A View into Incomprehensible Legislation

The complexity of Bills in the House and Senate discourages transparency and create an environment where complexity is encouraged as a method for denying Americans an opportunity to know what their leaders are doing.

Obviously, few in Congress would acknowledge they are deliberately denying constituents an opportunity to know what’s in the legislation being enacted, but knowingly or not, that is what’s happening.

When Congresswoman Pelosi said members had to pass the 1,990-page Affordable Care Act in order to know what was in it, she was absolutely right … but shouldn’t have been.

When the Waxman-Markey, Cap & Trade Bill was being debated, I copied all 1,700 pages of the Bill and attempted to read it so as to be able to argue intelligently against it.

The first few pages of the Waxman-Markey Bill are simple enough, essentially itemizing the various sections.

The Waxman-Markey Bill contained many disastrous provisions, detrimental to the United States, and harmful to nearly every American, but describing those proposals is not the intent of this article.

Instead, this article will describe the lack of transparency in any Bill that’s more than a few hundred pages long.

The fun begins on page 10 of the Waxman-Markey Bill, partially shown here.

Page 10 (partial) of the Waxman – Markey, cap and trade Bill.

First, note that Sec 101 refers to another Act, so it’s necessary to go to that Act to understand what this proposed Bill will actually do.

Next the new SEC 610 of the existing Act, has 16 pages of definitions that get increasingly complex. And, within some of these definitions there are references to more existing Acts.

For example, under (a) 18, H, it reads, without the identifying line numbers:

1. “Marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy, as that term is defined in section 632 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17211).”

Within the first 26 pages of this 1,700-page Bill, there is enough complexity to deter anyone from reading the Bill, let alone understanding it.

There’s also language such as:

“as set forth in subsection (d), except as otherwise provided in subsection (g).”

Interestingly there are many places where there are statements without definition, leaving it up to someone to interpret the language. For example on page 38 there is a reference to:

“electricity savings achieved as a result of market transformation efforts;”

But, nowhere is “market transformation efforts” defined.

There are circular references to various sections of this Bill, and also with references such as: “described in section 786(b)(1)(A)(ii) and (b)(1)(A)(iv)(II).”

Within the first 150 pages of the Bill there are at least 50 references to other Acts or sections of the U.S. Code. This means that, every time there is a reference to another Act or section of the U.S. Code, it’s necessary to set aside this Bill, locate the Act in question and the referenced Section in that Act, in order to read how this Bill affects the other referenced Act, or visa versa.

Drafting Bills in this manner has been going on for a long time, but enacting Bills of over 1,000 pages hasn’t been routine.

Some try to legitimize the length of Bills by comparing the number of words in a Bill with some unrelated text. For example: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix has 257,000 words, while the Affordable Care Act has 234,812.

A book can be read sequentially, while a Bill has references that require constantly interrupting a chain of thought and researching the referenced Act or U.S. Code. The Affordable Care Act had approximately 1,000 references that had to be located and then read separately.

No one could possibly have known what was included in the Waxman-Markey Bill.

I read the Bill and some of the references, but it was beyond my ken to understand the entire Bill or all its complexities. It was clear, however, that the Bill would dramatically and negatively affect everyone in United States.

But the problem doesn’t end when the Bill is passed and signed into law … it merely shifts the burden elsewhere.

Every government Department and Agency will probably need to read the new law to determine how it affects them.

Waxman-Markey also stipulated that the Administrator of the EPA and various “Secretary(s)”, e.g., Secretary of the Navy, is, or are, empowered to write the regulations for implementing the law.

It’s no wonder, for example, that the nearly 2,000-page Affordable Care Act has resulted in over 15,000 pages of new regulations.

It’s impossible for the average person to have any genuine understanding of what any Bill contains or how proposed legislation will affect them.

One word of caution: The government posts what it says is the content of an act on a government web site, for example, the Affordable Care Act.

