Memo ideas

- Renewable energy technology costs, histories and projections. Learning curves.
- State of national RE promotion legislation. Current energy bill.
- Corporate RE initiatives (Google)
- RE and investment (UNEP report)

Jamasb and Kohler 2007 Learning curves for energy tech

Jamasb, T. and J. Kohler (2007). "Learning Curves for Energy Technology: A Critical Assessment," in Delivering a Low Carbon Electricity System: Technologies, Economics and Policy, Ed. M. Grubb, T. Jamasb, and M. Pollitt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Forthcoming. Available online at (accessed 30 Nov 2007).

• INTRO
• 1 Cites Schumpeter's invention-innovation-diffusion paradigm of technical change
• 1-2 Developments in macro (endogenous technical change) and micro (learning curve)
• 2 Need for innovation in environmental and energy technology revived interest in learning curve concept
• 3 Learning curve originally had labor as dependent variable and manufacturing/production as independent. Using price (DV) and capacity (IV) requires attention to determinants of innovation
• LEARNING CURVES AND TECHNICAL CHANGE
• 5 Bar chart showing estimated learning rates in electricity production technologies, from survey of studies. Varies widely. Generally higher for newer technologies.
• 6 Incorporating learning curves can change outcomes of cost of climate change models, but all depends on assumptions
• 6 Important assumption in experience curve is what "floor cost" is thought to be - so cost doesn't decline to 0 as time goes to infinity, floor cost must be specified. But how do we know??
• 7 Benefits of endogenous technical change beyond direct Pigouvian benefits of carbon abatement - spillover/technology diffusion effercts. "This will result in a positive spillover that will offset the negative spillover usually hypothesized to result from the migration of polluting industries."
• 7 Need menu of policies in addition to carbon caps
• THEORY-INFORMED MODELS OF TECHNOLOGY LEARNING
• Questions remain about causal links between experience and cost
• Authors really like two-factor learning curves (2FLCs) that incorporate R&D.
• This is what Klaassen (2005) did, but since R&D funding was only public funding, seemed like results gave too much credit to R&D.
• 10 "A simultaneous equations model with capacity and R&D as well as endogeneity of capacity on cost transforms single-factor models from partial empirical functions into learning-innovation-diffusion models that conform to basic elements and feedback of technical change process and invention-innovation-diffusion paradigm."
• 11 Problems: development of technologies unlikely to look list past progress; lack of long-term, detailed data.
• 12 Still, evidence for some degree of experience-based cost reduction overwhelming.
• LEARNING CURVES FOR LOW-CARBON ELECTRICITY SECTOR
• Can help determine whether funds for tech promotion allocated in proportion to their relative effectiveness (assumes 2FLC - help tell us relative effectiveness of R&D and deployment, i guess)
• Can also be used to estimate total required investment on R&D and capacity support for bringing tech cost down to given level
• CONCLUSIONS
• 15 Incorporation of learning curves can change estimates of costs of stabilization and policy conclusions (e.g., used in Stern review)
• 16 Recommends models that include R&D, but acknowledges lack of suitable data
• 17 Learning models can be used to analyze effect of international policy coordination and pooling R&D resources or deployment initiatives in order to accelerate technical progress. (How?)
• 17 Extension: non-electricity energy sources, other environmental technologies, energy storage technologies. Also, use to answer shorter-term questions (not necessarily doubling of capacity).

Wuppertal Institute Request - China, CC, Employment

1.) Is there any economic world model that you can recommend to use
in order to quantitatively estimate employment impacts of climate
change/adapation/mitigation with a focus on China (different sectors
and regions are taken into account, GDP and non-GDP sectors,
technological progress and intertemporal changes of financial
investment are considered in an adequate manner, etc.)? Or are there
"adhoc aproaches" (based on scenarios and different indicators as
drivers) which you recommend to use?

2.) According to your point of view, to what extent is such a
quantification of emplyoment impacts for China possible (where are
the limitations, what could be challenges, etc.)?

3.) How do you judge the data situation for China?

4.) What are the potential costs of such a project? Would 100.000 US
$ be enough?

5.) Can you recommend further contact persons (inside and outside
China)?


My response:

1. The DICE (Dynamic Integrated Model of Climate and the Economy) model, developed by William Nordhaus, is a non-proprietary integrated assessment model that is downloadable online. As I mentioned before, I'm not sure it would be possible to use a model like this to estimate something as specific as employment impacts in particular sectors, but it might be possible to make some assumptions about employment as related to GDP and use the model to estimate macro effects.

2. Regarding ad hoc approaches, the Global Development and Environment (GDAE) institute has published two regional studies on the economic impact of climate change: one for the UK and one for the state of Florida, neither of which used a formal model. These are available on their website: http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/policy_research/ClimateChange.htm. They aren't about employment effects specifically, but they may provide guidance on how to develop climate change scenarios.

3. Frank Ackerman at GDAE coauthored the reports mentioned above, and he has also worked with the DICE model. He may be a useful contact for ideas about the China study. His email is frank.ackerman@tufts.edu.

30 Nov 2007, Morning

1. Spend a little time looking at China, climate, employment
2. Finish Jamasb and Kohler (2007) chapter on learning curves for energy technology
3. Make a list of memos I could write with current information + little additional research

Papers citing Papineau (2006), mostly on learning curves in RE tech

Power Generation Technology Choice in the Presence of Climate Policy
http://epubl.ltu.se/1402-1757/2005/76/LTU-LIC-0576-SE.pdf
Thesis from a student at a Swedish university
How will future investments in Swedish power sector be affected by Kyoto protocol carbon pricing policies? Also looks at impacts of technology learning/cost decreases in presence of climate policy.

Choice of Environmental Policy in the Presence of Learning by Doing
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7G-4J7B118-1&_user=1516330&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000053443&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1516330&md5=fe09284bdd3ec97c480ca6151c0a49ac
Entirely model-based; no empirical tests. Concludes that environmental policy should be market based, not regulatory.

Analysis of Energy Technology Change and Associated Costs
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/112608246/PDFSTART
Complex mathematical model used to predict when market breakthroughs would happen for several technologies - looks like it might have some good cost info nonetheless.

A methodology for validating the renewable energy data in EU
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V4S-4MHPBN5-2&_user=1516330&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000053443&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1516330&md5=6a92e1cfcca67bd2f19408eb8ae581da
Not much new information, but good review of existing methods of evaluating RE implementation.

Empirical challenges in the use of learning curves for assessing the economic prospects of renewable energy technologies
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V4S-4N5CSJD-1&_user=1516330&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000053443&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1516330&md5=8aced6dac1fb2f0f8b371fa9078bc10e
Estimates various econometric specifications of LBD models using data on wind installations in 4 European countries.

Learning curves for energy technology: a critical assessment
http://www.electricitypolicy.org.uk/pubs/wp/eprg0723.pdf
Says learning curves have been applied uncritically in past. Paper looks mostly theoretical, but some review of past studies.

Papineau 2006 Experience curves in RE technologies

Papineau, M. (2006). "An economic perspective on experience curves and dynamic economies in renewable energy technologies," Energy Policy 34, 422-432.

• Unlike Klaassen et al (2005), this paper uses price of the equipment (turbine, module, etc.) rather than total investment costs per kW (though one regression did use price of wind power as the DV).
• Depending on the data available, uses either cumulated capacity (MW), cumulated electricity GWh), or cumulative output (total industry shipments) as independent variables.
• Estimates learning equations of the form logP = a + blogX for individual countries and for panels.
• Implies that a 1% increase in X (capacity, electricity, or output) will result in a b% decrease in the dependent variable - usually price.
• The progress ratio (PR=2^b) gives the percent of the previous price the new price will be after each doubling of the independent variable. The learning rate (LR) is 1-PR.
• Regressions of price against any of these dependent variables give statistically significant b parameters, and show learning ratios of between 10% and 20% for solar and 5-10% for wind.
• However, adding time trend (year) variable reduces significance and reduces learning ratio.
• Possible reasons for results: Use of price (rather than cost) as DV; price and cost changes affected by entry of new competitors and changes in industry concentration; price may change as result of gov't subsidies without change in production efficiency; since output determined by price AND price determined by output, the random disturbance term will be correlated with the regressor and estimated parameters will be biased and inconsistent.
• Learning equations with R&D (and R&D expenditures divided by annual sales, and RD/S*cumulated output) instead of capacity were estimated, and the only results shown included the time trend variable. Coefficients on R&D variables were very small, significant only in the case of PV in the US, and occasionally were positive (wrong sign). Doesn't say where R&D data came from, but seems to be IEA gov't expenditure on R&D on various RE technologies.
  
• Concludes by saying the results support introduction of "imperfect foresight and stochastic uncertainty of learning rates in energy system models."
• Also says increased funds should be allocated to R&D, though this conclusion can't be based in the results of her econometric results, since R&D funding (when time trend variable included) apparently had very small impact on price reductions. However, author was not explicit about the measurement of the independent or dependent variables in these estimations.
  

Klaassen et al 2005 Impact of R&D on wind innovation

Klaassen, G., A. Miketa, K. Larsen, T. Sundqvist (2005). "The impact of R&D on innovation for wind energy in Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom," Ecological Economics 54, 227-240.

