Follow the Green Energy Money

Ok, Debunk this.

The transcript of President Obama's weekly address on whitehouse.gov is titled, "President Obama Lauds Clean Energy Projects as Key to Creating." Creating what? one might ask. The word "Jobs" seems to be missing, perhaps like the jobs themselves.

The President loves to talk about green jobs -- so much so that after his speech the DailyKos reassured the left wing base that the whole jobs thing is a smokescreen:

President Obama's major selling point for clean energy technology this morning is jobs, jobs and more jobs. He does indeed talk a bit about the planet...[but] he shrewdly uses the job creation argument to bludgeon the naysayers who authored the recent Republican Pledge.

The "clean energy" poster child of the week is a new solar energy plant in Ivanpah, California, praised by the President:

I want share [sic] with you one new development, made possible by the clean energy incentives we have launched. This month, in the Mojave Desert, a company called BrightSource plans to break ground on a revolutionary new type of solar power plant. It's going to put about a thousand people to work building a state-of-the-art facility. And when it's complete, it will turn sunlight into the energy that will power up to 140,000 homes - the largest such plant in the world.

It's worth looking at this model clean energy project more closely.

To begin with, Obama is correct that Ivanpah "is going to put about a thousand people to work." This figure however is the peak work force during construction. According to Brightsource the average workforce over the three years of construction is 650 workers -- union workers, naturally. Brightsource, whose CEO John Bryson was a co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council in 1969, reports that Ivanpah is a "labor-friendly project."

As with any construction project, jobs created by a specific project are temporary, and once the Ivanpah project is completed in 2012 (after the election, perhaps), the workforce will drop to 86. (The White House states clumsily that "its operations will create 86 operations and maintenance jobs.") Eighty-six new jobs is better than a sharp stick in the eye, but it's way less than the 1,000 jobs the President uses to bludgeon the naysayers.

The President also touts Ivanpah as "the largest such plant in the world." Ivanpah's 370 megawatt capacity is not insignificant, especially in comparison with the rooftop solar panel arrays one thousandth the size that are lauded indiscriminately in the press, and it is a welcome addition to the nation's power generating capacity.

Ivanpah however produces what is described as "intermittent" power. Fortunately, the sun shines in the Mohave Desert during peak demand for air conditioning in Los Angeles, but the California Public Utilities Commission confesses that:

the State will face an increasing challenge to integrate the higher intermittent renewable penetration without decreasing system reliability [i.e., brownouts and blackouts]. As a result, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) has initiated a study of the ancillary resources necessary to maintain grid reliability with a 33% RPS [Renewable Portfolio Standard, slated to increase from 20% to 33% pending a vote this week by the California Air Resources Board].

In other words, in order to avoid blackouts, they'll have to duplicate some of the capacity supplied by renewable energy with "ancillary resources" (coal, natural gas, nuclear) to cover the times when it's dark or the wind isn't blowing.

Obama describes the Ivanpah's size with the weasel phrase "up to 140,000 homes." An average home uses around 9,000 kwh annually, and 140,000 houses need an annual power output of 1,260 gigawatt hours. If Ivanpah operated at 100% of its 370 Mw capacity round the clock, it would produce 3,241 gwh, which means the plant is operating at 38.8% of its full capacity. The average capacity factor of solar plants in the Mohave Desert is 19%, so either Ivanpah is twice as efficient as the average, or "up to 140,000 homes" really means "70,000 homes."

For comparison, not far across the Arizona border the zero carbon Palo Verde nuclear power plant has a generating capacity of 3,942 megawatts, over ten times that of Ivanpah. Palo Verde produces 26,782 Gwh annually, a capacity factor of 82% of the 32,753 Gwh it would produce at 100% capacity. This is slightly below the nuclear industry average of 91%. Thus Palo Verde has 10 times the capacity of Ivanpah, and produces 21 times the electricity.

Then there's Obama's phrase, "made possible by the clean energy incentives we have launched." The White House reports that "the Recovery Act is investing over $90 billion in clean energy," which includes a $1.37 billion loan guarantee for Ivanpah. It's interesting that Ivanpah's price tag is listed at $1.1 billion. It's tough to get credit these days, but I guess if you have a green energy project, you get your money plus a 25% bonus.

Brightforce therefore doesn't have to worry about financing the project. Solar power unfortunately is an expensive proposition. Reuters reports that the Ivanpah's $1.1 billion construction cost works out to $2,800 per kilowatt. "In contrast, it costs about $900 per kW to build a combined-cycle natural gas plant." Construction costs are amortized over the thirty-year life of the plant, but one wonders how Brightforce can possibly repay their loan selling a costly product in a competitive energy market.

Not to worry, the energy market isn't all that competitive. As mentioned above, Californian investor-owned utilities (referred to as IOUs) are required by the California Public Utilities Commission's Renewable Portfolio Standard to purchase 20% of their power by the end of 2010 from renewable energy sources like solar and wind.

The California Public Utilities Commission recognizes that renewable energy is more expensive than conventional energy, and it's willing to pay for it through a slush fund called the Above Market Fund (AMF). In 2009, the CPUC reports that three utilities were allocated AMF funds of $773 million, and two of the three, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric, had already exhausted their funds by the third quarter of 2009.

