Category: nuclear power

About to be Published: A Comprehensive Handbook on Solar Energy

‘Sun Towards High Noon: Solar Power Transforming Our Energy Future’ will be published in paperback by Pan Stanford Publishing on March 22nd. It will be listed at $34.95 but a 30% discount is available along with free shipping when ordered online at www.crcpress.com (Promo Code STA01). The latest volume in the Pan Stanford Series on Renewable Energy, it was edited by Dr. Peter F. Varadi, a solar energy pioneer and author of an earlier volume in the series ‘Sun Above the Horizon: Meteoric Rise of the Solar Industry’ (see below). Peter is also a contributing author in this new volume, along with Wolfgang Palz, Michael Eckhart, Paula Mints, Bill Rever, John Wolgromuth, Frank Wouters, and Allan Hoffman.

The broad scope and comprehensiveness of the book can be seen in its detailed Table of Contents reproduced below:

1. Meteoric Rise of PV Continues 1
1.1 Sun above the Horizon 2
1.2 Sun towards High Noon 6
2. New PV Markets Sustaining Mass Production 9
2.1 Utilization of the Terrestrial Solar Electricity 10
2.2 Solar Roofs for Residential Homes 13
2.3 Grids, Mini-Grids, and Community Solar 24
2.4 Commercial PV Systems 32
2.5 Utility-Scale Solar 43
2.5.1 Current Status 47
2.5.1.1 Concentrating solar power systems 47
2.5.1.2 Concentrating photovoltaic systems 50
2.5.1.3 Flat-plate photovoltaic systems:
fixed and tracking 51
2.5.2 Future Prospects 54
2.6 Important Large Market: Solar Energy and
Clean Water 56
2.6.1 Desalination and Disinfection: Introduction 56
2.6.2 Desalination 56
2.6.3 Disinfection 62
2.6.4 Conclusion 63
2.7 Quality and Reliability of PV Systems 64
2.7.1 Module Qualification Testing 65
2.7.2 Module Safety Certification 67
2.7.3 Module Warranties 68
2.7.4 Failure Rates in PV Systems 70
2.7.5 Module Durability Data 71
2.7.6 ISO 9000 72
2.7.7 IECQ and IECEE 72
2.7.8 To Further Improve Long-Term Performance 73
2.7.9 International PV Quality Assurance Task Force 75
2.8 Storage of Electrical Energy 83
2.8.1 Introduction 83
2.8.2 Why Is Electrical Energy Storage Important? 83
2.8.3 What Are the Various Forms of Electric Storage? 85
2.8.4 Applications of Energy Storage and Their Value 92
2.8.5 Capital Costs of Energy Storage 93
2.8.6 Concluding Remarks 94
2.9 Solar Energy and Jobs 95
2.9.1 Introduction 95
2.9.2 What Are the Facts? 95
2.9.3 Concluding Remarks 100
3. Financing 101
3.1 Financing of PV 102
3.2 Subsidies and Solar Energy 104
3.2.1 Introduction 104
3.2.2 What Forms Do Energy Subsidies Take? 104
3.2.3 What Is the History of US Energy Subsidies? 105
3.2.4 What Has All This Meant for Solar PV? 108
3.2.5 Concluding Remarks 110
3.3 Wall Street and Financing 111
3.3.1 Policy Drivers for Solar Energy Financing 111
3.3.1.1 The importance of policy to financing 113
3.3.2 Federal Policies 114
3.3.2.1 Federal RD&D 114
3.3.2.2 Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act 117
3.3.2.3 Investment tax credits 118
3.3.2.4 Commercialization and deployment 120
3.3.2.5 Government purchasing 122
3.3.3 State and Local Policies 123
3.3.3.1 Renewable Portfolio Standards and RECs 123
3.3.3.2 Solar Set-Asides and SRECS 123
3.3.3.3 Net energy metering 124
3.3.3.4 Leading state examples 124
3.3.4 International Policy for Solar Energy Financing125
3.3.4.1 Policies of individual governments 126
3.3.4.2 International agencies 129
3.3.4.3 Multi-lateral development banks 131
3.3.4.4 Impact of NGOs on government policy 132
3.4 Solar Market Segmentation and Financing Methods 136
3.4.1 Utility-Scale Solar Project Financing 136
3.4.2 Commercial & Institutional Rooftop Financing 136
3.4.3 Community Solar 137
3.4.4 Residential Rooftop Financing 137
3.4.4.1 PPA model 138
3.4.4.2 Inverted lease 138
3.4.4.3 Loan-to-ownership 139
3.5 Solar Project Financing 140
3.5.1 Traditional Power Generation Financing 140
3.5.2 PURPA and the Development of Non-Recourse
Financing 140
3.5.3 Conditions Required for Project Financing 142
3.5.4 Overall Capital Structure: Equity, Tax
Equity, and Debt 143
3.5.5 Tax Equity Using the Investment Tax Credit 144
3.5.6 Bank Loans 145
3.5.7 Institutional Capital 146
3.5.8 Project Bonds 147
3.6 Capital Market Investment in Solar Securities 148
3.6.1 Equity Market Investment in Solar Companies 148
3.6.2 Yieldcos and Other Portfolio Companies and
Funds 150
3.6.3 Green Bonds 153
3.6.4 Securitization 155
3.7 Summary 157
3.8 Glossary 158
4. Present and Future PV Markets 161
4.1 The Global View of PV 162
4.2 The Present and Future of Neglected PV Markets:
Africa and the Middle East 164
4.2.1 Introduction 164
4.2.2 Africa 166
4.2.3 Middle East and North Africa 183
4.3 The Present and Future Market in the Americas 192
4.3.1 The United States of America 194
4.3.2 Canada 204
4.3.3 Countries in Latin America 205
4.4 The Present and Future Market in Europe 208
4.5 The Present and Future Markets in Asia 220
4.6 The Present and Future Markets in Australia
and in Oceania 231
4.7 Global Community Unites to Advance Renewable
Energy: IRENA 236
4.7.1 Start of IRENA 238
4.7.2 Hermann Scheer
4.7.3 IRENA’s Roots and Early Days 241
4.7.4 Institutional Setup 246
4.7.5 Hub, Voice, Resource 247
4.7.6 IRENA’s work 248
4.7.7 The Way Forward 252
4.7.8 Glossary 254
5. The Impact of Solar Electricity 255
5.1 The Impact of Solar Electricity 256
5.2 In the Twilight of Big Oil, in Retrospect, PV Was
a Missed Boat 259
5.3 PV and the Brave New World of the Electric Utilities 267
6. Outlook to the Future 281
About the Contributors 291
Index 295