• 227-8 Policy intervention to help RE justified on basis of "technological learning" - phenomenon of cost decreasing as cumulative installation increases.
• Extend this argument to learning effects of R&D.
• 228 Uses two-factor learning curve (2FLC) model to look at effe3cts of cumulative capacity AND knowledge stock (from past R&D expenditures.
• 229 Review of Denmark policy: Test station that tested every wind turbine for market release, and timing of shift of funds from R&D to market introduction through FITs important.
• 229-30 Germany: Says early R&D programs generally considered failures. Small Germany windmill manufacturers benefited from Danish expertise.
• 230 UK: Seems not to recognize that the RO and the NFFO were two different systems.
• These policy reviews seem poorly researched.
• Commonly used formulation of learning curve: SPC = A*CC^-alpha where SPC is investment cost of technology per unit (1990US$ per kW); CC is cumulative capacity (MW); -alpha is learning index; A is specific cost at unit cumulative capacity.
• Implies that for each doubling of CC there is constant percentage decrease in costs, called the learning rate. Typical learning rates calculated from studies on wind turbines range from 4% to 32%.
• This formulation ignores that CC is a function of demand, which itself depends on factor prices and total output produced.
• Implies that costs are function only of installed capacity, and subsidies should be used to this end.
• KS(t) = (1-delta)KS(t-1) + RD(t-x) Knowledge stock at time t is the knowledge stock at time (t-1), adjusted for depreciation, plus R&D expendtures in time (t-x).
• New two-factor learning curve (2flc) is SPC = A*CC^-alpha*KS^-beta where -beta is learning-by-searching index.
• 233 Data: Public R&D expenditures for wind energy from IEA. Wind capacity installed from various sources. Average investment costs per kW from various sources. Investment cost data for UK only for one project (!)
• 233 "...the non-turbine part of the investment costs might amount to 10-40% of the overall investment costs."
• 234 Assumptions about depreciation of knowledge stock (3%) and lag with which R&D expenditures contributed to knowledge stock (2 years).
• Uses the data and specifications above to econometrically estimate alpha, beta, and A (for each country). Finds that beta (the knowledge stock exponent) is almost 2.5 times as big as alpha (the CC component), indicating that R&D more important for cost reductions than installed capacity.
• 236 Find that results robust wrt alternative depreciation rates and time lags.
• PROBLEMS: Does not take into account private R&D. (notes on p237 that private expenditures on wind energy in 1974-1999 might have been 75% more than public). Spillover effects! Most of UK's turbines, for example, come from Denmark.

Projections for Wind Capacity

Renewable Energy Access news post: "Global Wind Power Base to More Than Triple by 2015," 26 Nov 2007.
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=50650

Cambridge, Massachusetts [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]

According to recently-released global wind energy country forecasts from Emerging Energy Research (EER), global wind power capacity is predicted to more than triple by 2015, with cumulative installed base expected to rise from approximately 91 gigawatts (GW) by the end of 2007 to over 290 GW by the end of 2015.

"The global wind power market continues to diversify geographically from Europe to North America and Asia Pacific, with short-term supply bottlenecks giving way to longer term sustained growth," according to Senior Analyst Joshua Magee.

Significant new supply chain capacity is coming online, while Texas and California are preparing for additional massive wind build-out as transmission expansion projects move through permitting. Canada is also set for an RFP-driven boom in the coming years mainly in Ontario and Quebec, according to EER. And China is also expected to surpass its goal of 5 GW before 2009.

Europe will remain the world's largest regional market in terms of annual growth, according to EER, transitioning from established markets such as Spain and Germany to new, growing regions, the UK, France, Portugal, and Italy. Significant wind expansion is expected to occur in Eastern European markets as well, with larger markets in Poland and Turkey poised to average over 500 Megawatts of production capacity installed annually.

With demand for wind power growing around the world, most major wind turbine suppliers are increasing production capacity. New fabrication and assembly facilities are currently planned in North America, Europe, Asia Pacific and South America.

"Long-term global energy demand drivers continue to favor wind build-out," according to Magee. "Steady global electricity demand increases show no sign of easing, and global emissions reduction initiatives are likely to become more prevalent beyond the current 2012 Kyoto period and will diversify into the US and Asia. Fossil fuel price volatility is likely to continue to stimulate long-term demand, with wind serving as a quickly deployable hedge against natural gas and petroleum power generation."

Watt, Megawatt, Gigawatt

Wikipedia entry for watt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt#Megawatt

The watt is the SI unit for power, equal to one joule of energy per second. It is already a rate.

A kilowatt (kW) is 1,000 watts.
A megawatt (MW) is 1,000,000 watts.
A gigawatt (GW) is 1,000,000,000 watts.
A terawatt (TW) is 1,000,000,000,000 watts.

The entry says that a typical modern nuclear plant produces a peak output on the order of 500 to 2000 MW.

--According to the IEA publication Renewable Energy Information 2007, the U.S. in 2005 produced 4268.4 TWh of electricity and 392.81 TWh of renewable electricity.
--In 2005, there was 8,706 MW of wind generating capacity, 388 MW of solar thermal generating capacity, 21,347 MW of geothermal generating capacity, and about 121,000 MW of hydro generating capacity.

Goggle RE initiative

Renewable Energy Access post on Google's RE initiative:
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story;jsessionid=8AA3AAA0D74352B373860E4200B5842B?id=50683

November 28, 2007

Google Mounts Renewable Energy Initiative

Mountain View, California [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]

Google has announced a new initiative to develop one gigawatt [THAT'S A LOT!] of electricity from renewable energy sources. The newly created initiative will focus primarily on advanced solar thermal power, wind power technologies, enhanced geothermal systems and other potential breakthrough technologies.

The initiative will be known as REGoogle will make investments in and provide grants to a variety of organizations in the renewable energy field, including companies, R&D laboratories and universities. eSolar Inc [SOLAR THERMAL POWER] and Makani Power Inc. [HIGH ALTITUDE WIND ENERGY] have already been named as two of Google's partners in the initiative.

"We have gained expertise in designing and building large-scale, energy-intensive facilities by building efficient data centers," said Larry Page, Google Co-founder and President of Products. "We want to apply the same creativity and innovation to the challenge of generating renewable electricity at globally significant scale, and produce it cheaper than from coal."

************
Google website: http://www.google.com/corporate/green/energy/index.html
RE

• Hiring engineers and energy experts to do R&D
• Expects to spend "tens of millions" in 2008 on R&D and related investments + "hundreds of millions" in breakthrough RE technologies
• Says 1 GW can power San Francisco
• Company intends to be carbon neutral in 2007 - has 1.6MW corporate solar panel installation

*******
1-pager on eSolar, one of the two companies Google is working with
http://www.google.com/corporate/green/energy/esolar.pdf

• Solar thermal technology
• Developed modular power plant architecture to take advantage of mass manufactured components, in order to make capital cost of the solar field less than capital costs + fuel costs of traditional system
• Modular, scalable plant with generating capacities of 25MW to 500MW
• Minimizes installation time and cost
• Replications of components within modules and repetition of modules within plant provide energy security

**********
1-pager on Makhani Power, Inc., the other company Google is working with
http://www.google.com/corporate/green/energy/makani.pdf

• High altitude wind energy - avg wind energy 10 times greater than well-sited terrestrial turbine
• Dependable energy source
• Graph showing increase in power with increase in altitude (increasing returns to height 0-6km then decreasing 6-10km)

********************
NYT article: "Google’s Next Frontier: Renewable Energy," by Brad Stone, 28 Nov 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/technology/28google.html?hp

• "Mr. [Jordan] Rohan of RBC Capital Markets said that the returns were not obvious. “The only positive byproduct of this project that would be anything other than environmental,” he said, “is that it might make Google managers and executives even prouder of the fact that they work there, and it may help retain key employees who think their goal is to do good in the world. But I’m really stretching.”"
• Gist of article is that analysts think Google venturing too far afield from their business.
• But reminder that "In their Letter From the Founders before the company’s 2004 initial public stock offering, Mr. Page and Mr. Brin wrote: “Our goal is to develop services that significantly improve the lives of as many people as possible. In pursuing this goal, we may do things that we believe have a positive impact on the world, even if the near-term financial returns are not obvious.”"

****************

San Francisco Chronicle article, "Google to spend hundreds of millions on developing renewable energy," by Verne Kopytoff, 28 Nov 2007. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/28/MN8UTJR7P.DTL

• "Google also hopes to license any technology spawned from the effort to other companies so that they, too, can reduce their reliance on more polluting forms of energy while saving money. Co-founder Sergey Brin raised the possibility that the fees will be a new source of revenue for his company, but insisted that the goal isn't to rake in big profit."
• Other companies investing in clean energy include Walmart, Cisco Systems, Hewlett Packard
• Google's financial contribution relatively minor when measured against total investment in RE
• "Ron Pernick, co-founder of Clean Edge, an energy research company, said U.S. venture capital investment alone in clean energy was $2.4 billion, according to a joint study by Clean Edge and Nth Power, a venture capital firm."
• Not clear whether investment will fund anything new - Google announced few specifics
• Goal of making RE cost competitive with coal IS new commitment
• Coal costs 2-4 cents per kWh, depending on location. Google execs say RE will have to drop 1-3 cents per kWh to make it cost competitive.
• "If a large fraction goes to investing into companies that are being created anyway, then it's a big drop in a bucket," [James Sweeney, a Stanford professor and director of the university's Precourt Institute for Energy Efficiency] said. "But if it's funding basic research, which isn't getting enough funding, then it's probably a significant force in moving this forward."

