When we citizens of the world forbid anyone in West Marin to erect a renewable energy device that might make economic sense, shrink our carbon footprint, and put locals to work, then I guess we know we’ve succeeded in proving that eco-perfectionism is alive and well and so counterproductive. The “Not in My Backyard” (NIMBY) syndrome has become a religion for a select few whose narrow views -- fed by misinformation -- may doom efforts to create a sustainable energy economy in West Marin. The truth is this: our efforts to respond to the global climate crisis is pathetically disconnected and is being limited by those more interested in protecting the status quo than in breaking new ground in solving energy challenges in our own backyards. 

Let’s make one thing clear: All energy sources receive government support. In fact renewable investment pales in comparison to the amount of government spending on fossil energy. The oil and natural gas industry has enjoyed a century of federal support averaging $4.86 billion in subsidy spending each year, according to a report released last month by DLB Investors. That’s thirteen times the average annual expenditure on all renewables, including wind power, the leader in terms of total capacity new renewable capacity additions. 

Today, a turbine is defined as “small” if it falls at 100 kilowatts or below; mid-sized wind turbines are typically classified as 100 kW up to 1 MW in capacity. The vast majority of small wind turbines sold, however, are 10 kW or less, with the lower end capacity serving residences, and machines rated at 10 kW and above in size typically deployed at farms, ranches, and businesses in rural regions.

A new policy comparison software tool funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), which will be available on-line within the next month, has calculated a ranking of states based on paybacks on for small wind turbine. Interestingly enough, the state that comes out on top for financial returns in an analysis performed by eFormative Options, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, is Hawaii, due to its extremely high retail rates.

The concept of “net zero energy” will drive adoption of microgrids, since it is virtually the only technology that can get the military where it needs to go. The Navy (including the Marines) has the most aggressive goals, with 50% of installations reaching this “net zero energy” goal by 2020. Another primary driver of the DOD market is the mandate to increase reliance upon renewable energy – 25% of supply by 2025 -- a goal widely shared across the entire DOD portfolio of facilities per the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act. Given the lack of funding for capital expenses, military agencies will be leaning heavily on the private sector to help meet these aggressive deployment targets.

Of all government institutions, why is DOD going green?

Now that the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) annual conference is behind us, which state does Pike Research believe will actually deploy the first offshore wind turbine in water?

Before we place our bets, let’s take a quick look at the big picture and highlight a few parameters about the U.S. offshore wind market culled from a recent Pike Research market forecast.

I was curious to see what kinds of technologies were being considered at the Global New Energy Summit (GNES). Hailing from northern California, it is sometimes a shock when I travel to other parts of the world, and the Rocky Mountain West is no exception. Along with the usual suspects such as wind and solar, traditional fuels were also highlighted, including nuclear power. I must admit it was a curious phenomenon to hear from one of Pike Research’s prime competitor representatives that being a yogi, vegan, liberal Democrat had not stopped him from being enamored with the possibility surrounding new nuclear technologies.

I felt like I should suggest he take a big bite of Filet Mignon and come to his senses, but valor held me back. I have often made the argument of how I don’t understand how any good Republican that believes in the free market could supported centralized and costly (and super-subsidized) nuclear power, so maybe liberals are a better fit after all!

At an offshore wind power conference held in Boston last week, Michael Bromwich, director of the the Bureau of Offshore Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) promised that the Obama Administration is making permit streamlining for offshore wind projects a top priority, even as the same administration tries to clamp down with new safety regulations for the oil and gas industry. What Bromwich didn’t say is that under current regulations, it is actually easier to go offshore with oil and natural gas drilling than it is to site, permit and build an offshore wind farm. There’s something clearly wrong with that picture.

Under the current regulatory regime, it takes from 7-10 years to permit an offshore wind project (and typically less than half of that for an oil or natural gas platform). In November 2010, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced simplifications to the permitting process in the “Smart from the Start” initiative. In response, BOEMRE has eliminated the second round of Request for Interest in the permitting process, which is redundant and can delay the permitting process by 6 months to a year. The goal of the “Smart from the Start” program is to shrink permit approval down to 2 years, which would translate to a total development cycle of 4 years.  

Yet in the San Francisco Bay Area -- and in particular in my Marin County home -- citizens are up in arms, blockading trucks and  opposing mandatory installation of smart meters. These opponents have been bolstered by a couple of major developments all occurring within the last month, so it is safe to say they are not going to go away quietly.

No doubt California is a much different state today than it was when he was the nation's youngest governor, as the San Francisco Chronicle points out. The San Jose Mercury News also predicts that the past may be prologue to the future. And if that is indeed the case, look for Brown to challenge the status quo in unpredictable ways, including his approach to breaking regulatory  bottlenecks and doing more with less. During his campaign, Brown announced a "clean energy plan" that he said could add 20,000 MW of new renewable energy capacity, creating two to three times as many jobs as equivalent investments in fossil fuels.

The object of wrath of some Republicans and small-minded corporations is AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Even large energy companies such as Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) supported the law, as it was seen as a way to bring California back into the forefront of developing the carbon-free electricity sources that most experts predict will come to dominate our power supplies in the coming decades. Recent polls show that 7 out of 10 independent voters oppose Prop. 23; a majority of all voters also still voice support for AB 32, despite the economic doldrums facing the nation and state.