The value of this new book is captured in the two back cover comments:

“This comprehensive and timely book provides the reader with a very thorough technical, regulatory, and financial overview of the global solar (PV) industry. Featuring internationally eminent contributors from the who’s who of solar industry experts, this book offers insights, analysis, and background on all the key issues facing this rapidly growing industry. It will be an invaluable reference and resource for scholars, investors, and policymakers dealing with the emerging solar power phenomenon.” (Branko Terzic, Atlantic Council, Former Commissioner/U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission)

“The long-term welfare of people on our planet depends on an energy system heavily dependent on solar energy. This solar energy handbook presents a well-documented, comprehensive, and insightful view of solar energy’s past, present, and future. Its preeminent contributing authors include solar energy pioneers, visionaries, and practitioners who bring a wealth of experience and insights into solar energy markets, financing, policy, and technology.” (Karl R. Rabago, Executive Director/Pace Energy and Climate Center, Elisabeth Haub School of Law, Pace University)

An Interesting Interview with President Obama’s Science Advisor

Dr. John Holdren has served as President Obama’s Science Advisor and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy throughout the eight years of the Obama presidency.  I found the following interview of Dr. Holdren of great interest and reproduce it here for the benefit of this blog’s readers. It was conducted by Kiley Kroh, Senior Editor of the e-journal ThinkProgress and first published in that journal on December 21, 2016.

………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Can the world fight climate change in the era of Trump? Obama’s science adviser thinks so: Dr. Holdren weighs in on climate science, denial, and why every president needs a science advisor.