28 November 2007, Morning

Today:
1. Check REA.com for any updates.
2. Look for information on cost of wind that divides expense between equipment and non-equipment costs (a la the CA PV report).
3. Check the article on non-fixed coefficient I-O analysis.

RAND Study on Cost effects of increasing RE use

Bernstein, M.A., J. Griffin, R. Lempert (2006). Impacts on U.S. Energy Expenditures of Increasing Renewable Energy Use. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.
In Z:// drive under RAND 2006 RE use and RE expend

• This report was pulled off of RAND's website. Why?
• Assesses impact of 25% of electric and motor vehicle energy by renewables by 2025 on total national energy expenditures and air pollution. Conducted for Energy Future Coalition, 25X25' alliance.
• Based on 1,500 simulation runs, covering variety of cost scenarios. RE shown to lower total energy expenditures in almost all cases where current energy price and technology trends continue.
• Even with bad assumptions, percent price increase is small: "Indeed, the most extreme of the 1,500 scenarios produced no more than a 6-percent change in energy expenditures, or about $75 billion in 2025. This includes the most favorable scenario for nonrenewable energy simulated—in which the costs of renewable energy technology rise 30 percent during the next 20 years, while natural gas, oil, and coal prices fell 50 percent from current projections." p. xii (12) "Similarly, in the best-case scenarios for renewable energy, our renewables case could reduce energy expenditures by about 3 percent, or $40 billion." Relatively narrow range.
• EIA uses National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) to make energy market forecasts. This study uses simplified version that requires less processing time.
• Assume most favorable renewable sites are used first; therefore costs increase after a point in some of the projections.
• p6 (24): Table of Technologies and Issues (sort of a pros and cons list for each)
• p7: "...the global market for wind, solar, and biofuels is about $40 billion, according to Clean Edge, a Bay Area marketing firm (Makower, Pernick, and Wilder, 2006)."
• Assumes significantly higher costs as wind penetration increases, since cost of transmission from site of good wind resource to site of use is assumed to increase. In fact, wind section is mostly discussion of problems: intermittancy, aesthetic problems, bird killing, noise.
• Assessment of solar PV more favorable: intermittant, but more predictable. Installed close to source, though many small modules will require changes in planning and management of grid.
• Section on ethanol also favorable. Says recent review by Farrell et al. (2006) in Science shows that corn ethanol production produces more energy than it consumes. Unlike past studies, "the Farrell et al. analysis accounted for the economic value of by-products from corn ethanol production, notably dried distiller grains (used for animal feed), gluten feed, and corn oil" p.10, but unsure whether these markets will remain robust if ethanol production amped up. Seems that these byproduct markets necessary for ethanol to yield positive net energy benefits. Also, soil erosion and nutrient runoff are significant environmental costs.
• Notes that corn-based ethanol production can only expand so far before impinging on food supply. Hopeful about cellulosic ethanol, though "Cellulosic ethanol is currently produced only on a precommercial demonstration
• scale in one plant in Ottawa, Canada." p.11
• Renewables help curb price volatility in energy markets: "Some recent studies (e.g., Berry, 2005; Bolinger and Wiser, 2005a; Owens, 2003; Awerbuch, 2003) have attempted to assess the value that renewables can provide to reduce volatility." p.12
• "the EIA (EIA, 2003b) has used NEMS to estimate the effects of an RPS of 10 percent in 2020, concluding that it would have a negligible impact on energy expenditures within the United States (slight increases in the price of electricity would be offset by reductions in the price of natural gas)." p17
• Cost assumptions begin on p.46 in the appendix

PV Cost Trends in California

Wiser, R., M. Bolinger, P. Cappers and R. Margolis (2006). “Letting the Sun Shine on Solar Costs: An Empirical Investigation of Photovoltaic Cost Trends in California.” Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, LBNL-59282, January 2006.
Saved in Z:// drive under NREL 2006 PV Cost Trends in CA.pdf

• Uses data on PV panel installations under two California subsidy programs: CEC (CA Energy Commission), which has provided rebates for small (<30kw)>30kW systems. Size and structure of programs have varied over time. 17,889 data records, 5,033 of which are just approved and the rest installed.
• "In particular, the CEC initiated five gradual reductions beginning in 2003, while the CPUC imposed a single large reduction in late 2004 and a more recent reduction in mid-December 2005. On January 12, 2006, the CPUC ordered a dramatic expansion of these programs with a $3.2 billion, 11-year program of declining incentives." p. i
• Uses Wac (alternating current) rather than Wdc-stc (DC Watts and standard test conditions)
• Finds that costs have declined substantially over time, but less so under CPUC's program. Module costs have declined somewhat (from what looks like about $4.75 in 2004$ in 1998 to about $3.50 in 2005), but biggest cost reductions from installation and balance of systems costs.
• Economies of scale: average costs lower for larger systems, with systems above 300 kWac between $7.75 and $7.90 per watt (2004$).
• Finds that thin film modules reduce costs for CEC projects (by avg of $0.70 per W), but raised them slighty for CPUC projects.
• Says reducing non-module costs should be primary goal of local PV programs. To this end, author recommends business development funding for installers, supporting standardized PV products, installer training and certification.
• Also recommends longer-term programs to facilitate cost reductions.
• 50% cap on rebate induced cost inflation in some cases - says cap should be removed.
• "A sizable literature has developed that explores historical PV cost trends. Much of this literature has used learning or experience curve theory to explore how increases in cumulative PV production have driven costs down over time. Findings from this literature vary, but most studies show that each doubling of cumulative production has historically led to a reduction in module prices of approximately 20% (see, e.g., Kobos et al. in press; McDonald and Schrattenholzer 2001; Neij 1997; IEA 2000; Schaeffer et al. 2004). Others have extrapolated these findings to argue that government deployment support for PV may be warranted to drive the industry down its learning curve and ultimately achieve costs that are comparable to or better than the cost of conventional electricity sources (see, e.g., van der Zwaan and Rabl 2004; Duke and Kammen 1999; Duke 2002).3" p.2
• CEC program funded by ratepayers of CA's invester-owned electric utilities. CPUC program same, but funded by electric and gas ratepayers.
  
• Silicon shortage driving prices of modules up. What's the prognosis on this?
• Regression results for CEC sample on p. 21 (35). Coefficient on "module cost index" is very close to 1 in three different versions, supporting claim that module cost increases and reductions consistently passed along 1-1.
  

Items of Interest, found while searching for RE Cost Trends

NREL's REPiS Database: Provides info on RE plants (biomass, geotherm, hydro, PV, solar thermal, wind) and installed capacity.
http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/repis/

NREL's Renewable Energy Technology characterizations: From 1997, describes state of technology and makes predictions for 2000, 2005, and out to 2030. Would be interesting to study how actual developments correspond to predictions.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/tech_characterizations.html

NREL: Power Technologies Energy Data Book: March 2006. Chapters on technology profiles, state incentives that came with restructuring, forecasts of RE capacity, GIS maps of RE resources and installed capacity.
http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/

RAND Corp study "Impacts on U.S. Energy Expenditures of Increasing Renewable Energy Use," saying that 25% of America's energy could be supplied by renewable sources by 2025, using plausible assumptions about cost trends for fossil and RE, was withdrawn from website.
http://www.25x25.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=157&Itemid=56
Report still available here: http://www.energyfuturecoalition.org/pubs/RAND.pdf

U.S. EIA Report on Solar Thermal and PV Manufacturing Activities, 2006
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/solarreport/solar.html

26 Nov 2007, Morning

Possibilities for next study:
1. U.S. State analysis
2. Analysis of cost trends in various RE technologies
3. Investigate non-fixed coefficient I-O models
4. Cost of renewable policies discussed in report
5. Interaction between RE policies and CO2 policies

19 Nov 2007, Afternoon

Today:

• Checked out current energy bill status
• Checked REA.com
• Sifted through recent issues of Energy Economics, Energy Policy, and Ecological Economics to get handle on what is going on in field. First two publish a ton of papers, using mostly mainstream methods, most of which are quite technical. Ecological Economics is, as expected, less neoclassical. Lots of case studies and articles about well-being. Not sure I have a much better handle on anything than when I started looking.

Next time:

• Begin a U.S. state analysis. Look through DSIRE and figure out which states are doing what. Find articles, perhaps, on how effective different policies have been. Find resource maps of which types of RE would be most effective where.

Journal Article Review

Searched for "energy" in journal titles through UMASS online journals

Annual Review of Environment and Resources
1. "ENERGY EFFICIENCY POLICIES: A Retrospective Examination." Annual Review of Environment & Resources; 2006, Vol. 31 Issue 1, p161-192, 32p.
Synopsis of programs related to appliance standards, financial incentive programs, information and voluntary programs, management of government energy use.

Energy
Spring 2007 issue alone had articles on lots of different energy-related things, including grid computerization, green buildings, biofuels, EU carbon trading.

