Windmills on Office Buildings?

Solar panels on office buildings and homes have become almost commonplace. But windmills?

That is what SC Johnson is doing at its corporate headquarters in Racine, Wisconsin. The company has launched a wind energy pilot program with the installation of three new wind turbines. The objectives are to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and raise awareness that renewable energy is not just for factories, but also office buildings in urban settings.

The three wind turbines are located on the roof of one of the seven buildings on SC Johnson's international headquarters campus, which has an approximate eight block radius and where more than 1,300 employees work. The wind turbines are expected to be fully functioning by the end of the month. Once fully operational, the turbines will be connected to the company's electrical distribution system. The output they generate will power a small portion of the company's campus.

Admittedly, this is a test project and it is difficult to project how many computers, machines and other basic office resources can be powered by renewable energy. "While we are not sure how much alternative energy these turbines will produce, we expect to have clear, consistent results within a year," said Johnson. "This pilot program will help provide useful information on ways we can develop more sustainable solutions for our campus."

The turbines are expected to be fully installed and connected in late January and will be monitored closely throughout the year. Depending on the impact of the turbine's energy output, it is possible the company will extend the project to additional local SC Johnson facilities.

This is not SC Johnson's first foray into sustainable energy. Its largest global factory, based in Racine, Wisconsin, is partially powered with cogeneration using methane gas from a local public landfill. The company's Bay City, Michigan plant is powered with wind energy, reducing the annual purchase of coal-fired electricity by nearly half. In Indonesia, waste palm shells are burned as a substitute for fuel, using 80 percent less diesel fuel, and in Mijdrecht, The Netherlands, the company's largest European manufacturing facility is operated by an 80 meter-tall wind turbine which is expected to eliminate 3,900 tons of carbon dioxide annually.

Through these efforts, approximately 36 percent of SC Johnson's total electricity usage worldwide came from renewable energy. The company cut GHG emissions at its worldwide factories by 27 percent during the last eight years, including all its United States operations by 17 percent since 2005. These reductions -- achieved three full years ahead of the company's 2011 target -- are the equivalent of taking approximately 11,100 U.S. cars off the road for one year.

John Howley
Orlando, Florida

More Good News for Vehicle Fuel Efficiency

Yesterday I reported on a survey by KPMG suggesting that the automotive industry sees great promise in consumer demand for hybrid and other alternative fuel vehicles, and that the industry plans to build and promote more hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles over the next 5 years.

Today comes another story that puts a little meat on those bones. According to a study by Thomson Reuters, alternative power and pollution control have become the biggest source of patent activity in the automotive industry, surpassing perennial leaders such as engine design, braking systems and safety in 2009. Together they accounted for 23% of the patents issued within the automotive industry last year, with alternative power accounting for 14% and pollution control accounted for another 9%.

The report notes that "Only unique patent inventions were counted, providing the truest picture of innovation activity."

While it is too soon to tell whether any of these patents represent significant technological breakthroughs, the trend is encouraging. Obtaining patents is an expensive and time-consuming process. The issuance of patents in the areas of alternative power and pollution control means, at a minimum, that the automotive industry is serious about these technologies. It also suggests that the industry has been shifting R&D money to these areas for some time.

The Thomson Reuters study, 2009 Innovation Report: Twelve Key Industries and Their States of Innovation, tracks unique inventions in granted patents and published applications within 12 key industries. Click here to gain access to the full report.

John Howley
Orlando, Florida

KPMG Survey Suggests Shift Towards Hybrid and Alternative Fuel Vehicles

Senior automotive executives are expected to increase their investment in new technologies to produce more environmentally-friendly, fuel-efficient vehicles. This is the conclusion reached by the 11th annual global automotive survey conducted by KPMG LLP, the US audit, tax and advisory firm.

Of the 200 senior executives surveyed worldwide, nine in ten expect manufacturers and suppliers to focus on new technologies, while 88 percent predict manufacturers will increase investment on new models/products and 78 percent say suppliers will do the same.

Hybrid Seen As Most Important Fuel Technology

When asked to rate the importance of alternative fuel technologies over the next five years, hybrid fuel systems came out on top (almost 85 percent), followed by battery electric power (68 percent), fuel cell electric power (63 percent), and biodiesel (42 percent).