image

Dr. John Holdren and President Obama

When asked what has kept him in his job for so long, the longest serving presidential science adviser in history answered without hesitation.
“What kept me in the job is working for the most science savvy president since Thomas Jefferson,” Dr. John Holdren said. “And in a situation where there’s a lot more science to be savvy about today than there was when Thomas Jefferson was president.”
Holdren was clear that the man in the Oval Office, that man’s respect for science and innovation, and his desire to elevate those fields across government all made the past eight years a once in a lifetime opportunity.
“I would not have jumped off this ship for anything,” said Holdren.
But the winds of change are blowing hard. President Barack Obama will vacate the White House in a month and the tenor of the group assembled to replace his administration, particularly with regard to science policy, could not be more different. President-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly called climate change a “hoax” and recently said “nobody really knows” whether climate change is real. (In reality, scientists are quite certain it is both happening and largely the result of human activity.)
Trump has already amassed an alarming number of people who reject the scientific consensus regarding climate change, have deep ties to the fossil fuel industry, and are quite clear regarding their intent to undo or weaken the Obama climate legacy. His transition team has asked the Department of Energy to name staff who worked on Obama administration climate policy, and pressed the State Department about its international environmental spending.
In the face of this dramatic shift, the scientific community is bracing itself for an administration that could be dismissive, or outright antagonistic, towards science — some are even going as far as to copy government climate science data on independent servers to ensure its preservation.
Holdren is nevertheless optimistic that the forces moving the world toward progress on climate change are stronger than the pull of denial, and that the advancements made in the past eight years will serve as building blocks rather than targets. While as a political appointee he’s prohibited from discussing the policies of the president-elect, he had a lot to say about climate denial, the importance of his position, and where we go from here. Read on for the highlights from our recent interview.
So much of what you were able to accomplish seems driven by a president who really prioritized science and gave it the funding and attention it deserves, so what happens to all of these initiatives moving forward?
I can’t speculate about the next administration but I will say this: First of all, the issue of addressing the climate challenge should not be a partisan issue. It’s about the economy, public health and well-being, national security — these are not fundamentally partisan issues, so one has to hope that that will increasingly be recognized.
The second thing I’ll say is that a lot of the progress is being driven by forces that are not fundamentally policies of the federal government. I think the two biggest drivers of progress on climate change around the world today are that the symptoms of climate change, the damages from climate change, are becoming ever more apparent. And the opportunities to do something are also growing — in substantial part because clean energy is getting cheaper. That’s going to be extremely important moving forward, regardless of what government policies do or don’t materialize in the United States.
If the U.S. is no longer at the forefront pushing climate commitments at the international level, is it your sense that China is going to step up? Are there other countries you’re looking to?
Let me be clear, I very much hope the United States will continue to carry out these forward-leaning actions to reduce emissions and build preparedness and resilience, because I think it makes great sense environmentally and economically. But if we don’t, I do believe most other countries will continue with their efforts in this domain because, again, they understand it’s in their interest to do so. China’s already stepping up.
But I don’t think for a minute that if, for one reason or another, the U.S. reduced its level of activity in this space, that China would reduce its [activity]. I expect that the European countries, who are themselves experiencing the impacts of climate change, will stay the course; I think Canada will stay the course; I think many of our friends in Latin America will stay the course; I think India will stay the course.
Everybody is suffering from climate change, and no matter how much hand-waving a few folks may want to continue to do about how it’s not all proven, the fact is everybody around the world now understands that it’s real, that human activities are causing it, and that aggressive action is required to fix it.

You mentioned your belief that several major countries will continue to stay the course on climate action. Can you talk about the course we’re on globally? Obviously, the Paris agreement was a significant achievement, but how do you view that in terms of what we need to be doing to stave off the worst impacts of climate change?
First of all, as you know, it’s not enough. Everybody who looks at this problem realizes Paris is a down payment on a longer term strategy to reduce emissions much more drastically. By the end of this century, we have to be at zero emissions; in fact, we should be at zero emissions, net, before the end of this century if we want to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change. The key point about Paris, really, is that it is the biggest step in the right direction the world has ever taken, and it was taken much later than those of us who watch this problem closely would have wished. After 2030, when the most far-reaching of the Paris targets occur, we’re going to need a very powerful encore; we’re going to need much deeper reductions going forward, we’re going to need better technologies to do it.
One of the things I’ve found a little irritating about the climate science discussion over the years is the discussion about when will we reach dangerous human interference in the climate system. I think it’s very difficult to argue climate change isn’t already dangerous. We’re not really in the business any longer of trying to avoid dangerous climate change — we’re already in dangerous climate change. We’re trying to avoid catastrophic climate change and I think it would be better to be clear about that.
“We’re not really in the business any longer of trying to avoid dangerous climate change… We’re trying to avoid catastrophic climate change.”
I know you can’t speculate on the incoming administration, but it’s my sense the tide was turning over the past few years to make it less acceptable for a public figure to deny climate change. What is it about climate denial that makes it so difficult to overcome?
I think it’s a misconception that’s driven a lot of the expressions of doubt about the science — that folks don’t want to accept the science because they think accepting it is tantamount to accepting a draconian regulatory regime on our energy choices. The reality is that there are many ways to skin this cat. As economists from all parts of the political spectrum tell us the most efficient ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be a market-based approach, putting a tax on carbon emissions that could be offset by reductions in other taxes.
If you accept the science, you might prefer to accept a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade approach, which does more or less the same thing under different administrative arrangements. Either can be adjusted over time to get the emissions result that you want. And that’s basically a market-based approach rather than a regulation-based approach; it should make Republicans happy.
I’m sure you’ve seen the various efforts to sell Republicans and conservatives on the solutions — clean energy, even a carbon tax — without emphasizing or asking them to accept the climate science component. Do you think that can work?
I think ultimately we will not do enough without accepting the reality of climate change and the need to address it in a more serious way going forward than we have in the past. We will do a lot of things that go in the right direction based on market forces alone — as I noted before, basically, clean energy in many of its manifestations is getting cheaper. But I don’t think the market alone, without a price on carbon or its less efficient equivalent in a regulatory approach, will get us as far as we need to go.
In light of the reports regarding the fear in the scientific community about a potentially hostile environment ahead, what is your advice for scientists trying to preserve their ability to do their jobs?
Climate scientists should keep doing their science and they should keep publishing the results, and keep talking about the implications of the results. And they should keep making their data available so others can check their results. But coming back to a question you asked earlier about what continues to drive so much of the rejection of scientific consensus, the phrase has been around for some quite time: “do you believe in climate change?”
The notion that this is a matter of belief rather than respect for the conclusions of an expert community — this is not a matter of belief. Climate change doesn’t care whether you believe in it or not. It’s going to keep going.
In terms of big signs of climate disruption, what’s happening in the Arctic is one of the most alarming stories of the year. Can you talk about that, and any other major signs you’re following?
The Arctic is not only experiencing climate change much more rapidly than the rest of the world, but the consequences don’t stay in the Arctic. As we thaw permafrost, we are increasing the release of carbon dioxide and methane from the decomposition of organic matter. Wildfires in the Arctic are burning unprecedented areas; even the tundra is burning now. Sea level rise, combined with loss of sea ice protection from waves, is causing drastic coastal erosion around the Arctic, and the mainly indigenous peoples who live in villages on the vulnerable coastlines are in many cases having to relocate. I will tell you now from rather extensive experience meeting with the people who live in the Arctic, there are no climate deniers up there.
“This is not a matter of belief.”
There are some other things that are starting to get the attention they deserve. One is wildfires; there’s really an extraordinary story, and a very dangerous one going forward. A second is the danger from extreme heat, and the circumstance that there are parts of the world where, already in the hottest months, in the hottest parts of the year, it’s not possible to work outside without dying because of the heat stress. You’re seeing larger and larger areas of the world, as we’re moving further into this century, where it’s going to be impossible to do outdoor labor for much of the year. This is really a stunning result.
The other one that I think is helpful in explaining to people that, despite the complexity of this system, there are certain things that can be understood in pretty intuitive terms, is the relationship between warming and torrential downpours. That was long predicted, but we’re now seeing these increases in torrential downpours and associated flooding across much of the world. People who have experienced flooding of a sort that never previously occurred in their lifetime are generally not among the deniers.
As you’re reflecting on your legacy and work, can you tell me why, from your perspective, it’s important for a president to have a science adviser and receive objective scientific advice?
First of all, the president needs a source of science and technology advice that’s independent of the agendas of individual departments and agencies. It’s very important that there be somebody close enough to the president to tell him or her scientific and technological insights that may not agree with the prior preferences of the president.
Being able to work for this president on these issues has been the highlight of my career, and I expect that a lot of what we have done will survive as building blocks of progress going forward.
(This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.)