In fact, the government’s Internet posting is a summary, prepared by the Department in question, of its interpretation of what the Act means, together with an outline of the act, but NOT the actual text¹.

The government’s Internet posting can be misleading².

While it’s not possible, in a brief article, to go beyond describing the complexities of proposed legislation, it can be said unequivocally that no Bill, or portion of a Bill, should be passed until it has been read, at least, by the staff of every member of Congress.

Fortunately the Waxman-Markey, Cap & Trade Bill, wasn’t passed.

 

Note:

1. For those who are interested, here is a link to a copy of the Affordable Care Act. http://housedocs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
2. Government posting at http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/index.html  The government’s posting, in this case, adheres to party policy.

 

*  *  *  *  *  *

 

[To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.]

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears, LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

 

Logistics and Printing

Logistical issues should put an end to Secretary of The Navy, Ray Mabus’ dangerous obsession of burdening the Navy with bio-fuels.

An area in which Secretary Mabus could devote some valuable resources is the development of printing.

Printing could alleviate critical logistic issues concerning spare parts.

Spare parts are a big issue, costing billions and impairing readiness.

All 285 navy ships, as well as those in the Military Sea Lift Command, carry spare parts, such as shafts for fuel pumps, or gaskets. Not only do these spares represent a guess as to what may be needed, they also take up valuable space and add weight to a ship where the ship’s center of gravity is always of concern. Spare parts also cost a great deal, and tie up money that could be put to better use.

Often as not, the part needed to effect a repair is not on board. Today, this requires obtaining the part from another nearby ship, obtaining it from a depot in the United States or from somewhere else in the World. These involve delay and cost, while leaving the ship at reduced readiness.

3D printing can produce many of these parts. If each ship were to have a 3D printer on-board, together with the powdered or liquid printer materials in easy-to-store packages, the ship would be able to make many of the parts it might need, especially in an emergency. If the necessary software wasn’t on board for a particular part, the ship could have the software sent to it electronically.

An individual ship has hundreds of thousands of parts, most with low failure rates. The probability is that the needed spare won’t be on-board. It’s possible that there may be only a few spares for a unique part located anywhere in the world, and a ship with a 3D printer could create the spare without taking the time or incurring the cost of trying to locate and transport the part to the ship in need.

In addition, a design upgrade could be accomplished by making the newly designed part on-board, rather than waiting for the part to be produced in the United States and then shipped to ships around the world.

There is also the potential to design parts that take less space and weight, and that are simpler to install and use. Quoting from a USNI Proceedings¹ article, [3D printing can] “radically change ship construction, making designs that might not be possible using conventional techniques.”

Intricate pipes and ductwork could be made using 3D printing. And, ships at sea, in far flung waters, could make replacements for these components using the 3D printer on-board.

Boeing already uses air-ducts made from 3D printing² in its aircraft.

3D Printed model of Long-Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle (LEMV) made by Christopher Dears at University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Superimposed on sky background

While this picture is of a hollow model, metal parts and tools are already being made using 3D printing³.

Admittedly 3D printing is in the early stages of development, but no less early than the development of bio-fuels.

• Bio-fuels exacerbate logistics, while 3D printing simplifies logistics.
• Bio-fuels detract from readiness, while 3D printing improves readiness.
• Bio-fuels add to cost, while 3D printing reduces costs.
• Bio-fuels haven’t any benefits, other than cutting CO2 or possibly using less foreign oil, while 3D printing opens the door to new creative solutions to ship design.

Where should Secretary Mabus use the Navy’s valuable resources: To promote bio-fuels or develop 3D printing?

As an individual who served as both an Engineering and Damage Control Officer in the Navy, I vote for 3D printing.

 

Notes:

1. Print Me a Cruiser! USNI Proceedings, April, 2013.
2. From Economist magazine, 2012
3.  3D printing company, Z-Corp video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jQ-aWFYT_SU#!

 

*  *  *  *  *  *

 

[To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.]

