During a recent stretch of 107 consecutive hours, Portugal ran on clean energy. No coal. No crude oil. No natural gas. Instead, over a period of four days, sunlight, wind, and hydropower helped Portugal set the latest milestone by a European country in using renewable energy sources.

“This is a significant achievement for a European country, but what seems extraordinary today will be commonplace in Europe in just a few years,” James Watson, CEO of SolarPower Europe, told the Guardian.

Portugal’s achievement is the latest in a string of clean energy milestones recently reached by European countries. Earlier this week, wind and solar led the way in powering Germany for an entire day, at one point even leading to negative power prices because of an energy surplus. Last week, the UK saw four separate instances of energy generated without coal. The last time that happened was 1882.

The leading renewable energy source for European countries is wind, and as new targets are met domestically in places like Denmark and Spain–two of Europe’s leading clean energy producers–their governments will export surpluses to the rest of the continent.

In Portugal, 48 percent of the energy generated in 2015 came from renewable sources. Approximately 22 percent of that came from wind. European countries, including Portugal, are doubling down on wind power to help meet clean energy goals set at the Paris climate conference last year. When it comes to wind, Germany leads the way.

Last year, Germany expanded its wind power capacity by 6,013 megawatts (MW). Compared to the rest of Europe, Germany is expanding its wind power capacity at a much higher clip. The next three highest increases in 2015 were Poland (1,266MW), France (1,073MW) and the UK (975MW).

Based on headlines alone, it can seem like Europe is the global leader in clean energy production. But that’s not entirely the case.

“In terms of overall [renewable] generation, the U.S. leads the pack,” said Daniel Simmons, the Institute for Energy Research Vice President for Policy, during an interview with Law Street. “But one of the things that’s hard for Americans to wrap our heads around is the size of Europe or one European country versus the U.S. There’s just a big difference.”

Portugal, for instance, has around 11 million people living on a 35.6 thousand square mile parcel of land with a long coast on the Atlantic, which, as coastal regions experience more frequent and more intense gales, is advantageous for wind generation. In contrast, the United States has nearly 330 million people living on 3.8 million square miles of land, most of which is land locked.

Simmons said a challenge that separates the United States from Europe is the proximity of the country’s high-density population pockets–cities on the coast–to the regions of the country where the bulk of wind energy is produced–the landlocked center.

“People don’t live near the best wind resources,” he said.

In a place like Denmark–Europe’s clean energy crown jewel–people live closer to where wind energy is generated. Dispersal is easier and more efficient. In Portugal and Germany, clean energy can power the entire nation for a day or more because of their relatively small size and the proximity of their population centers to wind–and hydro–generating regions.

Regardless of the geographic reality or political will to aim for a long stretch of clean energy production in the United States, Europe has shown that a future free of fossil fuels is indeed possible, one renewable powered day at a time.

Read More: The Mystery of Wind Energy in Texas

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Portugal Powered for Four Days by Clean Energy. Could America Do the Same? appeared first on Law Street.

The Grid is the great bane of renewable energy aspirations in the United States. An all pervasive electrical infrastructure links together power plants, homes, and anything else that contains a switch or button. Regardless of the company with whom one is registered, everybody gets a share of everybody else’s energy. That is to say, all power companies inject their energy into the grid; a customer simply pays premiums to a particular producer.

The same principle applies with green energy. Supposing a customer gets his bills from Company Green, this does not mean that his home has a minimal carbon footprint; the building is getting energy from the grid, which also includes energy produced by Company Brown. There is still merit in this, though, as the more money a green energy company accrues, the more effective it will be at diluting the grid with green energy. Hopefully in time, the entire grid will be green. In the meantime, the grid poses additional challenges.

Solar power has been gaining ground as of late, but it continues to meet opposition from the large utility companies it threatens. The genius of solar power, aside from the fact that it is clean energy with massive potential (the Sun produces so much energy that an hour’s worth could power the entire Earth for a year), is that it decentralizes the grid.