 

More History – Circa 1997

This is the second of the two articles from the 1990s mentioned in the previous blog post. It was published in the November-December 1997 issue of Asia Pacific Economic Review.

……………………….

Why We Must Move Toward Renewable Energy
by Allan R. Hoffman

Rapid economic growth in the Asia-Pacific region has been and will continue to be mirrored by a rapid increase in energy demand. Between 1970 and 1995 primary energy demand in the region increased from 19 to 70 Quads (quadrillion BTUs). This figure is expected to increase to 135 Quads in 2010 and to 159 Quads in 2015 (Source: Energy Information Administration International Energy Outlook, 1997). The World Bank has estimated that developing countries alone will require 5 million megawatts of new electrical capacity over the next four decades to meet the needs of their expanding economies. The world’s current total installed capacity is just under 3 million megawatts. Thus, even if the World Bank’s estimate is too optimistic, installed world generation capacity will essentially have to double during the next 40 years. This much new capacity will require trillions of dollars of new investment.

What does this mean for renewable electric technologies – I.e., electricity generated from solar, biomass, wind, geothermal and hydropower resources? Fossil fuels are likely to remain the dominant energy source through the middle of the next century, while renewables can anticipate capturing only a fraction of that market. Every one percent of the emerging market in developing countries represents $50-100 billion of investment. If renewables can capture several percent of that market, the potential exists for several hundred billion dollars of renewable technology sales worldwide over the next four decades. Why are renewables important? They are the most environmentally responsible technologies available for power generation. Most renewable technologies have proven effective and reliable. Efforts are underway to further improve their technological performance, which may be the easiest problem to solve.

Providing Access to Renewables for Developing Countries
The more difficult problems are how to get renewable technologies into people’s hands, how to pay for them, and how to set up the non-technological infrastructure needed for widespread deployment of renewables. In many applications, 
renewables are the least cost energy option. 
Thinking on energy costs is distorted in the 
United States because of relatively low 
energy prices. Outside the US the story is 
very different. Average electricity prices in 
Germany and Japan approach or exceed 
20 cents per kilowatt-hour. Even in remote 
parts of the US, such as Alaska, electricity prices range from 40 to 60 cents per kilowatt-hour. In many parts of the world, including remote areas of the Asia-Pacific 
region, it is hard to put a price on electricity because there is no access to it. The current world population is 5.8 billion people. 
It is estimated that more than 2 billion of 
those people have no access to electricity. 
In China alone that number is 120 million. 
At least another half billion people around the world have such limited or unreliable 
access to electricity, that for all intents and 
purposes they have no electricity. If we are 
to make a difference in these people’s lives, 
we have to make available to them free-standing power sources suitable for off- 
grid applications – i.e., renewable electric 
technologies. When people have no access 
to electricity, even a 35 watt photovoltaic 
panel or a small wind machine can make a 
very large difference in their lives. Where 
the alternative is to extend expensive electrical transmission and distribution systems, use of these technologies can be cost 
effective.