Energy and Environmental Management
UK-themed journal published between 2000-2004

Energy Economics

• January 2008 issue has a lot of articles using Data Envelopment Analysis methodology (don't understand what it is). An article titled " Energy use efficiency in U.S. manufacturing: A nonparametric analysis" uses DEA to measure energy efficiency. Talks about energy intensity as traditional measure of energy efficiency and discusses different methods.
• November 2007 has several articles on relationship between GDP and energy/electricity, within and across countries. "Energy consumption and GDP revisited: A panel analysis of developed and developing countries" talks about how previous studies often contradictory. Says change in country's energy policy can bring about structural change in relationship between energy and GDP. Right! Not sure about their results - don't seem much more convincing than previous studies.
• July 2007. Issue on modeling industrial energy consumption. Article on decoupling CO2 emissions from industrial growth in EU, using decomposition analysis. "The above shortly presented findings can be summarized in one sentence stating that the countries that showed the best environmental performance in the EU in 1990 continue to move faster in successfully implementing emission abatement measures and thus the gap between forerunners and followers has become larger in 2003." Another on the macroecon effects of efficiency policies for energy intensive industries in UK: "The results show that incentivized energy-efficiency improvements for energy-intensive industries yield positive macroeconomic effects in economic terms, with small increases in GDP (0.12% above base by 2010) and employment (0.03%), and negligible changes in general inflation. The system-wide final energy reductions is estimated to be 4.2 mtoe, or 2.6% of total final demand for energy by 2010, with a rebound effect of 19%, and a reduction of 3.3% in CO₂ emissions, a significant amount in view of the UK's Kyoto commitment of 12.5% in greenhouse gases below 1990 levels. "
• May 2007 has article titled " On the importance of equity in international climate policy: An empirical analysis." Survey data shows that equity more important to developing countries, while richer countries less in favor of polluter-pays rule. Richer countries in favor of incorporating egalitarian rules in long run. Another article: " A combined input–output and sensitivity analysis approach to analyse sector linkages and CO₂ emissions."
• January 2007 has article on "Increased energy efficiency and the rebound effect: Effects on consumption and emissions." "Briefly, the rebound effect can be described as the direct and indirect effects, such as substitution and income effects, induced by a new energy-saving technology. This rebound effect may then partly, or entirely, offset the initial or direct energy saving resulting from a new technology."... "The RE is usually discussed in connection with “new energy-saving technology”. A new energy-saving technology essentially implies a lower energy bill, which can be viewed as a reduction of the real price of energy services. Thus, if petrol costs less per transport unit, car use may increase, which partially offsets the initial energy-saving potential. Furthermore, lower energy costs increase real income, which leads to an increase in consumption of other goods. This in turn offsets the emission reductions from the initial energy saving. A third effect may be denoted general equilibrium effects, since changes in aggregate consumption patterns may lead to structural change and changes in relative prices. Taken together, these effects can be denoted the rebound effect."

Energy Policy

• Dec 2007 issue: "International passenger transport and climate change: A sector analysis in car demand and associated CO₂ emissions from 2000 to 2050." "A sector wide approach to emissions mitigation may—in certain cases—be more successful than national approaches, as competitiveness risks and carbon leakage can be overcome."... Figure 3 shows income elasticities of car consumption over time for different regions. Car consumption most inelastic in US - fell below 1 by 1970. Another article, "Energy productivity improvements and the rebound effect: An overview of the state of knowledge," surveys evidence of macroeconomic rebound effect and says effect shouldn't be underestimated. Concludes..."Therefore, energy efficiency policies ought to be considered as short-term policy instruments that cannot, in any case, substitute for long-term policies that promote carbon-free or carbon-neutral energy sources." First article in issue: "Bioenergy expansion in the EU: Cost-effective climate change mitigation, employment creation and reduced dependency on imported fuels." From abstract: "Maximizing climate benefits cost-effectively is in conflict with maximizing employment creation. The former perspective proposes the use of lignocellulosic biomass in the stationary sector, while the latter requires biofuels for transport based on traditional agricultural crops." From conclusion: "Estimates of the employment creation potential for various bioenergy options differ substantially. However, liquid biofuels based on traditional agricultural crops seem to be the most employment-intensive option, especially when the biofuel conversion plants are small. The production of biomass for energy has the potential to contribute to employment creation at a magnitude that is significant in relation to total employment in agriculture, but small compared to the total employment in industry in a country."
• Nov 2007 issue: "Is the choice of renewable portfolio standards random?" What are explanatory variables for adopting an RPS (in US)? Education, political party dominancy, GSP, GRP. Article: " Investment risks under uncertain climate change policy."
• Oct 2007 issue: Article on GIS assessment of RE potential in Spain. Another article, "The economics of climate change and the change of climate in economics," talks about getting away from mainstream economic analysis and using more evolutionary model. Cites this article: Toman, 2006 M. Toman, Values in the economics of climate change, Environmental Values 15 (3) (2006), pp. 365–379.
  

Ecological Economics

• Oct 2007: "Using Monte Carlo analysis to investigate the relationship between overconsumption and uncertain access to one's personal utility function." "In this paper, I seek to incorporate recent findings in hedonic psychology in order to ask the question of whether specific biases may lead to overconsumption not only from an ecological perspective, but from that of the individual as well."..."That said, under the circumstances described in this paper, workers will engage in overconsumption with respect to well-being. By this I mean that they will overengage in income-producing work and underengage in other activities, leading to a depression of well-being relative to the optimum. This is an important result because it indicates that a certain amount of pernicious consumption can be reduced through optimal policies or education, leading not only to significantly reduced ecological harm, but social benefits accruing from increased resources available for social interactions (and positive externalities from increased participation), at the same time as happiness is increased relative to the market equilibrium."
• Sept 2007: Theme is valuation and C/B analysis. Editorial on Stern report critiquing its use, despite noting all problems, of a global cost benefit analysis. Another paper: " Technological change in energy systems: Learning curves, logistic curves and input–output coefficients." Questions appropriateness of learning curve, where cost declines are power function of cumulative production. "So far there are few critiques of the learning curve in energy modelling, probably because the relationship described by learning curves is derived from empirical observations. However, Cory et al. (1999) and Ibenholt (2002) in studies of wind power technology argue that the learning effect is not the only factor determining costs; other factors such as R&D investment, process innovation, input prices, economies of scale, and others can affect costs as well."... "the learning curve implicitly assumes that technology can change instantly with installed capacity, which is implausible." Possible application to non-fixed coefficient I-O tables: "We show that the top-down Leontief representation of technology can be connected with bottom-up technology, whether described as learning curves or logistic curves, by using the curve to adjust input–output coefficients."
• May 2007: " Why we need a commitment approach to environmental policy"..."The second purpose is to explain why the neoclassical model is deficient as a basis for environmental policy and to explicate the nature of a more appropriate model."
• March 2007: " Quality of life: An approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective well-being" coauthored by half the professors at UVM

UMASS Center for EE&RE

Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at UMASS
http://www.ceere.org/index.html
Team of engineers working on renewable energy and energy efficiency. Government money and public-private partnerships. Publications on website seem to end in 2004.

Fact sheet on wind turbine economics - estimating the simple payback time using assumptions about capacity factor, subsidies for wind energy, electricity prices, costs:
http://www.ceere.org/rerl/publications/published/communityWindFactSheets/RERL_Fact_Sheet_2b_Wind_Economics_Intro.pdf

Jim Boyce mentioned that James Manwell - director of the Renewable Energy team at CEERE - was local expert on FIT.

19 Nov 2007, Morning

Review of Renewable Energy Access to find out state of Energy Bill. Plan to get something through conference committees before Thanksgiving has apparently been scrapped, and there seems to be new hope for both RPS and CAFE standards in the bill. A letter to Pelosi signed by 20 congress members supports these more stringent renewable/efficiency measures.

Mendonca editorial on renewable energy in EU
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/businessre/story;jsessionid=3C621C341A24E091CE4D892DA0104F8C?id=50605
Says UK New Labour gov't is at risk of sabotaging feed-in tariffs around the EU. Won't be able to meet it's EU RE target by 2020, so pushing to have targets reduced and certificate trading system that will allow it to purchase certs rather than produce energy. Cites an EU legal expert on how bad cert trading system would be for Germany. Conventional energy industry very opposed to FITs - like cert trading - allows only themselves to produce RE, not lots of independent producers.

Report from GAO office shows how R&D funds and tax support have been distributed among different types of electricity producers since 2002. Still much more support to fossils than RE.

Interview about the downsides of biofuels production with author of OECD's "Biofuels: Is the cure worse than the disease?"
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/reinsider/story;jsessionid=3C621C341A24E091CE4D892DA0104F8C?id=50616

• Biofuels consumed as low-percentage blends won't substantially lower GHG emissions (maybe 15%)
• Still very expensive - subsidized up to 50% (compared to 3-10% for oil)
• May not pave way for second generation biofuels - this is argument of first gen producers
• What about all the infrastructure that's being built in response to subsidies? Author says gov't shouldn't throw good money after bad. Let subsidies expire.
• Says policies probably won't change unless big crop failure or drop in oil prices.

14 Nov 2007, Afternoon

Today:

• Kind of disjointed
• Did some research on energy bill, apparently in conference committee and should be up for a vote soon
• Also read UNEP report on RE and Investment

Next time:

• NEed to think about where to go next. US and policy? Something more about jobs? Cost of technologies?

Sustainable Energy Investment 2007

UNEP (2007). Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment 2007. UNEP Sustainable Energy Finance Initiative and New Energy Finance Limited.