"The consumer mindset on fuel efficiency is forcing automakers to build more fuel efficient cars and to create new product that satisfies demand,"said Gary Silberg, National Automotive Industry leader for KPMG LLP.

The survey results come on the heels of sales data released earlier in the week showing that 2009 industry sales in the US were 21.2% lower than sales in 2008.

Fuel Efficiency Cited As Key Purchase Factor

The key question of course is: How much of the emphasis on fuel efficiency is the result of economic conditions, how much is due to stubbornly high fuel prices, and how much is due to climate change and environmental concerns?

The survey suggests that both fuel efficiency and environmental friendliness are driving consumer demand. When asked what would influence consumer purchase decisions over the next five years, fuel efficiency was most frequently cited (94 percent), fairly flat from last year's high of 96 percent, followed by environmental friendliness (just over 80 percent). Other consumer desires were significantly lower including safety innovation (71 percent) and vehicle styling (61 percent).

When asked which vehicles the executives expect will see sales increases over the next five years, hybrid fuel vehicles (almost 93 percent) were most frequently named, followed by other alternative fuel vehicles (83 percent), low cost or introduction cars (82 percent), cars (66 percent), cross-overs (46 percent) and small pick-up trucks (just under 45 percent).

Most surprising were the responses on incentives, including discounts, rebates and free offers. When asked to name which vehicles might see an increase in incentives during the next year, the top prediction was SUVs (53%). But almost an equal number of the auto executives surveyed responded that incentives would be increased for hybrid fuel vehicles (almost 50 percent) and other alternative fuel vehicles (48 percent).

New Jersey Getting 12 More Megawatts of Grid-Connected Solar Power

New Jersey’s largest regulated gas and electric utility is adding 12 megawatts of grid-connected solar energy. PSE&G hopes to start construction at its sites in Edison, Hamilton, Linden and Trenton this spring, with projects completed this summer and fall.

The four ground-mounted solar farms will be among the largest to be developed in New Jersey, with the Hamilton project being the largest in the state and the project in Linden the second largest. All four sites will utilize crystalline solar panel technology and have monitoring and communications functionality.

Together, the four projects will add 48,000 solar panels on 38.2 acres of property. They will produce enough energy to power about 1,300 homes and eliminate some 6,700 tons of CO2 emissions, the equivalent of removing nearly 1,200 cars from the road for one year.

The State of New Jersey has become a leader in solar energy installations in the last few years, installing more than 100 MW of solar energy, making it second only to California in terms of the amount of solar capacity installed.

"We're moving ahead with clean energy projects that will put people to work, installing tens of thousands of solar panels that will help the environment and stimulate the economy," said Ralph LaRossa, president and COO of PSE&G.

The latest projects are part of PSE&G's Solar 4 All program, which was approved by state regulators in July. The program involves a total of $515 million investment in 80 megawatts of solar, creating green jobs and nearly doubling the size of New Jersey's installed solar capacity.

When Big Oil Buys the Gas Company

Earlier this week ExxonMobil, the world’s largest publicly traded oil and gas producer, announced that it had agreed to buy XTO Energy, the second-largest producer of natural gas in the US. ExxonMobil will acquire XTO for stock valued at $31 billion, making this the biggest oil and gas deal in four years.

This acquisition (and more like it) will have very significant impacts in at least three areas: energy prices; advances in natural gas innovation; and climate change legislation.

1. The Impact on Energy Prices

By acquiring the second-largest natural gas producer in the US, ExxonMobil will increase its ability to influence natural gas prices.

Prices for natural gas under long-term contracts are currently fairly close to prices for oil when measured on a cost per BTU basis. But prices for natural gas on the spot market are much lower -- often as much as 400% lower -- than prices for oil. The more natural gas that remains available on the spot market, the more likely it is that prices for natural gas under long-term contracts will come down.

When independent natural gas companies like XTO selling gas on the spot market, there is pressure on prices for natural gas to go down. Which makes gas a nice alternative to oil and coal. Which ultimately puts pressure on oil and coal prices.

ExxonMobil and other major oil companies that buy natural gas companies could influence prices by simply selling less natural gas on the spot market. The major oil companies have plenty of cash, so they could hold onto their natural gas inventories until the gap between gas and oil narrows. That is not good for consumers . . . or for the country.