What is the status of renewable 
technologies today? Costs for photovoltaics, the use of semiconductor materials to 
convert sunlight directly into electricity, 
have come down from approximately $1 per kWh in 1980 to 20-30 cents per kWh 
today. With increasing scales of manufacturing and increasing emphasis on thin-film devices, electricity costs from photovoltaics are expected to fall below 10 cents 
per kilowatt-hour early in the next decade. 
Current annual world production has just 
exceeded 100 megawatts, and is growing 
at more than 20 percent per year. This corresponds to a doubling time of less than 4 
years. Current US. production capacity (40 
megawatts per year) is fully subscribed, 
and half a dozen new or expanded manufacturing plants are scheduled for operation within the next 18 months. Roughly 
70 percent of US. production is currently 
exported.

The “3- Flavors” of Solar Thermal 

Another form of solar energy, solar thermal technology, concentrates sunlight to 
create heat that can then be used to generate stearn and/or electricity. This technology comes in 3 “flavors”: troughs that con
centrate sunlight along the axis of parabolic 
collectors; power towers that surround a 
central receiver with a field of concentrating mirrors called heliostats; and dish-engine systems that use radar-type dishes to 
focus sunlight on heat-driven engines such 
as the Sterling engine. Electricity costs from 
the parabolic trough units are in the 10 to 
12 cents per kilowatt-hour range, but can 
be reduced. Costs of electricity from the 
other two solar thermal technologies are 
expected to be even lower than those of the 
parabolic trough systems, and could reach 
4 to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour when manufactured in commercial quantities.

The world has large resources of organic 
material, called biomass, which occurs in a 
variety of forms (wood, grasses, crops and 
crop residues). Biomass can be converted 
into energy in a number of ways. As wood-burning fuel, it has been used extensively 
in developing parts of the world, often resulting in widespread deforestation, soil 
loss, declining farm productivity, and increasing likelihood of seasonal flooding. In 
future, the most effective way to use biomass is likely to be gasification, where the 
resulting gas can either be used as fuel for 
high efficiency combustion turbines, or as 
synthesis material for producing liquid fuels. The US Department of Energy (DOE) 
has a series of projects underway to determine how to most effectively use biomass 
for energy production. DOE is experimenting with biomass-coal co-firing in New 
York state, biogasification with bagasse 
(the residue from sugar cane) in Hawaii, 
with wood in Vermont, with switchgrass 
in Iowa, and with alfalfa in Minnesota. Biomass-based electricity has the advantage 
of being a baseload technology (i.e., it can 
be operated 24 hours a day) and is carbon 
dioxide neutral – i.e., the carbon dioxide 
released during its use is recaptured by the 
biomass during its growth. The revenue 
derived from the sale of biomass resources 
can be an important component in rural 
economic development. Costs for biomass-generated electricity are expected to be 
competitive as long as biomass resource 
costs remain reasonable.

Europe “Blows with the Wind”
Many locations offer wind resources. Wind 
is the fastest growing energy technology 
in the world today. Most ofthe 17,000 wind 
turbines in the United States are located in 
California, but a dozen U.S. states (from the 
Dakotas south to Texas) have greater wind 
potential. Today’s highly reliable machines 
(typically available 95-98% of the time) provide electricity at 5 cents per kilowatt-hour 
at moderate wind sites. The next generation of turbines, currently under development, should provide electricity at half that 
cost. Use of wind energy is expanding rapidly in many parts of the world, with 
Europe’s installed capacity now exceeding 
that of the United States (4,000 megawatts 
compared to 1,700 megawatts). India ranks 
third with 800 megawatts of wind generated capacity. Large wind generation 
projects are also being planned for China and other parts of the developing world. 
Geothermal resources – i.e. hot water or 
steam derived from reservoirs below the 
surface of the earth – were first used to generate electricity in Italy in 1904. Today, more 
than 6,000 megawatts of geothermal power 
are installed world wide, with about half of 
that in the United States. Rapid expansion 
of geothermal power is taking place in several places around the world, most notably in Indonesia, the Philippines, Mexico 
and Central America. Geothermal power 
is a baseload technology. It can be a low 
cost option if the hot water or steam re
source is at a high temperature. One California geothermal project produces electricity at 3.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Limit to Fossil Fuels?
Given the world energy situation, one can
not project today’s energy system into the 
long-term future. Fossil fuels will continue 
to be the primary fuel source for years to 
come. As history has shown, the transition to a different energy system is likely 
to take 50 to 100 years. The world cannot 
continue to be dependent on fossil fuels. 
Transportation issues are a good example 
of this misplaced reliance. If a reasonable 
fraction of the large and growing populations of China and India start driving cars 
as people in the developed world do, demand and prices for petroleum resources 
will grow rapidly, causing serious international supply problems and political ten
sion; unacceptable environmental consequences will affect us all. There is a limit 
to the Earth’s fossil fuel reserves. Whether 
it takes 50 years, 100 years or longer, these 
reserves will run out. The head of Shell 
UK, Ltd., a highly respected oil industry 
planning organization, has said: “There is 
clearly a limit to fossil fuels. Fossil fuel resources and supplies are likely to peak at 
around 2030, before declining slowly. Far 
more important will be the contribution of 
alternative renewable energy supply.” For 
many reasons, financial and otherwise, 
nuclear power is not likely to meet the energy needs of developing countries. Hydro
power is the most mature form of renewable energy and already provides a significant share of the world’s electricity. Though 
potential exists for further hydropower developement in many parts of the developing 
world, significant hydropower expansion in 
developed countries is unlikely to occur 
because of environmental concerns. With 
limited choices, the world is entering the 
early stages of an inevitable transition to a 
sustainable world energy system dependent 
on renewable energy resources.
_____________________________________________________________
Dr. Allan R. Hoffman is Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
the Office of Utility Technologies, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. 
Department of Energy in Washington, D.C.