• Reviews high and growing levels of private investment in RE&EE, with wind, solar, and biomass biggest targets.
• Emphasizes that investment is driven by policy.
• Volume of investment flowing into clean energy sector dwarfs the dotcom boom. Has also lasted longer.
• Asset financing largest source of sustainable energy investment - 40% of 2006 total of $70.9 billion. Wind is area with most asset financing. Biofuels dominated venture capital/private equity investment in 2006, followed by solar.
• US has more VC/PE than any other region. EU27 has more assets financing.
• RE accounts for 18% of power generation investment but only 2% of installed capacity.
• Notes China's "bias" toward domestic manufacturers - says it is a source of uneven RE development
• Marine technology not attracting much investment yet
• 26 "Experience form other industries, such as telecoms, software and biotech, has shown that the rate of innovation and speed of commercialisation are dramatically accelerated by the presence of a healthy population of earlier-stage companies."
• Talks about U.S. and Israel as countries with strong incubator traditions
• 29 "The 'Kyoto Effect' can be observed, with quoted renewable energy companies in countries that have ratified the Protocol outperforming those in non-ratifying countries by 41.3%"
• Competition for wind asset financing driving innovation in financial markets
• Mergers and Acquisitions: Vertical integration - large wind companies buying suppliers. India and Australia net buyers of RE companies in 2006; EU-27, US, China and Latin America net sellers
• UK is clear leader in carbon fund management; US second
• Efficiency: EU aims to cut energy use by 20% by 2020 (not sure what baseline is). China wants to cut energy consumption by 20% w/in five years. Energy intensity four times US's in 2004.
• Multilateral dev't banks important source of funding for energy efficiency; also, public sector backed venture capital funds
• Small sections on China, INdia, Brazil, Africa

Concentrated Solar Power

All About: CSP
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/11/12/eco.about.csp/

• Combined solar power collects heat from the sun and heats liquids to high temps. Steam is used to drive turbines to create electricity.
• Needs direct sunlight, but in deserts, creates electricity much more cheaply than PV."
• Over in Europe, however, a group of scientists, politicians and renewable energy experts who call themselves The Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (TREC) have made claims on a much bigger scale and with far bigger ramifications. TREC is backing an ambitious project straddling Europe, the Middle East and North Africa (EU-MENA), which is based on the calculation that an area less than 0.3% of the Sahara Desert filled with CSP plants could power the entire region -- and could slash the EU's electricity-generated greenhouse gas emissions by 70% in the process."
• Waste heat can be used to desalinate sea water.

U.S. RPS Coalition

Coalition of US environmental groups for a 20% national RPS, led by UCS:
Blue Green Alliance, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Greenpeace, League of Conservation Voters, National Audubon Society, National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, Public Citizen of TX, Sierra Club, Sierra Club Cool Cities, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, United Steelworkers of America, US PIRG, and the Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC).

from http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/res_campaign.html#supporters

ASES Green Collar Jobs Report

http://www.ases.org/ASES-JobsReport-Final.pdf

• 3 Developed a definition of what the RE&EE industry is: direct and indirect jobs contained in these sectors. (Is this an improvement?) Says vast majority of jobs are "standard jobs for accountants, engineers, computer analysts, clerks, factory workers, truck drivers, mechanics, etc"
• 4 EE hard to define - theirs is eclectic: e.g., includes vehicles that get 10 mpg higher than CAFE stds
• 5 Around 8 million indirect and direct jobs created by EE; 452,000 by RE
• Case study of Ohio

Energy Bill Notes

Sklar, S. (2007). "Lessons from the political process: Energy Bill Woes." Renewable Energy Access website: (accessed 14 Nov 2007).

• Pelosi says house intends to pass energy bill by end of week of 11/17/07
• CAFE increase passed by senate in June: 35 mpg average for domestic fleet by 2022 (meaning all cars made in USA or all cars driven here?)
• RPS failed in a Senate vote but is included in the House bill. Low (non-existent) budgetary impact of RPS is hailed. Compared to wind PTCs, which could cost $1 billion/year.
• Union of Concerned Scientists leads coalition of national environmental groups in pushing for national RPS. Electric utilities trade group, EEI, lobbying against.
• Solar and fuel cell industries pushing for longer expansion of ITC (what can ITC be used for?). Only 2 years in EPACT05 - industries say it isn't long enough for large generation plants.
• Technologies disregarded in EPACT05 that may be again: small wind, ground coupled heat pumps, solar daylighting, combined heat and power, and water energy (such as freeflow hydropower, tidal, wave and ocean currents and thermal)
• Talks about legality of the "offsets" - which appear to be taxes or royalties collected on oil and gas leases, but not described in detail here.
• When the PTC was first renewed in Dec 1999, poultry-waste facilities were included with wind and closed-loop biomass as facilities eligible for the tax credit. Power generated through offgasing of poultry waste?

Lacey, S. (2007). "U.S. Energy Bill - Early Christmas Present or Lump of Coal." Renewable Energy Access website:
(accessed 14 Nov 2007).

• According to this author, the RPS and all tax provisions were removed from the bill so it could be passed before Thanksgiving
• "The renewable portfolio standard, which would set a target of getting 20-25% of the nation's electricity from renewable resources by 2025, will no longer be in the bill."
• Mentions this REE&E jobs report from ASES, which Heidi said is similar to the Apollo jobs report in presenting a lot of big numbers and not explaining where they came from.

UCS (2007). "Clean Energy Update - 09/2007." Union of Concerned Scientists website: (accessed 14 Nov 2007).

• House apparently passed an RPS with a 220-190 vote - not yet law.
• "If passed into law, the Udall-Platts-Gonzalez renewable electricity standard would require large, investor-owned utilities to acquire 15 percent of their power from clean, renewable sources like solar, wind or biomass by 2020."
• Lowered 20 percent to 15 percent, allowed states to meet 1/4 through EE
• UCS and PIRG publicized environmental and jobs benefits. Says a 15% std would save consumers a total of more than $16 billion by the year 2020.
• Issue seems to be getting the Senate and House bills to agree. Senate bill does not include RPS (it was blocked) and House bill does not include CAFE stds.

Clayton, M. (2007). "In Big U.S. Energy Bill, Who Will Pay?" Christian Science Monitor, 7 Nov 2007. CSM website: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1107/p01s01-wogi.html?s=yaho (accessed 14 Nov 2007).

• Want to give bill to Bush to sign before xmas - need to reconcile House and Senate versions and avoid veto
• RPS and CAFE stds controversial parts. Stds requiring more ethanol in gasoline, tougher efficiency standards for lighting and appliances, and the PTC have "broad legislative support."
• To be paid for by repealing tax incentives to oil and gas industries, to tune of $16 bill (House version) or $32 bill (Senate).
• Half the states already have RPSs, some stricter, but states that don't complain that regional differences aren't being taken into account (Southern Company, ATlanta-based utility company)
• The 35 mpg CAFE std by 2020 is a 40 percent increase
• Letter from Allan Hubbard, director of the president's National Economic Council, said senior advisers would recommend presidential veto for any RPS and if separate CAFE stds for cars and light trucks were not included
• Says 35 mpg CAFE std would cut US oil use by 2.5 million barrels per day and save 495 MMT of CO2 emissions. 15% RPS would save 36 MMT of CO2. But this is assuming overall demand doesn't rise! Not much historical evidence for supposing it won't.

Kho, J. (2007). "Renewable Tax Credit and Portfolio Standard Could Get Cut From Energy Bill," Greentech Media website: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/renewable-tax-credit-and-portfolio-standard-could-get-cut-from-energy-bill-283.html (accessed 14 Nov 2007). 11 Nov 2007.

• Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi discussing taking PTC and RPS out of energy bill.
• "Stricter fuel economy standards for vehicles also might be endangered as Reps. Barron Hill, D-Ind., and Lee Terry, R-Neb., sent a letter Friday saying they wouldn't support such standards"
• RE stocks dropped: Evergreen Solar (NSDQ: ESLR) shares dropped 11.84 percent to $14.08 per share Friday, SunPower Corp. (NSDQ: SPWR) shares fell 9.4 percent to $128.66 per share and Suntech Power fell 5.6 percent to $61.55 per share. The WilderHill Clean Energy Index, which tracks U.S. clean-energy stocks, dropped 5.19 percent Friday to 252.09.
• Quotes from representatives of the solar industry say that industry will not die in U.S., but because of state standards and business from overseas.

Snow, N. (2007). "Energy bills would cost $1 trillion, 5 billion jobs, study says." Oil and Gas Journal, 14 Nov 2007. Available online at http://www.ogj.com/display_article/312060/7/ONART/none/GenIn/1/Energy-bills-would-cost-$1-trillion,-5-billion-jobs,-study-says/ (accessed 14 Nov 2007).

• American Petroleum Industry-commissioned study finds proposed energy bills could cost 5 billion jobs and drain $1 trillion from US economy. [Almost as many jobs as there are people in the world!] Study performed by CRA International. Update: Checked the api.org website, and the correct number is there: 5 million.
  
• Study examined "potential economic impacts of requiring a 10 million b/d reduction from projected 2030 US oil consumption, the use of 36 billion gal/year of renewable transportation fuels by 2022, and more than $15 billion in increased oil and gas industry taxes over 10 years."
• CRA's study used the US Energy Information Administration's 2007 Annual Energy Outlook as a starting point and did not assume higher oil prices.
• Authors point out shortcomings of using ethanol as substitute: uses fossil fuel to produce, 70% efficiency of gasoline, effects on food supply

14 November 2007, Morning

Haven't blogged much in the past couple weeks - busy writing the comparative report draft, which is now with Bob in Kenya. Today, I'll get my desk in order and start researching again. Not sure quite where to go from here. The comparative study was interesting, but I'm not sure how much relevance the experience from other countries has for the U.S., except for broad principles (e.g., those captured in Mallon's introductory chapters on features of successful RE policies.) It's also clear that overall energy use will have to be reduced, since if RE just keeps up with growing demand, we'll no better off environment-wise.

