Friday Factoids Archives
Although fossil energy sources receive far more federal subsidy than renewables, when compared based on the share of U.S. energy consumption provided, renewable energy sources receive over seven times more subsidy than fossil fuels.
Share
Here's your latest edition of Friday Factoids, (this one a smidgen early)...
A while back, I posted some quick math reminding readers that while pushing to end subsidies for mature, centuries-old fossil fuel technologies is a pretty smart policy, it on it's own will be far from sufficient to make clean energy cost competitive. The global figures come from the International Energy Agency's latest World Energy Outlook and reveal that worldwide, renewable energy sources receive more than twice the subsidy than fossil fuels, when compared based on how much of global energy demand they supply.
Here's a summary of the global figures:
- Fossil energy:
- Total subsidies (2009) = $312 billion;
- Share of global energy consumption provided (2009) = 83 percent;
- Subsidy per percentage of global energy consumption provided: $3.8 billion
- Renewable energy:
- Total subsidies (2009) = $57 billion;
- Share of global energy consumption provided (2009) = 7 percent;
- Subsidy per percentage of global energy consumption provided: $8.1 billion (Note: excludes conventional hydropower and biomass)
- Compared on a per unit of energy provided basis, renewables therefore receive 2.1x more government subsidies than fossil fuels.
- Data source: International Energy Agency
Today, we'll add in the U.S. figures, which advantage renewables even more. That's because globally, much of the subsidies provided for fossil fuels are provided in either developing nations or in oil rich Middle Eastern nations, which make it easier for their citizens to purchase fuels through government-funded subsidies for consumer purchases (rather than subsidies for fossil fuel producers; see IEA for more on that).
For the United States:
- Fossil energy:
- Total subsidies (2002-2008, cumulative): $72.4 billion;
- Share of U.S. energy consumption provided (2008): 84.6 percent;
- Subsidy per percentage of U.S. energy consumption provided: $0.9 billion.
- Renewable energy:
- Total subsidies (2002-2008, cumulative): $28.9 billion;
- Share of U.S. energy consumption provided (2008): 4.3 percent;
- Subsidy per percentage of U.S. energy consumption provided: $6.7 billion. (Note: excludes conventional hydropower)
- Compared on a per unit of energy provided basis, renewables therefore receive 7.4x more U.S. federal subsidies than fossil fuels.
- Data source: subsidies for Environmental Law Institute, energy cosumption from U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Annual Energy Outlook 2010." Note that subsidy figures are cumulative for the seven years from 2002 to 2008. The per unit subsidy figures for the U.S. should therefore not be strictly compared to the global figures above.
Clearly, ending all subsidies for fossil and renewables alike would not 'even the playing field' for renewables, as some have argued. These figures indicate that fossil energy would still retain quite a distinct price advantage.
Even if we cut all subsidies for fossil fuels, then, we'll need accelerated innovation to fully close the price gap between new renewables and incumbent fossil energy. (For more on that price gap, see a previous installment of our Friday Factoids series here).
Share
Over at the Atlantic, technology writer Alexis Madrigal ran the numbers and found some pretty daunting scale issues with Obama's seemingly ambitious SOTU goal for electric vehicles (EV): 1,000,000 by 2015.
[Note: updated on 1/31 to correct typo in one of our figures]
Continue reading "Friday Factoids: The Scale of Obama's Electric Vehicle Challenge" »
Share
This morning we saw this dual photo of Shanghai posted at Breakthrough Senior Fellow Roger Pielke Jr's blog -- the top shot was taken in 1990, the bottom in 2010. In just twenty years, the difference between the two cityscapes is breathtaking. The post also left us wondering what other drastic societal changes occurred alongside this rapid-fire urban development in Shanghai.
Continue reading "Friday Factoids: Shanghai 1990-2010" »
Share
Here's the latest in our irregular Friday Factoids series, provided as usual without comment...
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the statistics and forecasting agency of the U.S. Department of Energy, a substantial price gap remains between the levelized cost of new renewable electricity sources and conventional fossil fuel power plants. Their cost estimates are for new power generation equipment constructed in 2016 and reported in 2008 constant dollars (see graphic below).
Electricity from new onshore wind power, for example, is 49% more expensive than electricity from new conventional coal-fired power plants, and 80% more expensive than electricity from a conventional natural gas-fired combined cycle power plant, according to EIA estimates. Wind power built offshore is 28% more costly than onshore wind, says the EIA.
Electricity from new utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) power plants and solar thermal power plants are roughly 5x and 3x more expensive, respectively, than natural-gas fired combined cycle power plants, and roughly 3x and 2x more expensive, respectively, than conventional gas-fired combustion turbines, according to EIA figures.