2. The Impact on Natural Gas Innovation

Over the last decade, a handful of the nation’s small energy companies discovered huge amounts of natural gas in new fields stretching from Texas to Pennsylvania. XTO was one of these companies. It grew almost unnoticed into the nation’s second-largest gas producer by amassing a substantial portfolio of gas fields and developing expertise in the complex technology needed to extract the gas from shale beds.

If the major oil companies buy up these smaller, innovative companies that are making all the new natural gas discoveries, then who will pursue new natural gas technologies in the future?

Good question.

3. The Impact on Climate Change Legislation

Oil is one of the major contributors to carbon emissions worldwide. Gas is a much cleaner fuel.

The oil industry and its trade organization, the American Petroleum Institute, have vehemently opposed any aspect of climate change legislation that would raise the price of petroleum-based products. In contrast, the natural gas industry has supported many aspects of climate change legislation. Because natural gas has relatively low carbon emissions, any restriction on carbon emissions will give it a competitive advantage over oil and coal.

If the major oil companies buy up all the significant natural gas companies, then who will advocate for climate change legislation?

Another good question.

John Howley

Orlando, Florida

More Important Than Copenhagen

I told you so.

Four months ago, I predicted that, "Those looking for simple solutions to climate change will be very disappointed by the absence of firm emission reduction targets in Copenhagen later this year. . . . But at the same time, [the US and China] will pursue a second path of cooperation towards achievable solutions with or without an agreement on targets." See US and China Forge a New Path on Climate Change.

That is exactly what the US and China did in Copenhagen yesterday.

Why? Because nothing this important and this complicated ever gets resolved by a committee.

Consider for a moment the race to put a man on the moon. Thomas Friedman and others have said that this should be our model for the Green energy revolution.

I agree. But we did not get to the moon by holding international conventions and listening to dictators and despots like Iran's Ahmadinejad, Zimbabwe's Mugabe, and Venezuela's Chavez lecture us on the evil nature of our plans to be the first to put a man on the moon. Nor did we wait until we could reach the lowest common denominator consensus with Russia, China and 180 other nations on how and when to put a man on the moon.

If we had followed the path of seeking international consensus before we went to the moon, then we probably never would have achieved the goal.

So, now that we have gotten Copenhagen out of our system, let's get down to the serious work of pursuing the Green energy revolution the old fashioned way. With vigorous competition among nations to be the most energy efficient and energy independent economies in the world.

Walmart has given us a good first step. The company has sent out a Sustainability Index survey to 100,000 of its suppliers. The survey asks each supplier to provide information about their carbon footprint, energy and water usage, plans and goals to reduce their carbon footprint, energy consumption and water usage, and other factors that affect the sustainability of their operations. For now, Walmart will review this data internally. But it plans in later stages to release the data to consumers and possibly even disclose a ranking of individual products based on a Sustainability Index for the product and the company that manufactured it.

If you were a factory owner in China, what would provide a better incentive for you to reduce your carbon footprint and use of energy and water? (a) An international treaty that committed China to nation-wide carbon reduction targets over a 20 or 30 year period? Or (b) a Walmart Sustainability Index that made your products unsellable to the world's largest retailer unless you reduced your own company's carbon footprint and use of energy and water?

Forget Copenhagen. We need barriers to entry that will make it difficult for producers around the world to sell their products unless they are made using non-polluting energy sources and sustainable manufacturing practices.

We also need to alter the economics of energy at home. Yes, solar and wind are more expensive than most carbon-emitting alternatives right now. But only because those carbon-emitting alternatives do not pay the full cost of their pollution. If we make coal and oil companies include in their pricing the cost of eliminating their products' emissions (either with cap and trade or a carbon tax), then solar, wind and other non-emitting alternatives would seem very inexpensive by comparison.

Lastly, we need to use government funding and regulations to promote sustainable energy based on the long-term benefits -- just as we did when we used government funds to finance space exploration.

Imagine, for example, if all new construction and renovations in the US had to be "net zero" in terms of direct and indirect carbon emissions. By "net zero" I mean that the amount of energy used by a facility from non-carbon-emitting sources like solar and wind is equal to or exceeds the amount of energy from carbon-emitting sources. This could be accomplished by a combination of building codes requiring higher levels of efficiency in buildings (which many local governments are already imposing) and subsidies for investments in solar, wind and other non-carbon-emitting energy sources.