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears, LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

 

Small Nuclear Reactors

For a variety of reasons, nuclear power is dying a slow death in the United States. (See Another Nail) Nuclear power’s only hope may be small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) that might breathe new life into the industry.

Small SMRs of 25 MW, and up to around 250 MW, have unique characteristics that may restore public confidence in nuclear energy.

In addition, SMRs could provide electricity to communities in  Africa and other areas where people live in poverty for the lack of electricity.

SMRs can be built in a factory, where tighter controls can improve quality and eliminate the interruptions that occur when nuclear power plants are constructed, piecemeal on site.

SMRs can be installed underground where it is extremely difficult to damage them, and where they won’t be affected by hurricanes or tornados.

They will be passive, capable of shutting down without human intervention or the need for back-up power.

They can be built one module at a time, as building blocks, increasing size as demand increases. This would be valuable when building SMRs in Africa and other areas where demand is initially low, but bound to increase.

An SMR requires a substantially smaller investment, making it easier to obtain financing, though the cost per KW may be similar to a large nuclear power plant. This advantage shouldn’t be underestimated. The amount of money required to finance a typical 1,000 MW nuclear power plant is approximately $6 billion, an enormous amount.

Financing is extremely difficult in the United States, and even more so in undeveloped countries, such as in Africa. With an equal $6 billion investment, SMRs could be built in a dozen undeveloped countries, freeing millions from burning dung for cooking meals while providing light when the sun goes down.

The mPower reactor, proposed by Babcock and Wilcox, recently received funding from the Department of Energy.

Other designs under consideration include NuScale Power, Westinghouse, Gen4 Energy (formerly Hyperion) and SMR, LLC.

Russia is pursuing the development of SMRs. One of their designs would be mounted on a barge that could be moved to different areas in need of electricity.

Needless to say, SMRs have been criticized by the Natural Resource Defense Council and the Union of Concerned Scientists, among others. One group criticized DOE for providing support for the mPower reactor.

It’s easy to visualize how SMRs could be used in Africa, and other areas lacking a widely developed transmission system, such as India.

Without SMRs, nuclear power plants in the United States are likely to cease operating, one by one, over the next 60 years, as their operating licenses expire and aren’t renewed.

*  *  *  *  *  *

 

[To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.]

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears, LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

 

 

Do We Have Enough Natural Gas?

While we are currently experiencing a glut of natural gas that has brought the price down from around $13 to around $3 per million BTUs, there are questions as to how long our natural gas supplies will last.

The debate that has caught people’s attention is over whether we should export natural gas, as LNG to Asia and Europe.

The president of DOW Chemical has said we shouldn’t, while many others have said we should. Both views have facts on their side.

On one side, there are projections that we have 100-year supply of natural gas based on current consumption. The other side says that the estimates of natural gas reserves are overstated and that exporting natural gas will drive its cost up and prevent industry from creating new chemical industry jobs in the United States.

Here are some facts that need to be taken into consideration as each of us contemplates the best course of action for the United States.

The highly respected Potential Gas Committee¹ (PGC) estimates that there are 2,384 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of technically recoverable reserves of natural gas. Much of this is from shale where fracking has released natural gas previously locked in shale.

Based on current usage of 22.34 Tcf, there is a 98 year supply of natural gas².

A few other experts estimate larger reserves than does the PGC³.

There are other experts, however, who say that the amount of shale-gas is overstated, perhaps by twice that which will actually be produced.

In addition to the supply issue, there are questions about how much additional demand will be created by new uses.

For example, new demand could come from:

• Replacing coal-fired power plants with natural gas power plants
• Exporting LNG
• Using natural gas for transportation, e.g., cars, trucks and locomotives.
• Using natural gas in fuel cells located in homes to produce electricity and hot water
• Using natural gas in new chemical plants
• Building Gas to Liquids (GTL) plants⁴

Each of these usages impact supply differently. 

