Posts Tagged by NREL
[The Vector] NREL: Consumer Attitudes About Renewable Energy: Trends and Regional Differences – Continued
| June 15, 2011 | Posted by Kathy-Heshelow under Renewables - Politics |
…continued from an earlier post…
Trends in Caring About Renewable Energy
Since the question was first asked in 2002, NMI has been tracking answers to the question, “I care about the use of renewable energy sources.” Those that completely agree with the statement have trended down from 56% in 2002-2003 to 43% in 2010; those that completely or somewhat agree has trended down from 90% in 2003 to 80% in 2010. However, the numbers evened off between 2009 to 2010, which may have indicated a bottom to the trending.
Power Purchase Options
Choice of renewable power purchase options is a very low awareness category, revealed the survey.
Only 14% of the respondents said they know of an option to buy from their electric company, and only 8% said they had the option to buy renewable power from someone other than the current electric company. There is, in fact, little change in consumer awareness on purchase options since 2006. There is a wide gulf between the number of people who say they care about renewable energy, and those who know they can buy it or have sought it out.
The Midwest had the lowest awareness in this area while the response from Texas was striking.
One-fourth of the consumers are aware of power purchase options there, and Texas markets are one of the most competitive in the U.S.
“If voluntary purchases are to be important to growing the renewable energy market, consumers obviously need to now they have the option of putting their money where their values are,” says the report.
Price Sensitivity Continues
A majority (69%) of consumers said they care about the environment but the purchase is determined mainly by price. Only 26% said they would spend an extra $5 to $20 to have some power come from a renewable source, and only 16% said they would be willing to pay more than $20. In 2006, more than 38% said they would spend an extra $5 to $20 – that category of consumers has consistently declined each year.
Regionally, 29% of those in the West said they would be willing to spend $5 to $20 more each month, while 25% in the South and Northeast said they would be willing, and only 23% in the Midwest said they would.
The report concludes that the renewable energy industry must do a better job of educating consumers, and that there is growth to be had if they are successful in consumer awareness. For instance, if consumers perceived that using renewable energy was not only good for the environment, but also better for their health and better for domestic energy security, they may be more willing to search out the local options to purchase.
The National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) web site is found here for further information.
[The Vector] NREL: Consumer Attitudes About Renewable Energy: Trends and Regional Differences
| June 13, 2011 | Posted by Kathy-Heshelow under Renewables - Science |
In April 2011 report, a new report was released by NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). It takes a look at American awareness, attitudes, knowledge and usage of renewable energy and the study further breaks down these views regionally. Some surprising results came from the study.
The data was taken from the Natural Marketing Institute’s Lifestyle of Health & Read More
Biden’s Clean Energy Speech: US Will Lead the Global Clean-Energy Revolution. Great! Can We Get Started Soon?
| May 28, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Politics |
Joe Biden believes that the US, armed as it is with its “entrepreneurial spirit and innovative national labs,” will “lead the global clean-energy revolution and reap the economic and environmental benefits that go with it.” At least, this is what he told an audience that packed an auditorium at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) earlier this week.
Damn! I’m so sorry I missed that speech, as I’m sure it was grounded in solid fact, as most political speeches are. Hey, he didn’t happen to mention when all this was supposed to get started, did he?
Democrats make empty speeches about US leadership in clean energy. But I suppose that’s marginally better than Republicans, who have relatively little to say on the subject other than convincing voters that environmentalism is bad for the economy, that the imperative to move away from fossil fuels is over-hyped, and that the super-profitable oil companies still need huge subsidies from taxpayers.
However, while we here in the US are busy talking about renewables (or remaining silent about it, as the case may be), the Chinese and others are actually making it happen. China has a large and ever-widening lead in global clean energy investment; according to Bloomberg, they’ll spend 5 trillion yuan (nearly $740 billion) over the next 10 years on renewable energy projects.
America lives with constant uncertainty and the vigorous flip-flops that immediately follow every two-year election cycle. While all this makes for lively debate, which I suppose is good for voter turn-out and approval ratings, understandably, it renders investors quite nervous. In fact, it means death to any hope for the solid stream of capital formation that will be necessary to make clean energy a reality.
We’re good at rancor; we’ve proven that, year after year. Now we need something that we’ve not yet been able to demonstrate: a commitment to go beyond the name-calling and gross over-simplifications — the strength to build a consensus that will move us forward in an effective and practical manner.