Yes, this would cost us in the short term. But think for a moment about the competitive advantage this would give us in the longer term. What if five or ten years from now our factories used highly efficient buildings that required less energy, and that energy was supplied by solar and wind plants that had ZERO fuel costs. Our factories would have a tremendous competitive advantage over factories in China and elsewhere that continued to use power generated by coal and petroleum fuels.

I hear all those out there who say that climate issues are different because they transcend borders. But space travel transcended borders too. And we did not succeed with space travel by waiting for everyone to agree. We went out and did it.

John Howley
Woodbridge, New Jersey

Lessons From the History and Economics of Oil

My first assignment as a young lawyer -- and my introduction to the history and economics of the oil industry -- was on a behemoth antitrust case against the major oil companies.  In re Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation involved allegations that the major oil companies conspired to fix prices by "signaling" price changes to one another and by manipulating supplies and refinery operations during the 1970's.

In between days of reviewing thousands of documents, my fellow young lawyers and I had the pleasure of working with Daniel Yergin, who was retained as one of our expert witnesses and who had just written The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power, for which he would win the Pulitzer Prize.  His book is a comprehensive and fascinating account of the history and economics of the oil industry.  It is still about the best book you can find on the subject, and anyone interested in any aspect of the green energy movement must read it.

Recently, I came across a short video of Daniel Yergin reflecting on lessons that can be learned from previous shifts in energy usage as we try to move towards a more sustainable energy future.  He describes the environmental concerns of the 1950's that forced a shift from coal to oil, followed by a shift back to coal as the principal fuel for electricity generation due to coal's cost advantages and emerging technologies that ameliorated some of the environmental harms.  He also talks about the sunk costs in our existing energy infrastructure and how that creates inertia and limits our willingness and ability to change.

Click here to view the video.  Short and to the point . . . . . and definitely worth watching.

Wind Energy and Political Grandstanding

Plans to build a $1.5 Billion wind energy project in Texas got some unwanted publicity this week when grandstanding politicians issued press releases and open letters urging the Department of Energy to reject any applications for clean energy tax credits “unless the project relies on US-built turbines and other components.”

Now, this project will create 300 construction jobs in the USA and 30 permanent maintenance jobs, also in the USA.  It will provide a clean, renewable source of electricity for Americans.  And it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  Just the type of thing that deserves tax credits.

But some politicians are dead set against allowing any tax credits for this project because the turbines will be made in China, thereby creating jobs in China as well.  Senator Schumer of New York objects, arguing that, "American taxpayer dollars should not be used to finance those Chinese jobs."

Let’s consider the implications of this political posturing.

First, the US just convinced China to repeal a law that required 70% of technology used in Chinese wind projects to be made in China.  Now I agree that if China were keeping us out of its markets, then fairness, good trade policy and practical diplomacy might dictate that we keep them out of our markets until they agreed to free and open trade policies.  But having convinced them to eliminate their local content rules, it is hypocritical for us to use local content rules to keep them out of our markets.

Second, if we prohibit foreign turbine makers from competing for any wind projects that get tax credits, then we effectively bar them from any wind projects at all.  All renewable energy projects today require tax credits or some other form of subsidy to be economically viable.  (This is because coal and oil get to impose the cost of pollution on our environment at no cost, thereby eliminating a major competitive advantage of non-polluting renewables – but that is a subject for another time).  Barring foreign turbine makers from renewable energy projects receiving tax credits effectively bars them from all renewable energy projects in the USA.

Third, local content rules make no economic sense and will force projects (and jobs) outside the USA.  Any developer who can put together a $1.5 Billion project in Texas has the ability to put that project together someplace else – such as in a foreign country that does not impose local content rules.  If politicians insist that only higher-cost domestic content be used in a wind project, then some developers will decide to put their $1.5 Billion at risk elsewhere.  Like in China.  Which will then get ALL the jobs, including the 300 construction jobs and 30 permanent maintenance jobs that this project will generate in the good ol’ USA.