I think I'll begin by looking into the energy bill - supposed to be passed this week? According to this piece in Renewable Energy Access, CAFE standards, an RPS, and the PTC are all on the cutting block. A'researchin' I will go...

5 November 2007

Today:
Good day! Continued working on comparative study.

Next up:

• Write U.S. policy history (skim EIA and Swisher first) - 1.5 hrs
• Finish policy analysis sections for all countries - 3.5 hrs
• Write conclusion segment, containing trends, lessons, what's missing - 2 hrs
• Put together and print - 1 hr

31 October 2007

Today (good, productive!):
Finished draft of Germany report and began Spain report


Next time:
Complete energy efficiency comparison charts in Excel
Continue working on Spain draft
Move on to Japan

PV Manufacturer Websites

http://www2.dupont.com/Photovoltaics/en_US/assets/downloads/pdf/SEIA_StateofSolarIndustry2006.pdf

http://www.solarbuzz.com/Marketbuzz2007-intro.htm

http://www.enf.cn/database/panels.html

26 October 2007

Today:

• Spent most of day filling in Comparative Study Data spreadsheet with policies for Denmark and Germany. Struggled a bit with how much detail to include - probably included too much.
• Met with Bob. Agreed to create a report for Thursday, November 8.
  

Schedule for production of the comparative study:

• Monday: Denmark (4) and Japan (4)
• Wednesday: Germany (4) and Spain (4)
• Friday: UK (4) and US (4)
• Monday: Finish up country things (4); Synthesize (4)
• Wednesday: Synthesize (4)

24 October 2007

Today:
Made outline - will divide by subject and have paragraph(s) for each country under each subject heading
Worked on filling in excel spreadsheet with data on countries' energy use and policies
Found a few more documents that might be useful from the European RE Council and a paper on RE policy in Germany

Next time:
Fill in more of the policy table in the spreadsheet
Interested in costs and benefits - who gets each. Possible to find more information on this?

Shum (2007) PV in Japan and U.S.

Kwok L. Shum and Chihiro Watanabe (2007). "Photovoltaic deployment strategy in Japan and the USA--an institutional appraisal," Energy Policy 35, 1186-1195.

• Asks why Japan has been roughly 3 times as successful (as of 2003) in PV deployment as U.S.
• Combination of awareness, price supports, prospect of selling electricity back to grid
• 90% of Japanese PV applications are grid-connected, compared to 30% in U.S.
• System cost (doesn't include module, but does include balancing costs and construction costs) has dropped rapidly in Japan, initially higher than U.S. but dropped below in 1994
• Authors think this has to do with Japan's "close" model of deployment (more standard) versus U.S.'s model of deployment (application-specific)
• Recommends highly vertically integrated PV companies (the "manufacturing" model) to facilitate learning and bring down costs.

del Rio 2007 C-B assessment of FIT in Spain

Pablo del Rio and Miguel A. Gual (2007), "An integrated assessment of the feed-in tariff system in Spain," Energy Policy 35, 994-1012.

• Time period assessed is 1999-2003
• Attempts a cost-benefit analysis of FITs for various technologies during this time period. Finds that the support costs outweigh the avoided external costs in all cases. Generation costs of wind and small hydro do not outweigh the avoided external costs. Caution against doing too much with these results, though, as many assumptions must be made to come up with the total avoided external costs.
• 1006 Table 7 has amount of electricity generated by solar, wind, sm. hydro, biomass; price of generation and average electricity prcie
• Additional burden for consumer in 2003 was 0.26 eurocents per kWh (final electricity price 3.02 eurocents per kWh)
• Despite negative cost-benefit finding, says the FIT has led to significant environmental benefits and doesn't represent excessive consumer cost - comparable to those in other countries.
• Low transaction costs
• 1007 Cost reductions since 1980s in Spain, Denmark, Sweden
• In 2003, 5000 direct jobs in wind sector, 12000 indirect.
• Worries about cost increases to consumers if RE become very widespread.

Lipp 2007 RES-E in DK, DE, UK

Judith Lipp (2007). "Lessons for effective renewable electricity policy from Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom," Energy Policy 35, 5481-5495.

Uses personal interviews from Spring 2006 w/ eight RE policy experts in each country
40 jurisdictions (38 countries and 5 subnational entities) have some form of FIT; RPS in 38 jurisdictions (8 national gov'ts)
Identifies US PURPA as first FIT policy. Second wave started in DK and DE in mid-1990s
Arguments for and against FITs
3 main policy objectives: FF independence, environment, economic development and job creating + least cost
Reviews history of RE policy in each country, then examines how well objectives were met.
Finds that FIT more COST EFFECTIVE!

17 October 2007

Today:
Finished reading RE sections of IEA Energy Policy documents for DK, JP, UK, SP. Very pro-market (especially the Denmark report, for some reason), but includes some potentially useful information on costs.
Read country case studies from Mallon book on Germany, Spain and U.S.
Printed Energy Policy article on RES-E from DK, DE, UK.

Next time:
Read above Energy Policy article.
Lots of interesting-looking articles in Nov 2007 edition of Energy Policy. Search the journal for other articles on focus countries.

IEA Energy Policy DK 06, UK 06, SP 05, JP 03

Denmark (2006)
Renewable energy section of this report VERY pro-market. Despite the previous meteoric rise of wind power under FITs and almost complete stagnation under new, more market-based regime, the authors commend the new approach. Box on Vestas, however, attributes rise of company to domestic demand created by financial incentive policies. New system is confusing and applies different rules to turbines depending on when they were installed, but upshot is that premium is now less than it used to be. Clearly not high enough for new turbines to support market introduction. Lots of information on cost, including a table on p. 104 comparing renewables support in DK, FR, DE, and SP. Renewable energy now supported through a Public Service Obligation (like a public benefits fund) that assesses a surcharge on electricity purchased. Study by Denmark's Economic Council in 2002 concluded that all the RE investment in the 1990s was actually a negative social cost, even after attributing relatively high costs to CO2. Discusses high costs of grid integration; reliance on other forms of electricity and power from other countries to balance intermittant RE supply. Shows high costs of CO2 reduction through RE (PV esp) compared to efficiency and CHP. Report says that government hasn't committed to RE targets, but I thought I read somewhere that they had. Offshore wind, unlike onshore, part of competitive tender syste with predetermined tariff for 12 years. Government also supports decommissioning of older, smaller turbines, and report expects lots of decommissioning in end of 2009, when this program expires, since the owners of older turbines can get higher premium until then.

Spain (2005)
Spain's renewables primarily from large hydro, but wind growing rapidly, and plans for expansion of small hydro, solar, biomass. Low heating requirements and high penetration of CHP leave little room for expansion of RE into heat. Growing demand for electricity swamping gains of RE. Report reviews status in achieving goals of Plan for Promotion of RE in Spain (2000-2010). Wind has exceeded goals, but sm hydro, solar, and bio-energy all falling behind targets. Says regulated price, calculated on basis of market price, may become too high when cost of CO2 incorporated in market price unless calculation method changed. Gov't can change premium amt in annual review, which creates uncertainty for RE operators. New method for calculating premium: can either sell to distributor for premium that is fixed % of avg electric rate or sell to market at market price + incentive for market participation + premium. Generators who opt for new system can switch to old after one year if they prefer. Mentions preferential tax treatment for RE, but no specifics. Direct support include new building regulations (including mandatory solar water heating systems), R&D. Says "public subsidies are oriented to the interest rates...[for] renewable energy projects and efficiency projects." Also, "the subsidy has led to private investment of about five times the subsidy volume." Recommends, as usual, more market determination. Fair point that FIT/premium scheme should apply for predetermined time, so projects aren't subsidized past point of amortization. Suggests green certs scheme.

UK (2006)
Low levels of RE but rapid growth. Describes Renewables Obligation (RO) system; table on p. 96 with supplier obligation levels. Since program started, the obligation has yet to meet target; consequently, ROC prices are high. UK Energy Review report of July 2006 recommended technology banding, removing risk of oversupply of ROCs (how? - perhaps by maintaining obligation levels above actual level of RE production), removing increases of buy-out price with inflation after 2015 (bad!). Capital grants for offshore wind and biomass. Capital grants, R&D money, demonstration programs for PV. Obligation for RE in transport fuel beginning April 2008, plus already-existing tax incentives. Assessment: ROC not yet generating RE intended, not keeping costs down for consumers, more expensive per unit of CO2 reduced than efficiency. Recommends looking to Australia and Sweden for good cert schemes. For siting/planning issues, recommends looking at Denmark example, where citizens own shares in turbines.

Japan (2003)
Japan not ideal for wind, since resources relatively low, space is scarce, and grids not set up for it. Leads world in PV production and is second in PV power generation; about 1.5 times cost of wind energy in Europe and US. Documents cost decline of 260yet per kWh in 1993 to 66yen per kWh in 1999. Discusses policies to promote RE very vaguely. Says RPS adopted in 2002, launched in April 2003 is most significant policy. Quite similar to UK, but non-compliance fines high (up to 1 million yen). Budget for promotion of "new energy" (excludes large-scale hydro and geothermal) doubled from 1997-2002. In 2002, 38.8 billion yen spent on technology development, 10 billion on demonstration, 96.1 billoion on promotion of introduction. In critique section, "Its [RPS] pitfall is that it maximises short-term benefits at the cost of the development of technologies and energies which may be more promoising in the longer term." Recommends enhanced R&D and demonstration funds.