Converting coal-fired power plants to natural gas

• If 25% of existing coal-fired power plants are converted to natural gas, which will require 2.6 Tcf of natural gas, the supply lasts for 88 years.
• If 50% of existing coal-fired power plants are converted to natural gas, which will require 5.3 Tcf of natural gas, the supply lasts for 79 years.

It’s very likely that 25% of existing coal-fired power plants will be converted to natural gas. It’s less likely, though possible, especially if there is a carbon tax, that 50% will be converted to natural gas.

Exporting LNG.

FERC is reviewing licenses for 19 export terminals, which, if approved, would have an export capacity of approximately 10.4 Tcf per year.

• Estimated exports from all 19 proposed terminals⁵, plus current usage would result in the supply of natural gas lasting 67 years.

 

FERC List of Possible LNG Export Terminals

Long haul trucking

Long haul trucks use approximately 54 billion gallons of diesel fuel⁶ annually. Replacing this with natural gas would use 7.3 Tcf of natural gas.

It’s possible that natural gas will replace a significant amount of diesel fuel, but not all of it. Even so, if natural gas replaced all diesel fuel and this was added to current consumption, it would result in a 74-year supply.

Usage summary:

Combining each of these usages, summarized here, together with current usage, and then using the PGC’s estimate of 2,384 Tcf of supply to determine the number of years of supply, results in a 48-year supply of natural gas.

• Converting 50% of coal-fired power plants to natural gas, 5.3 Tcf
• Export of LNG, 10.4 Tcf
• Using natural gas for long haul trucks, 7.3 Tcf
• Current usage, 22.2 Tcf

Since it’s not likely that 50% of coal-fired power plants will be converted, or that all proposed export terminals will be built, or that all diesel fuel will be replaced by natural gas, the number of years supply is probably greater than 48 years, possibly 60 or more years when these three new uses are added to current usage.

For example, huge supplies of LNG are being developed in Australia and the Mideast. These could reduce the opportunity to export LNG from the United States. Export terminals with two trains cost around $8 billion, so that investments won’t be made without solid contracts from importing countries. Only one of the 19 proposed LNG export terminals has been approved thus far. In addition, shale gas in China and India could reduce demand for LNG.

Significant automobile usage of natural gas or significant use of fuel cells in homes would also reduce years of supply, but both are unlikely.

• Automobile usage has several barriers, including cost, availability of fueling stations and the space used in the vehicle to store natural gas.
• Fuel cells for home use to generate electricity cost around $50,000, which is more than twice as much as comparable solar roof top installations.

This discussion doesn’t include the very large quantities of natural gas found, or expected to be found, in Canada’s shale.

If North America is viewed as an integrated market, the number of years supply would be greater than the 60 mentioned here.

The critical issue is whether the supply of natural gas, as estimated by the PGC, is reasonably accurate.

There is legitimate concern whether the wells producing shale gas will produce as much as is currently estimated. Decline rates, for example, are far more rapid than from traditional wells.

Two additional critical issues could affect supply and demand.

• Whether fracking is significantly curtailed?

Significantly curtailing fracking would eliminate any of the possible new uses outlined here.

• Whether a carbon tax is enacted?

A carbon tax could increase demand by forcing the closure of more coal-fired power plants, while, at the same time, reducing supply by making drilling, processing and transporting natural gas more expensive.

There‘s no simple answer as to whether natural gas should be exported or whether greater usage for other purposes will significantly increase the price of natural gas, from around $3, to, say, $5 per million BTU, which might deter investment in chemical plants.

It should be noted that the above calculations represent estimates, and are not absolutes.

For example, in calculating the amount of natural gas needed to replace coal, the relative thermal efficiencies of coal-fired power plants and natural gas combined cycle power plants, 33% and 55% respectively, were used.

Not included in this discussion is whether new supplies can be found, such as methane hydrates that would vastly increase the supply of natural gas.

These estimates do however; provide a framework for understanding the issue and for making decisions.