Fourth, and finally for now, if we are going to refuse tax credits and subsidies to any energy company that creates jobs outside the US, then why don’t we start with the oil companies?  How about eliminating all tax benefits for any oil company that creates jobs outside the US?  Obviously that would be a stupid policy and would put most of the oil companies out of business.  It is just as stupid when it is applied to wind projects.  And it would have the same absurd result.

John Howley

Orlando, Florida

Of Energy Dreamers, Past and Present

Rich Karlgaard, the publisher of Forbes magazine, writes a column in every issue called “Digital Rules.” He is a very smart guy and, usually at least, very innovative and forward thinking.

I say “usually” because he just missed the boat in his latest blog entry on the future of renewables.

Mr. Karlgaard argues that we are stuck with coal, oil and nuclear as our major sources of electricity in the United States for the foreseeable future. He asserts that “[t]here is no way the U.S. economy can enjoy future prosperity without the big three electrical energy sources of clean coal, natural gas and nuclear.”

Why? Because only 10% of current electricity generation comes from renewable sources, and most of that comes from hydro. Solar and wind provide less than 3% of current electricity generation.

According to Mr. Karlgaard, solar, wind and other renewables cannot possibly meet a significant part of our electricity needs 10 years from now when they are starting from such a small base. His Forbes colleague Ken Fisher agrees, urging investors to “buy into fossil fuels” because they account for “89% of electricity” and “that fraction won’t change dramatically in the next decade.”

As for Thomas Friedman, John Doerr, and others who point to Moore’s Law and argue that renewables will experience the same rapid technological advances as semiconductors if given the right incentives, Karlgaard calls them “dreamers.”

Funny. That’s exactly what they said about Thomas Edison, Nicolas Telsa, and others who set out to build centralized electric power plants in the late 1800’s.

At that time, centralized electric power plants had an even smaller share of the market than renewables have today. In fact, there were only a couple of electric demonstration projects involving only a few hundred streetlights. Gas companies had a virtual monopoly on powering lights in homes and businesses, and the new electric power plants being built had to charge far higher prices than gas. The gas companies also had an existing and very efficient distribution system for their gas, while the electricity dreamers needed to build very expensive copper mains to carry the electricity to customers.

Edison, Telsa, Westinghouse, and the other dreamers who built our current centralized electric generation system also faced a number of very significant barriers beyond price. There was, for example, the fact that the electric motor had not yet been invented. So they were trying to sell electricity before it could be used in factories.

How did the dreamers prevail? Transportation and municipal contracts. The electricity dreamers got their break by building dedicated power plants for new electric streetcars and streetlights.

Once they built a base of electric generating capacity for streetcars and streetlights, the pace of innovation and growth quickened. Innovators began inventing other things to use electricity, including electric motors which revolutionized the economics of running a factory. By 1892 – less than 15 years after Edison’s first streetlight project – General Electric’s capitalization was $50 million. The incredible speed at which centralized electric power plants developed is described in The Power Makers, by Maury Klein:

“By 1900 electricity had become an integral part of American life, especially in cities. Between 1890 and 1905 the output of electric power in the United States increased a hundredfold. By revolutionizing production and manufacturing, electricity made possible the rise of the consumer economy that was to dominate the twentieth century and transform every corner of American life. Already factories consumed more than half of the electricity generated…. Arc lights illuminated the streets of even small towns and flooded with light the avenues of large cities. In 1902, some 51,000 electric streetcars whisked urban passengers along 22,000 miles of track."

Now Messrs. Karlgaard and Fisher may be correct that coal, oil and nuclear will still be significant contributors to our energy mix ten years from now. After all, centralized electric power plants did not force the gas industry into bankruptcy.

But the history of centralized electric power plants suggests that renewables can and will grow at a much faster pace than traditional fossil fuels as sources of electricity. Once started, that pace will accelerate as the competitive advantage of renewables starts having a significant impact on the bottom line.

Think about it. Five years from now, those who invested in solar and wind today will have ZERO fuel costs for that portion of their electricity needs, while those who did not invest in renewables today will still have to pay the cost of fuel for every kWh – and at higher prices than it is paying today. Add in the fact that renewable technologies five years from now will be even more efficient than today, and everyone will be clamoring for renewables. It is easy to see how the tipping point will be reached.