Solar used to be an unreliable and erratic form of energy to inject into the grid and share among customers. Now, however, private homes can draw nearer to energy self sufficiency. Furthermore, solar-powered homes are able to contribute energy to the grid themselves. Utility companies balk at this, declaring that the grid is designed for one-way flow. They go further, writer Edward Humes explains, in attempting to label solar customers “as mooching ‘free riders’ who avoid paying their fair share for the grid.” This is a misrepresentation of the dynamic; utility companies are simply losing customers. If a more favorable alternative provides one with a chance to opt out of complete dependence on the previously established grid, why not do so?

The crowning cause of opposition by utility companies to solar power is the concept of net metering. This policy enables solar homeowners, upon producing surplus energy, to receive credits from power companies as they distribute it back into the grid. In this sense, customers can easily overcome the initial costs of retrofitting their homes with solar panels, as they will not only save money on their energy, but can actually make money selling it back. In what Al Gore calls the Utility Death Spiral, their losses exponentially increase as they lose customers to this process, then consequently must raise prices on those who remain, who subsequently leave the grid as well.

Another factor influencing the appeal of solar power and its grid decentralization is that the barriers posed by storage are less and less significant. Aside from playing a substantial role in the possibility of net metering and generating surplus energy to sell back, increased and more efficient storage capacity enables solar users to fill in the gaps in cloudy stretches or during the night and provides for a more fluid energy-consuming experience.Furthermore, it decentralizes the grid; the individual and the community are more able to place their energy and their fates in their own hands. As Humes points out, it can “allow homeowners to form small, super-efficient neighborhood micro grids that huge, costly utilities could never outcompete.” It would be efficient because the generation and use of energy would be based on the specific neighborhood’s needs, as opposed to a more generalized, business- and profi- motivated number.

A Solar Neighborhood, courtesy of Lauren Wellicome via Flickr

Micro grids are flexible, adaptable, and have geographic advantages. An insightful article from David J. Hayes at The New York Times showcases the merits of renewable energy in remote places where the grid thins out or is non existent. In small Alaskan villages, residents are compelled to utilize dirty and expensive diesel generators to meet their energy needs. Setting up a renewable energy system there on a micro grid would alleviate such a burden, while providing eco-friendly and more affordable power to the people. For residents in northern climes, Hayes details, wind power will probably be more common, while solar systems are likely to appear in more tropical settings. This furthers the argument, demonstrating that other forms of renewable energy can also operate on micro grids and provide all the advantages therein.

Solar power has also met opposition from the political and governmental arenas. Perhaps because the centralized nature of the current electrical system is conducive to the control and oversight preferred by ruling bodies, or perhaps because of initial economic barriers or higher perceived priority of other objectives, the necessary funding for solar installations is difficult to come by. While Arizona maintains the top spot in the country for its solar program, New Jersey often surprised people with the number two position. Now it has dropped to number five. Governor Christie and his cabinet have removed the rebate incentives for solar installations, and, in addition to diverting funding for solar and offshore wind projects to balancing their budget, have been providing subsidies for natural gas power plants.

While solar power and energy democratization may be slowly winning the battle against utility companies, there clearly are additional barriers to solidifying its foothold and future. Solar power is unique among current renewable energy options, though, as the economic incentives for it are in place; the transitions that must be made in order to come on board are very doable. That being the case, convincing the nay sayers of its viability will hopefully be more and more common. The future of solar power seems sunny indeed.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Solar Power Could Change Everything You Know About Energy appeared first on Law Street.

If a red state known for its oil can spearhead a massive campaign in support of the installation of wind farms and restructure its economy to correspond, then there is no reason why the rest of the country cannot follow suit.

Texas is now the place to be when it comes to turbines and renewable clean energy. Bruce Selcraig explained in a Sierra Club article that politicians, including then-governor George W. Bush, deregulated the electricity industry in Texas in 1999. It was not so much motivated by environmental altruism, but by the nature of the business industry there. Investors are usually willing to make substantial investments so long as there is a reasonable expectation of profit. This is telling, though — clearly there are economic incentives to pursue renewable energy campaigns. If the government of Texas embraces and benefits from these changes, imagine the results on a national level.

