More on Oregon Apollo
by Sid AndersonFebruary 10th, 2006 at 12:49:04
A nice “thumbnail” piece from New West Network on the Oregon Apollo initiative (pdf):
1. The goals are worthy; indeed, getting America off its IV-feed of Middle Eastern oil is geopolitically, environmentally and economically critical. We need to do this. Absent significant national leadership (I’m talking to you, Mr. Prez and 535 Congressmen), state efforts are the way to go. Oregon shouldbe at the forefront.
2. The initiative wisely seeks to harness the entire state, mandating that the “centers of excellence” be spread around at least two must be east of the Cascades and setting as one of their purposes the tracking of effects of renewable energy development and job creation on rural Oregon.
3. From a Columbia Gorge point of view, it strikes me as wise if local government officials were to get on board and begin lobbying hard for the initiative, and for a Gorge center of excellence. And one potential vehicle would be an alliance of tech businesses and Columbia Gorge Community College, which serves both Hood River and The Dalles.
4. Setting biofuel standards will legitimize and encourage wider use of cleaner-burning automotive biofuel and also give fuel distributors and auto manufacturers motivation (shortsighted though it will be) to oppose the initiative. They’ll scare people with tales of skyrocketing gasoline prices… Wait, both sides will do that.
5. Tax credits for growing the raw material for biofuel will likewise encourage and spread acceptance of everyday biofuel use. Those credits will also get a certain percentage of Oregon’s farmers to actively support the initiative.
Nice.
February 18th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
I like the concept behind the Apollo Alliance, but the reality of this initiative is disappointing. No new revenue is proposed to fund the centers or other requirements. The biofuels sales requirement is timid, unfunded, and unenforceable. The biofuels tax credit is miniscule, both on a per-gallon basis and on an annual basis.
At best, passage of this initiative might send a message that state policy should continue to support renewable energy, and help avoid attacks on funding. I understand that bold initiatives risk failure; but so do timid ones…
February 22nd, 2006 at 10:24 pm
The initiative is not inclusive enough.
For heating and air-conditioning, ground coupled systems should be included. Pumping heat out of the ground or getting rid of it there are both more efficient than using the air. I overlooked this opportunity and the initiative does not seem to include it.
Your response would be interesting.
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Oregon Apollo is just a start. It’s not the be-all, end-all program.
If we get Oregonians thinking about a new energy future, we can add more smart ideas over time. The first step is to get Oregonians in a frame of mind that values smart use and development of energy.
If not, we could have all of the best ideas for energy conservation and development in the world, but they’ll remain only ideas.
February 28th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
SB 1149, which funds the Energy Trust of Oregon through a 3% public purpose charge on utility bills (PGE, PPL, NW Natural), has proven to be a very effective way to get real results in efficiency and renewable energy, with high benefit-to-cost ratios. Unfortunately, that 3% only brings in about $50 million per year, and the projects must create savings affecting one of the three utilities. The programs of the Energy Trust have proven so popular that qualifying projects substantially exceed the available funds.
Fortunately, the independent nature of the Energy Trust gives the organization the flexibility to adjust the programs to make the best use of available funds. However, it is abundantly clear that more funding would easily translate into more progress!
I believe the best immediate way to move towards a sustainable energy future for Oregon would be to expand upon the work of the Energy Trust of Oregon in two ways:
1) Increase the Public Purpose charge. The charge now being paid actually results in utility bill savings, because it reduces the need for the utilities to build new facilities or buy extra energy on the open market. Increasing the charge, even doubling it to 6%, would increase those savings, and further drive the market transformation towards renewable energy.
2) Broaden the scope of the Energy Trust. There are two ways to do this:
a) Provide incentives for publicly owned utilities to go through the Energy Trust for some part of their energy efficiency and renewable energy incentive programs. The expanded scale of programs that could be offered would create efficiencies in implementation and in marketing.
b) Create funding for programs for non-utility energy programs, especially transportation. If a portion of all fossil fuel sales in Oregon were made available, significant conservation and biofuels programs could be implemented.
The best part about going through the structure of the Energy Trust of Oregon may well be the flexibility. SB 1149 gives the Trust broad discretion in implementing its programs, provided they demonstrate and report their cost effectiveness on a regular basis. This allows the Trust to recognize and act on new opportunities as they come to light, and avoids the problem of overlooking specific measures, such as the ground source heat pumps mentioned above.
To make real progress, we need to put real money behind our ambitions. Approaches that lack new funding will not get us very far. We need to move beyond the aversion to raising new revenues and intelligently fund the brighter future we seek.
March 12th, 2006 at 11:16 am
Last time I looked, Americans are using about 325 million gallons of
gas per day, or something like 1 gallon per day per person.
One gallon of gasline contains 124,000 BTUs. One calorie is equal to
about 4 BTUs. So, a gallon of gas contains about 30,000 calories,
or, at 1,500 cal/day/person, the energy equivalent of food sufficient
to feed about 20 people.
So, getting to the point, replacing 25% of our gasoline consumption
with biofuels, is equivalent to feeding a population 5 times our
present size.
Now I realize that biofuel production does not compete directly with
most food production for humans, but that does not let us off
the hook. Carbohydrates are the currency of life. All of that energy,
whether it was first fixed into carrots or grass seed straw, will
be calories subtracted from the metabolism of some organism -
actualy, almost certainly a whole series of them.
Do we really want to put cars into the food chain?
I’m not against biofuels. I don’t see how we can have a sustainable
energy future WITHOUT using biofuels in many forms. But I’m afraid that
the promoters have unresonably high expectations for the idea in the
realm of transportation. I don’t see any sign that anyone is looking
at the implications of taking yet another big bite out of the primary
production that drives all life on the planet.
This is going to come back to bite us in several ways.
First, we who really do care about the environment and
future generations, are going to loose controle of this technology to
those who don’t. Agri-bizz is all over this already. We are going to
have a devil of a time pushing for restraint from ADM later if we don’t
acknowledge limitations loudly and often now.
But most importantly, it
diverts attention and effort away from the only rational answer to our
energy problems, which is to simply use less. In transportation, this
means nothing less than a serious reorganization of infrastructure.
There is no way around this, it will happen eventually, and the sooner
the better.