 

 Notes:

1. Potential Gas Committee report available at http://potentialgas.org/press-release
2. Based on EIA data.
3. ICF International estimates reserves of 3,500 Tcf:  Keith Teague president of Cheniere, estimates reserves of 2,543 Tcf
4. One Gas To Liquids (GTL) plant has been proposed for Louisiana. It’s highly unlikely the plant will be built because of its cost and because its probable market, long haul trucks, appear to be adopting natural gas.
5. All terminals, including exports to both Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and Non-FTA nations. Obtaining licenses for exports to FTA nations is perfunctory. Licenses for exports to Non-FTA nations require FERC approval based on whether the terminals are in the public’s interest, which interjects questions about green house gasses and global warming.
6. Less than 15 ppm sulfur

 

*  *  *  *  *  *

 

[To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.]

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears, LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

 

China’s Claims to South China Sea

China has long considered the South China Sea as one of the “near seas”, which form a core strategic interest.

Large reserves of oil and natural gas have been identified in the South China Sea, as well as the East China Sea. All the bordering nations believe they have an interest in these reserves.

“In total, the South China Sea has about 11 billion bbl of oil and 190 tcf of gas rated as proved or probable reserves. These levels are similar to the amount of proved oil reserves in Mexico and about two-thirds of the proved gas reserves in Europe, not including Russia¹.”

There have been confrontations between China and its neighbors, such as with the Philippines, Viet Nam and Japan.

Quoting from a US Naval Institute (USNI) article², “By 1947, the government of the Republic of China began to publish maps with a U-shaped series of lines in the South China Sea to delineate its maritime boundaries.”

China has said that each of these rocks, reefs and small islands are a part of China and that the 200 mile area surrounding them is part of China’s exclusive economic zone.

South China Sea and Key Straits

Here is what one of China’s largest English language newspapers, China Global Times, had to say about this on March 29 of this year.

“China will not be passive in sea disputes.”

“Chinese naval fleets recently conducted patrols on the South China Sea, reaching as far as Zengmu Reef, the southernmost part of Chinese territory. In an oath-taking ceremony on board Tuesday, the troops and officials vowed to safeguard China’s sovereignty.

“Earlier this month, a Chinese vessel fired two warning signal shells into the sky to prevent illegal fishing operations by Vietnamese fishermen. Both showed China’s firm determination to insist upon its stance amid the South China Sea disputes.”

And,

“China … has changed its passive status.”

China has said the rim of islands, stretching from the Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands, north of Taiwan, southward, including the Philippines and Borneo, as forming the second maritime defensive perimeter, with the chain of islands stretching from Japan to Guam, Micronesia and Palau as the first.

The defensive perimeter of islands defines China’s strategy of Anti-Access and Area Denial, which is to deny access to the South China Sea by the United States Navy.

The commitments of the United States extend from South Korea, throughout all of South East Asia, including the Philippines and Australia, to the Mideast and the Mediterranean … not to mention, NATO, keeping the sea-lanes open, as well as the defense and security of home waters, from Alaska to the Atlantic.

The number of ships in the Navy does matter, with commitments around the world having to be met, first, by the Navy.

The 6^th Fleet in the Mediterranean and the 7^th Fleet in the Mideast can’t become the 0.6 and 0.7 Fleets.

This far flung sea power is in no position to have to include alternative fuels, such as biodiesel and bio jet fuel. Logistics require the ability to refuel U.S. Navy ships anywhere, and this requires replenishment capabilities where cargo space is limited.

Adding alternative fuels doubles, at a minimum, the need for separate cargo space, or the number of replenishment ships. It also has limitations in terms of availability. Bio-fuels may never be available in sufficient quantity to support the navy around the world under combat conditions. (See Dangerous and Foolhardy.)

Cutting CO2 emissions and avoiding the use of foreign oil, are the only benefits derived from using bio-fuels. Biofuels don’t improve range, don’t improve efficiency and aren’t less expensive … in fact, they can be over six times more expensive than conventional fuels.