Continue reading "Friday Factoids: The Clean Energy Price Gap" »
Share
Update: A commenter brought it to our attention that there have, in fact, been at least 11 fatalities from wind power accidents in the U.S. Thanks to Karen Street, at The Energy Collective, for the hat tip. According to the Caithness Windfarms Information Forum, as of March 2010 there have been 47 fatalities directly as a result of wind power worldwide.
Here are some Friday Factoids to stew on over the weekend. As usual, we'll let the numbers speak for themselves.
US fatalities from:
- Fatalities from Deepwater Horizon offshore rig explosion: 11
- Total fatalities in gulf oil and gas drilling since 2001: 69 (according to MMS, cited here)
- Fatalities from Texas City BP oil refinery explosion in 2005: 15
- Fatalities from explosion of natural gas power plant under construction in Middletown, Connecticut in February 2010: 5
- Total fatalities from Big Branch coal mine explosion: 29
- Annual average coal mining fatalities between 2001-2005: 30
- Total fatalities from wind power accidents in US history: 1 (in Sherman County, Oregon in 2007)
- Total fatalities from nuclear power plant operation or accidents in U.S. history: 0
Share
According to an MSNBC news report, 73% of homes in Ghana lack access to electricity. The stories in the video below are just a few of the stories of the 1.6 billion people living in energy poverty today.
Anyone? ... Anyone? ... Bueller?...
Share
(This is a 'pop quiz' edition of Friday Factoids)
That's actually a trick question: both a Boeing 747 and a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier have peak power output of around 190 MW!
(That's the peak rating for an aircraft carrier, and a 747 has an average rating of 140 MW, both according to Wikipedia, so I'm assuming the 747's peak rating is about the same as the carrier).
The 'miracle' of human flight at near super-sonic speeds is certainly an energy-intensive endeavor.
Here's another perspective: a typical U.S. house uses about 1.3 KW of power on average. So a 747 jet flying with 140 MW of average power output (140,000 KW) is consuming as much power as over 100,000 U.S. homes!
Or put another way, a 747 flying five hours from San Francisco to Washington D.C. consumes 700,000 KWhs of energy, enough to fuel the electricity use of an average American home for more than 61 years!
This should actually come as no surprise when you consider that a jet can vault a couple hundred people through the air in a steel tube across an entire continent in five hours... But these figures are astonishing in some ways nonetheless.
(Almost as astonishing as the shear amount of energy and power involved in jet travel is it's relative affordability in the modern age...)
The $708 billion FY2011 military/defense spending budget is 33 percent larger than the peak of Pentagon budgets during the Vietnam War and 64 percent higher than the Cold War average.
Share
Here's today's Friday Factoids. Food for though, provided, as usual, without comment...
In inflation-adjusted terms, United States defense/military spending in the Administration's FY2011 budget request is:
- $708 billion, including normal Pentagon budgets and the operating costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- 70 percent higher than 2001 defense spending levels.
- 13 percent higher than the Korea War peak.
- 33 percent higher than the Vietnam War peak.
- 23 percent higher than Regan-era Cold War peak.
- 64 percent higher the Cold War average.
- 15 precent higher than the post-9/11 average.
All relative comparisons in inflation-adjusted terms. All facts and figures from this study from the Center for a New American Security. A hat tip to Mark Kimbrell.
Funding for more research on renewable energy is the most popular policy response to climate change across all respondents, netting 85% support, according to a Yale poll.
Share
At long last, here's your Friday Factoid for the week:
Yale just released the latest iteration of their "Climate Change and the American Mind" tracking polls. Once again (this has been a consistent finding), the poll shows funding for more research on renewable energy is the most popular policy response to climate change across all respondents, netting 85% support.
Continue reading "Friday Factoids: Clean Energy R&D Top Policy Response Finds Yale Poll" »
In the last five years, the U.S trade deficit in renewable energy products increased by 1,400% to nearly $5.7 billion, according to a December report issued by the Senate Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness.
Share
Here's a short (and potent) Friday Factoid to conclude this week:
In the last five years, the U.S trade deficit in renewable energy products increased by 1,400% to nearly $5.7 billion.
That's according to a report on the opportunities and challenges America faces in the production and export of environmental goods, including clean energy technologies, published in December by the Senate Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness, chaired by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR).
The graphic below shows the growth in the U.S. trade deficit in environmental goods. Imbalance in the import/export of renewable energy products ("REP" in the key) is the largest contributor to this deficit.
(Click to enlarge)
Product Key:
REP: Renewable Energy Products
CRET: Cleaner or More Resource Efficient Technologies
EMAA: Environmental Monitoring, Equipment
SHW: Management of Solid and Hazardous Waste
HEM: Heat and Energy Management
WWM: Waste Water Management and Treatment
APC: Air Pollution Control
We'll have more on this report and it's implications on Monday. Enjoy your weekend.
Share
Friday again already eh? Well that makes it Friday Factoids time...