Monetary returns provide the driving incentive for the wind industry in Texas on all fronts. In addition to the business-motivated profits, many private landowners are amenable to the installation of turbines on their land because of the promise of royalties. Further, corporate tax incentives and federal support have assisted substantially in wind’s ability to carve out a foothold. As long as it is fiscally advisable, it would seem that the wind will blow strong in Texas.

Harnessable Wind Energy in the US, courtesy of US Department of Energy via Wikipedia

There is a danger, though, in leaning too heavily on financial motivations for clean energy, while completely neglecting the environmental angle. In recent years, fracking and horizontal drilling have led to a reawakening of big oil and gas, especially in Texas. These industries, Selcraig points out, have historically received several billion dollars in annual support from the federal government, while wind has received less then one tenth of that amount. This disparity could widen with the recent increased attention on black gold.

Business savvy investors should understand, however, that in the long-run these non renewable sources of energy are not viable solutions. Despite the surge induced by fracking, wind energy has also been experiencing technological improvements that heighten its efficiency and viability. In 1991, the US Department of Energy speculated that North Dakota, Kansas, and Texas alone had enough wind potential to meet the country’s electricity needs. Since then, there have been many improvements to the technology. These include simple changes, such as making the shafts of turbines longer so that they reach heights where winds are stronger and steadier.

As a result of this and other changes, that same assessment now concludes that the wind capacities of those three states could satisfy the country’s energy needs. This is a bold statement, but if anything it demonstrates that wind is a more reliable and efficient energy source than most think. In addition, the technology continues to have room for growth and improvement, while non-renewable sources can only yield so much.

Large Global Wind Cells, courtesy of Wikipedia

With regard to renewable energy, the relationships between customers and utility companies vary. Thanks to the installation of new high-capacity electricity lines, a Texas panhandle wind project is on the rise. However, as New York Times journalist Matthew L. Wald illuminates, some residents are concerned that they are compelled to assume the financial risk; customers are seeing an increased monthly bill to pay for the new lines. Wald continues, however, that the efficiency wrought by the new lines will cut electricity costs by more than the increase. This dynamic ought to be conducive to encouraging more people to come on board, as it offers tangible returns.

Where in this debate are the voices of the people? The fate of the energy sector and the health of the planet ought not to be decided solely by corporations. As people become more aware of the dangers we face, and more able to voice their opinions on what to do about them, citizens will project ever increasing influence on the policy-making process. We still have a long way to go, as there are still many “climate denialists” and individuals with too jaded a nature to feel compelled to act. Some changes simply require small lifestyle adjustments. Others require dedication and major overhauls of the status quo. But the status quo is shifting, and the means of its shift continue to fall into our own hands. We must be cautious and proactive with this great responsibility. As Al Gore wrote in a Rolling Stone article,

The progressive introduction of Internet-based communication — social media, blogs, digital journalism — is laying the foundation for the renewal of individual participation in democracy, and the re-elevation of reason over wealth and power as the basis for collective decision making.

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Franklin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Chuck Coker via Flickr]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Winds of Change: Renewable Energy Booming in Texas appeared first on Law Street.

Let’s work backwards: there is a nuclear power plant in upstate New York called Indian Point, and it needs to be shut down.

Nuclear reactors are notorious for their cooling systems; the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima meltdowns all occurred because of cooling system failures. Located in Buchanan in Westchester County, the Indian Point nuclear plant sits at the edge of the Hudson River. It draws in two billion gallons of river water every day in order to cool its reactors, discharging it back into the river eight degrees warmer. This has catastrophic consequences for the fish, eggs, larvae, and other aquatic life there. In fact, more than a billion of them die every year, said Paul Gallay, president of Riverkeeper, an organization devoted to protecting the Hudson River and its tributaries (read more about this important organization here).