Logistics dictate that bio-fuels shouldn’t be used in the navy, and the recent attempts by Mabus, the current Secretary of the Navy, is wrong headed, expensive and dangerous.

The rapid growth of the Chinese Navy and China’s claims to the South China Seas shouldn’t be ignored.

Notes:

1. From Gas and Oil Journal April, 4 2013.
2. Additional information from USNI pertaining to the South China Sea. “In the 1930s China’s Republican government formed the Land and Water Maps Inspection Committee. … The committee reported in 1935 that in the South China Sea, China’s southernmost territorial feature is the James Bank, which sits about 50 nautical miles off the coast of Borneo, and that China’s maritime boundary should therefore extend south to 4 degrees North latitude.”

*  *  *  *  *  *

[To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.]

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears, LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Gaming Solar Subsidies

A recent Wall Street Journal article highlighted how shrewd investors are using government subsidies, i.e., tax payer money, to promote investments in solar rooftop installations.

A report published this February by GTM¹ research, and Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) disclosed that 50% or more of residential PV installations in major markets in 2012 were leased installations using tax-payer funded subsidies.

This report put a spotlight on the practice.

Rooftop PV Solar Installation

It’s difficult for the typical homeowner to spend $20,000 for a rooftop solar system, but a wily investor can. Investors can offer to install the roof top system while also significantly cutting the homeowner’s electricity bill.

The homeowner signs the contract and saves money, while the investor also makes money from an otherwise bad investment.

The investor makes money by taking advantage of government subsidies – here’s how².

Under the best of conditions, PV solar rooftop panels can produce 0.75 kWh of electricity per square yard of panel.

A two-story, 3,000 square-foot home will have a total roof area of approximately 1,500 square feet. But, since only half can face the sun, the available area is 750 sq. ft.

With electricity costing 11 cents per kWh, this installation can save $6.88 every day the sun shines.

However, the sun does not shine every day and this is one reason why the economics are bad.

In Phoenix, Arizona, where the sun shines 211 days each year, an installation on a two-story, 3,000-sq.-ft. home would save $1,451.

Dividing $20,000 by $1,451, we arrive at a payback period of nearly 14 years. This is a bad investment that only gets worse as we look at the results in other cities where there are fewer sunny days.

In Atlanta, GA, the payback would be over 26 years.

In Lincoln, NE, it would be 25 years.

In Washington DC, it would be nearly 32 years.

In Albany, NY, it’s over 42 years.

The results for a ranch-style house with more roof area would, of course, be better.

In many instances, PV panels might only last for 20 to 25 years, so homeowners might never recover their investments.

It’s true that there would be partly sunny days that might improve the picture, but few homes can have their solar panels aimed directly at the sun all day, and this would reduce the efficiency of the rooftop PV panels. (Equipping rooftop panels to follow the sun during the day and as the sun moves north and south during the seasons would substantially increase costs.)

Even with panels now costing half of what they did a few years ago because they are made in China, installing them makes no economic sense.

The entrepreneur, however, reaps important benefits from a $20,000 investment.

• First, he receives $8,000 to $10,000 of tax payer money as subsidies.
• Next, he receives the agreed upon monthly payment for electricity from the homeowner.
• Next, he can depreciate the cost of the installation.
• Next, he can sell any electricity that’s generated in excess of what the homeowner uses, to the utility. If net-metering is in place, the electricity is sold to the utility at the same price the utility charges, say 11 cents per kWh. If there are feed-in tariffs, the utility will pay the investor much more for the excess electricity.

It should be noted that utilities are paying 11 cents/kWh, or more, to the investors for electricity the utilities could have generated for around 4 cents/kWh. In addition, the utilities also have to pay for overhead, such as maintaining the distribution system, which the investor doesn’t pay for.