15 October 2007

Today:

• Saved IEA policy reports for Denmark, Germany, Japan, Spain, U.K. and U.S. to the Z:// drive.
• Read through most of the German report - interesting, but thought it was too slow going. Printed out just the Renewable Energy chapters and read Denmark's.
• IEA (an OECD organiation) is very pro-market, so while they acknowledge the success of feed-in tariffs, they strongly suggest moving toward quota systems. Denmark report seems even more hostile. References report showing that Denmark's subsidies for renewable energy provided negative social benefit, even after generous allowances for carbon costs were taken into account.
• On RenewableEnergyAccess.com, learned that NY has just implemented $10 million grant program to lure RE manufacturers.
  
• In jobs section, focus on broad-brush portraits of the various RE industries. In cost section, focus on who pays for various financial incentive programs (tax dollars or surcharge to consumers).

Next time:

• Continue reading RE sections of country reports.
• Read country outlines of Mallon book.
• Begin writing before doing too much more preliminary research. It will help to know exactly what information is necessary.
  

IEA Germany Energy Policy Review - 2007

Saved to Z:// drive.

• Commends Germany for getting so far with RE, while suggesting that they move toward market-based mechanisms, citing high price of solar.
• Criticizes decision to phase out nuclear by 2022, saying it should be included in mix to achieve CO2 reductions.
• Commends plan to end subsidization of coal by 2018
• Recommends functional access to electricity transmission line networks for all market participants on equal basis (but isn't it already assured for RE?)
• Critcizes plan to provide carbon allowances to new coal and lignite power plants under EU GHG trading scheme
• Estimates show that between 2000 and 2012, the feed-in tariff will cost EUR 68 billion in total. 12 "In particular, the subsidies provided to solar photovoltaics are very high in relation to output; they will eat up 20% of the budget but contribute less than 5% of the resulting generation. In comparison, many energy efficiency measures cost multiples less in terms of their reductions in carbon dioxide emissions."
• 22 Projections for energy usage and price (residential and commercial) 2000-2030.
• 26-7 "Investment decisions, for example, lie solely in the hands of private energy suppliers. Nevertheless, the government believes that it remains one of its responsibilities to create conditions in which market forces can produce economically desirable outcomes. These conditions include the regulation of natural monopolies (such as gas and electricity grids), the development of market-based instruments for climate change mitigation (such as emissions trading) and the provision of subsidies for certain technologies that are not yet ready for the market (such as renewables)."
• 28-9 "Germany’s rapid development of its renewables sector has been driven by its renewables promotion policy, a differentiated feed-in tariff. Under the differentiated feed-in tariff scheme, guaranteed rates range from a low of 3.78 eurocents per kWh for biomass to a high of 56.8 eurocents per kWh for photovoltaics, and are, in general, guaranteed for 20 years. The feed-in tariff rates are set so that all technologies are elevated to a level playing field; in (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluroride (SF6) against either a 1990 or a 1995 baseline. terms of profit, an investor should be indifferent between the various renewable energy technologies. Annual degression rates between 1% and 5% are also applied to all technologies (except small hydropower), such that renewables installations going on line in future years receive progressively lower rates in order to account for technological and market learning. Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz (EEG), the Renewable Energy Act, guides the programme and mandates that the feed-in tariff programme be reviewed every four years in order to ensure that individual technologies are not oversubsidised."
• 34-5 Ecotax policy and tax rates on motor fuels, heating fuels, and electricity. Discusses tax exemptions, but not clear whether renewable electricity is exempt, as in Belgium. (I guess not.)
• 36 Intermittancy of wind prevents it from becoming a primary energy supply - evidence in Mallon book to the contrary.
• 40 - Second full paragraph sums up IEA's perspective on feed-in tariffs. Say tariffs for PVs are very high, and need to be compared to other methods of reducing CO2, such as efficiency measures. R&D funding should be used to reduce cost of technology.
• 47 - Emissions trading sector covers 55% of country's CO2 emissions. National allocation plan for 2005-07 (NAPI) capped CO2 at 495 MtCO2/yr for those installations covered. NAPII for 2008-2012, as revised by EC, caps it at 425.
• 49 - Plans for emissions reductions in sectors not covered by emissions trading (households, small business, transport) include Ecological tax reform making energy more expensive and employment cheaper, strengthening public transport, promotion of renewables through EEG, Expansion and modernisation of combined heat and power (CHP) plants through the April 2002 enactment of the law on CHP, and Improved energy efficiency in buildings through streamlined regulations, the introduction of energy certificates, financial assistance for energysaving measures and other measures.
• 52 - Rightly criticizes government's essential giveaway of emission permits to new plants for 14 years of operation. Also promotes auctioning of emission permits with revenue recycling back to gov't or consumers.
• 54- IEA seems to question whether goal of doubling energy productivity by 2020 from 1990 levels is possible. Plan includes increasing funding for CO2 Building Rehabilitation Program by EUR 1.5 billion per year (more on this on p. 58); modernizing power plans, promoting distributed gen and CHP plants; step up initiatives for energy conservation in buildings, electricity consumption, and transport. Energy Efficiency Action Plan released in June 2007.
• 56 - Says total of EUR 1.4 billion per year now available for energy rehabilitation in buildings.
• 59 - Technical efficiency gains in vehicle gas mileage since 2000 have been cancelled by increased driving.
• 59-60 - EU voluntary agreement with auto industry to reduce passenger car emissions to 140 g CO2 per km (avg) by 2008
• 60 - On a daily basis, about 27 million passengers use public transportation in Germany, resulting in about 19 million avoided individual vehicle trips. In 2005, public transport use increased to over 10 billion trips, an increase that can be attributed to easy access to public transport facilities: 86% of all households take less than 10 minutes to reach the closest public transport stop on foot.
• 66 - Table of renewables supply, 1970-2005
• 68 - Renewable promotion objectives: According to the EEG, Germany works to promote renewables to facilitate a sustainable development of energy supply, particularly for the sake of protecting the climate, nature and the environment; to reduce the costs of energy supply for the national economy, in part by incorporating long-term external effects; to contribute towards avoiding conflicts over fossil fuels; and to promote the further development of technologies for the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources.
• 68 - Major RE policies: Germany’s primary tool to promote renewables in the electricity sector is the EEG, enacted in 2000, and amended in 2004. The EEG replaced electricity feed-in legislation (Stromeinspeisungsgesetz, StrEG) enacted in 1990. The other major policies are a programme to provide financial incentives for installations that produce heat from renewables and the promotion of biofuels in transport.
• 68 - Under original feed-in law, power companies obliged to pay 65-86% of market price to renewables producers. Replaced with guaranteed rate, differentiated by source, location, size of installation, and technology. Idea is that producers should make same profit regardless of technology. The amount paid depends on the year in which the installation is built, with rates guaranteed for a term between 15 and 30 years, depending on technology. Tariffs decline annually to take into account technical development.
• 69 - Table of Feed-in tariffs by technology for 2006
• 69 - Under EEG, RE installations guaranteed priority grid access, transmission and distribution. Some detrimental transmission effects (?) occurred within Germany and at Netherlands border due to system not designed properly to handle significant wind integration.

At this point, I stopped reading the entire report, printed out the Renewable Energy section, and highlighted things in the document. Some info on costs for FITs, financial incentives for renewable heat, and biofuel tax exemptions, but not complete. IEA suggests that Germany should switch to renewables obligation (quota) or premium (a la wind PTC in U.S.) system now that RE market is relatively well-developed. Especially dislikes the large tariff attached to PV. Says R&D, rather than market deployment, should be subsidized.

12 October 2007

Today:

• Tried to fill in sources for "job" component of report. Ann was right - not much out there on actual employment figures for different industries. Really, for the purposes of this report, I think it will be adequate to show that the countries that were early leaders in RE (Denmark and Germany), and later adopters that focused on domestic job creation (Spain), have the most companies and create the most jobs.
  
• Heidi's presentation. Lots of good feedback and questions. See notebook.
• Two issues that I'd be interested in looking at more. 1) Is RE vs. FF job creation comparing apples to apples, since RE involves building infrastructure, while FF is mostly just extraction of energy source? 2) When costs come down, will employment and wages come down too?
• Also, JB convinced it's better to operate on quantity axis for carbon emissions. Most RE literature says price access is better for RE promotion to operate on price axis. Are both right? Differences between carbon (bad) and RE (good) lead to different appropriate policies? Also, need to look at interactions between carbon caps and renewable energy promotion. Any literature on this? JB and MA said Europe's carbon trading system is a disgrace.
  
• Metcalf (1999) article in National Tax Journal on distributional effects of green taxation
• Jim Manuel at UMASS - expert on FITs
• How does size of public investment in energy sector compare to private investment? JB says private must dominate, so may be most important to get private investment out of FF and into RE.
• Justifications for government may not be just (or even primarily) promotion of renewable energy. Other important components: energy security, domestic job creation, quality jobs, regionally-targeted jobs, energy prices don't rise too much for low-income families.
• "The Policy Paradox" by Debra Stone. Discusses bundling policy objectives.
• May look at transitional assistance programs (TAAs) instituted after Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990. Probably not done well, but lessons.
• Mankiw editorial in NYT advocating carbon tax (not quota - but still good for Mankiw).