We'll keep this one short, with just the graphic below comparing the levels of clean energy R&D funding included in the House and Senate climate and energy bills with the strong and growing consensus among energy innovation experts that $15 billion per year in additional funding is needed to achieve national climate, energy and economic objectives.
I've also included the boost in FY2009 Department of Energy (DOE) R&D budgets provided by the economic stimulus bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. As Google's Dan Reicher warned the Senate on Wednesday: when these temporary stimulus funds dry up, the U.S. could fall of a "funding cliff" unless significantly larger allocations are made for clean energy R&D in Congressional legislation.
 (click to enlarge)
Continue reading "Friday Factoids: Climate Bills vs. Expert Consensus on R&D" »
In summary: CO2 price from cap and trade = effective clean energy subsidy of $8-15/MWh. Current PTC is worth $20/MWh. Solar incentives typically top $400-500/MWh. Stimulus bill driving big investments with cash grant worth 30% of clean energy project costs. How again is the House-passed cap and trade program going to spur a clean energy revolution?
Share
Friday Factoids time again...
As President Obama challenges the U.S. to lead in the global clean energy race today, here's a quick comparison of methods that can drive clean energy deployment. Which do you think will be more effective...
- Average CO2 prices under the cap and trade system that would be implemented by the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill are expected to be roughly $15 per ton average through 2020.
Ignoring for a moment free allocations that could undermine these permits, that will raise the price of coal-fired power plants and natural gas fired power plants against which clean energy must compete by roughly $15 per MWh and $8 per MWh respectively. A typical coal plant emits roughly 1 ton CO2 per MWh and a natural gas plant emits about 40% less. - The production tax credit that has driven the rapid expansion of the wind industry (when it isn't expiring every other year...) drives down the cost of wind power by roughly $20 per MWh.
- Feed-in tariffs responsible for rapid growth of the solar industry in Germany lower the net cost of solar power by over 50 cents per kilowatt-hour, or $500 per MWh. In the U.S., an investment tax credit nocks off a full 30% of the cost of solar projects and state-level incentives offer even greater support in big solar states like California, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The value of solar renewable energy credits (SRECs) supplied to solar energy generators in New Jersey has averaged well above $400 per MWh over the last few years.
- This year and next, new wind, solar and other renewable energy projects can enjoy a cash grant in lieu of these tax credits worth 30% of the total cost of the projects, funded through the stimulus bill. That incentive is expected to drive up to $10 billion in grants supporting over $33 billion in clean energy projects.
In summary: CO2 price from cap and trade = effective clean energy subsidy of $8-15/MWh. Current PTC is worth $20/MWh. Solar incentives typically top $400-500/MWh. Stimulus bill driving big investments with cash grant worth 30% of clean energy project costs. How again is the House-passed cap and trade program going to spur a clean energy revolution?
 Click to enlarge
*All figures in this post are approximate and meant for comparison purposes only.
While biomedical research receives nearly $60 billion in private investment and $30 billion in public investment through the National Institutes of Health, investment in energy R&D leaves a huge innovation gap. Private sector spending is less than $3 billion annually with the government contributing just $5 billion per year more. A National Institutes of Energy and massive increase in federal clean energy spending is needed to fill the energy innovation gap and jumpstart a clean energy revolution.
Share
Friday factoids time: The U.S. biomedical and pharmaceutical industry invests between 10-20 percent of revenues in R&D and new product development, spending $58.8b on R&D in 2007. The U.S. government adds an additional $30 billion per year investment in biomedical R&D through the National Institutes of Health.
In contrast, the U.S. energy sector invests well below $3 billion annually in R&D in an industry with well over a trillion dollars in annual revenue. The energy sector's R&D spending as a percent of revenues - call that figure the industry's innovation intensity - is just 0.23%. That compares to a national average innovation intensity across all industries of 2.6%, or ten-times greater than the energy-sector's innovation intensity. And it pale sin comparison with the innovation intensity of leading technology and innovation-intensive sectors including biomedical technology (10-20%), information technology (10-15%), and semiconductors (16%).
This downright paltry private-sector energy innovation spending leaves a massive energy innovation gap that the U.S. government barely begins to fill, investing only about $5 billion annually in energy R&D. That's barely more than half the levels spent on public research to pursue clean and affordable energy alternatives during the late 1970s and early 1980s. The scale and urgency of our national energy challenges have clearly grown since then, yet the national commitment to energy innovation has moved in the wrong direction. Public R&D spending on health care ($30b) and defense ($80b) signal the scale of true national innovation priorities and begs the question: when will the U.S. get serious about investments in clean energy innovation? When we do, a new National Institutes of Energy and a major increase in federal energy R&D investments are needed to fill the energy innovation gap and spur a clean energy revolution.
Continue reading "National Institutes of Energy Needed to Fill Energy R&D Gap" »
|