Brightforce has signed contracts with PG&E and Southern California Edison, although strangely the price the utilities are paying is confidential. In my home state, Massachusetts NSTAR has agreed to purchase electricity from Cape Wind at 18.7 cents/kwh, more than twice the going rate of 8.8 cents/kwh from natural gas power plants. PG&E has disclosed a 25-year contract to purchase power from the AV Solar Ranch One plant for 13.3 cents/kwh, which compares to the national average for all sectors reported by the EIA of 10.2 cents/kwh.

So there's really no way the Ivanpah business model can lose. Up-front financing and price guarantees for thirty years down the road. So who might benefit from such a cozy government-business arrangement?

Brightsource investors include Google.org (a member of Van Jones's Apollo Alliance) and the California State Teachers Retirement System. Billions in federal financing, billions every year for the next thirty years in taxpayer subsidies for above-market priced electricity, with profits going to Obama insiders like the Apollo Alliance and a teachers' union? Should we really call this "clean" energy?

Good Old Honest Obe and all those greenies. Thanks Honest Obe!!!

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Charles Lane on October 5, 2010 at 9:56am

I figured you libbys would have jumped in this with both feet. I thought this stuff gave you wood? You know got you hot and bothered like Al Gore asking for a happy ending, like Jimmy Carter running to hug a terrorist or dictator, like Pelosi's hatred for reading, like Rosie O'Donnell and Michael Moore going to the Golden Corral, like John Kerry burning a hooch and raping and pillaging in Vietnam, like Criss Dodd getting a loan from Country Wide, like Charlie Rangel cheating on his taxes.

I thought you guys loved this stuff. Oh well...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Van on October 6, 2010 at 5:36am

I'll reply more to this later, but a couple of quick points. First of all natural gas is relatively cheap now, but the price fluctuates. Still it's better then using coal. Second in Ontario they shelved a new nuclear project because it was going to cost 26 billion dollars, $10,800 per kilowatt hour. Third, once you build the solar plant you don't have to pay for the fuel.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Charles Lane on October 7, 2010 at 8:18am

Ontario Canada? No wonder it is costing that much.

How long do solar panels last? I have read anywhere from 15 to 25 years. How long do nuclear power and coal plants last? What happens to a solar panel if it is caught in a hail storm? What happens to a nuclear power plant or coal plant caught in a hail storm?

For those of you interested in solar panels (that would be me, not because I am a greeny, but because I feel it is easier to save a dollar than earn it) for your home here are some great questions you may want to ask.

http://www.solarhome.com/gridtiequestions.html

And you may want to read this article about building solar panels and the "greenness" of them.

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/03/the-ugly-side-o.html

As for wind power, did you know the life expectancy of a wind turbine is 25 years? You might can get another 10 to 15 if you refurbish it.

Let's face it nuclear is the way to go. Don't believe me ask the US Navy. As for the reason I am interested in solar. I want to power and heat my swimming pool with it. I want to turn it into a giant hot tub. Don't worry Van I have a pond too, so you can get or go green with the fish and frogs.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Charles Lane on October 7, 2010 at 9:15am

Oh yeah, I forgot to add this thought. Will Honest Obe's teleprompter be hooked up to solar power or a coal fired outlet? I am betting he goes with a continuous uninterrupted supply over solar.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fang1944 on February 22, 2011 at 4:44pm

A solar panel can work for as long as 40 years if all goes well-- if it's not damaged by something like a falling limb, hailstorm, etc.

BTW, we can all see that Charles copied and pasted this one as always. The verb lose is spelled correctly instead of like the adjective loose.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Charles Lane on February 22, 2011 at 7:09pm

Ok back that up, show me where solar panels last 40 years and still maintain production.

How do nuclear reactors and coal plants do with falling limbs, hailstorms, etc....

Protest all you want to about copy and paste you cannot argue with the facts, LOL @ U!!!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by GodHatesTrash on October 5, 2010 at 5:21pm

Speaking of jobs and happy endings, seems like the Tennessee economy must be picking up, now that your little buddy Pendejo Villa is working with you on the billygoat milking.

How do you guys make any money though, what with you drinking up all the product?

Must one of those silly agriculture subsidies.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Charles Lane on October 5, 2010 at 5:55pm

Trash are you becoming... *gasp* conservative? You think subsidies are silly? OMG somebody alert the Huffpo!!!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by GodHatesTrash on October 5, 2010 at 6:04pm

You're getting paid to swallow goat semen.

That's silly, although it's nice that you love your work.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mary Chestnut on October 5, 2010 at 7:02pm

Dear G*d Hates Trash (cans)

I know that in the vernacular, the expression "happy endings" means an orgasm,. Are you suggesting that Tennesseans have more orgasms than you? Or are you suggesting that Pancho Villa and Charles Lane jerk off goats?

Neither sounds quite right. I mean to say that I may not agree with Charles Lane, but no matter what my level of disagreement with him is, he doesn't read like a guy that jerks off goats. And Pancho Villa reads more like a man who has had far more sense than to spin his wheels (or however it could be accomplished) on such a non-lucrative quest as jerking off goats. And besides, where would he sell it?

Unless you happen to have a market for billy-goat jism. In which case, want to share it with him? Or are you just jealous?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Che Pancho Villa on February 22, 2011 at 5:05pm

Yes, there's tons of money in milking goats.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fang1944 on October 7, 2010 at 9:59am

For those who like to actually think about these subjects, there's an article about renewable energy at http://www.slate.com/id/2270165/ that argues that solar power and other types of green energy are going to come down in price because the military wants it. Seems it costs $400 a gallon to ship gas to the troops in Afghanistan. If the military wants it, Congress will spend the money on the R&D.