Next up:

• File loose papers
• Continue researching for paper - need to avoid getting caught up in details and decide what level of specificity is appropriate for this paper. E.g., finding exact job stats might be too time consuming, instead, show where companies are, where money is flowing.
  

10 October 2007

Today:

• Long discussion(s) with Heidi about public investment. Had been starting with perspective that public investment in RE was the right way to go, and needed to show why it was good for economy and jobs. Now considering an analysis of whether public investment is best way to promote renewable energy. Talked about what public investment in RE meant - decided on a bid process similar to highway construction. Seems to me that role of economist here is to figure out how to meet GHG reduction targets most equitably and efficiently. May be through government regulation, incentives, direct investment.
• Made outline of "Comparative Study Ideas - 10.10.07" with categories that I think report should include. Should outline the goals of renewable energy policy: emissions reduction, job creation, equity and efficiency. Use decided-upon measures to show how the comparison countries are doing in these areas. Discuss policies that have been used to get countries to where they are now. Which ones succeeded? Which ones failed?
• Copied the Mallon book and returned to library.
• Began looking at http://cait.wri.org/ the Climate Analysis Indicators Tool from WRI to see, based on emissions, which other country/countries should be included in report. Poor countries, obviously, have the lowest emissions per capita. But the countries I'm planning to include in the report don't have the lowest emissions per capita among developed countries. They've simply made bigger strides in new renewables than other countries.
• Began a spreadsheet "Comparative Study Data 10 10 07" with data relevant to study. Spent a bit too much time looking at CO2 emission data.
  
• Read a report from CEPR on four economic issues that environmentalists should consider. Fourth one was the cost of carbon emissions. Made the point that no one has done an analysis of how much foregone GDP has resulted from military spending. All the debate on the cost of carbon abatement, given the commitment to military spending, seems silly.
  

Next time:

• Begin with looking for/filling in information on job creation in the new spreadsheet.
• If possible, research cost and distribution too.
• Stats on energy usage and RE are relatively readily available. Can fill this in last.
  

Carbon I-O Tables

Do something like what Heidi is doing, but instead of looking at job multipliers of RE, look at carbon multipliers. (Inspired by the Hillebrand study that suggested that increase in renewable energy jobs would lead to more car buying, which would lead to higher carbon emissions.)

3 October 2007

Today:

• Read through the IEA Renewables Information 2007 report. As expected, not much analysis as to how countries' are in RE situation they are in. Emphasized that worldwide renewable usage is largely biomass in developing countries. Majority of report are 6-page country mini-reports, with data on energy usage over time. Printed off sections for Denmark, Germany, Japan, Spain, U.S. Confirmed that Denmark hasn't been moving or shaking much in last couple years. Data on solar PV seems off/difficult to compare.
• Began looking at Energy Policy 2006 publication (set up just like 2005 version that I looked at last week). Printed off some tables on energy R&D for renewables and for the countries listed above.
• Skimmed last month of RenewableEnergyAccess.com news headlines. Indicative of who players are, what is being invested in (algae for biofuel!), policy changes that may affect RE industry, etc.
• Read Heidi's lit review. Has overview of 6 I-O studies on employment impact of various REEE scenarios. Not much lit out there on job quality in REEE industry. Will probably use Medoff methodology.

Next time:

• Write reflection post on anything learned at conference
• Go through pertinent sections of Energy Policy 2006
• Pick one or two countries besides those listed to analyze. (A less-industrialized country with rapid RE growth - China, India, or Korea? Maybe U.K. for unique experience with tender system.)
• Make outline for report. Be sure to look at RE capacity in countries versus jobs in the RE sector. What influenced latter?

IEA Renewables Information 2007

Accessed via http://puck.sourceoecd.org/vl=2629902/cl=14/nw=1/rpsv/~6673/v2007n21/s1/p1l

• 11 Calculation of primary energy equivalent: First, primary energy source of a given source. IEA uses heat for geothermal and solar thermal. Electricity for hydro, wind, tidal/wave/ocean, solar PV. Then, physical energy content method. E.g., for geothermal and solar thermal, primary energy equivalent is amount of heat generated. For others, it is amount of electricity generated. Equivalent to assuming 100% efficiency.
• 31 (3) 12.7% of TPES in world in 2005 was renewables. Large majority is solid biomass (developing countries, esp) - 75.6%. "New" renewables (solar, wind, tide) represent less than 0.1% of TPES and 0.9% of renewables. Non-OECD countries responsible for 77.4% of world renewables supply (biomass). However, OECD responsible for 87.5% of "new" renewables. Hydro provides 89.3% of total renewable electricity.
• 6 Countries with large share of "new" renewables, not often discussed: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Iceland (geothermal), Mexico (looks like its mostly geothermal), New Zealand,
  
• 10 Stats on biggest OECD producers of various forms of RE. Geothermal: US, Mex, It, Jap, Ice, NZ. Solar thermal: US, Japan, Turkey. Solar PV: Germany, Spain, Mex, Neth. Wind: Germ, Spain, Denmark, US. The US is the OECD's largest producer of RE, contributing 31.5% in 2005. US gets 4% of TPES from renewables. US LEADS MANY CATEGORIES. BUT AS SHARE OF OUR TPES, RE is SMALL.
  
• 13 Solid biomass makes up 11.5% of US's RE. WHAT KIND OF BIOMASS IS BEING USED? COFIRING?
• 13 Highest growth rate for wind 1990-2005 in Portugal: 64.7% per year, from 0.001TWH to 1.8 TWh.
  
• p. 83-350 contain country-by-country data tables on total energy supply (GDP and population), net generating capacity of renewable and waste products, gross electricity generation from renewables, heat production from renewables in the transformation sector, energy balances of renewables (doesn't include wind)
• LEARN MORE ABOUT GEOTHERMAL. WHY DOESN'T IT GET MUCH ATTENTION?
• Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, UK and Greece have had a good deal of wind growth
  

Printed out country profiles for Denmark, Germany, Japan, Spain, U.S.

• Share of renewables in TPES rose in Denmark and Germany between 1990-2005; fell in Japan, Spain, U.S.
• TPES/population in U.S. between 1990-2006e was 7.70 to 7.76. Denmark 3.48 to 3.73. Germany 4.49 to 4.24. Japan 3.60 to 4.13. Spain 2.33 to 3.29.
• TPES/GDP (in 2000USD) in U.S. between 1990-2006e was 0.27 to 0.20. Denmark 0.14 to 0.11. Germany 0.23 to 0.17. Japan 0.11 to 0.10. Spain 0.21 to 0.20.
• Denmark wind capacity has stagnated in recent years: 3117 in 2003, 3125 in 2004, 3129 in 2005. Capacity of solar collectors has also been relatively stagnant.
• Germany has had strong and consistent growth in both wind and solar PV over period.
• Japan has had strong growth in solar PV over period, but solar collectors surface area and "capacity of solar collectors" shrank from 8878 in 2003 to 4899 in 2005. Country notes don't explain discrepancy. Wind started late, but has grown strongly in recent years.
• Spain wind capacity grew strongly to 2004 (2MW in 1990 to 8220 in 2004), but stagnated at 8317 in 2005.
• U.S. wind capacity grew steadily from 1911MW in 1990 to 8706MW in 2005. Same trend with solar PV as in Japan. Numbers for net generating capacity rise over period, but both surface area and capacity declined over period.
• Appear to be discrepancies in measurement of solar PV electricity generation measurements among countries. Germany has 2000 GWh in 2006, while Japan has 7. Due to distributed vs. centralized?? Germany shows very strong growth by these tables, and Spain's appears quite strong. Japan and U.S., on other hand, appear to have relatively small amount of PV capacity, though U.S. grew from 6 GWh to 16 between 2004-2005.
  
• Shows Denmark's stagnation in wind electric generation 2004-2006. Germany shows strong growth, and jump between 2003 and 2004. Spain also appears to stagnate somewhat 2005-2006. U.S. shows jump between 2005 and 2006.
• Curiosities: Industrial waste used for electricity falls of between 2004 and 2005 in Germany. Regulation? Electricity generation from renewable and non-renewable municipal waste appears to be equal for many countries - must give total mun waste used and divide in half. U.S. does more CHP than I would have guessed. Total electricity generation from them has dropped from 62000 GWh in 1990 to around 40000 in 2000-2005.
  

1 October 2007

Today:

• Took notes on RE policies in EU from Energy Policy 32 (2006) 5-pager and the UK chapter in Mallon's RE policy book
• Read the Meyer (2003) paper comparing government incentives/support for renewable energy. Author definitely favors feed-in mechanisms to quota/trade systems, for price security.
• Meyer's paper spurred some questions on current state of Danish wind industry especially. Seems that after shift to more conservative gov't in 2001, subsidies for wind were reduced, and domestic installation of wind has fallen off in past few years.
  
• Spent latter part of day trying to figure out exactly what happened in Denmark, without much success. Looked at Danish newspapers that publish in English (Borsen and Copenhagen Times), GWEC website, Google news search. Not much analysis. Also didn't find anything with Google Scholar.
  

Next up:

• Find numbers for capacity added in Denmark for last 10 years or so. Also, look at IEA for policies. Need to find more up-to-date information.
• Begin outline of what I could put into a report at this point. Would probably focus on success of feed-in tariffs. Need some more recent information on certificate programs. Discuss features of successful and unsuccessful policies.
• Learn more about how big wind manufacturing companies got that way. Where are they located? How did government policies affect their existence/growth?