In a process called entrainment, fish and river life are sucked into the cooling intakes and annihilated. For decades conservationists have advocated for a closed cooling system, which has not come to fruition because it would require a financial investment that Entergy, the plant operator, is not willing to make. Rather, the company has proposed installing screens at the mouths of the intakes. Researchers have revealed that this is a far cry from a solution, not doing enough to protect the river’s biodiversity. In addition, it does not address the warm water discharge.

The Indian Point Reactor, courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

The quality of the reactor itself and its operation therein are sorely lacking as well. Security guards consistently fail mock attack tests, there is no viable evacuation plan for the surrounding region, and the reactor is deteriorating with age. The Indian Point closure debate is particularly hot right now because the site’s 40-year license is about to expire and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering granting them a 20-year renewal. The reactor provides a substantial percentage of the power used by New York City and the surrounding area; instead of shutting it down, why not repair and renovate?

In addition to closed cycling cooling, there are things that can be done in order to make Indian Point a bit safer, including fire safety measures and dry cask storage. These actions are insufficient; they do not change the underlying threats due to the reactor’s age, such as embrittlement, corrosion, and metal fatigue. Considering these problems are irreparable, why not tear it down and build a new reactor? Forty years ago, population geographies were different. Indian Point’s location is undesirable, due to its proximity to communities. Furthermore, several fault lines run through the area.

Unenforced “Keep Out” buoys, courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

Nuclear energy is an efficient and clean means of powering our world. A controversial and provocative documentary called Pandora’s Promise (2013) makes a case for its desirability. Watch the trailer here:

One pound of uranium, the size of a person’s finger, yields as much energy as 5,000 barrels of oil. Nuclear energy does not pollute the air the way fossil fuels do. The amount of nuclear waste is overestimated: all the United States’ spent fuel rods would occupy a space no larger than a football field. Proposed “fourth generation reactors” are even more efficient and can recycle waste into another round of energy productivity. Renewables may be best for the long term sustainability of civilization, but right now, considering we continue to expand our energy demands, we need something realistic and nuclear is the way to go. These are some of the arguments the documentary presents, many of which are reasonable and worthy of consideration.

According to Gallay, Riverkeeper does not have a stance on nuclear power in general, but renewable energy and energy efficiency are two separate but interrelated things. We cannot argue that our needs for energy are increasing so drastically, while we waste 30 percent of the power we use. We can make many lifestyle changes so as to limit the growth of our demands. The idea of fourth generation nuclear plants is a fruitless quest for a Holy Grail. Rather, we should utilize the options we already have in hand. Declarations that carbon emissions in New York State would skyrocket if Indian Point were to close can be neutralized by a more wholehearted embrace of renewable energy systems. The economic infrastructure for them is more firmly established than ever, and market penetration is at an all time high. Furthermore, the sources of 650 of 2,000 potential megawatts are already in place and good to go.

These statistics are specifically in reference to New York State, but the conceptual framework is just as applicable to the United States at large and its national energy policy. Nuclear power has many advantages over fossil fuels, but it is not the ultimate answer. There are some notable outliers, such as France. Gabrielle Hecht’s The Radiance of France brilliantly chronicles the country’s national embrace of nuclear energy in the second half of the 20th century and the cultural values therein, as a means of assuaging the damage done by two world wars and as an attempt to reclaim its status as a member of the top of the geopolitical order. When the 21st century arrived, France had achieved energy independence and was even exporting its surplus to other countries. The general health of the environment and air there is notable; however, at the start of its program in the late 1940s, wind and solar power were barely in the conversation, and the state of technology did not allow for the viability of options such as geothermal energy. Just because France found success with its nuclear embrace half a century ago does not mean that the United States should pursue the same course now. We are fortunate enough to have at our fingertips a wider array of more preferable options.

It is time to make some substantial decisions regarding national energy policy and the directions in which we want to go. The Indian Point debate is a good starting point, and shutting it down would provide a great opportunity to set ourselves on a more renewable, and environmentally and socially responsible course.

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Franklin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Nick Fedele via Flickr]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s Time to Shut Down New York’s Indian Point Nuclear Plant appeared first on Law Street.