A bit of history – circa October 1995

While going through some files recently I came across several articles from my days in the Bill Clinton Administration, first as Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary and then as Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for DOE’s Office of Utility Technologies (OUT). This Office had responsibility for developing the full range of renewable electric technologies as well as hydrogen and energy storage technologies. In reading these articles twenty years later I am struck by how my words were in many ways the same then as now. What has changed is the development status of the technologies, their costs, the extent of their deployment, and the enhanced understanding of global warming and its implications for climate change. I have selected two of these articles for republishing in this blog. The first, from 1995, is republished below to provide a bit of historical context for the changes that are occurring today in our energy systems. It was part of a newsletter set up to improve communications between the leadership and staff of OUT. The second, from 1997, will be published in my next blog post. In a subsequent blog post I will offer my thoughts on what Donald Trump’s election as U.S. President could mean for U.S. energy and environmental policies and programs.

………………………………………………………….

From the Desk of the ADAS:
Allan Hoffman
October 1995

”A vision helps us stick to our beliefs and keep going in the face of resistance, chaos, uncertainty and the
inevitable setbacks. ”

In thinking about what to say in this piece, I realized that much of what I say in speeches outside of the
Department is often not shared with my OUT colleagues. So, given this opportunity, let me share some of my
thoughts on the “vision thing” and related ideas that I often introduce in my presentations. Your comments
and reactions will be appreciated – whether by e-mail. memo, telephone or hallway conversation.

I sometimes begin my remarks by observing that it has been approximately one generation since the Oil Embargo of 1973, the point at which world attention began to focus intensively on energy issues. An often quoted rule-of-thumb is that it takes about a generation for new ideas to begin to penetrate the mainstream. This is the point we find ourselves at today for non-hydro renewable electric technologies. Considerable progress has occurred over the past two decades in improving technological performance and reducing associated energy costs of wind, photovoltaic, solar thermal, biomass and geothermal energy systems – e.g., at least a five-fold decrease in the cost of PV electricity, and the availability of highly reliable wind turbines that can generate electricity at 5 cents per kilowatt-hour in moderate wind regimes. This has brought us to a point where, under certain conditions, renewable technologies can be the low cost option for generating power, presaging significant deployment of these technologies in developed as well as developing countries. In addition, increased deployment of renewables is being driven by concern for the environment (e.g., global climate change) and energy security, and the recognition that widespread use of renewables represents markets in the trillions of dollars. To put some numbers into the discussion, the World Bank has estimated that, over the next 30-40 years, developing countries alone will require 5,000,000 megawatts of new generating capacity. This compares with a total world capacity of about 3,000,000 megawatts today. At a capital cost of $1-2,000 per kilowatt, this corresponds to $5-10 trillion, exclusive of associated infrastructure costs. It is the size of these numbers that is generating increased interest in renewables by businesses and the in- vestment community. It is also the reason for the increasing global competition for renewable energy markets. In addition, and very importantly, the environmental implications of that much capacity using fossil fuels, even in the more benign form of natural gas, are severe. If we are to minimize adverse local and global environmental impacts from the inevitable powering up of developing nations, renewable or other forms of non-polluting and non-greenhouse-gas-emitting power systems must be widely used. In the minds of some nuclear power offers a solution, but the scale of nuclear power plants is often not consistent with the needs or financial condition of developing nations, and the social issues that come with the associated handling of plutonium and radioactive wastes need to be carefully considered by society before it embarks on this path.

