowatt hours, or, depending on how you calculate it, about the same amount in pounds of carbon dioxide-equivalent greenhouse gases.

No slouch there.

Retrofits save $

But turning grant money into pretty new T8 fluorescent and LED or induction lighting, SEER 13 ACs and premium efficiency custom motors has not been easy. After many regulatory hurdles, I finally got the go-ahead only to discover contracting the work out brought on its own hurdles.

Turns out that what the government will pay for the job didn't cover most contractors' costs. And my projects needed revisions and extra legwork. Two years is a long time and some projects that look good in 2009 don't work in 2012.

Now I've collected a crew of capable contractors willing to take on razor-thin margins to make the projects work. I'm going through each project and dealing with dozens of questions, problems and hassles.

"It's ... uh ... it's green!"

But now on the eve of the holidays, I believe we can make a go of it. Or at least a sporting fight. My contact at the California Energy Commission, who is working overtime to assist me, sometimes wonders whether we can pull it off and get all the measures installed before the money disappears.

After all, the clock on the project is ticking.

But I've got Scott's TV voice echoing in my mind. It's pointing out the stark reality (something like "This jury-rigging won't last for long" and "The warp drive is a hopeless pile of junk") while giving me the confidence to figure a solution before the end of the episode.

Warren Buffett Shows Support For Solar Power In California

Warren Buffett's energy holdings company is buying a mammoth solar plant being built in the Carrizo Plain, just west of the San Joaquin Valley.

MidAmerican Energy Holdings said it is acquiring the $2 billion Topaz Solar Farm in San Luis Obispo County from First Solar because it expands the company's renewable energy portfolio and because it, "...demonstrates that solar energy is a commercially viable technology without the support of governmental loan guarantees..."

The purchase occurred after First Solar failed to get a federal loan guarantee to secure construction of the plant, according to this Reuters story.

Buffett, known as the "Oracle of Omaha," already invests in wind energy and in China's BYD Co. Ltd., which makes electric cars and batteries, and has other green technologies, including solar. This purchase of a 550-megawatt photovoltaic power plant - enough to power 160,000 homes when it is finished in early 2015 - is a sign of support for the emerging solar industry. It also follows the high-profile implosion of Solyndra, a solar company that failed after receiving a $535 million government loan guarantee.

First Solar will build and operate the plant for MidAmerican. Construction began in November and will create about 400 construction jobs and 15 permanent operations and maintenance jobs. The expected economic impact on the region during construction is expected to be abut $417 million over 25 years.

The Carrizo Plain, along with Kern, Kings and Fresno counties, is part of a region in Central California that is a potential hotbed for solar projects. Kern and Fresno counties alone are fielding more than 60 applications, according to this recent blog post. Those include a proposal for a huge solar farm in Westlands Water District that would cover 3,600 acres of retired farmland. Find out more here.

Meanwhile, officials in various counties and in the state are trying to balance the interests of farmers with those of this potentially new industry. Much of that conflict revolves around the Williamson Act, which protects farm land from development. A law signed in November, SB 618, attempts to help ease those conflicts. (Here is more on that bill)

Buffett wouldn't have invested in this solar plant if he didn't expect rosy returns, including some impressive government incentives, according to this blog post. And it remains to be seen how large the solar industry will become in Central California, but this investment by one of the nation's richest men shows that solar is becoming more viable, particularly in California.

Photo of Carrizo Plain National Monument from Bureau of Land Mangement

Clean energy competition offers 200k top prize

A national competition is offering a prize of $200,000 to the student entrepreneurs who can come up with a winning clean energy business plan.

The First Look West, or FLoW, contest invites student teams to participate in the U.S. Department of Energy’s first-ever business plan competition for clean energy.

In addition to the prize money, organizers say, FLoW offers mentoring programs, legal start-up packages and the opportunity for students to pitch the idea to investors.

Students must attend accredited universities and submit an application by Feb. 15, 2012. The competition -- one of six awarded regionally as part of a three-year, $2 million DOE program -- focuses on California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Nevada, Idaho, Hawaii, Guam and American Samoa. Top teams proceed to final judging, which will be held at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena on April 30 and May 1, 2012.

Panels of experts will select a winning team from each region to compete for a National Grand Prize at a competition in Washington, D.C. in June 2012.

Organizers say the goal is to "shine a spotlight on the best young innovators in the country and attract the follow-on support the competitors will need to bring game-changing new ideas to the market quickly."

For more information and to apply, go to http://flow.caltech.edu/.

Demise of Green Energy Greatly Exaggerated

For an industry that supposedly is on the brink of collapse, clean energy sure is holding up well. We've seen it at the local level, where our nonprofit, which is involved in energy efficiency, benchmarking and other energy-saving programs, is gaining a higher profile.

And we're seeing it nationally, too. Three items - the restart of a billion-dollar military solar program; President Obama's $4 billion commitment to cutting energy costs; and Kachan & Co's predictions for Clean energy technology in 2012 (more here) - are indicative of the growing interest.

The big news is that Bank of America Merrill Lynch and SolarCity are combining to revive a plan to install solar panels on up to 120,000 military housing units across the nation, creating 300 megawatts of solar power. This is further evidence the military, which contends the nation's dependence on foreign oil is a security risk, is taking a leading role in the green movement. Want more evidence? The military has turned up the heat on energy technology by selecting 27 test sites for various proposals.

In addition, a just-announced Obama public/private partnership could lead to $2 billion worth energy-saving improvements on federal buildings across the nation, and $2 billion more on 1.6 billion square feet of commercial and industrial property. Some heavy hitters have signed up.

Energy efficiency has long been called the "low-hanging fruit" of the clean-energy movement because a relatively modest investment can yield significant results.

Then there is Dallas Kachan's 2012 clean tech forecast. The forecast is mixed - expect declines in venture capital and for election-year rhetoric to muddy the waters - but is bolstered by his predictions that oil prices will rise, making renewables more economically viable; that innovation in solar energy will surge; and that Corporate America will "buy their way into clean technology markets in 2012, supplementing the role of traditional private equity and evidencing a maturation of the cleantech sector. "

Some states are moving faster in clean energy's various segments than others. Here in California, Gov. Jerry Brown is a big proponent, embracing a multi pronged effort that features a greater emphasis on efficiency. The state seeks to reduce CO2 emissions by 20 percent annually through 2020, and the Global Warming Solutions Act, or AB 32, passed in 2006, sets a goal of 33 percent renewable energy generation by 2020.

No wonder Ernst & Young likens the momentum of clean energy to the industrial revolution.

Reminds me of the Mark Twain quote, "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."

White House photo of Presidents Obama and Clinton.