South Carolina currently doesn’t permit leasing of solar panels, but Senator Paul Campbell, R-Goose Creek, is one of several cosponsors of a bill that would change that and allow investors to game the system.

Rooftop PV solar systems are a bad investment being subsidized with tax-payer dollars.

The SEIA report predicts that the rooftop PV solar business will increase to $5.7 billion in three years. Unless subsidies are eliminated, a significant portion of the $5.7 billion will be derived from tax payers.

 

Notes:

1. Greentech Media, Inc.
2. The financial and solar data was also used in the March, 2012 article, Feeding on Solar Subsidies. The new SEIA report adds emphasis to what was reported last year.

*  *  *  *  *  *

 

[To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.]

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears, LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

 

Hydrogen Conundrum

Hyundai has just released a new hydrogen-powered car in New Zealand – the ix35 Fuel Cell SUV.

It emits water from its tail pipe, so why isn’t it on the front burner for environmentalists?

Right now, environmentalists are focused on battery-powered vehicles, but will they promote hydrogen if the battery-powered vehicles aren’t successful?

Maybe not.

Hyundai is planning on having 1,000, ix35 Fuel Cell SUVs, available for lease in 2015, with the first 17 vehicles destined for Sweden and Denmark.

ix35 Fuel Cell, SUV. Picture from Hyundai.

Other car manufacturers are also getting more involved. Earlier this month, Daimler, Ford and Nissan announced a target of 2017 for introducing affordable hydrogen-powered cars.

Hydrogen cars have to overcome four obstacles:

• Producing hydrogen
• Storing hydrogen on the vehicle
• High fuel cell costs
• Lack of fueling infrastructure

If hydrogen is produced at a centralized location, there is a fifth problem, transporting hydrogen to fueling stations.

Hydrogen can be produced using electrolysis, but the cost is prohibitive. It can also be produced by extracting the hydrogen from methane, i.e., natural gas, using reforming. Oil refineries currently produce hydrogen from methane, and are the major source of hydrogen today.

In both instances, hydrogen can be produced locally at the filling station.

Transporting hydrogen is a problem. It requires liquefying the hydrogen, and then transporting the hydrogen using cryogenic trucks, with large amounts of energy lost in the process. A very expensive alternative would be to build new special, pipelines. Existing pipelines can’t be used since hydrogen attacks the metal in natural gas pipelines.

The high cost of fuel cells remains a huge obstacle.

Hyundai indicated the fuel cell pack used in the ix35 Fuel Cell SUV, costs $100,000, although many believe it costs more. Hyundai expects to bring the cost of the fuel cell pack down to $50,000 by 2015. This is still several times the cost of an internal combustion engine and five times the cost of the Li-ion battery used in GM’s Volt.

Storing hydrogen on the vehicle can be done by compressing it and using 10,000 psi storage tanks or, alternatively, it can be stored as a liquid in thermos bottle-like cryogenic tanks¹.

Neither is a good solution. Experiments are underway using metal-hydrides, in an effort to develop new storage techniques, but the problem of rapid absorption and rapid, controlled release, stand in the way.

Finally, there is the need for thousands of fueling stations, a problem similar to the charging station problem associated with battery-powered vehicles.

Even if all these problems can be resolved, environmentalists may not welcome hydrogen-powered vehicles because the reforming process, to produce hydrogen, releases large quantities of CO2.

Without carbon capture and storage, (CCS) CO2 is an anathema to environmentalists.

This may be why the media has largely ignored the introduction of the ix35 Fuel Cell SUV.

 

Note:

1. An alternative to on-board storage of hydrogen is reforming gasoline on the vehicle. On-board reforming would eliminate three problems: the need for pipelines; new fueling stations; and transporting hydrogen by cryogenic truck.

While the cost of reforming equipment adds to the cost of the vehicle, it can use gasoline that is readily available without investing in a new system of fueling stations.

 

*  *  *  *  *  *

 

[To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.]

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears, LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.