Given these considerations the prospect that fossil fuel supplies will begin to diminish before the middle
of the next century, and the need to move to sustainable economic systems, I see no alternative to a gradual
but inevitable transition to a global energy system largely dependent on renewable energy. Previous energy
transitions, e.g., from wood to coal and coal to oil, have taken 50 to 100 years to occur, and I see no
difference in this case. I also believe that over this time period, hydrogen will emerge as an important energy
carrier to complement electricity, given its ability to be used in all end use sectors and its benign
environmental characteristics. In this vision, all renewables will be widely used: biomass for fuels and power
generation, geothermal in selected locations for power generation and direct heating, and wind, hydro,
photovoltaics and solar thermal (in its various flavors) for power generation. Particular applications will be
tailored to’particular local situations. Large amounts of renewable power generated in dedicated regions
(e.g., wind in the Midwest and solar in the Southwest) will be transmitted thousands of miles over high voltage
DC power lines to distant load centers. And, electricity and the services it provides will be available to almost
every one on the planet.

One final word: why is it important to have a vision? My answer is that at the beginning of a major transition, one that will surely be resisted by well-entrenched and powerful vested interests, there will be a certain amount of chaos, a large degree of uncertainty, and setbacks. In the words of the late author Barbara Tuchman, “In the midst of events there is no perspective.” This places a heightened responsibility on the OUT staff and others to keep up their efforts to continue improving the technologies and reducing their costs. A vision helps us stick to our beliefs and keep going in the face of the resistance, chaos, uncertainty and the inevitable setbacks.
Without vIsion, very few transformational events in human history would have occurred.

A Presidential Campaign Speech from 2052

(Note to my readers: please allow me this ‘indulgence’ as it allows me to discuss what I see coming in the energy field.)

My fellow Americans, I am pleased to announce today my candidacy for President of the United State. We have just turned the corner on the first half of the 21st century, a time of significant change for our country and many other countries. In 2052 it is time to consolidate and reaffirm those changes that are beneficial, and plan for the coming decades. The 21st century has been an American century, but not exclusively – other parts of the world have demonstrated global leadership both economically and politically in these past 50 years – and it is encumbent on a new set of U.S. leaders to continue the American century in peaceful and meaningful cooperation with our global partners. Before discussing my plans for the future I would like to review what I see as the history and the accomplishments of the century’s first fifty years.

The century began as an extension of the 20th century – multiple national conflicts, internal dissension in many countries, and heavy dependence on traditional fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. Global population continued to increase – having grown from 1.8 billion to more than 6 billion in the past century – and is expected to reach as much as 10 billion sometime before the turn of the current century. That number in 2052 is just under eight billion.

Increasing electrification was an important characteristic of the 20th century and will continue to define the 21st century as well. It is allowing increasing numbers of people to enjoy the energy services that access to electricity and other forms of energy brings – lighting, heating, cooling, communication, transportation, and the ability to make things quickly and in quantity. Today, fewer than five percent of the world’s population lacks access to reliable electricity supplies, and this number should reach zero in the next two decades. Essentially all have access to wireless devices that allow widespread communication and access to the world’s store of information.

This access to energy, the closely related access to clean water, and wireless capability have significantly reduced global poverty and greatly enhanced opportunities for learning. The education revolution that has been made possible by universal access to the internet, for both women and men, and the individualized learning that the computer revolution has made possible, together with energy access, has finally allowed a slowdown in the rate of population growth so that a stabilized global population may be achievable in my lifetime.

This century has also seen other powerful changes. In 2008 our country elected its first black President, and then reelected him in 2012 as affirmation of their good judgement four years before. In 2016 the U.S., after a lengthy and often nasty presidential campaign, elected its first female president, who once and for all showed that women can serve effectively at the highest levels of our political life. Together with the military opening all its ranks to female participation in 2015, the so-called ‘glass ceiling’ was finally shattered, never to be restored. That election also saw the election of a Vice President of Hispanic ethnicity, who eventually went on to become the 47th President of the United States. Today I am trying to shatter still another political barrier by attempting to become the first Muslim American to receive the nomination for President of a major political party.

While much has changed in the past five decades, and I will discuss one of the most important changes in detail shortly, not everything has changed, unfortunately. We are still human beings, with all our many shortcomings, and religious and racial intolerance are still major sources of pain and conflict in the modern world. While the threat of Islamic jihadism that arose forcefully in the first few decades of the century has been reduced significantly through the actions of a global coalition of Muslim and non-Muslim governments, remnants are still with us and require careful attention. As our President I would commit all the resources needed, in cooperation with our allies, to keep this threat under control. A major factor in controlling this threat has been the willingness of Sunni and Shiite governments to put aside their religious differences In the name of their overriding commonality, Islam.

Among the other changes we have seen in our lifetime is the establishment of the first human colonies on the moon and on Mars. The moon colony was a joint U.S.-Chinese achievement in 2032, just twenty years ago, and the first Mars colony of four people was established just 8 years ago, in 2044. Both were extraordinary events at the time, and commanded global attention, but as is true of so many achievements in outer space the existence of the colonies is becoming part of the background. That is an OK result as we want space travel to become a routine part of the mainstream.