But does there really seem to be any change on the horizon? If there is, I sure don’t see it. I liken this to the alcoholic who, until he hits rock bottom, refuses to cart himself off to rehab and clean up his life. I see the same situation for clean energy in the US; we haven’t sunk low enough to create the necessary motivation.
Unless there is a dramatic shift in our approach, in about a decade Americans will wake up one day to realize that the country they love is now number three or four in clean energy – an industry that will have come to dominate the world economy. We will have lost the most important economic battle in the 21st Century. Maybe better said: we will have sat on the sidelines and watched the rest of the world fight the most important economic battle in the 21st Century.
I predict that this tragic event will spawn some real change in leadership, albeit too late, as we’re a nation that really doesn’t like to lose. I’m reminded of the words of George C. Scott as General George Patton: “Americans love a winner, and they will not tolerate a loser.”
Yes, Americans will eventually place a limit on their tolerance for failure and humiliation. But wouldn’t it be easier to fight hard and win now? Perhaps a timely question to ask, as we memorialize the millions of fallen soldiers and the sacrifices they made to keep America strong.
[The Vector] NREL Chooses 19 Leaders for Program
| November 20, 2010 | Posted by Kathy-Heshelow under Renewables - Science |
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), which is under the Department of Energy, announced selection of nineteen national leaders for its 2010 Executive Energy Leadership Program. Now in its fourth year, the 5 month program gives executive decision-makers at local levels in-depth knowledge and skills about renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. The program includes briefings from NREL, technology experts, and well as research lab tours and visits to field applications along with classroom study. At the end of the program, the students each present a viable renewable energy project.
In the first three years of the program, participants were solely based in Colorado. NREL said it was ready to expand the Colorado-based pilot to a national scale. “As a national laboratory, we launched this Read More
[The Vector] Solar Homes Sold Faster and Better, Says NREL
| October 30, 2010 | Posted by Kathy-Heshelow under Photo-voltaics |
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) published an extensive report (in excess of 400 pages – the link is here)studying several California subdivisions before the housing crash. Entitled “A New Market Paradigm for Zero-energy Homes: The Comparative San Diego Case Study”, the study focused on the builder experience, the market response, home values and cost of electricity in the solar study group and adjacent comparables. It concluded that homes with installed solar systems sold faster than those without solar, and they sold at a higher price (17% higher).
Shea Homes put solar PV and solar thermal systems on half of its homes in a new development. All 257 of the homes with solar sold within a year, two years faster than expected. Clarum Homes, another developer in the test group, found that their solar homes sold in 23 months while their non-solar homes sold in 28 months.
NREL conducted extensive interviews with home buyers in the test developments, and the home buyers also signed releases to provide data on energy costs. It was discovered that if solar was already on the home and was factored into the price, buyers were more likely to pick the home with solar over non-solar. If a home did not have solar already installed but rather included it as an extra upgrade, the decision was usually nixed. It simply became one more decision to be made at time of purchase by overwhelmed buyers.
About George Douglas, Contributor to “Renewable Energy Facts and Fantasies”
| August 1, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Science |
NREL spokesperson George Douglas contibuted to the book’s chapter on the US federal governement’s laboratories. As one might expect, there are many non-profit organizations of different types that make important contributions to the quest for clean energy: government agencies, NGOs, trade associations, etc. The handful of such groups that have contributed to this book speak to the important work they are doing to develop key technologies and to adopt rational policy by which renewables can be moved forward in a concerted and responsible way.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory, or NREL, is the only federal laboratory dedicated to the research, development, commercialization and deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. I was delighted to speak with spokesperson George Douglas.
Powerhouse China and The Renewable Energy Race — By Guest Blogger Kathy
| March 21, 2010 | Posted by Kathy-Heshelow under Wind Energy |
“China missed the first industrial revolution, missed the computer revolution, and the biology revolution – they want to be a leader in the green revolution,” said Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy. (Scientific American, “Is ARPA-E Enough to Keep the U.S. on the Cutting edge of a Clean Energy Revolution?” March 3, 2010).
And indeed they are rushing ahead. From nowhere, they are now the third largest producer in the wind power market and one of the fastest-growing in domestic wind installations. For the fourth consecutive year, says the World Wind Energy Report 2009, China doubled its wind installations, which is no small feat. While the U.S. was number one in world total installed capacity with China number two, China had the most share of new capacity in 2009 (13,800 MW to America’s 9,922 MW). The following chart, courtesy the World Wind Energy Association (WWEA) illustrates new capacity in 2009.