Or has it already been reached? China has just announced that it is constructing a 2 gigawatt solar power plant in Inner Mongolia, the largest solar plant in the world. That is on top of nearly 80 gigawatts of renewable energy that China has already built in recent years. When China has hundreds of gigawatts of fuel-free energy, what country will be able to compete when it must continually pay for fossil fuels to generate 90% of its electricity? More to the point, what country can afford to wait?

John Howley
Woodbridge, New Jersey

Pollution Economics 101

The oil industry is attacking the proposed climate change legislation that has passed the House and is on its way to the Senate. Here is a summary of the arguments from the American Petroleum Institute:

“The House climate change bill will increase costs of gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel, and drive jobs and production overseas, increasing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) in foreign countries that will have a new competitive advantage. Under the so-called ‘American Clean Energy and Security Act’, U.S. refiners will have to buy allowances, increasing their costs and giving a competitive advantage to non-US refiners. U.S. jobs will be lost and contrary to the bill’s intention, America will be less energy secure and more reliant on imports of gasoline and other refined products."

Wow. That’s a lot to swallow. Let’s take it step-by-step.

First, the proposed climate bill “will increase costs of gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel.”

Yes! Absolutely! Totally true! That is the entire point of the legislation! And it is a good thing!

Now before you think I am some kind of tree-hugging, left-leaning radical, let me tell you what the most famous conservative and libertarian economists say about the subject.

Alan Greenspan – the former Federal Reserve Chairman, acolyte of Ayn Rand, and self-described Libertarian – favors a hefty gasoline tax of at least $3 or more per gallon because, he says, we “need significantly higher gasoline prices to wean us off gasoline-powered motor vehicles.”

Milton Friedman agrees. Remember him? He was the Nobel-prize-winning economist from the University of Chicago who provided much of the intellectual firepower behind Reaganomics.

Why do these intellectual giants of conservative and libertarian economics favor taxes on gasoline? Simple. It has to do with something economists call “externalities.”

To understand externalities, consider a chemical company that offered to create more jobs and lower prices. There is just one catch. They will save the money to make this possible by dumping their toxic wastes into the pond in your backyard instead of disposing of the waste properly. In other words, they will make the cost of avoiding or cleaning up pollution “external” to the price of their product.

Obviously, that is not acceptable. Proper disposal of toxic waste is a cost of doing business and it should be factored into the price of the product – even if that means higher prices and/or fewer jobs.

The costs of avoiding or cleaning up pollution, however, are not always incurred by the producer or passed on to its customers. For example, coal-fired power plants have delivered relatively low-priced electricity for more than 100 years, but have also been dumping carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The same with petroleum products like gasoline and diesel fuel.

That is why Greenspan, Friedman, and many other conservative and libertarian economists have favored taxes on gasoline and other substances that cause pollution. Because the failure to account for the cost of pollution tends to distort many basic economic decisions such as pricing and competition. People think they are getting a good deal because their gasoline and electricity are relatively cheap. But they are really only imposing the cost of pollution on the environment.

By imposing a tax equal to the cost of avoiding or cleaning up the pollution, the market will make rational choices based on the real cost of the polluting product. And – this is very important – inventors and investors will have an incentive to develop cleaner alternatives that can be sold at a competitive price without the pollution tax.

So, the oil industry does not get any points for arguing that the climate change legislation will increase the price of gasoline, diesel fuel, and aviation fuel. That is what it is supposed to do.

BUT! The oil industry has a very legitimate point when it argues that the proposed legislation will “drive jobs and production overseas, increasing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) in foreign countries that will have a new competitive advantage.”

Anyone who has seen horrific pollution in developing countries knows what will happen to our environment if we simply drive up costs in the more developed economies. Without a comprehensive, global approach to pollution and climate change, we will just shift the externalities (costs of pollution) from our own backyards to backyards of very poor and politically less influential people in developing countries. And we will not be able to fence in the adverse effects.

Which leads to questions that have more to do with politics than economics. How do we get to a global solution on climate change? To what extent must we, in the more economically developed world, take the first step and make the first sacrifices? And to what extent should we refuse to budge until the rest of the world agrees to follow?

And you thought economics was the dismal science. More on the politics and diplomacy of a global climate change agreement in later posts.

John Howley
Tokyo, Japan