Other major steps forward have been in the field of medicine. With advances in DNA measurement and manipulation personalized treatment has become routine for many gene-related diseases. It is not unusual today to see people living into their second centuries and still functioning normally. Of course the social security and related safety-net systems in the U.S. have had to be adjusted for this new longevity, and as you might expect, only after long and difficult political battles.

Finally, let me talk in some detail about the most important revolution of the 21st century, one I have worked hard to support in my current position as a U.S. Senator. It is one that I am committed to support and advance if I am privileged to serve as your President. That is the energy revolution that started in the latter part of the 20th century, took flight during the early decades of the 21st, and is today reaching all parts of the globe. It is a transition point in human history.

The 1973-74 Oil Embargo, which took place almost a century ago, was a brutal wake up call for many nations, including our own. The history books tell many stories about how Americans, for the first time, began to look at energy issues in a different light. Prior to the Embargo energy costs were sufficiently low that it was not an area of public concern. Then, one day Americans awakened to the fact that much of their energy, especially for transportation, was imported from abroad, and that such supplies were subject to political uncertainties beyond our control. This was true in the countries of Western Europe as well. We responded by creating the International Energy Agency, a mechanism for sharing oil reserves among countries if another embargo threatened our energy supplies. We also started looking at energy alternatives, with particular emphasis on nuclear power. In fact the public mantra at that time by our political leaders was a doubling every decade of the number of nuclear power plants deployed in the U.S. A few others raised concerns about nuclear power and called for examination of enhanced energy efficiency and renewable energy alternatives. Until that time renewable energy had not been seriously considered except in the case of hydroelectricity. The suggestion related to enhanced energy efficiency was dismissed by economists and others who saw economic growth (GDP) tied one-to-one with energy consumption, and renewables were attacked as too expensive and incapable of meeting the demands of the U.S. economy. These arguments persisted for several decades until it was shown that GDP and energy consumption were not directly linked, climate change associated with combustion of fossil fuels became a major global issue, the costs of renewable energy systems began to decrease, and the ability of renewable energy in the form of electricity, biofuels, and heat were shown capable of supporting large economies. These new realities became the focus of policy debates in the first two decades of the century, and finally came to govern U.S. energy policy in the third decade when the majority of the private sector finally put its full support behind renewables and the battle to limit global warming. All Presidents since the Obama era have supported a move away from dependence on fossil fuels – it was 80% at the turn of the century – and Congress finally placed a steadily increasing cost on carbon emissions in 2020. This created the economic environment needed for investment in clean energy technologies and reduced use of fossil fuels. It allowed the U.S. to finally catch up with the many other countries that had seen the importance of these changes and implemented appropriate policies many years before.

These changes have led to today’s energy situation in the U.S. – 70% of electricity is generated by solar, wind, hydropower, and geothermal, natural gas from fracking peaked in 2040 and is steadily being replaced as an energy source in power plants as renewables take over, petroleum from fracking of oil shale peaked at about the same time and has been used to power aging and disappearing transportation fleets, electric vehicles dominate the automobile and light duty truck markets, all new aircraft and ships are designed to run on alternative biofuels, energy efficiency has been enshrined as the cornerstone of national energy policy, coal has been replaced as a domestic energy source except in a few industries, and nuclear power’s share of electricity generation has been steadily reduced to its current value of 5%. Total national energy demand has been stable even as the U.S. population has increased to 400 million, all new homes are routinely outfitted with solar energy rooftop systems and ground source heart pumps wherever feasible, the U.S. leads the world in wind turbine and wind energy production, we are second only to China in offshore wind energy deployment and production, and battery energy storage has become as ubiquitous as any other household appliance.

The world has turned a corner in these pat 50 years, undergoing an inevitable transition to dependence on energy from the sun and heat derived from radioactive decay in the core of the earth. These clean energy sources will last as long as people populate the earth, unlike fossil fuels which are depletable on any timescale relevant to humankind. We owe much to our fossil fuel resources, the product of millions of years of transformation of organic materials subject to high temperatures and extreme pressures deep in the earth, but the fossil fuel era is coming to an end and will eventually be only a blip on the timeline of history.

My promise to you as your President will be to continue and strengthen this transition in all ways possible so that our children, grandchildren, and their heirs, will live in a world free of global warming and the other harmful impacts of burning fossil fuels. Nuclear fission power had its day as well, but the issues associated with its use – cost, safety, long term storage of wastes, and weapons proliferation – have proved too difficult to accept now that renewable energy has been shown up to the task of meeting societal needs. Nuclear fusion, a much cleaner form of nuclear energy, remains as a long term possibility as well, but progress in taming the process that powers our sun and other stars has been slow and time will tell if controlled nuclear fusion has a future here on earth. I support continued cooperation with other countries in researching this technology that offers unlimited energy availability but so far has always been a few years away. Our investments largely must go into renewable technologies to ensure completion of the transition. This is our legacy to the future.