Read More
Hybrid of Public/Private Financing for Renewables
| March 8, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Business |
I wrote not too long ago about the huge, long-term role that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), as part of the Department of Energy, plays in supporting the development of clean energy technologies. Their work with solar energy leader Solyndra is a perfect example of a case in which this public support made it possible for a private company to raise critically important addition capital, by preventing their initial private investors from getting scared away. At a certain point, new (very large) rounds of cash were required to get the company to its next level. As I recall, NREL supported this effort to the tune of over $700 million — and this robust commitment showed investors that they weren’t alone in their belief that the company was on the right track.
But not every company that asks for money receives any at all — let alone $700 million. So exactly how does this process work? How fair is it? What criteria are most important? What types of companies are favored over others, and why? Are more mature renewables technologies, like photovoltaics (in which Solyndra plays), favored over newer ideas? (Solyndra has a very well proven breakthrough in deployment of CIGS (copper indium gallium (di) selenide), generating a significant leap in PV efficiencies and reduction in costs).
Unfortunately, it’s not clear. I suppose it’s not supposed to be. Take solar thermal/CSP (concentrated solar power) as an example of a new technology. Technologies like PV and wind have a several-decade head-start over CSP. When I interviewed industry leader Ausra‘s founder Dr. David Mills for my book on renewables, he told me that Ausra had gotten to the second round in one of these mega-contests in which the DoE selects its favorites to back, but that they didn’t make the finals. When I asked if he resented their decision, he — perhaps simply out of good sportsmanship and professional courtesy — said that he didn’t, and told me that he’ll simply try again another time.
I can’t count all the people who have asked us for our insights at 2GreenEnergy on this matter — and I regret that all I can turn up are anecdotal incidents like these. I ask readers to share their own experiences with this process so that all my learn. Thanks.
Integrating Variable Renewable Resources
| February 26, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Science |
Guest blogger Garth Barker writes:
… wind developers are finding it harder to finance projects due to curtailment potential of that variable renewable.
I just completed the last interview for my book on renewables with Dr. Peter Lilienthal, CEO of Homer Energy. This whole subject of integrated variable energy sources, like wind and PV, is a very interesting one – and it will obviously grow in importance as these sources begin to occupy a larger percentage of our overall energy supply. Fortunately, there are technological solutions in the form of software, along the lines of that offered by Homer Energy – originally developed at NREL. And as you can imagine, the situation is even more acute for small grids, e.g., some island in the Aleutians, versus a larger grid, e.g., the West Coast of the US.
Should Renewables Technology Be Developed in the Public or Private Sector?
| February 23, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Politics |
Frequent commentor and all-around smart guy Larry Lemmert writes:
I whole-heartedly believe (that it’s business that’s causing the rapid migration to renewables) and for that reason, the role of government should be limited to cheerleader on the side-lines, offering only tax credits to lubricant the transition, but largely to just stand back and keep out of the way of this tidal wave of green development….”
Thanks for writing in, Larry. I go back and forth on this. I ran that idea by George Douglas, spokesperson for NREL, in the interview I conducted with my him for my book on renewables, and he politely by firmly took my head off.
I asked, “Isn’t technology is typically developed in the private sector? What was the thought process behind doing this in a public agency?”
He responded, “Well, the first statement is not true. How did we get to the moon? Public sector development of technology. The Internet is public sector development of technology. Really, the model that people think about is the Bell Labs model – the long-term investment in technology. But after the Second World War business itself became much more increasingly interested in short-term returns.
“And the role of government in investing in high risk and long-term research was given a great deal of credibility during the Second World War. The development of radar, development of nuclear arms, and so forth — specifically aimed at harnessing nuclear power. So Oak Ridge National Laboratory, San Diego National Laboratory, Los Alamos, etc. all grew out of that. So, there has been, at least for the last 60 to 70 years, the divide between what research is generally pursued by private enterprise and what research is pursued by the government and in academia. It’s the difference between near-term results, and by near-term — I don’t mean tomorrow — but in the 10 to 20 year time horizon, and much longer-term problems and results.”
We’d all like to say, along with Jefferson, “That government is best that governs least.” Try to find a politician who runs on a “big government” platform. Even as he’s spending your money as fast as he can get hands on it, he’s telling you that he’s for small government.
But you have to admit that NREL’s position on this gives us something to think about.
